On 26 June 1968 Prime Minister Harold Wilson announced to the Commons the publication of the Fulton Report, the outcome of the first major inquiry into the civil service for more than 100 years. Photo credit: Contemporary Record, 2 (2) 1988, p.49 The committee, appointed in 1966 to examine the…
The following products, intended for the aquarium and pond fish market, were seized as they are unauthorised veterinary medicines.
9 x Pond professional range – Formalachite (3 x 500ml, 6 x 250ml)
9 x Pond Professional range – Malachite (3x 500ml, 6 x 250ml)
The sale and supply of these products is an offence under Regulation 4 (Placing a veterinary medicinal product on the market) and Regulation 26 (Possession of an unauthorised veterinary medicinal product) of the Veterinary Medicines Regulations.
In the first report of its kind, Public Health England (PHE) has revealed the impact of women’s reproductive health issues on the nation’s physical, mental and social wellbeing. The report combines women’s experiences, as reported in a new survey, with existing data to define reproductive health as a public health issue.
The report shows for the first time the extent of the impact these issues have on women’s ability to work and go about their daily lives and will form the basis of a cross-governmental 5-year action plan on reproductive health.
The survey of 7,367 women reveals that 31% had experienced severe reproductive health symptoms in the last 12 months, ranging from heavy menstrual bleeding to menopause, incontinence to infertility.
The hidden burden of reproductive health was particularly evident in the workplace. Focus groups undertaken as part of the study revealed that reproductive symptoms often affect women’s ability to carry out daily activities, but many conceal their symptoms from work colleagues.
Existing studies show that 12% of women have taken a day off work due to menopause symptoms and 59% have lied to their boss about the reasons for their absence. In addition, the PHE survey revealed that 35% of women have experienced heavy menstrual bleeding, which previous evidence shows is associated with higher unemployment and absence from work. Stigma surrounding reproductive health was a key concern for women taking part in the survey, with less than half of women seeking help for their symptoms, regardless of severity.
Overall, the report highlighted that women would like reproductive health issues to be normalised so that they can be discussed openly and self-managed where possible. It also underlines the need for more openness and support in the workplace around these issues.
Angela Kilcoyne, 44 and lives in Derbyshire, took part in a PHE focus group, said:
Since I was 13, I have felt embarrassed about having heavy menstrual bleeding – a health issue which has caused me debilitating pain and nausea.
I worked for years in banking, which was a very male dominated environment, and I never told my managers that I was off due to horrendous period pain. They would not have understood at all, so I would have to invent reasons month after month and soldier on. Or I would dose myself up and try and get through the day best I could, then collapse when I got home.
Reproductive health should be spoken about in the workplace in the same way as sickness or flu.
Dr Sue Mann, Public Health Consultant in Reproductive Health, from PHE said:
Women’s reproductive health concerns can fundamentally influence physical and mental well-being throughout their whole life course. Our research has highlighted that while individual reproductive health issues and concerns change throughout a woman’s life, the feelings of stigmatisation and embarrassment were almost universal.
The report reveals the need for an open and supportive approach in the workplace and in the health system. We encourage women to seek support from their workplace, and for workplace management to be aware of how reproductive health symptoms can affect women’s daily life.
A new consensus statement, which brings together 18 healthcare bodies, including Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and the Royal College of GPs, has positioned reproductive health as a public health issue that needs to be addressed. Working with partners, PHE will create an integrated cross-governmental five-year action plan, informed by the best available data and women’s real life experiences of reproductive health symptoms.
I realise the disappointment this decision may cause, but ultimately this project did not meet the threshold for taxpayer value.
The reality is the consumer and industry would have been paying disproportionately high prices for electricity when cheaper alternatives are available. I was an early and consistent supporter of the scheme – and took it to Number 10 – but after months of hard work by officials – the conclusion when taking a responsible approach to taxpayers money – is it just did not stack up.
It’s important to stress that the issue here is specifically with the tidal lagoon application, not the concept of marine energy itself. The Office of the Secretary of State for Wales and wider Government is committed to renewable energy and we will remain open to different sources of that. However, the priority always has to be that renewable energy represents good value for the Welsh consumer.
Mr Speaker,
I would like to make a statement about the proposed Swansea Bay tidal lagoon.
Britain’s energy policy towards electricity generation is based on meeting 3 needs:
To these 3 requirements we have added, through our Industrial Strategy, a further ambition:
Our policy has been successful. Britain has one of the most secure and reliable electricity supply sectors in the world. Last winter, one of the coldest in recent years, the margin of capacity in our electricity generating system was over 10%; around twice what it was in 2016 to 2017.
We have the strongest record in the G7 in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Between 1990 and 2016, the UK reduced its emissions by over 40%.
We have massively increased our deployment of renewable generation. Renewable electricity now makes up almost 30% of our generation, our renewable capacity has quadrupled since 2010, and the auction prices of offshore have fallen from £114 per MWh to £57.50 per MWh within 2 years.
Coal – the most polluting fuel – contributed less to generation in Britain last year than in any since the Industrial Revolution.
This has been achieved while the UK has maintained a position in the overall cost to households of electricity well below the average for major European countries.
But the cost of electricity is nevertheless a significant one for households and for businesses, and the policy related-costs have been growing. We have made a clear commitment to bear down on costs.
It is in this context that the government has assessed whether it should commit consumer or taxpayer funds to the programme of 6 tidal lagoons proposed by Tidal Lagoon Power Limited, the first being the proposed project at Swansea.
We believe in renewable energy and we believe in the benefits of innovation.
The conclusion of this analysis – which has been shared with the Welsh Government – is that the project and proposed programme of lagoons do not meet the requirements for value for money, and so it would not be appropriate to lead the company to believe that public funds can be justified.
The proposal for the Swansea tidal lagoon would cost £1.3 billion to build. If successful to its maximum ambition, it would provide around 0.15% of the electricity we use each year.
The same power generated by the lagoon, over 60 years, for £1.3 billion, would cost around £400 million for offshore wind even at today’s prices, which have fallen rapidly, and we expect to be cheaper still in future.
At £1.3 billion, the capital cost per unit of electricity generated each year would be 3 times that of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station.
If a full programme of 6 lagoons were constructed, the Hendry Review found that the cost would be more than £50 billion, and be 2 and a half times the cost of Hinkley to generate a similar output of electricity.
Enough offshore wind to provide the same generation as a programme of lagoons is estimated to cost at least £31.5 billion less to build.
Taking all the costs together, I have been advised by analysts that, by 2050, the proposal that has been made – which would generate around 30 TWh per year of electricity – could cost up to £20 billion more to produce compared to generating that same electricity through a mix of offshore wind and nuclear, once financing, operating, and system costs have been taken into account.
That could cost the average British household consumer up to an additional £700 between 2031 and 2050, or the equivalent of £15,000 for every household in Wales.
However, in recognition of the potential local economic benefits that might result from a lagoon in Swansea, I asked officials to go back and consider what additional benefit could be ascribed to a number of other factors, including a beneficial impact on the local economy.
For £1.3 billion a Swansea lagoon would support, according to the Hendry Review, only 28 jobs directly associated with operating and maintaining the lagoon in the long term.
Officials were also asked to make an assessment of the potential for valuable innovation and cost reductions for later lagoons that might come from embarking on a programme of construction.
Independent advice concluded that the civil engineering used in Swansea Bay offers limited scope for innovation and capital cost reduction – estimated at 5% – in the construction of subsequent facilities.
I asked for an assessment of the export potential of embarking on a programme of implementing the technology, but the Hendry Review concluded that it would take a “leap of faith to believe that the UK would be the main industrial beneficiary” of any such programme.
In terms of energy reliability, the generation of electricity would be variable rather than constant with a load factor of 19% compared to around 50% for offshore wind and 90% for nuclear.
The inescapable conclusion of an extensive analysis is that however novel and appealing the proposal that has been made is, even with these factors taken into account, the costs that would be incurred by consumers and taxpayers would be so much higher than alternative sources of low carbon power, that it would be irresponsible to enter into a contract with the provider.
Securing our energy needs into the future has to be done seriously and, when much cheaper alternatives exist, no individual project, and no particular technology, can proceed at any price. That is true for all technologies.
The fact that this proposal has not demonstrated that it could be value for money does not mean that its potential is not recognised.
My department is also in receipt of proposals from other promoters of tidal energy schemes which are said to have lower costs than the Swansea proposal, although these are an earlier stage of development.
Any proposals must be able credibly to demonstrate value for money for consumers and public funds.
I am sure that many people in the House and beyond would wish that we were in a position today to say yes to the Swansea proposals.
I have appreciated the contribution of Charles Hendry, whose constructive report led to this further analysis being made, and to the engagement of the Secretary of State for Wales and members of the Welsh Assembly, including the First Minister and the Leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew RT Davies.
But all of us have a requirement to be responsible stewards of taxpayers’ and consumers’ money and to act at all times in their interests. It is in discharging that responsibility rigorously that I make this statement today, and I commend it to the House.