Skilled Migrant Workers (Codes of Practice)

Mark Harper Excerpts

Friday 1st March 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

The Home Office is today announcing changes to the codes of practice for skilled migrant workers from outside the European economic area.

The codes of practice provide important information to migrant workers and their sponsoring employers. They set out which occupations are skilled to the necessary level to qualify for tier 2 of the points-based system, minimum appropriate rates of pay, and how employers should carry out a resident labour market test to determine whether suitable settled workers are available before they offer a job to a migrant worker.

Last year, the Government commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to review the codes of practice. The MAC published a detailed report on 17 October 2012. Today we are setting out the Government’s response to the MAC’s recommendations. In general we have accepted the MAC’s recommendations, although there are some additional details which have resulted from developing the proposals. Taken as a whole, the changes are intended to update the system and make it more user-friendly, rather than significantly change the policy.

On lists of skilled occupations, as advised by the MAC, we are updating the codes of practice from the old SOC 2000 classification system to the new SOC 2010 system. Transitional arrangements will ensure that no migrant worker is unable to continue working in their current job as a result of the reclassification.

On minimum salary requirements, we are updating the minimum appropriate rates for each occupation in line with the MAC’s recommendations and to reflect changes in pay for settled workers. We have accepted the MAC’s recommendation that the minimum should generally be set at the 25th percentile of wages in that occupation. We are introducing alternative rates for new entrants. These will be set at the 10th percentile of wages in each occupation. After three years the new entrant—usually these will be those aged 25 or under—will have to be paid at the experienced worker rate. In addition, we are updating the minimum pay thresholds which exist across tier 2 (regardless of occupation) in line with wage inflation for settled workers.

On the resident labour market test, we are, in line with the MAC’s recommendations, simplifying the current rules to give employers more freedom to advertise in the media they think are most likely to be successful for their sector. This will mean settled workers looking for jobs in that sector will be better targeted and will have more opportunities to apply for skilled jobs. We will still require most jobs to be advertised via a Jobcentre Plus online service (or JobCentre Online, for jobs based in Northern Ireland), but we will keep this requirement under review.

The changes will be implemented on 6 April and we will lay changes to the immigration rules nearer the time to bring them into effect. The Home Office is publishing a statement of intent today, in order to give employers and applicants as much time as possible to review the changes we are making and prepare for them coming into effect. I am placing a copy of the statement of intent in the Library of the House.

Immigration Concession for Syrian Nationals

Mark Harper Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I am today announcing the renewal of concessions to the immigration rules for Syrian nationals lawfully in the UK.

In the light of the ongoing violent conflict in Syria it has been decided that the UK Border Agency (UKBA) should continue to operate some discretion to enable Syrians legally in the UK to extend their stay here.

Syrians in the UK with valid leave (or leave which has expired within the last 28 days) in specified visa categories will continue to be able to apply to extend their stay in that visa category, or switch into a different specified category from within the UK (with some restrictions) rather than being required to return home first. Those applying will still need to meet the requirements of the relevant visa category, pay the appropriate fee, and adhere to the normal conditions of that category—no access to public funds, for example. If a required document is not accessible due to the civil unrest in Syria UKBA may apply its discretion and the requirement to provide that document may be waived where appropriate.

These concessions will remain in force for one year from today. The Government continue to monitor the situation in Syria closely in order to ensure our response is appropriate and that any emerging risks are addressed.

I am placing a copy of the authorisation for this concession in the Library of the House.

Asylum Support (Children and Young People)

Mark Harper Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Teather]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that his hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe said that, under section 4, people cannot buy condoms.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

Yes they can.

[Chris Bryant]

That is perhaps a point for the Minister. I want to say to some religious organisations that it is time they understood the reality of the modern world and abandoned their views about procreation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) on securing this debate. As she said, she and I met to discuss the report put together by her group of parliamentary colleagues, and I had the chance, both before and after that meeting, to consider it carefully. It will certainly go into the Government’s review specifically on asylum support rates. I thank her for her work and for the evidence. Two of the Members who took part in that work—the hon. Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin)—are here today. In the time available, I will deal with both her points and those made by other Members who spoke or intervened.

Let me first deal with the financial support. One point made by the hon. Lady today, and one of the key points in her report, is that the amount of money given to both asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers is very low and does not meet families’ essential living needs. It is worth setting out for the House exactly what is available. The legal test is whether it meets people’s essential needs, which are food, toiletries and clothing. A family of four receiving section 95 support, which is that given to those who have an asylum application that has not yet been decided, would get £178 a week to cover those essential costs. A family on section 4 support, which is where a decision has been made and they do not have a right to remain in the country, get £151 a week. It is worth remembering that they have furnished housing with no bills to pay. I accept that it is not generous, but I do not think it is ungenerous. It is lower than the income support equivalents, but people who are in asylum support accommodation do not have to pay any utility bills, buy furniture or meet some of the other costs associated with running a household.

The hon. Lady touched on the relationship between the section 95 support and income support levels, which is worth mentioning. For children, the rates are much higher than the 70% she talked about. For children, the rates range between 81% and 89% of the income support levels. It is true that the rates are less generous for adults. If we look at how we compare with other European countries on families—and therefore on children—we are rather more generous than most of our equivalent European neighbours.

[Sarah Teather]

The Minister will perhaps recognise that the rates vary according to the children’s age and tail off significantly at 16, where it would be expected that those children would be in full-time education, especially given the Government’s own policy to encourage everybody to be in education beyond 16. I have discussed the German constitutional court case with him in private. I do not know whether he has had a chance to look at it, but I am happy to send him the details. The support rates there were deemed to be inadequate to meet a family’s basic humane needs. It is difficult to compare our asylum support rates with those of other European countries, because they partly depend on how long someone is on them. It is worth noting that one of our neighbours has had to review its asylum support rates.

[Mr Harper]

I accept that point. It is worth making the point on the German case that our rates for families are rather more generous than the German rates. The hon. Lady is right that there was a court challenge and the Germans have had to make their rates more generous. Ours are significantly more generous. The point she makes about 16 and 17-year-olds is correct, but it is still worth noting that her report and, I think, others have referred to the rates being at least 70% of the income support rate. That is still the case for young people of 16 and 17, where it is 71%. It does fall below that for adults. She will be aware—she and I have discussed this—that we are in the process of reviewing the asylum support rates to confirm that they meet essential living needs. The initial work that we have done suggests that they do, but that work is under way. When we have completed it, we will make an announcement in due course.

The hon. Lady and others, particularly the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall, referred to individuals who have higher living costs, especially those with disabilities or complicated medical problems, who might need particular extra care or equipment. The correct way that they are supposed to be supported is through local authorities using their powers and duties under both the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children Act 2004 to provide that extra support. It sounds like the hon. Gentleman has encountered some cases in his surgeries with constituents, and there were also some in the evidence given to the panel producing the report, where that does not always happen. Obviously I am happy to look at specific cases, so that we can ensure that local authorities are following up on their legal obligations.

Once people have made an asylum claim, if that claim is accepted and they are given refugee status and are permitted to stay in the UK, they have access to the full range of public services and benefits on the same basis as a British citizen. There are some issues about the transition from asylum support to those mainstream benefits, and the UK Border Agency and the Department for Work and Pensions are looking at those to see whether we can smooth that move from asylum support to mainstream benefits for those who are granted refugee status.

It is worth mentioning at this point the speed of decision making, which is important both from a human perspective and to ensure that people do not use the asylum system as a method of economic migration. I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant): both our parties have been clear when in government that there is a distinction between providing refuge for people fleeing persecution and for people who move, perfectly understandably, for economic reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) alluded to that. We now make 50% of asylum decisions within 30 days and 63% are made within a year, and we continue to apply pressure to maintain that progress.

Several hon. Members talked about whether asylum seekers should be able to work. Our view is that they should not be able to, to keep that clear distinction. However, under our obligations under the relevant EU directives, if we take more than a year to make a decision, an asylum seeker is able to apply to work, and we will usually grant them the ability to do so.

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

Does the Minister agree that when asylum seekers are not entitled to work, they sometimes find illegal work, which furthers the black market and disadvantages people who work in that field?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman’s point would be correct if we were prohibiting people from working and not providing them with any support. While we say they cannot work, so as to maintain that important distinction, we do provide them with housing where the bills are paid and a basic level of subsistence to support them in the period before we make a decision.

In the four minutes I have remaining, I will say a little about the difference between asylum seekers and those who have failed in their claim. That is important and I have made this point to the hon. Lady. If we are to maintain the proud record that the United Kingdom has in giving people refuge from persecution, it is important that those who have gone through the appeal process through the tribunal system, where we will have looked at their cases carefully, and been found not to require that support leave the country. It is important to distinguish that those on section 4 support are those who have been found not to require our protection. They should be leaving the country. We support those cases where there is a temporary barrier to them doing so, but frankly they should not be here. I know that that is a difficult message for people sometimes, but we have looked carefully at their cases and they do not need our protection. They should return home.

[Sarah Teather]

I am aware that the Minister does not have much time, but does he recognise, particularly in the case of Zimbabwe, that people were left in a situation where the courts would not return them because it was unsafe, and for a prolonged period of time they were left on very tiny amounts of support?

[Mr Harper]

As I have said, if there are temporary barriers to their removal—I do not know the particular cases that the hon. Lady was talking about—we will support them, but if they are found not to require protection, it is right that they leave. That is why we have a different regime for those who have no right to be here from that for those seeking asylum.

We do not think that the Azure card is more expensive than administering cash payments. It can be used in major supermarkets, chemists, children’s and clothing retailers, and some charity shops, which deals with the point made by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe. The hon. Lady made a point about purchasing birth control or sanitary products with the Azure card, which she raised when we met. I have checked it, and there is no restriction on purchasing those products, although there are rightly restrictions on purchasing alcohol and tobacco. I agreed to look into those cases and have checked them, and there is no restriction on birth control or sanitary products, which is right.

I will deal with some of the points raised in the debate. On accommodation and people moving around, we have specific restrictions in our new Compass contracts on how many times people can be moved. People will normally go into initial accommodation when they first make a claim and then will be moved into their dispersal accommodation. They will be moved from that only if there is a good reason, such as if the property becomes unsuitable or if they request it. Under the contract, they are only allowed to be moved twice in an 18-month period. We should not see people being moved about frequently, because that raises a range of issues.

The hon. Lady also referenced the recent report by the Refugee Council about the dispersal of pregnant women. We changed our policies last August, which she acknowledged, and 19 of the report’s 20 case studies were prior to our policy change. That change should have dealt with some of the issues that have been raised. This has been a good debate, and I am sorry that I have not had time to deal with all the issues.

Equality (Language Analysis - Palestinian, Syrian and Kuwaiti Testing) Authorisation (No.2) 2013

Mark Harper Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

On 20 February 2013, I made a ministerial authorisation under schedule 3, part 4, paragraph 17 (4) (a) of the Equality Act 2010. This authorisation may be cited as the Equality (Language Analysis—Palestinian, Syrian and Kuwaiti Testing) Authorisation (No. 2) 2013.

The purpose of language analysis (LA) testing in the UK Border Agency is to assist in identifying an asylum applicant’s true place of origin where it is in doubt, and to deter claims made in a false nationality or national origin because of an actual or perceived benefit to an asylum claim. Where the United Kingdom is responsible for deciding a case, LA testing may be carried out on an informed consent basis, and presently, only if it is strongly suspected the applicant has provided false information regarding their place of origin. A refusal to submit to testing may be taken into account when determining whether an applicant has assisted in establishing the facts of his case or her case.

UK Border Agency data on language analysis testing between October 2011 and May 2012 show that although 20 different claimed nationalities or national origins were tested, on a case-by-case basis, abuse was particularly apparent for three claimed nationalities or national origins. Where tested, those claiming to be of Kuwaiti national origin were shown in 26 out of 33 cases (79%) not to be from Kuwait; none of the 12 claiming to be Palestinian (100%) were found to be from Palestine; and (to July 2012), 12 of the 15 applicants (80%) claiming to be Syrian nationals were assessed to not be from Syria.

I therefore consider the ministerial authorisation to be reasonable, rational, proportionate and necessary for maintaining the integrity of the immigration system.

The authorisation gives approval for the UK Border Agency to use linguistic analysis to analyse the language of persons making an asylum claim where they claim to be of Palestinian national origin or Kuwaiti national origin or Syrian nationality, to assist in determining whether those asylum seekers are of the national origin or nationality respectively as claimed.

The authorisation came into operation on 20 February 2013, and will remain in force until revoked.

Further to my written ministerial statement of 14 February 2013—Official Report, column 66WS, Vol. 558—I can now confirm that the Equality (Language Analysis—Palestinian, Syrian and Kuwaiti Testing) Authorisation 2013 was on 20 February revoked. It referred to an intention to test those of Kuwaiti nationality. My intention is in fact to test those claiming to be of Kuwaiti national origin where their national origin is in doubt. It is for this reason and to ensure clarity that I have issued this authorisation in its place.

I am placing copies of the authorisation in the House Library.

Charging for Immigration and Nationality Services 2013-14

Mark Harper Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I am announcing proposals to change the fees for immigration and nationality applications made to the UK Border Agency and services provided by the agency. The Government review these fees on a regular basis and make appropriate changes as necessary.

In developing these proposals, the UK Border Agency has sought to limit most increases to 3%, which is in line with recent measures of inflation. There are further targeted increases for applications made within the UK, where the value of the entitlements provided to successful applicants is greater, and new fees for European residence documents.

The UK Border Agency has given careful consideration to its fee levels, to ensure they provide the funding necessary to operate effective immigration controls and invest in improving service levels to customers. This is balanced against the need to ensure that the UK continues to attract and welcome the “brightest and best” migrants from around the world and those that make a valued contribution to British society. Given the ongoing need to reduce public spending, we believe it is right that we continue to reduce the contribution made by UK taxpayers towards delivering the immigration system by asking those who use and benefit directly from the system to make a greater contribution.

For certain application categories, we will continue to set fees higher than the administrative cost to reflect their value to successful applicants. This helps to provide resources to run the UK immigration system and enables the agency to set lower fees elsewhere in support of wider Government objectives to attract those businesses, workers, students and visitors who most benefit the UK.

I have laid regulations for fees set higher than cost. In addition, I will shortly lay another set of regulations in Parliament for fees set at or below cost. Further details explaining all fees changes are provided in the explanatory memoranda for both sets of regulations. Subject to parliamentary approval the Government intend to bring new fees into force from 6 April 2013.

The attached table, setting out all the proposed fees, includes indicative unit costs for financial year 2013-14. The unit cost is the estimated average cost to the UK Border Agency of processing each application. Unit costs are published so it is clear which fees we set over cost and by how much.

Full details on how to apply for all of the agency’s products and services will be provided on the UK Border Agency’s website: www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk.

Violence against Women and Girls

Mark Harper Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I congratulate the Members who bid for the debate at the Backbench Business Committee. It was an excellent idea, and well done to the Committee for setting aside the time for this debate and the one to follow, which is on the same theme of sexual violence. The House will shortly be able to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood).

I thought that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) rather spoiled the debate, frankly. It had been a good debate, and I had listened to powerful speeches from both sides of the House, including from Members on the Labour Benches and other Opposition Benches, but her tone at the end rather soured an excellent debate.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) finds my presence disappointing. I fear that may be the case for Opposition Members. I thought, though, that both she and the hon. Member for Walthamstow were rather churlish about the Department for Education. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), found the time to come and listen to part of the debate, and he and I have spoken about these issues previously, including earlier this week. Some Opposition Members cling to the idea that there is somehow a divide in the Government, but it is a false idea.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said that the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), had not mentioned the teenage relationship abuse campaign when he answered a question in Women and Equalities questions. I may be wrong, but I listened carefully and the Minister not only referenced that campaign, but made the point that the Government are relaunching it today and are committed to continuing it because it has been so effective. On the basis that things said in the House of Commons are often the greatest secrets in the world, I will say it again: the teenage relationship abuse campaign “This is abuse” will be relaunched today with a focus on what constitutes controlling and coercive behaviour, and on raising awareness among teenagers of what constitutes abuse and violence. I have seen that campaign and think it rather effective. Evidence also suggests it is effective, and I am pleased the Government are relaunching it.

[Diana Johnson]

My point—I am sorry if I did not make it clear—is that the information was not on the Department of Education Twitter feed, which is obviously a place that young people might look to see what the Department is saying about these good initiatives.

[Mr Harper]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, if a Minister speaks in the House of Commons, I as a Member of Parliament happen to put greater weight on that than on what—with greatest respect to the Foreign Secretary, who uses Twitter in an excellent manner—goes on the Twitter feed. If the Minister says something at the Dispatch Box as a statement of Government policy, that is important. The fact that the announcement was made in the House of Commons proves the saying that things said here remain great secrets.

In the limited time available, let me pick up a number of issues raised by Members across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who is not in her place at the moment, raised two issues that were taken up by others. She referred to the pilot scheme for domestic violence protection orders run by her constabulary in Wiltshire, and I am pleased to say that three pilot forces continue to operate those protection orders. The Government were asked to extend those powers, and we have done so. An evaluation of those pilots will be published this summer, and a decision will be taken about whether to roll the scheme out. The good news is that the pilots will continue in those areas.

My hon. Friend also mentioned sexting. That issue was taken up by a number of hon. Members, some of whom described concerning examples that either they or others had heard about. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre produces resources for teachers to use in the classroom, and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) gave a graphic example not just of sexting but of sexual offences taking place in the classroom, suggesting a more serious problem in some areas than sexting itself.

The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) referenced the St Mary’s sexual assault referral centre near her constituency, which is jointly funded by her local police force, the national health service and local authorities. Responsibility for those assault centres will remain with the NHS Commissioning Board, working with local partners to fund them. That partnership approach works well.

The hon. Lady also chairs the all-party group for runaway and missing children and adults and I pay tribute to her for that. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who was present in the debate, said that he spoke with her yesterday at a conference on child sexual exploitation. That demonstrates that the Department for Education is alive to a number of these important issues.

The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) demonstrated—as did much of the debate—that concern about this issue is shared by hon. Members across the House. We have had a good constructive debate and heard some excellent ideas. She, like the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), raised this issue’s international dimension and mentioned recent events that have pushed it up the agenda, not only in the United Kingdom but elsewhere. The hon. Lady and others mentioned the impact of human trafficking. That is an issue I take very seriously as chair of the inter-departmental ministerial group on human trafficking, and I have engaged on the issue with the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who so ably opened this debate. Together with fellow officers of that group, she will hold my feet to the fire as the Government make progress on that agenda.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) mentioned forced marriage, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister and the Government have committed to taking steps to criminalise that. The issue was raised by the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, and the Government have made their position clear. We have led the world in tackling that practice. We will criminalise it and make a breach of a forced marriage protection order a criminal offence. It is not enough just to change the law; we need to change people’s attitudes and engage with communities to change people’s views. That point was made by the hon. Member for Slough and the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall.

My hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire and for Battersea (Jane Ellison), and hon. Members on both sides of the House, mentioned female genital mutilation. The Government have taken the lead on that. The Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, who has responsibility for crime prevention, has made it clear that FGM should be seen for what it is: child abuse. It is not acceptable. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) mentioned the importance of securing prosecutions. The Crown Prosecution Service wants to lead on that with its action plan on improving prosecutions. The Home Office will continue to work with the Director of Public Prosecutions to identify the barriers to successful prosecutions.

The declaration against FGM, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, sets out the law and potential criminal penalties. It is supported across the Government and has been signed on behalf of their Departments by the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, who has responsibility for crime prevention; the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who has responsibility for public health; and by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who has responsibility for children and families. There is good evidence that Ministers from a number of Departments are focused on a range of issues and on delivering progress. The characterisation of the Department for Education is therefore unfair.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd)—I hope he will forgive me for mangling the pronunciation of his constituency—mentioned the stalking offences that he worked on with the Government, which came into effect last November. Police and prosecutors have been given special guidance and training on the offences, and I hope they make an impact on dealing with that incredibly serious offence, which was previously not dealt with well in the criminal justice system.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I will give way just once—to the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne).

[Sandra Osborne]

Is the Minister aware of the recent cross-party inquiry by the hon. Members for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) and for Solihull (Lorely Burt) and me on unwanted pregnancy? We called for statutory provision for sex and relationships education. Will the Minister comment on that—it is relevant to the debate—before he takes his seat?

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will answer that intervention. I was not aware of the inquiry on which the hon. Lady worked, but I am now.

Let me come back to sex and relationships education, if I may. Sex education is a statutory responsibility. I listened very carefully to the points made in the debate. Interestingly, many Members said that sex and relationships teaching as a component of PSHE is in many cases not high quality. It is important to focus not just on teaching sex and relationships education. Schools must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance, but it is important that it is well taught. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

If the shadow Home Secretary lets me finish my point, I will give way to her.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion referred to a charity in her constituency: Rise, which works in partnership with schools in her constituency. Partnership working with charities and non-governmental organisations can be important in effective delivery of high-quality education.

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

At the risk of trying your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will give way to the shadow Home Secretary.

[Yvette Cooper]

I appreciate your tolerance, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Minister will be aware that sex and relationship education is not compulsory in schools and that there is no requirement to teach zero tolerance of violence in relationships. The legislation available before the election, which the current Secretary of State for Education personally blocked, would have made it possible for him to require zero tolerance of violence in relationships to be taught in our schools. Can the Minister give me any reason at all why he opposes that today?

[Mr Harper]

I have just said that good teaching in schools is essential. I am not sure the route the right hon. Lady sets out is a valid one. I will take no lectures from her on the urgency of the task. She was in government for 13 years. She is now complaining about failing to legislate in the wash-up at the tail-end of 13 years of Labour government. If she meant what she said, she would have done something about it. I am afraid that her strictures are rather hollow.

This has been a very good debate. I think I am being glared at by Mr Deputy Speaker, and am being urged to bring it to a close. I am sorry that I have not been able to reference everyone who has spoken in this excellent debate. I think it will be followed by an equally excellent debate, with which Mr Deputy Speaker is keen to proceed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

For no more than two minutes, Fiona Mactaggart will sum up.

Equality (Language Analysis—Palestinian, Syrian and Kuwaiti Testing) Authorisation 2013

Mark Harper Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I am today making a ministerial authorisation under schedule 3, part 4, paragraph 17(4)(a) and (b) of the Equality Act 2010. This authorisation may be cited as the Equality (Language Analysis—Palestinian, Syrian and Kuwaiti Testing) Authorisation 2013.

The purpose of language analysis (LA) testing in UK Border Agency is to assist in identifying an asylum applicant’s true place of origin where it is in doubt, and to deter claims made in a false nationality because of an actual or perceived benefit to an asylum claim. Where the United Kingdom is responsible for deciding a case, LA testing may be carried out on an informed consent basis, and presently, only if it is strongly suspected the applicant has provided false information regarding their place of origin. A refusal to submit to testing may be taken into account when determining whether an applicant has assisted in establishing the facts of his case or her case.

UK Border Agency data on language analysis testing between October 2011 and May 2012 shows that although 20 different claimed nationalities were tested, on a case-by-case basis, abuse was particularly apparent for three claimed nationalities. Where tested, those claiming to be Kuwaiti were shown in 26 out of 33 cases (79%) not to be from Kuwait; none of the 12 claiming to be Palestinian (100%) were found to be from Palestine; and, to July 2012, 12 of the 15 applicants (80%) claiming to be Syrian nationals were assessed to not be from Syria.

I therefore consider the ministerial authorisation to be reasonable, rational, proportionate and necessary for maintaining the integrity of the immigration system.

The authorisation gives approval for the UK Border Agency to use linguistic analysis to analyse the language of persons making an asylum claim where they claim to be of Palestinian national origin or Syrian nationality or Kuwaiti nationality, to assist in determining whether those asylum seekers are of the national origin or nationality respectively as claimed.

The authorisation shall come into operation 20 February 2013, and remain in force until revoked.

I am placing a copy of the authorisation in the Library of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Harper Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

6. What steps she has taken to control immigration from Bulgaria and Romania.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

Speculative projections about future inflows cannot be made with any degree of accuracy and are, therefore, not particularly helpful. That is why the Government are focused on dealing with the abuse of free movement rights and reducing the pull factors for migration, and so I am chairing a cross-Government group of Ministers to examine controls on immigrants’ access to public services and benefits.

[Andrew Bridgen]

It has been estimated that some 250,000 Romanians and Bulgarians are currently resident in Germany, and an internal paper produced by the German Association of Cities has noted that that level of immigration creates social dangers. Will any lessons be learned from the German experience?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is right to say that it is helpful for us to look at the experience of other European countries. We want to make sure that when people look at the access to our benefits and our public services nobody thinks we are a soft touch in this country, and the Government are taking action to ensure that people will not think that.

[Mr Hollobone]

My constituents think it is madness to open our borders to 29 million people when we have absolutely no idea how many are going to come to this country. Will the Minister at least introduce a new requirement that European Union nationals seeking to reside here for more than three months have to apply for a residency card? Will he insist that the Romanian and Bulgarian Governments share with the Home Office details of any criminal records of those who come to this country?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend’s first point about a residency card is something I will listen to and take away with me. On his second point, he may be interested to know that the Metropolitan police and the UK Border Agency been working closely together over the past few months on Operation Nexus, and have removed about 200 very serious and high-harm criminals. That has been very effective, and I hope it will be rolled out across the country in due course.

[Mr Baron]

Given that the Government cannot produce or are not producing an estimate, and given that the national minimum wage is five to six times higher in this country than it is in Bulgaria or Romania, how confident are the Government that our public services can cope with any surge in immigration, particularly as we got our estimates so badly wrong in 2004?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. However, it is worth reminding people that even during the whole period of the previous Government, when, as even they have acknowledged, they had no transitional controls for eastern European migration and a significant number came here, four fifths of the net migration was from outside the EU. It is therefore worth seeing things in that context. I go back to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) in saying that the Government are looking at how our public services work and how our benefits system works to make sure that we are not a soft touch in this country. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.

[James Wharton]

It is, of course, thanks to the Labour party that the UK was the only European economy that did not have transitional controls in 2004. Will the Minister confirm that as of 31 December every European economy will be open to the free movement of labour from Romania and Bulgaria, and not just ours this time?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is worth remembering that eight other European countries, including France and Germany, currently have transitional controls, as we do. They will have to remove those controls at the end of the year, which is partly why making a forecast is so difficult and why the Migration Advisory Committee advised against it.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

There is a Bulgarian word for the position in which the Government find themselves—oburkvane: confused. The Prime Minister is a champion of enlargement, which means the free movement of people, yet the Home Office was considering putting advertisements in the Romanian and Bulgarian press advising people not to come here. There is a simple way of dealing with this matter. First, by working with the Romanian and Bulgarian Governments to find out the cause for people to move here. Secondly, by commissioning research so that we have proper predictions as to how many people will come here.

[Mr Harper]

On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, he has been in this House long enough to know not to believe everything he reads in newspapers when they talk about what the Government might or might not do. He may even occasionally have been the author of some such stories himself. [Interruption.] No, I am not. On his second question about working with our European partners, we will of course work with the Romanian and Bulgarian Governments, as we do on a number of important and serious issues. For example, we work closely with the Bulgarians on combating terrorism. We will continue to take that approach and we will look at ways of making sure that this country is not a soft touch when it comes to benefits and access to public services. The MAC advised against trying to forecast the numbers, because it said that that simply would not be helpful to policy makers.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Is the Minister satisfied that the fines levied on employers who do not pay the minimum wage are sufficient to deter such employers from employing on the cheap the very Bulgarian and Romanian workers his hon. Friends are asking about?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If anyone takes on people who do not have the right to work in the country, we fine them up to £10,000. I will take away the point that he has made. One thing we are looking at is the regulation of the labour market in general. A number of bodies are involved—HMRC for the minimum wage, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and the UK Border Agency. It is sensible to consider whether those organisations are all working as closely together as they should be. That is something that the group I am chairing will indeed be looking at. I hope that is helpful to him.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

But poor housing from rogue landlords, where they sometimes cram 20 to 30 people into some pretty shabby conditions, is also a major problem and a driver of immigration, particularly from places such as Romania, Bulgaria and other eastern European EU states, so will the Government commit to introducing a statutory national register of private landlords so that we can drive up housing standards in the private sector and drive out some of those crummy conditions?

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Last Thursday morning, at an unearthly hour, the Minister for Housing and I accompanied UK Border Agency officers and housing officials from the London borough of Ealing on a raid to deal with exactly such landlords with houses in multiple occupation. It was a successful operation and we detained a number of people who had no right to be in the country. Such partnership working between the London borough of Ealing and central Government is working well, and it is the kind of activity that we will continue.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am delighted that the Minister is tackling that one element, which has already been referred to, but last week the Attorney-General admitted that in 2011 and 2012 there was not a single prosecution of those breaching the national minimum wage. Would it not be a good idea, first, to impose the national minimum wage—enforce it properly—so that unscrupulous landlords could not turn people into virtual slaves in this country and, secondly, to double the fine?

[Mr Harper]

I am not quite sure what landlords have to do with the national minimum wage, but I think I answered the other part of the hon. Gentleman’s question in responding to one of his colleagues. The hon. Gentleman needs to explain why all those problems were singularly not dealt with when Labour was in power. Labour made mistakes on immigration and failed to apologise. Until it does, no one will take it seriously.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

23. Are the Government considering taking new powers to curb benefit tourism undertaken by Romanians and Bulgarians—welfare tourism that can only add to British public spending, not reduce it?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The committee that I am chairing will indeed consider how our benefit rules work. We want to ensure that we offer what we need to under the treaties, but no more. If we think that there is abuse of free movement rights, we will continue, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already started to do, to work with our European partners to drive out that abuse, which is what the people of this country want.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

We aim to process all applications from EEA residents promptly. When a case has to be referred for policy guidance, there are sometimes delays, particularly if policy has changed. We obviously try to keep those delays to a minimum.

[Mr Ward]

Many people think that “referring for policy guidance” is a euphemism for disappearing into a big black hole. I am particularly concerned about spouses’ applications for residence cards, which are delayed for a long period before they are dealt with. What checks are there to ensure that cases are not neglected and are not allowed to run on for an inordinate time?

[Mr Harper]

This is an area where there are often legal judgments by the European Court of Justice that we have to take into account. We have to change the immigration rules accordingly before we can process applications. That is the sort of thing that tends to cause the delays, rather than what my hon. Friend suggests. If he has any particular cases that have to be dealt with urgently for whatever reason, I suggest that he write to me and I will do what I can to expedite them.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

14. What steps she is taking to enable local communities to tackle antisocial behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

18. what steps she has taken to tackle human trafficking groups in their country of origin.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

The UK works closely with partners in source countries to disrupt organised human trafficking gangs. We work hard to apprehend criminals both in those countries and in the United Kingdom.

[Mr Amess]

What assessment has my hon. Friend made of section 14 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 in protecting the victims of trafficking in the UK domestic prostitution market?

[Mr Harper]

That issue was raised during a recent debate in Westminster Hall, and the Government continue to keep it under review. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that this afternoon I will meet officers of the all-party group on human trafficking, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), the Baroness Butler-Sloss and Anthony Steen, and I hope we will have further discussions in due course.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Minister believe that the sentences available to the courts are stringent enough to stop unscrupulous agents misleading and forcing women into harsh domestic labour and the sex industry in the United Kingdom?

[Mr Harper]

I think the sentences that are available are harsh enough. It is sometimes difficult to get evidence to prosecute people for the right offences. For example, people are often not necessarily prosecuted for trafficking offences when other offences are more easily proven. The range of sentencing powers is available: it is our job to make sure that they are properly used by prosecutors.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

19. What assessment she has made of the operational readiness of the National Crime Agency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

T4. What overall progress is the Minister making on reducing net migration into the UK to a more sustainable level?

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the last set of immigration statistics saw a fall of a quarter in net migration, and we are on track to reduce it from the unsustainable hundreds of thousands that it was under Labour to a much more sustainable tens of thousands, which is what the vast majority of the British public want.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

T5. The reality of the Government cuts is that local councils are switching off CCTV cameras and losing local antisocial behaviour officers; that local housing companies cannot get rid of problem tenants; that police stations are closing; and that neighbourhood policing is becoming more remote. Is the Home Secretary as concerned as I am about the retrenchment into a silo budget mentality, and if so, what will she do about it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Have Ministers seen the estimate from Migration Watch of 50,000 people migrating from Bulgaria and Romania? It has a good track record in these matters. May we have the earliest possible announcement of concrete results from the ministerial group on ease of access to benefits?

[Mr Harper]

I have indeed seen that forecast, but, as I said, I do not think that the Government engaging in speculative forecasts is helpful; what is helpful is our carrying on the work of the committee I am chairing on access to public services and benefits to ensure that we are not a soft touch. I am sure that my hon. Friend will support us in that valuable work.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

T7. We have seen some great co-operation between the UK and the EU on crime and justice through the European arrest warrant, as has been seen in the investigation into the sale of illegal horsemeat. May I therefore encourage the Government not to oppose the arrest warrant, to drop the work they are doing and to take a “mare” responsible attitude to this issue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary share my concern at the very small number of foreigners convicted in the summer 2011 riots who have been deported? What is going to be done about it?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend might be interested to know that we are actively pursuing deportation in 150 of those cases and have successfully removed 15 people already. The Government will continue to do so and I am confident that the vast majority of foreign national offenders involved in those riots will be removed from the country once their sentences are complete.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I welcome the inquiry that the Home Secretary has announced into undercover agents. Would it not be appropriate, at this stage at least, for the Home Secretary herself to give an apology to the parents of the dead children whose names were taken for undercover policing? What happened was absolutely disgraceful; such an apology is absolutely appropriate.

EU/Cape Verde Readmissions Agreement

Mark Harper Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

The Government have decided not to opt in at this stage to the draft Council decisions concerning the signature and conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (European Union Document Nos. 14237/12, COM(2012) 558; 14235/12, COM(2012) 557).

There is little illegal migration from Cape Verde to the UK, and our existing good bilateral arrangements allow us to make returns there where necessary. It would be possible for the UK to seek to participate in the agreement post adoption if these circumstances were to change.

Animal Experiments

Mark Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on securing the debate, which has been a good one. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) in the Chamber, standing in for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson).

I am pleased that colleagues have given me time to elaborate at length on all the points raised by my hon. Friend and other Members, including, in particular, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). First, however, I will set out a bit of context. I can do that because we have time left, so people will not think this is an excuse for not getting to my hon. Friend’s detailed questions.

The position of both coalition parties—I think it is shared on both sides of the House—is that we should license the use of animals only when it is essential and when there is no alternative. That is, indeed, Government policy, and it was the policy of the previous Government.

As several Members, including my hon. Friend, said, our current legislation—the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986—has recently been revised to transpose European directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. There were two key objectives in the new directive. One was to strengthen the protection of animals used in scientific procedures, and the other was to promote the three R’s—strategies that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in scientific procedures. The hon. Member for Bristol East asked about an academic post in that regard, and I will come to that in a little while.

The Government have fully embraced those aims in transposing the directive. The amended Act provides a high level of protection for animals. As several Members have made clear, work cannot be licensed if it could be carried out without using animals. The procedures must also cause the minimum possible suffering to the smallest number of animals of the lowest sensitivity.

We have taken the opportunity to place in the legislation absolute bans on the use of great apes and stray animals of domestic species. We have retained stricter United Kingdom standards, which provide for: special protection for cats, dogs and horses, in addition to non-human primates; protection for immature forms of birds and reptiles; larger enclosure and cage sizes for dogs and a number of other species; and more humane methods of killing animals. Those measures are necessary and justified on animal welfare grounds and to maintain public confidence that animals used in experiments and testing will continue to be properly protected.

At the same time, animal experiments continue, at the moment, to be necessary if improvements in health care are to be developed with the minimum of delay. It is a fact that our national health service would be unable to function effectively were it not for the availability of medicines and treatments that have been developed and tested through research using animals. Almost every form of conventional medical treatment has relied in part on the study of animals. That includes asthma treatments and medicines for ulcers, schizophrenia and depression, polio vaccine, and kidney dialysis and transplants—those are just a few examples.

While we accept that animal experiments are effective and necessary, they should be used only when the benefits have been carefully weighed against the costs to the animals; when there is no other way of achieving the desired result; when the procedures applied to the animals will cause the least suffering possible; when the minimum number of animals will be used to achieve the outcome; and when high standards of animal welfare are applied. That approach closely reflects what the public want. They understand the necessity and importance of using animal experiments in some areas, but they want the number of such experiments to be the minimum necessary.

[Roger Williams]

While animal welfare considerations must always be paramount, the use of animals in scientific procedures is extraordinarily expensive, so there is pressure in that sense to ensure that other forms of experimentation are used where appropriate.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is sometimes a caricature of those involved in research. If they had alternatives to using animals, they would implement them; they use animals because there are not currently alternatives in all cases. My hon. Friend puts his finger on the issue: the use of animals for experiments, particularly in a country such as the UK, which has high standards, is expensive. Companies use animals only because there are not more effective remedies. Also, they are conscious that they could develop effective alternatives that would also be more cost-effective. However costly—in several senses—animal experiments are, if there are no alternatives, those cannot be used; but many pressures are pushing researchers towards the use of alternatives when they are available, and that is welcome to all of us, including my hon. Friend.

We also accept that regulation must not be overly bureaucratic, so we have made some small but important changes, allowing us to simplify the detail required in personal licences and the way we process applications for them. Another important change in the revised Act is the requirement placed on member states to collect and publish statistical information, on not just the number of animals used, but the severity of the procedures applied to them. Publication of information about the experience of the animals will be an advance in transparency. Combined with the mandatory requirement to publish non-technical summaries of authorised projects, that will help to inform the parliamentary and public debate .

[Kerry McCarthy]

To what extent is security an issue affecting the making public of the kinds of testing that are going on? I do not agree with some of the more extreme, violent protests used to highlight animal testing. Would that prevent some experiments from being made public?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. This may be a good time to pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley about section 24 of the 1986 Act, which, as he said, currently prohibits the disclosure by Home Office Ministers and officials, other than in their discharge of functions under the Act, of confidential information about the use of animals in scientific procedures. There are two reasons for the provision. One relates to the hon. Lady’s point, and covers information that might put individuals at risk from those people who sadly are not content with democratic decision making and debate, but choose to use violence—something that we in the House would all abhor. In addition, the provision protects intellectual property. I think that I can say a little more on that than my hon. Friend did.

The Government agree that section 24 is not framed satisfactorily. There is little room for manoeuvre, and it acts somewhat as a blanket ban on disclosing information. It can, for example, make it difficult for Home Office inspectors to share good practice between establishments. The hon. Lady raised that, and so did my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley. The problem is that clear consensus about what we should do did not emerge in the recent public consultation on the transposition of the European directive—whether we should repeal the section or change it in some way. There was a range of views, and we wanted, as my hon. Friend said, to give it further thought. As to a timetable—I think that is what he was after—I can be a bit more specific. We are doing that work now, over the next six months, and aim to report our conclusions to Parliament before the House rises for the summer. I hope that that gives some reassuring firmness to the timetable.

The problem was that many of the people who responded to the consultation did not like the status quo, but there was no really clear sense of what to replace it with. We must be mindful of the two issues I raised: intellectual property, which it is legitimate for researchers to protect; and the extent to which we need to protect those involved in important work. Changes to the regime for animal welfare should be made by Parliament, after legitimate public debate. They should not happen because people take it on themselves to try to drive out of business through intimidation and violence those who conduct lawful work. Those are the things that we shall be thinking through: being as open as possible, but with those two constraints. I hope that that is helpful, and that that approach is widely shared in the House.

It is probably worth picking up the point about statistics, which my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and several other hon. Members raised. He is correct to say that the latest statistics, for 2011, showed that the number of animals used in experiments and testing was higher than it had been for some years. It was not the highest ever number. The high point was reached in statistics produced under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, which preceded the current legislation: in the 1970s about 5 million animals were used. Thus there has been a drop, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the number is going up.

An interesting point arises in that context, which brings me back to a point made by the hon. Member for Ashfield, about the United Kingdom’s reputation as a place to do life sciences and bioscience. I understand that that industry is growing in the UK, more quickly than the increase in the number of animals used; so the usage of animals for each £1 of research, or however one might characterise it, is falling, but more such work is being done in the UK. It seems to me that that is a good thing, because we want that work to be done here; we want those generally well-paid jobs to be in the United Kingdom. Also, because we have high standards of welfare in our animal testing regime, it is better for animals, if research is to take place anywhere in the world, for it to happen in the UK. However, if the size of the business in the UK grows, that may mean that even if the number of animals used for every given type of research falls, the overall number goes up.

Of course, the quickest way to reduce the number of animals would be to drive the work overseas, which would not be good for the United Kingdom, for jobs or for animal welfare. We must be thoughtful about the numbers. We should consider the size of the industry and the work that is being carried out, and whether we are driving down the proportion of animals being used in that work. We need to think about the global position. It is a coalition Government objective to get more of the life sciences business—the bioscience industry—in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Ashfield said, the Opposition support that, and if we attract such business here more quickly than we manage to deliver on the three R’s, the number of animals that are used will rise. However, we may be driving down the rate at which they are used, while the industry grows. That is a bit of a conundrum, and I do not have the answer, but it shows that care should be exercised in using statistics.

[Roger Williams]

The Minister makes a good point. I put a question to the Home Office about the number of animals used for experimentation in Wales, and was surprised that the figure had gone up; but after I visited Cardiff university, I understood that its success in attracting research funds, and its high status in life sciences and bioscience, was the reason for the rise.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was really only cautioning about the need to examine data and be careful about how we apply it. It is also worth commenting on the way statistics are set out, which was put into primary legislation. The most significant number relates to the breeding of genetically modified animals—largely mice. When the relevant table was designed, that was a small number at the end. Most of the animals that are bred—1.4 million mice—are used in other areas of research: they might well be used in medicine studies, or in fundamental biological research, but they are not categorised in that way. We need to be careful about categories and how we define uses. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said that only 13% of procedures relate to applied studies for human medicine or dentistry; but, of course, the remaining 87% includes fundamental research, which can involve any of the categories; and applied veterinary studies and the protection of man, animals and the environment also underpin much medical research. Again, therefore, it is worth being cautious about numbers and what we read into them.

Several hon. Members mentioned enforcement. It is no good having good legislation if we do not enforce it properly. The Home Office inspectorate picks up much of that work. The Home Office inspectors are skilled individuals. They are all registered medical or veterinary practitioners and usually have first-hand experience of biomedical research and possess higher scientific or clinical postgraduate qualifications. Their work underpins the 1986 Act. They provide advice to the Secretary of State on licence applications, and technical and operational advice on issues related to regulating animal experiments. They also visit the facilities where work is carried out, to check compliance with licences and certificates and to provide advice on applications and good practice.

The majority of visits are unannounced. The relationship between inspectors, licence holders and animal care staff is critical to our implementation of the regulatory framework. We want to be careful not to jeopardise that. The Government are committed to maintaining a strong, properly resourced inspectorate with a full programme of inspections.

There is no magic number of inspections. Under the revised Act, there is a risk assessment for determining the frequency of inspection. We look at the number and type of procedures that take place at an establishment; the severity of those procedures; the number and species of animals housed and used; any special conditions placed on the licences; the history of compliance of that institution; and any information that might come to light and indicate non-compliance with the terms of the licence. That means that inspectors focus their effort where they can be most effective.

The Government made two specific and important commitments on animal research and testing, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and Opposition Members. One was to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research, and the other was to end the testing of household products on animals.

The commitment to work to reduce the use of animals is ambitious. There is no quick fix, as people have acknowledged. We want genuine reductions that improve animal welfare. We must be careful not to drive work abroad to countries where, it is generally accepted, standards are lower and there may be less stringent guidelines. The strategy should be science-led and that is why we have asked the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research to take a leading role in its delivery.

That might be a good point to pick up something the hon. Member for Bristol East said. She referred to the Dr Hadwen Trust chair in replacements. We welcome that. Home Office officials meet that trust regularly and we look forward to seeing the impact of its professorial post. That is a welcome step towards the science of replacement methods and will contribute to our commitment. The hon. Lady raised the specific question about the extent to which it could be rolled out elsewhere. We will take that away and think about how we might practically do that.

The Home Office takes this issue very seriously. Lord Taylor of Holbeach this morning visited a research laboratory to observe the work. He also has a close relationship with the Minister for Universities and Science, and they work closely together on examining trends in the industry, attracting life sciences to the UK and the implications for regulating this area. There is a fair bit of joined-up activity between the Home Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

The hon. Lady also raised information sharing. I mentioned in connection with section 24 that that sometimes gets in the way of inspectors sharing best practice. We will think about that as we consider how we change that section. She also mentioned databases and alternatives to animal testing. Several databases already exist. A new role has been created of the named information officer, who, we hope, will be able to assist scientists in searching for alternatives. I have said this before, but I repeat that nobody really wishes to use animals when there are alternatives. We need to make it easier for those involved to seek those alternatives and use them where we can.

Several other issues were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and supported by others. The number of procedures conducted for testing household products and their ingredients has fallen since 1997. There were no procedures under that heading in 2011. We have already announced our commitment to end testing household products on animals, to be implemented using licensing powers under the 1986 Act. We will put a condition on the relevant product licences. We have consulted on that to get a working definition of “household product”, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol East. We are close to finalising a definition that we think will be workable—there is no point having one that is not. We will make an announcement on that in due course.

Several responses to the consultation favoured inclusion of ingredients in the ban, a point made by the hon. Lady. That is a bit more complicated than it might at first appear. Some substances used as ingredients in household products can have other uses. There are also ingredients, such as chemicals and biocides, that under other legislation have mandatory safety testing requirements that involve using animals. Therefore, it is quite a difficult area. We are in the process of thinking the matter through to come up with something that is workable and sensible, but does not have a chain of unforeseen consequences. It is complicated, and an obvious answer did not present itself during the consultation. I assure the hon. Lady that we are thinking and working on that, but rushing to do it and getting it wrong would not be helpful. I hope that she can take it on trust for the moment that the thought processes are under way. I have listened carefully to what she and my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said and will feed that into our thinking.

My hon. Friend also talked about the mid-term review. He was slightly concerned by the use of the past tense. That was simply because it was a mid-term review, looking back over the first period of government. However, we are very much in the present tense in terms of continuing work. The national centre I talked about is actively pursuing a wide range of initiatives, including increased funding for three R’s work in universities. It supports innovation in the three R’s through its CRACK IT programme. It looks at new disciplines such as engineering and mathematics to reduce animal use. I think the hon. Member for Bristol East touched on that when she talked about the professorial post.

Other initiatives include working with regulators to reduce animal use, investment in education and training and support for stem cell and tissue engineering technologies. There is quite a lot of work going on led by experts in their field. That is what we want: a science-led approach to driving some of the change. That was touched on by my hon. Friend, and by the hon. Lady when she spoke about those involved in the business having alternative methods of delivering testing and safety assessments.

My hon. Friend also talked about the animals in science committee—the advisory committee that is in the process of being set up. There will be a working protocol agreed with the committee chair that sets up the size and qualifications of the committee. That working protocol will be published and will set out the issues that will be automatically submitted to the committee for advice. It will also cover important issues such as the promotion of the three R’s.

My hon. Friend talked about the use of non-human primates and their importation. Many people have a particular concern about the use of non-human primates in scientific research. It is a small part of animal research compared with overall usage, but it is an important part. In the UK, we use small numbers of non-human primates for developing and testing vaccines against some of the world’s largest killers, such as malaria, HIV/AIDS and TB, and for the potential future treatment of degenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. The majority—about three quarters—of the primates used in 2011 were used for the safety testing of medicines.

Most such primates are sourced outside the UK, where animals of the right quality are readily available—I am afraid that that comes down to our not-brilliant climate. For those particular animals, rearing them in the UK is not viable, as they would have to be reared inside. It is much easier to rear them outside in overseas locations, which makes the process more productive. Banning their importation would harm essential work. However, what is important, as my hon. Friend said, is for those who import the animals to ensure that the suppliers they deal with have proper controls and processes in place so that, in the breeding part of the operation, the animals are well treated.

My hon. Friend also talked about the personal licence system, which identifies the individual, the place where the work will be carried out, the species authorised for use and the types of techniques. Granting a licence depends, as it did previously, on a demonstration that the person has done the appropriate training, both for the species they are using and the techniques they are carrying out. The application requires a declaration by the local named training and competence officer to confirm that that level of training has been carried out by the applicant, and that the list of species that may be authorised is similar to the previous descriptions provided by applicants. It is also similar to a list used for the statistical returns. It is personal to the individual, which is important—when we debated the transposition of the directive, the personal link was felt to be welcome and valuable—and so it is not transferable to someone else. Furthermore, not only training, but the practical work experience under supervision, is important. That is something that the Home Office inspectors can monitor on their visits—not only someone’s initial training, but the practical experience under supervision to ensure compliance with the terms of the personal licence.

The hon. Member for Bristol East asked a couple of questions to do with cosmetics. She rightly noted that the UK banned the testing of finished cosmetics and ingredients in 1997 and 1998, because the Government considered the justification for using animals to be inadequate given the benefits of the products and the alternative tests available. She also referred to the European cosmetics directive; the EU banned animal testing for finished cosmetics in 2004 and for ingredients in 2009. To meet the requirements of the directive, a partial marketing ban was also implemented in 2009. It banned the supply of cosmetics for which animal tests had been carried out anywhere in the world, but did not extend to the test for the three most complex human effects of testing. A full marketing ban, which includes such tests and to which the hon. Lady referred, is expected to come into effect on 11 March, regardless of the fact that validated replacement tests are not available.

The ban is not a complete sales ban on all animal-tested cosmetics. Some parts of the world, as discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders), insist on animal testing as a regulatory requirement, so products subject to such a regime are not banned from the EU. Nevertheless, animal testing to meet the requirements of EU cosmetics legislation will be prohibited once the marketing ban enters into force. That is a bit complicated, and I have probably made things less clear, rather than clearer. The impetus, however, will come from consumer pressure, which the hon. Lady talked about, and transparency. Moreover, as other countries develop, as their consumers become more sophisticated—as happened in this country—and as their legislative processes improve, they will come under pressure on such issues. It is helpful, working through the Foreign Office and elsewhere, for us to explain what we have done in the UK and the EU to set our standards, to show that we can deliver on testing when necessary, or simply to lead by example when it is not necessary. We can all participate in that.

The hon. Member for Bristol East mentioned enforcement of the marketing ban, which does indeed fall to local authority trading standards, on which the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills leads. I will talk to my colleagues in BIS to see where that issue has got to and how it is being rolled out to trading standards departments. It may be rather dreadful to hand the action over to my colleagues, but I will ask them to look into the subject and to write to the hon. Lady. I will put a copy of the reply in the Library. I suspect that she will then use that information to go and duff up her local trading standards organisation, to ensure that it is fully engaged in that important work.

I hope that I have set out the Government’s approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley made a wide-ranging speech. I think I have addressed all his questions, as well as those asked by the hon. Member for Ashfield, who spoke for the Opposition. I am grateful for the shared work with the Opposition on the subject; when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and I debated the transposition of the directive, she was machine-gunning her questions at me, so it did not feel entirely as if we were on the same side, but I machine-gunned all the answers back. A lot of the work in this area, however, which we supported, was done when the Labour party was in government, and now we are taking things forward with support from the Opposition.

The United Kingdom has a good reputation for delivering expertise in science and research, which is recognised throughout the world, and for doing so while delivering high standards of animal welfare and minimising the use of animals in research. That sends out all the right messages. Working together, we can continue to move in the right direction, minimising the use of animals, using them only when absolutely necessary and, if we do use them, having the highest possible standards. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley for the debate, which has been an excellent opportunity.