Council Housing
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he can see the level of interest in the debate. We must have short interventions, please. Two or three more words and then we will let the hon. Gentleman respond.
Conservative and Unionist Party MP for Kenilworth and Southam since (elected).
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
294
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
0
As currently published
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | MP | Kenilworth and Southam | – present | elected | — | Party history |
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
Not yet retrieved from the register. Parliament's register page
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he can see the level of interest in the debate. We must have short interventions, please. Two or three more words and then we will let the hon. Gentleman respond.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I remind all Back-Bench colleagues that you should continue to stand up, so that we know you still want to be called. You can see that there is a great deal of interest in this debate. I suggest that you all keep to about two and a half minutes; that way, we will get everybody in.
The good news is that I can be a little more generous and allow you all a whole extra 30 seconds each. With three minutes, I call Josh Newbury.
I thank the Back-Bench speakers for their co-operation and discipline. We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
In the interests of order, I should probably make it clear that other private Members’ Bills are available.
Carla Lockhart will move the motion, and the Minister will respond. I remind all other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention in shorter debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, not least because, in generously taking over from me, you allowed me to participate in the debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), not just for his skill in securing the debate but for his long campaigning on behalf of those who have been injured by covid vaccinations. Between he and I, we must have met and discussed the issue with almost every holder of the Minister’s job and the Secretary of State’s job over the past few years. On reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme, the argument that I want to concentrate on is not about the wisdom or otherwise of mass vaccination. Quite remarkably in my judgment, many of those who were injured or lost loved ones in the mass vaccination process during the covid pandemic support the idea of mass vaccination, but they take the view, which we should all support, that it is only right that those who were doing what their Government asked them to do are properly compensated for any loss or damage that they have incurred.<span id="122WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="122WH"></span> People such as my constituent Kate Scott, whom my hon. Friend mentioned and the Minister has met, have maintained throughout that what is wrong with the vaccine damage payment scheme essentially comes down to two things: first, the amount of money available and the fact that it is an all-or-nothing amount; and secondly, the requirement for someone to have 60% disablement in order to take advantage of the scheme. It is fair to point out that when the scheme was developed, nobody ever claimed that it was designed to be the only compensation available, but, as I know the Minister appreciates, the reality is that it is extremely difficult to obtain compensation by any other route, including through the courts. It therefore seems that vaccine damage payment scheme reform is about two things: fairness to the individuals affected and the effectiveness of Government policy. I know this will concern the Minister, as I hope it does the rest of the Government. It would be brave of any of us to claim that this sort of widespread pandemic event will never happen again. If it does, we will once again rely on the confidence of the British public to literally roll up their sleeves and assist in the process of combating whatever disease we face next. Their confidence in a mass vaccination programme will depend on whether they think people who have been injured in that process have been fairly treated. Thus far, they have not been, so if the Government want to be confident of the effectiveness of a future pandemic response, they need to deal effectively with the fall-out of the previous pandemic response. Finally, let me simply make the point that my hon. Friend made: there is urgency to this. People who have been injured or bereaved do not just expect a fair response from the Government; they expect it soon. There is a mismatch between the urgency described in the report of Baroness Hallett and the approach that the Government have taken in their response. For example, with regard to the 60% threshold, Baroness Hallett said: “This part of the scheme should be reformed as a matter of urgency”. Let us compare and contrast that with the wording of the Government’s response. They accept that there is a “need for reform” of the scheme, which I welcome, and say that they are “committed to reviewing the scheme to ensure it is fit for purpose”. However, they then say that they “will provide further details in due course”. Those of us who have served in government know that that does not mean an urgent response. I know the Minister will recognise that this situation deserves just that.
On the Minister’s point about whether graded payments might be available under the scheme, will she be clear that she is considering linking that to the disablement requirement? Of course, an outcome we would not want is a simple reduction of the £120,000 for those who are 60% disabled or more. We are interested in perhaps giving some money to those who are below the 60% threshold; will she confirm that is what she is thinking about?
The Local Government Boundary Commission paused boundary reviews in areas affected by local government reorganisation proposals in February of last year, so the Government’s recent review of those proposals has not had any immediate practical impact. The commission will return to those boundary reviews when the reorganisation proposals are resolved.
I will write to my hon. Friend if there is anything to add to what I am about to say, but as he will appreciate, the delay will have a practical impact because all those waiting for such a review will have to wait rather longer. The boundary review can only review proposals for change when a new authority is legally established, which has not yet happened.