We use Google Analytics to see which pages are read and how the site is used, so we know what to improve. This only runs if you accept. See our privacy notice for details.

Dáil
‹ Ceisteanna ó Cheannairí - Leaders' Questions

Covid vaccine indemnity and compensation

Summary

Deputy Connolly questions the indemnity given to vaccine companies, the absence of a compensation scheme, and who approved the arrangement. The Taoiseach says the Meenan report supports a compensation scheme, that indemnity terms are negotiated through the European Commission, and that the priority is securing safe vaccines quickly.

Baineann mo cheist leis an vacsaín in aghaidh Covid - i ndáiríre, bheadh sé níos cirte "na vacsaíní in aghaidh Covid" a rá - agus leis an tslánaíocht ar chúiseamh a thug an Rialtas do na comhlachtaí cógaisíochta. Ceangailte leis sin, ba mhaith liom ceist a chur faoin mbearna mhór atá ann ó thaobh córais cúitimh do na daoine a bheidh ag déileáil le dochar ó na vacsaíní, is cuma cé chomh beag a bheidh an dream sin.

My question concerns the indemnity offered to companies involved with the vaccine or vaccines. Integral to that is the absence of any compensation scheme. This is in spite of the Meenan report, which does not appear to have been published. I will come back to that report. I will save the Taoiseach time in his response by stating that vaccines are an essential tool in our fight against Covid-19. I ask him not to tell me how important they are. Maybe he could dírigh isteach ar an gceist. The question is this. What are the details of the indemnity given to the companies? What about a proper system of compensation for the group of people who may suffer or will suffer from the vaccines?

I ask this because we need trust in the system. We will get that trust and encourage maximum take-up through transparency and facts. The Taoiseach's response to a Deputy who asked about this in the Dáil was an exhortation to "get real", and a reminder that we are dealing with an unprecedented situation. The Taoiseach's comments were quoted by Professor Luke O'Neill in the Irish Independent, who went on to compare the vaccine to the atom bomb. In the context of today's discussion, those words were totally unacceptable in comparing the vaccine to the atom bomb in our fight against Covid. They were the words used by Professor O'Neill. He wrote about this as a marvellous scientific advance, which it absolutely is, and noted the quick progress that has been made. There was absolutely no acknowledgment of the public funds that have gone into the development of these vaccines through the Commission on our behalf.

Absolutely no information has been given to Deputies on the amount of public money spent on the development of the vaccine or the indemnity that has been offered. What will happen to the small number of people who suffer as a result of the vaccine, as happened with the swine flu vaccine? The most recent figures on that refer to 123 claims, 113 of which are live and are being fought every inch of the way. The claimants in the recently settled case of Benjamin Blackwell were at pains to point out that they were not anti-vaccine or anti-science. If they had been given full information at the time, however, they would not have allowed the swine flu vaccination to be given to their child.

I have two specific questions. What are the details of the indemnity given? What will be done about an independent compensation system?

Comment on this

The Government considered the Meenan report and the law of tort around medical negligence today. The report recommends that we pursue a vaccine compensation scheme, the development and production of which the Minister for Health and the Minister for Justice are working on.

Regarding indemnity, the content of advance purchase agreements, including provisions relating to liability and indemnity, are negotiated with vaccine suppliers by the European Commission and its negotiating team, acting on behalf of member states. Member states may decide to opt in or opt out, but they do not have scope to recast the terms of any advance purchase agreement.

The clauses in the advance purchase agreements relating to indemnification and liability are open-ended. They require member states to provide legal supports, costs and payment of claims arising from any damages associated with the administration of the vaccine. It is not possible to quantify the extent of any claims that may arise. A balance must be struck here. We need access to a vaccine and there must be some element of risk. We must remember that trillions of euro have been spent around the world to combat the worst effects of Covid-19. The health effects have resulted in the deaths of 3,000 people on this island and many more worldwide, as well as the illnesses people get. To protect the overall population, we need a vaccine or a series of vaccines to deal with Covid-19. The human race achieved this with smallpox, polio and tuberculosis, with tremendous outcomes and results. The State Claims Agency has been consulted and agrees that it would be appropriate for the State to take responsibility for claims management as part of these agreements, and is on board with the decision that has been taken.

This has been an extraordinary development. There was no co-ordination across Europe at the time of the severe acute respiratory syndrome, SARS, epidemic, which happened during my time as Minister for Health and Children. There was no chance for pharmaceutical companies to produce anything collectively or in partnership with governments. It was every member state for itself and the smaller member states lost out hugely. This is a very good initiative and the European Commission deserves credit for co-ordinating it. It will enable the Commission to ensure sufficient supplies of the vaccine for every citizen living in the European Union. It will also help to look after states which will not be in a position to secure the vaccine, including states in the western Balkans and the Third World. Other countries may not have sufficient incomes. Europe is committed to helping those states to procure the vaccine. Working collectively, we are stronger.

Comment on this

I specifically asked about the details of the indemnity. Is it a blank cheque? What conditions are attached? Has there been a risk assessment? I perfectly understand that there is a balance of risks between the damage done by Covid-19 and the damage done by vaccines.

I am specifically asking the Taoiseach where this decision was taken. Was it taken at Cabinet? On what was it based? What was the risk assessment? We should have a full discussion of this in the Dáil if the Taoiseach wants full trust in the system. If he wants to maximise the number of people who will take the vaccine, he must give full and transparent information. That has not happened. We are reliant on jigsaw pieces from newspapers that tell us this is a standard procedure, which is not accurate. We are being told that so many companies have signed up. We do not know how many. As a Deputy, I am looking at a distorted jigsaw picture of an indemnity and a complete lack of action on an independent compensation system. The Taoiseach mentioned the Meenan report. It was commissioned back in 2018. The report has been finalised for a very long time. One specific term of reference concerned a scheme in respect of the damage from vaccines. Where is it? I expect a proactive approach to the indemnity and to the compensation scheme.

Comment on this

I have just said that we considered and adopted the Meenan report and we are working on a vaccine compensation scheme. I said also to the Deputy that the advance purchase agreements, which the European Commission entered into on behalf of member states, and the indemnifications and liabilities are open-ended.

Comment on this

Bank guarantee, here we come.

Comment on this

They require member states to provide legal support, costs and payments of claims arising from any damages associated with administration of the vaccine. It should be remembered that we are trying to get vaccines to people.

As to what has been achieved, there are two ways of looking at this. We can always undermine and seek to pick holes in this, or we can say this is far better than anything ever attempted before in the history of states working together. Until now, the pharmaceuticals would have produced them on their own and would have charged the highest price to the highest bidder. That is what we would have had if we did not have a co-ordinated European advanced purchase agreement taken up by the Commission on behalf of the member states. Sometimes it does work, and perhaps Deputy Connolly would acknowledge that.

Comment on this

The Taoiseach would want to get real.

Comment on this

I know that Deputy Connolly wants me to say what I am not supposed to say, as if I am not allowed say these things.

Comment on this

The Taoiseach is being most unfair-----

Comment on this

No. I just have to say that. As for the six advance purchase agreements, and as I have said before, there is Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, BioNTech-Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur and CureVac. Those are the ones in respect of which the Commission has approved contracts. A seventh may also come along, but balanced decisions have to be taken in that regard. What was the prioritisation? It was to have a safe vaccine produced and developed that we can administer to the population to try to get herd immunity from Covid-19, which has absolutely destroyed lives and upended our societies across the world. That is the agenda. The motivation is as clear, as honest and as principled as that. There is no underhand motivation here. The entire campaign will be open and transparent and based on informed consent from people who want to take the vaccine.

Comment on this