Exiting the EU: Science and Research

Debate between Jim Shannon and Liz McInnes

Monday 19th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I’m one.

[Liz McInnes]

You’ll get your chance.

Looking at British science, it is well known that Britain punches well above its weight in the international university league tables. It does so mainly thanks to EU grants. It is not awash with funding, and in fact has the lowest per capita spending on research of any G7 country.

The referendum outcome has led to uncertainty about its implications for the higher education sector. It is easy to trot out the phrase “Brexit means Brexit”, but, as ever, the devil is in the detail and, for the sake of the future of science and research in this country, that detail cannot be glossed over in a soundbite. There are two aspects of the human and intellectual cost of Brexit for universities. The first is the potential for another brain drain. The second is the potential restrictions on overseas research students.

I say another brain drain as it sadly would be nothing new. Many senior figures in British universities remember the lack of support from the Thatcher Government in the ’80s and the exodus of scientists abroad. It is ironic that the four British Nobel prize winners this year, Duncan Haldane, David Thouless, Michael Kosterlitz and Sir Fraser Stoddart, are all based in the US, having been forced out during the 1980s brain drain. British research scientists are worried that the Prime Minister’s mantra of “Brexit means Brexit” will lead to a lack of funding and grants for British science and the potential for a modern-day brain drain.

Added to that is the potential for UK universities to become less attractive to international research students. The vice-chancellors of the London School of Economics, King’s College, London, and Bristol have already voiced their fears about recruitment of international students, and the serious potential financial and human resource consequences for our universities.

The vice-chancellor of Cambridge University, Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, is a stalwart remainer, but in common with many who voted to remain, he is a pragmatist and wants Cambridge to get the best out of Brexit. He says that to achieve this the Government must provide some basic clarity on what exactly Brexit means. He is asking for three things from the Government: clarity on the national status of university staff; a recognition of the collaborative ideal implicit in EU projects; and a Government guarantee of vital university budgets.

I hope the vice-chancellor’s requests will be heeded by the Government. He is, after all, what some might regard as something of an expert. Although the people of this country were urged not to listen to experts during the referendum, on this subject, and indeed on many others affected by the Brexit negotiations, it is absolutely vital that the Government pay heed to our finest minds. They are not asking for a running commentary; they are asking for clarity and a coherent, informed plan as to the exact nature and manner of our departure from the EU. The EU makes substantial financial contributions to research in UK universities. Research funding from the EU amounts to around £l billion per year, while our own national research budget is below international averages.

I represent a Greater Manchester constituency and universities across our region have more than 4,000 EU students currently on campuses. That equates to spending of £90 million per year not just on tuition fees, but on expenditure in the local economy. Manchester University, which is 29th in the world’s top 100 universities, received £48 million in research funding in the past two years alone. The loss of such substantial funding and a failure to attract EU students could not fail to have a detrimental effect on our area. I cannot lay claim to a connection with Mr Higgs, but in a recent interview on the effect of Brexit one of Manchester University’s most famous academics, Professor Brian Cox—who, like me, was born in Oldham—said:

“The central issue for science is that it’s a global pursuit. I work at the Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva. That’s a global project. The thing scientists and universities are most worried about is movement of people around the world. We need to say this is a country where you’re welcome to live and study and do science. But at the moment, the image we’re representing to Europe and the rest of the world isn’t the right one.”

State Pension Age: Women

Debate between Jim Shannon and Liz McInnes

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for securing it and for giving us all a chance to speak. It was a pleasure to join him and others in going to the Backbench Business Committee—this debate is the result of a combined request from many of us here in the Chamber. It is good to see a goodly number of Opposition Members, although there are perhaps not so many Government Members.

I welcome this debate, which was secured with a great work ethic. If people do not work, they do not eat. If people pay their dues, they reap what they sow. That is the premise on which an entire generation was raised, but I have been told that the dues have been uplifted and that, for some, the harvest is not due for another three and a half years, so they have to keep slogging on.

That might seem okay. What is three and a half years in the grand scheme of things? It is not that long. I want the House to consider a lady who left school at 14, as was then permissible, to work in a local sewing factory. She worked there for the next 35 years, until the factory was closed and relocated abroad. With no education and no skills, she took on a job cleaning the floors of schools and buildings, which she has done on her hands and knees for the past 11 years. For that lady to wait another three and a half years is not a small thing—it is more years of an aching back, fingers that remain bent and knees that are worn away.

[Liz McInnes]

I have a constituent who describes herself as “June ’54 and furious.” One source of her fury, apart from having to wait for her pension, is that she is having to wait for her entitlement to winter fuel allowance and a bus pass. We need to remember that it is not just about pensions; it is about things that will help these women in their declining years as their health declines. Small things are adding to my constituent’s fury.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is very clear. Many of my constituents are equally furious. They might not have been born in June ’54, but they are equally furious. The lady she mentions and the lady I spoke about, who worked for 35 years in a sewing factory and 11 years in a school, are representative of ladies across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

International Human Rights Day

Debate between Jim Shannon and Liz McInnes

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, I do, and I have already put that on the record in debates in Westminster Hall.

I am particularly pleased to have secured this debate alongside the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is sitting across the way; she is a dear friend who is well respected in this House. There have been many debates in this House on human rights themes in relation to specific countries, but we have not, to my knowledge, in the time of this Government or the previous one, had a wide-ranging debate with an opportunity to review the human rights situation around the world and the different ways in which Britain—this great nation—has responded to the challenges so far. The House of Lords has had several such debates, and I welcome this opportunity to do likewise.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office publishes an annual report on human rights, as well as quarterly updates. May I suggest that we consider having an annual debate in Government time in the main Chamber of this House to coincide with the release of the annual report, giving the House as a whole an opportunity to respond to it?

It is vital that we discuss human rights today, on international human rights day, when we commemorate the adoption 67 years ago of the universal declaration of human rights by the UN General Assembly. The declaration was written to provide a common standard for all peoples and nations of which individuals and societies should strive to secure effective recognition and observance. It has helped to shape policy around the world and paved the way for nine legally binding human rights treaties, including the international covenants on civil and political rights and on economic, social and cultural rights, which were both adopted in 1966 and which more than 160 states have ratified.

Despite these treaties, the human rights and basic freedoms we enjoy in this country are under sustained and severe attack in many other parts of the world. Some 67 years on from the declaration’s adoption, the preamble is worth recording in Hansard, because it is very relevant today:

“disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people”.

That is what we should focus our attention on.

The first three articles of the declaration make it clear that human rights are not confined by geography, territoriality, culture or religion. As its name suggests, they are universal—for everyone—and as the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, has underlined, it is not called the partial declaration of human rights or the sometimes declaration of human rights. Article 1 unequivocally states:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Article 2 states:

“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction…or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”

Article 3 insists:

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

These and the following 27 articles should provide the framework for this debate and our foreign policy.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

When I was a trade union representative, I went on a training course about the Human Rights Act 1998, and one thing that has always stayed with me is that the Act was introduced to prevent another holocaust from happening. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, were this country to scrap the Act, it would send a terrible message to the rest of the world?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, I do agree. The Human Rights Act is an integral part of this debate, as I think contributions from across the Chamber today will confirm.

Despite everything I have said, freedom of expression, including freedom of the press, is denied in many countries. Journalists, dissidents and bloggers have been arrested, imprisoned or murdered in countries such as China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Russia, Cuba, Egypt and Iran. Women’s rights are abused in many places through rape and sexual violence in conflict. Can we begin to understand the violence, barbarity and horror of what that means? Such things have occurred in parts of Burma and the Democratic Republic of Congo; such acts have been carried out by religious extremists in India and Pakistan; in countries such as Saudi Arabia women are denied basic freedoms. In addition, the rights of children are under attack through the forcible conscription of child soldiers in many countries and the use of child labour. Refugee rights are a particularly topical concern, given the unprecedented movement of people escaping desperate situations in the middle east and north Africa and the situation of the Rohingya people from Burma on boats in the Andaman sea.

Freedom of thought, conscience or religion is set out in article 18 of the declaration, and is the most basic right of all, yet the right to choose what to believe, to practise one’s beliefs, to share them with others in a non-coercive way and to change them is increasingly under threat throughout the world, and it affects everyone, of all religions and no religion. The Conservative party manifesto and the Government have recognised freedom of religion or belief as a fundamental British value, and the Government have pledged to stand up for this right at the UN Human Rights Council in 2017-19.

I am proud to chair the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, which boasts 55 Members and 22 expert stakeholders dedicated to advancing this fundamental right. Freedom of religion or belief is a litmus test of the state of human rights in any society and is inseparably linked with other freedoms, such as the right to life, freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, the freedoms of expression and of association, as well as rights such as those concerning unjust detention, the right to a fair trial and the rule of law.

It is vital to recognise that such violations affect everyone, not just particular religious or belief communities. Minority belief women and children are particularly vulnerable, and are often doubly discriminated against for their identity. As Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, and Benedict Rogers of the Christian Solidarity Worldwide highlight, where Christians are persecuted, minorities from within Islam—Shi’a or Ahmadiyya, for example—also suffer, as do the Baha’i. Where Muslims are the prime victims as in Burma, and the Uighurs as in China, Christians and other minorities suffer alongside them.

In many parts of the world, those who choose to exercise their right not to believe, to reject religion and to become agnostics, atheists or humanists, face discrimination, arrest, imprisonment, torture or even death. That is the reality of today’s world. Religious freedom involves far more than merely freedom to worship, and is not just a concern for some minorities that hold strong religious convictions. Religious freedom is not just a right to be tackled in moments of crisis.

My first suggestion for policymakers and diplomats therefore is directly to address freedom of religion or belief as a mainstream human right inseparably linked with other fundamental freedoms, and proactively to address religious freedom abuses before they escalate and result in devastating violence—the like of which we have seen at the hands of Daesh in Syria and Iraq. Ensuring that individuals have freedom of religion or belief is in the interests of all nations, including our own.

This year, 100,000 Christians will be murdered because of their faith, while 2 million will be persecuted for it and 2 billion will live in what is called an endangered neighbourhood. That is just one section of religion—Christians—and shows what can happen to them and to all the other religions as well. Extensive research carried out by Georgetown University’s Berkley centre demonstrates that greater religious freedom leads to better security, stability and even economic growth, and that it reduces extremism, societal tensions, violence and even poverty.

Promoting and securing the right of individuals to have the freedom to practise their beliefs in peace and safety is a fundamental British value that we all uphold. It should therefore be treated seriously as a framework on the basis of which many of the UK’s foreign policy aims can be achieved. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point in his reply.

My colleagues will be able to expand on why a strategy including the advancement of freedom of religion or belief should inform how the 2015 national security strategy and the strategic defence and security review should be implemented. In its bid for re-election to the UN Human Rights Council, the UK pledges to advocate

“in favour of equality and non-discrimination, including on the grounds that freedom of religion or belief can help to counter violent extremism”.

I strongly believe that it can, so it is a pledge that I welcome and sincerely hope will be carried through.

It is important that the Government not only speak out about religious freedom and other human rights abuses, but proactively ensure that their current policy is not directly or indirectly supporting violations of human rights and particularly of religious freedom. Steps should be taken, for example, by the Department for International Development—it is important for this debate to encompass defence and DFID issues—in line with sustainable development goal 16 to ensure that aid is not given to schools that preach intolerance, as happens in Pakistan, and to encourage trading partners to ensure that religious minorities and those who have non-religious world-views are given equal rights in the workplace. Aid must be channelled, I believe, to organisations and programmes that can demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of freedom of religion or belief and can show how their work will have a positive rather than a negative impact.

Given that the Government have recognised in their various guises the importance of freedom of religion or belief as a fundamental stability and security-generating human right, and given that human rights are to remain at the centre of UK policy abroad, how will the Government ensure that their staff are “religious-freedom literate” and that this right will be taken seriously across all Government Departments? How will the Government ensure that all Departments work in conjunction with each other effectively to secure this right?

While the visits over the last few weeks of the Indian and Kazakhstani Prime Ministers and Chinese and Egyptian Presidents are important for building economic and trade ties, we sincerely and honestly hope that the human rights, and indeed human rights clauses in trade agreements, are kept integrated into the discussions during such visits. It is great to have economic ties, and we should have them, but let us have human rights enshrined and protected as well. Foreign policy cannot be based on fiction and we cannot allow immediate political and economic interests consistently to take precedence over more long-term security objectives, even if seen as controversial.

The spirit of the universal declaration of human rights, adopted 67 years ago today, must be respected and upheld. We must strive to secure effective recognition and observance of human rights that will in turn provide all victims of rights violations around the world with the hope that we take their situation personally and we take it seriously. We have an opportunity in this House today to be the voice of those who do not have a voice.