§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has received any evidence suggesting that the requirement that a claimant for vaccine damage payment has to be 80 per cent. disabled for there to be a successful claim is deterring people from either claiming or appealing.
§ Dr. VaughanNo.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services in how many cases his Department has assisted claimants for the vaccine damage payment to obtain further medical evidence; and whether the Department informs all claimants that it is willing to do so.
§ Dr. VaughanThe leaflet "Payment for severe vaccine damage", which explains the scheme, states that the Department's vaccine damage payments unit will obtain copies of any revelant medical evidence from the doctor or hospital concerned. Although the Department does not specifically inform all claimants that it is willing to obtain further medical evidence, in practice every effort is made to provide all evidence which might be relevant to the claim. Information on the number of cases where the Department has assisted claimants in this way is not readily available.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the vaccine damage payments tribunals are able to take into account medical evidence that is not disclosed to the claimant.
§ Dr. VaughanIn accordance with the Vaccine Damage Payments Regulations 1979, tribunals may take into account medical evidence that has not been disclosed to the claimant and may decline to disclose this evidence if it would not be in the claimant's interest.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the number who would become eligible if claimants for the vaccine damage payment were required to be at least 50 per cent. disabled rather than the current 80 per cent. for there to be a successful claim.
206W
§ Dr. VaughanThere is no information on which such an estimate could be based.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number of medically qualified persons who have been involved in the initial stages of the vaccination damage payments scheme; if he will categorise them according to their medical speciality; and if he will give similar figures for those involved in the medical review tribunals.
§ Dr. VaughanOne senior medical officer and two medical officers have been involved in the initial determination of claims. Thirty-seven independent consultants, who are paediatricians or neurologists, have been specially appointed to vaccine damage tribunals.
Other medically qualified members of tribunals are drawn from the panel for medical appeal tribunals; the panel consists of 365 consultants with expertise and experience in assessing disabilities.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the criteria for judging disablement to the extent of 80 per cent. or more for the purpose of the industrial injuries benefit; and in what way, if any, these criteria are modified in the assesment of 80 per cent. disablement for the vaccine damage payments scheme.
§ Dr. VaughanFor industrial injuries benefit purposes, disablement is assessed by comparison with a person of the same age and sex whose physical and mental condition is normal. The Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Benefit) Regulations 1975—SI 1975 No. 559—prescribe assessments for certain injuries and require medical boards and medical appeal tribunals to take appropriate account of those assessments when dealing with those and other injuries. The same criteria are applied for the purposes of the vaccine damage payments scheme.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants have been refused the vaccine damage payment solely because it was considered that they were not 80 per cent. disabled.
§ Dr. VaughanUp to 10 April 1981,33 claims had been disallowed at the initial stage because disablement was assessed as less than 80 per cent. Nine of these decisions have since been upheld by tribunals, 18 have been reversed and six are awaiting review.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number of claims for vaccine damage payment which were rejected because vaccination took place before 1948; if he will estimate the number of people vaccinated before 1948 who would be likely to be medically considered to be vaccine damaged using the same criteria as those used in the payments scheme; how many representations he has received since May 1979 requesting that those vaccine damaged before 1948 should be eligible for a vaccine damage payment; and what would be the total cost if they were eligible.
§ Dr. VaughanForty-two claims were not able to be considered because vaccination was carried out before 5 July 1948. We have no record of the number of representations received about this, and it is not possible to estimate the numbers that might have been damaged before 1948.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will request supplementary benefit 207W officers to give recipients of the vaccine damage payments time to consider how the payment should best be spent for the greatest long-term benefit of the recipient, before the supplementary benefit officers come to a decision on whether or not the payment should be disregarded for supplementary benefit purposes;
(2) if he will publish in the Official Report the type of circumstances under which the vaccine damage payment has been disregarded by supplementary benefit officers; if he will ascertain and categorise the type of long-term proposals for the spending of the payment which will currently enable it to be disregarded; and if he will ensure that all those receiving the payment are informed of the circumstances under which it can currently be disregarded;
(3) whether he treats a vaccine damage payment as a costs allowance.
§ Mrs. ChalkerA vaccine damage payment is treated as a capital resource for supplementary benefit purposes. Decisions in individual cases are for the independent adjudicating authorities, the supplementary benefit officer in the first instance. Where it is in respect of a child under 16, a vaccine damage payment is completely ignored in assessing the parent's entitlement to supplementary benefit. Where the vaccine damaged person is a claimant or a partner, the payment is taken into account, except that, where it is held on trust and the trustees intend to spend it in whole or in part on some particular item or project for the disabled person's benefit, the supplementary benefit officer may disregard the sum in question for a period, not normally exceeding 12 months, in order to allow time for the expenditure to be incurred. Payments have been disregarded where the trustees plan to make adaptations or improvements to the home or to purchase more suitable accommodation or such things as a car or caravan to benefit the disabled person. I cannot give a definitive and comprehensive list of types of expenditure in respect of which the independent adjudicating authorities might allow disregard, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that supplementary benefit officers will give full and sympathetic consideration to the particular circumstances of each individual case.
Where a claim for supplementary benefit is received from an adult in respect of whom a vaccine damage payment has been awarded, and is held on trust, the trustees are visited to ascertain their intentions with regard to the money held on trust, so that the supplementary benefit officer may consider disregarding temporarily any sums which are earmarked for spending in the way I have mentioned.
Where the trustees have no particular proposals for spending the money or intend to invest it for the disabled person's future needs, and if the claimant would otherwise be eligible for supplementary benefit, the money will be ignored, if necessary, for up to three months in order to enable arrangements to be made for the vaccine damage payments to be drawn on. If supplementary benefit is already in payment, a similar period is allowed, where necessary, before supplementary benefit is withdrawn. This allows a claim for non-contributory invalidity pension to be made if one is not already in payment. If, at any time, the trustees' plans change, the supplementary benefit officer will reconsider entitlement in the light of the trustees' revised intentions.
I am looking into the possibility of advising trustees, when a vaccine damage award is made, of the effect which 208W the payment might have on any entitlement to supplementary benefit. I will also consider whether it would be helpful to arrange for any such advice to be given to trustees of existing vaccine damage awards.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will request his officials to use official forecasts of future trends in the economy and in social security payments to estimate when the increase derived from a £10,000 vaccine damage payment received in 1981 would be counter-balanced by an equivalent amount lost because of a denial of supplementary benefit due to the vaccine damage payment not being disregarded.
§ Dr. VaughanI regret that the right hon. Gentleman's question cannot be answered because it is impossible to forecast the likely benefit and interest rates which will obtain in the year ahead. At present, where a vaccine damage payment of £10,000 precludes entitlement to supplementary benefit, because such people would normally be eligible to receive non-contributory invalidity pension, the amount of supplementary benefit forgone is typically £10.95 a week. This is substantially less than the likely income which would accrue from investing the £10,000.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has received any evidence of authorities demanding payments for services they provide, or the withdrawal or refusal of services, to people who have been awarded the vaccine damage payment.
§ Dr. VaughanI am aware of a small number of cases in which the question of payment for local authority services has arisen. I do not know of any instance in which an authority has withdrawn, or refused to provide, services to vaccine-damaged people who require them.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services of those who have received the vaccine damage payment, how many were over 16 years' old when the payment was made; how many are currently aged over 16 years; and how many applications for supplementary grant have been made by those currently aged over 16 years.
§ Dr. VaughanUp to 10 April 1981, 221 payments have been made to people over 16 at the date of the award. Information as to how many other recipients are now over 16 could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. About 100 claims for supplementary benefit have been received in respect of people aged 16 or over who have received a vaccine damage payment.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the lump sum payment schemes controlled by his Department; and if he will give for each the percentage increase in the payment or in the average payment payable to successful applicants in the period May 1979 to May 1981.
§ Dr. VaughanPayments made under social security legislation do not constitute a lump sum payment as such. The only lump sum payments made which are not related to a wider group of benefits are the death grant—£30—maternity grant—£25—and Christmas bonus—£10—all of which were paid at those rates in 1979. Certain lump sum payments are made in the context of the war pensions scheme, the supplementary benefits scheme and the industrial injuries scheme; and the type and amount of payment will vary according to the contingency and conditions under which it is made.
209WUnder health legislation lump sum payments of £10,000 are made under the vaccine damage payments scheme, the rate which applied in May 1979. Lump sum payments to National Health Service employees under the Superannuation Act 1972 and Whitley Council agreements are related to benefits linked to remuneration.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report the latest figures relating to the vaccine damage payments scheme, giving information about the claims, the decisions, the pending cases and the future.
§ Dr. VaughanI refer the right hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) on 24 June.—[Vol. 7, c.112.]
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received since becoming Secretary of State asking that the £10,000 vaccine damage payment be increased; and what reply he gave.
§ Dr. VaughanThere is no record of the number of representations received. The reply we have given is that our policy is to introduce an improved system of benefits for disabled people generally when resources permit. We have no proposals for further legislation specifically for the vaccine damaged.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applications for supplementary benefit were made by people aged 16 years or over who had received a vaccine damage payment in (a) the period up to November 1980 and (b) from November 1980 onwards; how many were awarded supplementary benefit in each of the periods; and how many of those awarded supplementary benefit in the earlier period had it withdrawn in the later one because of the new regulations.
§ Mrs. ChalkerAbout 100 claims for supplementary benefit have been made by or on behalf of people aged 16 years and over who have received a vaccine damage payment. In the course of its inquiry into the operation of the capital rule, the supplementary benefit policy inspectorate is paying particular attention to the effect of vaccine damage payments on entitlement to supplementary benefit. I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman with the further information he is seeking as soon as it becomes available.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for each year since 1948 the number of payments for vaccine damage that have been made to people vaccinated during that year; if he will give additional separate figures for each year for the payments made following damage from a vaccine with a pertussis element; and if he will express the latter figures as a proportion of the number of children in the year who were vaccinated with a vaccine with a pertussis element.
§ Dr. VaughanThe information is as follows:
210W
Year of vaccination Number of Vaccine Damage payments Number with a pertussis element In relation to (3), the rates per 100,000 completed primary courses* (1) (2) (3) (4) 1948 3 2 —
Year of vaccination Number of Vaccine Damage payments Number with a pertussis element In relation to (3), the rates per 100,000 completed primary courses* 1949 5 2 — 1950 8 5 — 1951 10 5 — 1952 3 3 — 1953 11 9 — 1954 8 4 — 1955 14 11 — 1956 15 10 — 1957 15 9 — 1958 13 7 1.3 1959 21 15 2.5 1960 32 26 3.6 1961 31 25 3.2 1962 40 27 4.1 1963 35 35 4.9 1964 30 27 3.5 1965 35 27 3.4 1966 42 32 4.0 1967 25 21 2.6 1968 39 32 4.4 1969 33 23 4.4 1970 44 29 4.1 1971 31 22 3.0 1972 26 24 3.3 1973 31 27 4.0 1974 17 15 2.8 1975 8 2 0.6 1976 6 4 1.4 1977 6 6 2.5 1978 1 1 0.4 1979 1 1 0.3 * Information on completed courses of vaccination with a pertussis element was not collected before 1958. I am advised that figures from the vaccine damage payments scheme, which involves retrospective judgments based on the balance of probability, cannot be taken to give an accurate assessment of the risks of permanent damage following vaccination. In its recent statement, the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation said that, although proof is not absolute, the best available evidence suggests that perhaps one in 100,000 children who have completed primary courses may be damaged to some extent.