Transparency and vaccine-damage legislation
Shatter argued that secrecy about vaccine damage had fuelled suspicion and discouraged vaccination, and renewed the case for legislation. The Minister defended the expert group’s work and disputed the need for a statutory scheme.
Would the Minister not agree that the secrecy that has surrounded this whole issue and the manner in which it has been dealt with by his Department and himself and his predesessors has given rise to suspicion which has resulted in a large number of parents not agreeing to their children being vaccinated in circumstances where children are not at risk? This is an ongoing problem and 36 new cases have referred to the medical group since June of this year. Would the Minister not agree that legislation is desirable in the light of the fact that this matter has been dealt with in a more comprehensive way in England, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and a number of other countries?
Comment on this
I do not accept that there are statutory schemes in operation in other countries as such. I have examined the credentials as a lay person. I have gone through the files. I have done a good deal of work on it, as has my colleague Deputy O'Brien. We both considered this matter at great length together with the officials of the Department of Health. The expert medical group established in 1977 went to enormous trouble and took a great deal of care. There is legislation in Denmark. There is the 1961 Act in Germany. In France a public health code was enacted. In recent years we have attempted to come to grips with the situation. Threats and legal action have been referred to. The officials of the Department, the expert group and my predecessor bent over backwards to weigh the balance of probability or doubt in favour of the persons concerned.