Covid vaccine compensation scheme set for overhaul after Inquiry criticism

The Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, or VDPS, is a government scheme offering financial support to people who have been seriously harmed by a vaccine and to families affected by vaccine-related bereavement. It matters because vaccines bring major public-health benefits, while a small minority of people may experience serious harm.

For Covid-related claims, successful applicants receive a one-off, tax-free payment of £120,000. The scheme requires people to show they are at least 60% disabled, although the Covid Inquiry concluded that this system does not work effectively for Covid vaccine injuries.

More than 24,000 Covid-related claims have reached the scheme, but just over 1% have resulted in awards. The government says it will review the VDPS so it is fit for purpose and delivered effectively. Campaigners want a firm timetable and meaningful changes, rather than another promise to examine the problem.

The government has committed to reviewing the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme after the Covid Inquiry called for urgent reform. Its stated aim is to ensure the scheme is fit for purpose and delivered effectively. Ministers in England also promise to work closely with the other nations of the UK, people injured by Covid vaccines and their families.

That is a commitment to examine and improve the scheme, not a detailed reform package. The government has not said exactly which rules will change, how the 60% disability requirement will be replaced or adjusted, or how future decisions will work.

Campaigners say the distinction matters. Vaccine Injured and Bereaved UK welcomed the recognition that vaccine injury and bereavement are real, but said there is no clear timetable, certainty about changes, or assurance about meaningful progress. The government also has not promised when affected families will receive improved support.

More than 24,000 people have made Covid-related claims through the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme. Yet just over 1% of those claims have resulted in awards. This shows how few claims have so far led to financial support, despite the large number of applications.

A successful claimant receives a one-off, tax-free payment of £120,000. The award is paid by the government under the VDPS. Applicants must meet the scheme’s requirements, including showing that they are at least 60% disabled, a threshold the Covid Inquiry criticised as unsuitable for Covid vaccine injuries.

The figures are central to the reform debate. The Inquiry called the scheme not sufficiently supportive and urged urgent change. Campaigners say the government’s response does not yet provide certainty about what will change or when. The government has committed to reviewing the system, but has not announced a new payment structure or eligibility timetable.

The Covid Inquiry concluded that requiring applicants to prove at least 60% disability does not work effectively for people injured by Covid vaccines. It called the scheme not sufficiently supportive and said urgent reform was needed. The criticism focuses on the way eligibility is assessed, rather than on the existence of vaccine benefits.

The article does not explain in detail why the threshold is unsuitable. It does state that people affected by Covid vaccines are a minority and that the current system does not support them properly. The 60% requirement is therefore identified as a central problem, but no alternative test is described.

The government has responded by promising a review of the scheme. Campaigners want more than further examination. They are asking ministers to commit to clear reforms, publish a timetable and explain when affected families will receive meaningful progress. No replacement threshold has yet been announced.

The running costs of the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme have become another focus of criticism. Since April 2022, the scheme has cost £83m to operate. This includes administration costs and medical assessments, which are necessary for processing claims and judging applicants’ circumstances.

By comparison, £32m has been paid directly in financial support to victims. The article says the administration and medical-assessment spending was more than double the amount paid out. The contrast means the system has used substantially more money on operating the scheme than on awards to affected people.

The figures strengthen calls for reform alongside concerns about eligibility and support. The government says it recognises concerns about running costs and will ensure the scheme is working properly. It has not yet set out how costs will be reduced, how assessments will change, or whether future reforms will increase payments to claimants.

Changing the scheme involves the government, ministers in England and the other nations of the UK. Ministers in England have promised to work closely with people injured by Covid vaccines and their families. The Covid Inquiry has also shaped the debate by recommending urgent reform after examining support for those affected.

Vaccine Injured and Bereaved UK is a main campaign group in the debate. It welcomed the government’s acknowledgement that vaccine injury and bereavement are real, and that the current scheme is not fit for purpose. Its role is to represent concerns and push ministers toward action.

The group says recognition is not enough. It wants a clear commitment to deliver reforms, a timetable, certainty about what will change and assurance about progress for families. The government has promised a review and says it will ensure the scheme works properly, but it has not announced detailed changes or deadlines.

Governments create compensation schemes so people facing serious harm after vaccination can seek financial support through a dedicated process. This reflects the article’s point that vaccination benefits are well documented while a minority of people have experienced harm. Such schemes can recognise and support affected people without making support depend on a manufacturer being found legally responsible.

The VDPS pays a one-off, tax-free award when its requirements are met. It is run as government support and uses medical assessments, including a rule requiring at least 60% disability. By contrast, suing a manufacturer for negligence is a court claim that generally requires evidence of a duty, a failure to meet the required standard, causation and loss.

The article focuses on the VDPS, not lawsuits against manufacturers. It reports that the scheme is costly and criticised as inadequate. The government has promised a review, while campaigners seek specific reforms and a timetable. These routes are not described as identical or interchangeable.