Ministerial Corrections
Wednesday 26 March 2008
Health
Departmental Public Expenditure
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to the answer of 21 January 2008, Official Report, column 1689W, on departmental public expenditure, what the cost was of writing-off date expired vaccines broken down by type of vaccine 2006-07; [184461]
(2) how many expired vaccines were written-off, broken down by type of vaccine. [184521]
[Official Report, 19 February 2008, Vol. 472, c. 666W.]
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on 19 February 2008. The correct answer should have been:
Dawn Primarolo: In 2006-07 488,629 doses of vaccine in total were written off.
There were 488,457 doses of vaccine written off due to date expiring. They were:
243,000 doses of the Bacille Calmette Guerin (BCG) vaccine;
123,954 doses of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine;
71,568 doses of combined diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTaP) vaccine;
49,799 doses of the combined diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine (DTwP/Hib); and
136 doses of tetanus and diphtheria (Td) vaccine.
This equates to £2,092,513. The cost breakdown cannot be given for individual vaccines as the cost per dose is commercially confidential information.
There were 172 doses of vaccine written off because they were damaged. They were:
70 doses of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine;
69 doses of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, inactivated polio and haemophilus influenzae; type B, (DTaP/IPV+Hib) vaccine;
21 doses of meningococcal C vaccine; and
12 doses of the MMR vaccine
The total value of the written-off stock due to date expiry and damage (£2,096,000) represents about 1 per cent, of the vaccine distributed in the United Kingdom in 2006-07.
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 21 January 2008, Official Report, column 1689W, on departmental public expenditure, for what reason the expired vaccines were not used, broken down by type of vaccine. [188507]
[Official Report, 28 February 2008, Vol. 472, c. 1885W.]
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on 28 February 2008. The correct answer should have been:
Dawn Primarolo: Changes in vaccination policy can result in changes to the vaccines offered in the routine childhood immunisation programme. While we aim to keep vaccine wastage to a minimum, such policy changes can lead to some vaccines being written off if they are no longer used in the routine programme.
The reasons why expired vaccines were not used are listed as follows:
Some BCG vaccine was written off following the change in BCG vaccination policy in 2005. The programme changed from a universal to targeted programme, leading to a reduction in demand.
In 2005 demand for MMR vaccine increased following the mumps outbreaks in older teenagers. For a short period, the suppliers could only provide additional supplies of MMR vaccine destined for other countries, and hence with different product labelling than UK stock. Even though the vaccine itself was identical to UK licensed product, the labelling difference meant that the vaccine was not licensed for use in the UK. Once further supplies of UK licensed vaccine were received, the unlicensed MMR vaccine was no longer used, leading to write off.
In 2004 vaccines containing live oral polio were removed from the childhood programme and replaced with three new combination vaccines containing an inactivated polio vaccine. This resulted in the combined diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine (DTwP/Hib); and the tetanus and diphtheria (Td) vaccine becoming redundant.
In 2003 a major Hib catch up campaign was launched using a single antigen Hib (haemophilus influenzae type B) vaccine. This vaccine is not used routinely in the childhood programme, and some stock left over from the Hib catch-up campaign date expired in 2006-07.
Communities and Local Government
Ordnance Survey
Mr. Prisk: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) whether private companies were consulted on Ordnance Survey’s draft revised Public Task before it was approved; [193729]
(2) whether the (a) GI Panel and (b) Association for Geographic Information were consulted on Ordnance Survey’s draft revised Public Task before it was approved. [193730]
[Official Report, 19 March 2008, Vol. 473, c. 1212W.]
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on 19 March 2008. The correct answer should have been:
Mr. Iain Wright: In April 2007, Ministers from the Department asked Ordnance Survey and the Shareholder Executive to work together to prepare a more precise articulation of Ordnance Survey's Public Task, as set out in the Ordnance Survey Framework Document 2004. This work was undertaken between April and June 2007 in preparation for the publication of a revised Framework Document for Ordnance Survey.
As has been the case with the preparation of previous versions of the Ordnance Survey Framework Document, there were no external consultations on the Public Task,
which fundamentally articulates that defined in each successive Ordnance Survey Framework Document since 1990, but in a more precise and comprehensive way.
House of Commons Commission
Drinking Water
Norman Baker: To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission what recent consideration the House authorities have given to providing filtered tap water as an alternative to bottled water in committee and meeting rooms; and what estimate has been made of the cost of providing (a) tap and (b) bottled water in these rooms in 2008-09. [194554]
[Official Report, 20 March 2008, Vol. 473, c. 1311-12W.]
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 20 March 2008. The correct answer should have been:
Nick Harvey: The Administration Committee last considered the issue of the provision of drinking water in Committee and meeting rooms on 13 March 2007 and agreed to recommend that the current practice of supplying bottled mineral water to Committee rooms should continue. I understand that the Department of Facilities is re-examining the issue with the intention of providing further advice to the Administration Committee.
When the Administration Committee considered the provision of drinking water in 2007 the estimated annual cost of providing tap water in Committee and meeting rooms was between £47,000 and £56,000 depending on how the service was delivered. Part of the re-examination being carried out by the Department of Facilities focuses on how this cost can be reduced. The projected approximate cost of providing bottled water in Committee Rooms in 2007-08 is £10,000. Costs for 2008-09 should be broadly similar if there is no change to the current practice. Water is not routinely provided for other meetings except when ordered and paid for as part of a catering service. Data on separate purchases is not held in a consolidated form.
| Index | Home Page |