Scientific Research and Development

Debate between Baroness Wilcox and Lord Taverne

Monday 7th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, the Government recognise that investment in science and research are key to long-term competitiveness and growth. Therefore, we have protected the ring-fenced science and research programme at £4.6 billion per year from 2011-12 to 2015-16. Furthermore, we have committed to providing £1.1 billion a year of science capital spending, increasing with inflation.

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Wilcox (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his helpful response to my rather stuttered Question. I am afraid that I got overtaken by what has happened thus far concerning what we should say and what we should and should not read. If I can remember to ask the question as I intended to, I want to know what the long-term framework for science and innovation is. We all agree that we ought to have advance notice and enough time for some of the bigger programmes to put their financing together but do the Government have anything planned in the long term for science and innovation?

Corporate Governance

Debate between Baroness Wilcox and Lord Taverne

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, there is in all quarters deep concern about the inequalities of pay in industry, which have increased dramatically in recent years. The Government could do something practical about that in this House. Will they seriously consider looking again at the schedule and the timetable for the Second Reading of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Gavron, which would give us an early opportunity to debate it? Will they also give it a fair wind, so that this Bill, in one form or another, can find early expression in the law and make quite a difference to the present situation?

[Baroness Wilcox]

I am sure that the usual channels will discuss the matter and we will come back to the noble Lord.

Sellafield

Debate between Baroness Wilcox and Lord Taverne

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wilcox]

There are residual liabilities, and we will have to work out exactly what we are going to do. Can we turn the existing plutonium stocks from the MOX plants from a liability into an asset? That is an area that we must look at and see what we can do. The Government consulted earlier this year on their preferred policy option for dealing with all those stockpiles and will confirm their position later this year. I thank my noble friend for his question.

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, in dealing with the future of nuclear sights, will the Government draw the public’s attention to the fact that most fears about radiation are enormously exaggerated?

[Baroness Wilcox]

I fully agree with my noble friend’s statement.

Companies: Executive Remuneration

Debate between Baroness Wilcox and Lord Taverne

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wilcox]

I suppose what the noble Lord is really asking about is directors’ pay and fairness. That is where we all are now. I think we would all agree that there must be a robust link between the pay of those who run companies and the performance of those companies; that rewards for failure are not acceptable; and that exceptional rewards for mediocre performance are not in anybody’s best interest. I can assure noble Lords that this Government are very interested in making sure that companies are run well and that there is fairness in distribution on the payment for everybody in a company.

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, in the previous Parliament, the noble Lord, Lord Gavron, introduced a Bill, widely supported on all sides of the House, that provided for publication in the annual report of public companies of the ratio that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, talked about. Would it not be a very simple matter for the Government to introduce that Bill? It would be a very effective way of naming and shaming.

[Baroness Wilcox]

My Lords, before I came to your Lordships' House today to answer this Question, I rather thought that this question was going to come from the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who commented greatly on the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Gavron, when it was debated in 2009. The question on that Bill, which will fit with the questions I have been asked now, was: should the AGM meeting vote on the directors’ remuneration report be binding instead of advisory?