Debates between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Taverne during the 2010-2015 Parliament

Scientific Research and Development

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Taverne
Monday 7th July 2014

(10 years, 3 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Portrait Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
- Hansard - -

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.

Baroness Wilcox Portrait Baroness Wilcox (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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?

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Portrait Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
- Hansard - -

As the noble Lord may be aware, the Government have a series of thematic priorities covering a range of things from agriculture and food to the built environment, the digital economy, energy, and health and care. Healthcare providers are also included in this, and these thematic priorities will formulate part of the strategy for 2014, to which I have alluded.

Lord Taverne Portrait Lord Taverne
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I apologise for my premature intervention. Are the Government aware—I am sure they are—that vice-chancellors are deeply concerned about the possibility of our exit from the European Union? This would have a devastating effect on scientific research and development in our universities.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Portrait Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
- Hansard - -

The Government’s position is quite clear. The European Union has benefits and the Government wish to see a renegotiated Union—something that I think many noble Lords share. The Prime Minister has stood up for British interests. Universities are working closely with business and others, and the UK continues to be among the top in terms of research. Looking at some of the statistics, the UK has, for example, won 85 Nobel prizes for science and technology, and we plan that that should continue with the new strategy.

Drugs Policy

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Taverne
Thursday 26th June 2014

(10 years, 4 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Portrait Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
- Hansard - -

First, I pay tribute to the work the noble Baroness has done in this field. She has brought to the fore on many occasions the importance of reviewing drugs policy. The Government have taken a broad view of this. If we look at the statistics, it is commendable that drug usage domestically is down and we have seen a greater emphasis being put on helping people overcome drugs issues. Nevertheless, she may well be aware that there is an international comparators report due within the next two to three months, and we will be reviewing what we find in terms of best practice across a range of countries, not just within the EU.

Lord Taverne Portrait Lord Taverne (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, will the Government support the modernisation of schedule 1 through an evidence-based review process so that the great advances in medical science in the UK and elsewhere can be reflected in the wider availability of drugs for medical use?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Portrait Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
- Hansard - -

I have already said that we are constantly reviewing our drugs policy to ensure that what we do is based on prevention and cure but also on enforcement. Evidence has shown that our current balanced approach is paying dividends and we need to ensure that we do not have a knee-jerk reaction to what is being proposed. I have already mentioned the comparators report, and other reviews internally will ensure that we continue to have a balanced view of this particularly sensitive area.