Immigration: Overseas Students

Lord Rees of Ludlow Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)]

My Lords, I add my welcome and congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I declare an interest as a member of Cambridge University, where, in round numbers, 20% of undergraduates and 60% of graduate students are from abroad—from the EU and the rest of the world. The proportions in other universities are not very different. Overall, the UK is second only to the US in attracting foreign students. There is a general consensus in our universities that this is a plus. Rather parochially, for instance, foreign students help sustain specialised courses that would not be viable without them, and our standing in university league tables depends on our universities remaining a magnet for international talent. It is surely a real own goal to discourage the brightest from coming here by vexatious visa requirements and a declared reluctance to let even the brightest stay on afterwards.

Under the coalition Government, as we have heard, there were clearly tensions between BIS, where the key Ministers were mindful of these issues, and the Home Office, where the priority was to cut net immigration. The restrictions generated a damaging perception that the UK was no longer welcoming. It was especially disquieting that the number of Indian students coming here halved in just four years. Students from the subcontinent no longer look towards the UK, as their parents’ generation did. Not only in India but everywhere else, UK-educated students are a big potential component of our soft power. It is a huge benefit when people we deal with around the world are familiar with the UK and have a lifelong network of contacts with this country.

Incidentally, such contacts can be especially valuable when they straddle national barriers where there are tensions or hostilities. A high-level recent instance of this, far from these shores, was the recent nuclear deal with Iran. The Iranian Minister and the US Secretary of Energy had been PhD students together in the same department at MIT. They knew and respected each other. This building of confidence surely eased the path to a difficult agreement. Surely we should promote exchanges globally.

Of course, what is looming large at the moment is the risk that our large-scale exchanges with mainland Europe will be threatened by Brexit. That is depressing because the strengthening of these links, especially in science, has been one of the really positive developments stemming from the EU. Forty years ago, our main scientific exchanges were with the US. I met my European contemporaries because we all went to the US. Now Europe-wide academia is far stronger and more interactive. Fresh graduates migrate from the UK to France, Holland, Germany and Italy, and there is a reverse flow into this country.

In my university there is an especially strong cohort of EU undergraduates, many from Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and other nations with a strong academic tradition. If we did not accept them, they would go to top US universities. Surely we are right to welcome them in this country, not only for what they bring to us but because they help to develop a pan-European community and culture. Indeed, it is well known that the younger generation are more pro-EU than their elders. These students see themselves as Europeans with a shared culture. They hope that our continent can be a progressive political force in a turbulent and multipolar world, where the challenges—be they in energy or climate—cannot be tackled at national level.

Finally, I will highlight two reasons why, even with a supportive visa regime, our universities will face growing challenges. First, the status of English as a world language has long been a benefit to us but this uncovenanted advantage is being eroded by the initiation of courses taught in English in the countries of mainland Europe. These compete with us and if we are perceived as unwelcoming we will lose out to them.

A second important trend is the advent of massive online open courses, known as MOOCs. These have perhaps been somewhat overhyped. The internet can supplement but not replace the undergraduate experience. However, they have a chance of succeeding as stand-alone courses in providing vocational master’s-level courses, taken by highly motivated mature students. Residential courses in, for instance, law and business studies are current money-spinners for universities, so it concerns their budgeteers that the growing availability of MOOCs will reduce the willingness of students to pay for expensive traditional courses. The corollary of this is that universities in this country should not leave MOOCs to the Americans; they should work hard to liaise with the Open University, which has a world lead, to develop these MOOCs so that we can play a part in this growing new market for distance learning.

Even if the winds were otherwise in our favour, there would be problems in sustaining current student levels. The self-imposed handicaps of the Home Office, which aggravate the task of attracting the best students, are therefore especially to be deplored. That is why we should resonate with the concerns expressed by so many speakers today, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for initiating this debate.

Civilian Use of Drones (EUC Report)

Lord Rees of Ludlow Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)]

My Lords, this debate is welcome and timely. Although I have recently joined the EU sub-committee, I was not a member at the time of this report, so my comments are independent and perhaps peripheral to the main thrust, although I shall focus entirely on civilian drones.

The report highlights the potential economic and social benefits that could stem from drones and the importance of encouraging the expanding manufacturing and technical advances in the sector. But there are much-publicised downsides, and regulations governing their usage will be hard-pressed to keep up with the pace of innovation. There are plainly civilian contexts where drones can be hugely and unambiguously valuable: in farming, in surveillance, in disaster management and in reaching remote or dangerous locations. Here, there is a clear net benefit. But the report makes clear that the mass market will depend on two developments: first, growth in the amateur and recreational community, whose numbers could run into millions; and, secondly, deployment of small drones in cities and built-up areas for deliveries and so forth. Indeed, there are commercial operators who aspire to use drones to revolutionise online retailing and fast-food deliveries. A US company recently put on the market a miniaturised drone only slighter larger than an iPhone.

I am concerned that the report, in its wish to encourage an emerging high-tech industry, might be underestimating the level of nuisance that could stem from proliferation of these machines. For the larger and longest-range drones, the report accepts that air safety requirements need to be analogous to those required for manned aircraft. It is realistic to expect a high degree of compliance with these rules, because the handlers of these larger machines will be skilled and will be using upmarket and reliable machines. Big drones can be as robust as aircraft, and they can be well instrumented.

However, the situation is surely different for the smaller and cheaper machines. The regulations for their construction and robustness cannot realistically be as stringent. But more than that, my worry is that the level of compliance, even with more relaxed regulations, will not be as high for these small machines as for the bigger drones—not only because of intentional violations but because of mechanical failures, loss of control or errors made by inexpert users. These small and slow-moving drones are vulnerable to winds, turbulence and the unsteady airflows near buildings. Except in very calm conditions, they may prove genuinely hard to control. There is a need to regulate against intrusion and invasion of privacy. There need to be safeguards against them entering prohibited areas or getting too close to buildings. This will be ever more important as numbers proliferate. So even the smallest drone should be required to carry some kind of identification mark so that ownership can be traced.

Some claim that we can be reassured by an analogy with traditional model aircraft enthusiasts, who have pursued their hobby harmlessly for decades. But these people are all skilled and tech-savvy. Moreover, their activities are restricted to open areas suitable for flying, where line-of-sight contact can be reliably sustained. Neither of those requirements will be true for the mini-drones and most of their users. Realistically, as these small drones proliferate into swarms, the likely outcome will be a burgeoning rate of mishaps and infringements of regulations. That will lead to a rising nuisance level for us all and a lot of unproductive time being devoted by police and regulators to dealing with violations—tracking offenders and calling them to account. There are many examples already. In California, pilots engaged in firefighting had to ground their planes when it was reported that five drones were flying around to get close-up views of the fires. In one case, someone attached a small gun to a drone. Such concerns have led to wide debate in the United States and to many different regulations at state level and proposed moratoria on drone use in some cities.

Obviously, there will be pressure from potential pizza deliverers and suchlike against any such ban—and such a ban might indeed be an overreaction. On the other hand, it is unclear what range of uses will be acceptable in built-up areas, where the drones would be automated and not controlled by someone within the line of sight—still less by an expert. There is plainly pressure to exploit the commercial opportunities of what is undoubtedly an exciting new technology. The regulations proposed by the EU may well be balanced and appropriate, but whatever the regulations say, it is surely a safe prediction that there will be many infringements—invasions of privacy, annoyances and accidents, which could sometimes be serious. Indeed, there could then be a public backlash. For that reason, the net benefits, at least of the cheap microdrones, are far from obvious.

Regulations need to achieve a delicate balance between the multiple competing interests of legitimate commercial uses and policing, public safety and privacy concerns, and this has to take place against a background of fast-advancing technology. It would be wrong for regulations to suppress innovation in this area; on the other hand, we should surely recognise that it is not clear how bright the commercial future of this sector is or what degree of welcome these innovations will actually get from the public.

Multiculturalism: Interfaith Dialogue

Lord Rees of Ludlow Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rees of Ludlow]

My Lords, speakers in this debate have focused on the crucial need for dialogue among the different faith traditions but we are an increasingly secular nation. I speak as an unbeliever but one who has been nourished by the cultural, musical and liturgical traditions of the English Church in which I was brought up. Many Jews sustain their Friday ritual in their homes, even though they describe themselves as atheists. By analogy I am a tribal Christian, practising but not believing.

I speak today because I am concerned about a troubling trend spearheaded by some scientists—vocal intolerance of those who profess any faith. This kind of stand-off between science on the one hand and faith in general on the other is harmful to both. Science should be a unifying force. It pervades all our lives and it is a truly global culture. Protons, proteins and Pythagoras are the same from China to Peru. The pursuit of scientific understanding straddles all barriers of nationality and faith. We can all share the wonder and mystery of the natural world.

Charles Darwin said about religion that,

“the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can”.

That is, of course, a glaringly different stance from that adopted by some of Darwinism’s most strident proponents today.

Of course, we should all oppose the teachings of views manifestly in conflict with the evidence, such as creationism. But we can aspire to peaceful coexistence with the less dogmatic strands of mainstream faiths. Indeed, many researchers and teachers of science are religious. They have no problems with Darwinism; they can study cosmology and at the same time proclaim that the,

“heavens declare the glory of God”.

Indeed, I think that it is teachers with faith who can be most effective in defending evolutionary science against attempts to inject creationism and intelligent design into the school science curriculum. A less conciliatory approach can backfire. If scientists take the uncompromising line that Darwinism is incompatible with any belief, many young people raised in a faith-based culture will stay loyal to their religion and be lost, quite unnecessarily, to science.

This stand-off is counterproductive for another reason. Extremist zealots imperil us all, whether they are traditional fundamentalists or new-age cults, and we need the broadest alliance we can muster against them. That alliance should surely include the adherence of most mainstream faiths that support science and who are equally anxious about extremism. Indeed, we are fortunate in this nation’s current religious leaders who all elevate the tone of public debate. Their role is crucial. Society must be guided by the knowledge that 21st-century science can offer, but even a secular society needs the idealism, vision and commitment that science alone cannot provide.