§ Mr. Redmond
To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement as to the reasons given by the National Institute of Biological Standards and control for rejecting supplies of the influenza vaccine from the company Duphar; and what alternative arrangements have been made for this coming winter.796W
district health authorities, (c) family health service authorities and (d) the Department of Health/NHS management executive, in (i) 1989–90, (ii) 1990–91, (iii) 1991–92 and (iv) 1992–93 and her expectation of expenditure in those categories for 1993–94.
§ Dr. Mawhinney
Administration expenditure is shown in the table.
The information requested for 1993–94 is not available for regional and district health authorities and family health services authorities.
(2) if she will list, for 1992–93, by regional health authority per 1,000 population (a) the average daily number of beds available and (b) new accident and emergency cases during the year.
§ Mr. Sackville
The decision which prevented the marketing of the Duphar vaccine was made by the Medicines Control Agency—MCA—of the Department of Health after receiving advice from specialist advisers and the National Institute of Biological Standards and Control.
Duphar was originally granted a product licence for influenza vaccine in early August 1993. During late September the company applied to the MCA to make a major change to its manufacturing process.797W
Information provided by Duphar, however, gave inadequate reassurance of the safety and efficacy of the product proposed for marketing since clinical studies being carried out by the company were far from complete.
Other manufacturers have stepped in to fill the gap caused by the loss of Duphar influenza vaccine this year, and already more vaccine has beeń distributed than in previous years.