This is matter that is delegated to individual Departments in the Civil Service.

This information is a matter for departments.

The ban on testing animals on household products includes any chemical where more than half of it is expected to be used as an ingredient in household products. The only exceptions are tests legally required to protect humans, animals or the environment, or a small number of cases where a "strong justification" can be made for which we will apply a robust harm-benefit analysis. We will monitor the application of these exceptions closely.

The Annual Statistical Returns on the use of animals in Scientific Procedures do not specify the purpose of use of chemical ingredients. One of the reasons we want to have a notification system is to get better understanding of what, why and for what purposes ingredients primarily used in household products are tested. We estimate that on average, Contract Research Organisations in the UK test a small number of ingredients per year (around 8 or fewer) for which the testing is required by regulation and which are primarily for use in household products. From 1st October 2015 businesses will be required to report the testing within 30 days of having it carried out.

The UK has one of the most comprehensive animal welfare systems in the world to ensure animal testing is carried out humanely and only when necessary. This ban is a big step forwards that significantly raises the bar on the use of animals in testing and goes beyond that of other European countries. It demonstrates a continuing commitment to safeguard animal welfare and advance the use of the 3Rs principles (replacement, refinement and reduction) in research and development. The UK remains at the forefront of global work to develop alternatives to animal testing.

On 24 March, we will be publishing a detailed report on the progress this coalition is making on investment in low-carbon energy, but let me now share two findings from that report ahead of next week’s publication. First, for the second year running the UK has invested more in clean energy than any other country in Europe, Secondly, Bloomberg new energy finance data show that last year was the UK’s

best ever year for new-build renewable energy finance, placing the UK in the global top five. I promise, Mr Speaker, to give each Member in turn a new statistic showing how the UK is doing so well on low-carbon energy investment.

I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman make that point. There has been a great improvement in bills, which are much simpler now. Furthermore, the energy suppliers must now inform consumers if a lower tariff is available, even if it involves different payment methods. However, if there is an issue I shall be happy to look into it. and the hon. Gentleman should also contact Ofgem.

One of our purposes in setting up and investing in the Big Energy Saving Network was to ensure that vulnerable people could obtain face-to-face advice, and organisations such as citizens advice bureaux, Age Concern and National Energy Action are funded and trained to deliver that advice.

The hon. Gentleman knows that my party and I are in favour of this target, which is why we legislated in the Energy Act 2013 to put one in and it will be in our manifesto. But he is wrong if he thinks this target is some sort of panacea for low-carbon energy investment. We were told by the Labour party that if we did not do this, we would not see the supply chain growing. But here is a statistic for him: the supply chain in the UK for low-carbon energy investment is booming. We have had the massive investment from Siemens and Associated British Ports in Hull, transforming that city, and we have seen what MHI Vestas has been doing in the Isle of Wight. Under this Government, low-carbon energy investment and the whole supply chain are booming.

We have opened up the delivery of rehabilitation services to a diverse range of public, private and voluntary sector providers, who will only be paid in full if they are successful at reducing reoffending. Rehabilitation support has also been extended to an extra 45,000 offenders on sentences of less than 12 months, who previously received little if any support on release and have the highest reoffending rates.

I am pleased the hon. Gentleman recognises that we have a long-term economic plan that is also successful—two things that the Labour party does not have. The previous Government removed people who were about to become long-term unemployed from the claimant count by putting them on training programmes. We have stopped that charade and now have an honest measure. We have a record number of women in work, a record female employment rate, a record number of older women in work, a record older female employment rate, and a female participation rate that is close to the highest on record—a record of which I am very proud.

Female long-term unemployment has fallen by more than 90,000 on the year—the largest annual fall on record––to 237,000, demonstrating the success of the Government’s long-term economic plan.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it was the previous Labour Government who in 2006 set these eye-watering redundancy payments for the NHS, and we have committed to making sure we reform and change that. Therefore, as part of our negotiations and pay offer to NHS staff we want to introduce a redundancy

cap of £80,000. Since many Opposition Members are supported by trade unions, I hope they will encourage union members to back that pay and redundancy cap.

I am delighted to report that I have met colleagues from across the House and patient representatives of that campaign on a number of occasions. We have appointed the chair and made sure that the terms of reference for the inquiry are clear and comprehensive. It is not, I stress, a judicial inquiry; it is a medical inquiry looking at the evidence.

Over the four and a half years between May 2010 and October 2014, 5,210 people—equivalent to, annually, less than 0.1% of the NHS work force—have been made redundant and then returned to work elsewhere in the NHS.

There are no legal restrictions on dogs which have been de-barked outside the UK being kept for breeding, supply or use in procedures at scientific establishments licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

However we consider that the Establishment Licence Standard Condition 4(2) ‘Any restrictions on the extent to which an animal can satisfy its physiological and ethological needs shall be kept to the minimum’ is relevant and we would strongly discourage stakeholders considering doing it for welfare and reputational risk reasons. We are not aware of any such dogs being kept at establishments licensed under the 1986 Act.

The Home Office would not authorise the cutting of vocal cords of dogs under the 1986 Act. We cannot envisage any scenario where that would be acceptable unless it were for the health and well-being of the individual animal with the procedure conducted under Veterinary Surgeons Act.

The first session of intergovernmental negotiations on the Sustainable Development Goals has concluded. The Open Working Group proposal includes 17 goals and 169 targets. The UK supports the breadth and balance of the proposal but will be arguing for a more concise and workable agenda as negotiations progress.

The financial accountability system for academies is more rigorous than for maintained schools, and my Department has recently received audited financial statements from academy trusts for the period to 31 August 2014. Within financial statements, trusts must set out how they have managed their finances throughout the year. Financial statements are subject to independent scrutiny by auditors. My staff are reviewing financial statements to determine whether there are any issues that we need to investigate.

The financial statements are both audited and published, and of course academies, as companies, are also subject to Companies House reporting,

as well as to working with the Education Funding Agency. It is therefore clear that academies’ financial statements are already open for scrutiny, and the Department takes a close interest in the figures that are published.

Of almost 22.4 million attendances at all accident and emergency departments in England in 2014, 94.5% of patients were seen within the four hour standard. Of these, just over 1.2 million patients spent over four hours in accident and emergency from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge.