Vaccine Damage Payments (Hansard, 6 June 1985)

§ Lord Allen of Abbeydale
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, no. We have no plans to make any changes to the Vaccine Damage Payments Act.

§ Lord Allen of Abbeydale
My Lords, I am sorry to be so troublesome to the Front Bench today, but that Answer will be heard with regret and, indeed, 847 puzzlement by some of the most unfortunate members of our society. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to explain a little more fully than he has so far, so that some of us can in our turn explain to those concerned, why it is that whereas the Conservative Opposition regarded £10,000 as barely adequate when they acquiesced in the 1979 Act, now that they are in government they are content with what in real terms is already less than two-thirds of that amount and will be steadily going down, alas!, as the years go by. There ought to be a more fundamental solution; but, at the very least, is it not time to remove this inbuilt obsolescence in an Act which was never intended to be permanent?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I realise what a very sensitive subject this is. I think that in many respects, although there might be regret and puzzlement, as the noble Lord said, there will be a general welcome that we are moving towards a more comprehensive scheme for the disabled, which is the reason why we are not increasing the £10,000 payment. It would not be reduced by two-thirds, as he said. I beg your Lordships' pardon; I misheard the noble Lord. I shall move on to his next point, which was that we were content when in opposition to call the £10,000 payment derisory, and that the vaccine damage payments scheme was just an interim measure.
It was our policy when we were in opposition, as it has been since we took office, as I have said, to work towards a more comprehensive scheme for the disabled. For that reason we have asked the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to undertake the first fullscale review of the disability payments for some 16 years.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister, at the risk of being persistent and tiresome, which I know I have been on this subject, whether he is aware that these brain-damaged children, according to the findings of the Pearson Commission, are in a special category of disability because the vaccine is administered with the encouragment of the Government to protect the public interest? Is he also aware that in 1975 the Government gave an assurance to the commission in Case No. 7135 to the effect that they proposed to introduce—and I quote now from memory—a general compensation scheme based upon strict liability? Is he also aware that the Act of 1979 has failed to fulfil that assurance?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I am aware that the Pearson Report said that the people in question are in a special category. But as my noble friend is aware from the two debates that we have had, one last year and one on 8th May of this year, neither the last Government nor this Government have accepted all the points in the Pearson Report. With regard to my noble friend's point that the vaccination is to protect the community, I can only refer him back to what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in the debate on 8th May, which was that in the Government's opinion it is not. It is to protect the child, and not the community.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that, as the then Minister who introduced this into another place, I am grossly dissatisfied—as, I am certain, are very many Members on both sides of the House—with the reply that has been given by the noble Earl? Does he recognise that this Bill was introduced before the Government—or the Opposition, for that matter—had given consideration to the recommendations of the Royal Commission chaired by Lord Pearson and that it was not intended to be a form of compensation for a gross degree of disablement? We are talking, after all, about only a few hundred youngsters here. It was thought at the time that it would be followed by a scheme. But, of course, Governments changed. Therefore, it is really unfair to the individuals and the families concerned that what was a small sum at that time is an even smaller sum now. Is it not time that the Government recognised that this is grossly unfair to those people involved who, after all, undertook this particular form of inoculation as part of the protection of the community?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, on the noble Lord's last point, it was not protection of the community; it was protection of the individual, as I have already stated. The noble Lord said that many people would be disappointed. I would only say to him that on the 8th May his noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones said at col. 678 of Hansard: What the country and our society really lacks is a coherent policy towards disabled people. That is what this Government are trying to achieve. They have undertaken significant work, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will know. As I have said, we have commissioned this full-scale survey which for the first time will include children, and I am sure that this is the right way to proceed.

§ Lord Henderson of Brompton
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will agree it is highly desirable, as the noble Earl has said, that the Government are moving towards a comprehensive scheme for the disabled; but is it not incomprehensible that that should be used as an excuse for the non-indexation of payments for vaccine-damaged children? Why can there not be a move towards a comprehensive scheme for the disabled and, in the interim, the indexation of these payments? How is one to justify the non-indexation of these payments? That was in fact the original Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and we have not had an answer to it.

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, feels that I have not given a satisfactory answer. I think that any changes we would make to this scheme would only increase the preference, which would run counter to our general aim of working towards a more coherent system of benefits for disabled people, irrespective of the cause of disability.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, would the noble Earl indicate when we are to receive the details of the proposed general disability scheme? When is it going to be introduced? I certainly made that observation in May in the hope that by now we would have received further and better particulars.

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the Government, too, would like it to be now, but the survey is such a detailed and complicated one that I am advised that it will not be ready until early 1987.

Noble Lords
Oh!

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, while realising that my noble friend Lord Caithness has no personal responsibility for the decisions in these matters, and while admiring the spirited way in which he has attempted to defend the Government's action, will he draw to the attention of senior Ministers who are responsible the strong feelings and views about this matter expressed on both sides of the House?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton, and I confirm that I shall draw these views to the attention of my right honourable friends and my noble friends. As we are always looking into this matter, I am sure they will be most interested in what has been said today.

§ Lord Airedale
My Lords, whatever the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may have said upon some other occasion, is the Minister really telling the House this afternoon that vaccination against an infectious disease is not a protection for the community even though it also protects the child?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the vaccination is undertaken on a voluntary basis, with guidance from the best medical advice that an individual can get, and it is a matter for the individual.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that it is actually the advice of his own department, the Department of Health and Social Security, that people should be vaccinated unless there is some contraindication at the time that it is unwise? Does he not accept that it is public policy?

§ The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)
My Lords, it is perfectly clear that I, as one of the Ministers, am clearly responsible and that I should get up at this time and say that I shall certainly take note of the views of the House and will pass them on to my colleagues.