The Lib Dems can keep the lights on

Simon Hughes responds to Mark Lynas and defends his call for an independent inquiry into nuclear pow

Delusion is not a necessary consequence of becoming a Conservative supporter. Yet in Mark Lynas's case this seems to have been one of the results. Lynas's attack piece on Liberal Democrat energy policy was one of the most delusional pieces of writing I have read in a long time, and utterly lacking in foundation.

Lynas accuses me of ignoring the "science" and laments my comments on BBC Radio 4 on the health effects of nuclear power. According to him, there is no plausible scientific case for this.

I presume he refers to my call for an independent inquiry into the "justification" for nuclear power. "Justification" is the process of assessment of the health effects of nuclear power and is a legal requirement before any new nuclear plant can operate in the UK. One of the means by which it can be carried out is through a public inquiry.

The purpose of my call was precisely so that scientific evidence could be examined in the open, and that nuclear scientists, other experts and the public can participate in the decision-making process for new nuclear power in a meaningful way. This call was supported by roughly 80 leading research academics and nuclear scientists in the UK.

If Lynas is so convinced that the health detriments of nuclear are simply an urban myth as he claims, he too should have no problem with a public inquiry. He may however also know that the nuclear power lobby is worried that since the publication of the KiKK study by the German government in 2008 "justification" may not survive more detailed scrutiny.

The KiKK study found that there was a doubling of the incidence of childhood leukaemia within five kilometres of every single German nuclear power station. The study is considered to be one of the best and most complete scientific examinations carried out into the effects of nuclear reactors on public health. It clearly passes the plausibility test.

Perplexing preference

The Lynas article also makes the alarmist and unfounded claim that if Liberal Democrats are in government and nuclear power is dropped, the lights will go out. This is not just a difference of opinion; it is objectively untrue. With the best will in the world there will not be a new nuclear power station built in this country within seven years.

The power stations coming offline over the next decade meant that we need new power generation to come online to replace them before that. With the huge capital costs of nuclear (current estimates are that each reactor will cost not less than £5bn), and the investment this would take away from other sources, nuclear power could actually hinder our chances of bringing the necessary new sources of energy online.

Lynas commends Conservative energy policy and criticises Labour for dragging its feet. I find this perplexing. Lynas has been involved in and written about energy issues for many years now. He therefore must know that in 2006 David Cameron was criticising Labour's commitment to nuclear power as irresponsible. He must also know that as recently as six months ago Zac Goldsmith was saying that no new nuclear power stations would be built under a Tory administration.

If the industry is looking for political stability, it would do a lot better than to look to the Conservative Party.

Need for action

I could go on. I could talk about Lynas's use of the somewhat distasteful phrase "closer to normal mortality rates" to describe the many cancer victims recorded in the vicinity of Chernobyl, or the huge economic and safety concerns surrounding nuclear waste, or the fact that nuclear power is the least cost-effective way of reducing carbon emissions.

But the real problem with his article is that polemics of this kind are exactly what has eroded public confidence in the need to combat climate change. I and others who are fully convinced of the necessity of action on climate change need to get out and about more, engage with the public and make the case.

We need to demonstrate that the decisions that we make are based on the strongest possible evidence and foundations of scientific inquiry. We are not helped by people like Lynas, who claim to be the guardians of "science" while making personal attacks on anyone who dares to disagree. In the end, the only people they discredit are themselves.

Simon Hughes is the MP for North Southwark and Bermondsey. He is the Liberal Democrat shadow secretary of state for energy and climate change

UPDATE: Read Mark Lynas's response to Simon Hughes's article here.

Getty
Show Hide image

Oxbridge’s diversity failure is so severe it’s time to ask if it’s wilful

If Oxford and Cambridge are to become the diverse institutions they claim to want to be, they must address the systemic problems inherit in their admissions systems.

“We’re not the best”.

It’s the open secret that every Oxbridge student eventually comes to accept. Some realise it during their first term, informed by the mundanity of their year group’s Received Pronunciation-dominated conversations. Others learn the humbling fact mid-way through a tutorial, or when first entering employment. For a remaining few, it took the allegation that their peers amuse themselves with porcine-related debauchery for them to question whether the Oxbridge cohort really does encompass the brightest and best.

Yet it remains almost sacrilege to voice anything other than self-deserving grandeur when it comes to Oxbridge’s student intake. Admissions tutors maintain the infallibility of their interview technique in selecting the country’s most promising students but still, admission figures show an unrelenting bias to a white, middle-class population. Pupils from independent schools dominate 43.7 per cent and 37.8 per cent of the intake at Oxford and Cambridge respectively, black students are half as likely to be awarded a place than white applicants and students on free school meals are under-represented by a factor of more than ten to one at the universities.

I’ve spent the past six months researching the under-representation of disadvantaged demographics for OxPolicy, an independent think-tank comprised of postgraduate and undergraduate researchers. Our report, published tomorrow, reveals an even bleaker picture. Statistics obtained by Freedom of Information requests show the universities’ own efforts to support applicants from under-represented demographics are consistently failing.

Consider Cambridge’s admissions last year. Applicants from schools flagged by the university as having a poor record of sending students to Oxbridge had a success rate of just 18.6 per cent, compared to 28.5 per cent for unflagged students. This trend was replicated for an array of markers recorded by both universities, including living in a deprived area and attending a school with poor academic attainment. The discrepancy translates into a statistical equivalent of 275 applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds missing out on places at the University each year.

When we approached admissions tutors to discuss the topic, we were met with a general sense of denial. “It would of course be good to have more students from disadvantaged backgrounds,” commented one, “but factors substantially outside the control of universities make this difficult”. Others were blunter. “I don’t think there is a problem” was one tutor’s only response to our question about under-represented demographics. “It is self-evident that the University is not to blame” asserted another.

The universities’ senior staff offered similar retorts. In January of this year, Oxford’s Head of Admissions, Dr Samina Khan, claimed that applicants were “more likely” to be shortlisted for interview if they came from disadvantaged backgrounds. The figures in our report show this to be statistically untrue. When I presented our findings to Khan she was unavailable for comment, although she referred me to the University Press Office. A spokesperson insisted that our statistics “did not suggest a bias on the part of the selection system,” attributing the discrepancy instead to the “lower prior attainment” of candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds.

But this confidence was not shared by everyone we spoke to. One tutor told us that “more could be done” in terms of the “implicit biases [that] play a role in the problem,” while others expressed concern that “not all tutors [were taking] contextual information into account”. “I use contextual data, but it's limited. I'd like to get more” suggested multiple respondents.

Other replies were more concerning. “A lottery would be fairer than the current system” was a sentiment expressed on more than one occasion. Another tutor who had more than twenty years of experience of handling admissions blamed the universities’ senior staff for a “defensive ‘arse-covering mentality’ which refuses to admit they have a serious problem”. “There is a stark refusal to allow evidence to impinge on decision-making. Anyone looking in from the outside would think we were deliberately hostile to widening access”.

A 2012 report by the Supporting Profession in Admissions programme analysed the kind of evidence this tutor was alluding to. The document summarises the policies of UK Higher Education Institutions which have used contextual data in their admissions processes. Policies include offering students from under-represented demographics lower entrance offers, being more likely to invite these applicants to interview, or giving their applications extra weight in borderline decisions. While 40% of these institutions reported that students admitted because of their contextual data out-performed their peers, not a single one concluded that these students performed worse than the rest of their cohort. One study, carried out at the University of Bristol, revealed that contextually-admitted students were outperforming their peers by such a margin that reducing offers by up to three A level grades was justified. In other words, when universities gave a selective advantage to applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds, they were rewarded with a higher calibre of applicant.

This evidence from universities across the UK clearly suggests that Oxbridge should rely more heavily on contextual information in admissions. However despite officially recommending that demographic data be considered in decision-making, neither university provides obligations nor incentives for its admissions tutors to do so.

In fact, not only are tutors not obliged to consider contextual data, but the funding arrangements at Oxbridge mean that colleges are actively discouraged from admitting students from disadvantaged backgrounds. In each of the years I studied at Oxford, my parents would receive letters requesting donations; to support learning opportunities, teaching resources or construction projects. They were invited to countless drinks events and fundraising dinners to the same effect. It was symptomatic of a culture that pervades the collegiate system at Oxbridge - we will educate your son or daughter, and in return you will support us financially.

Oxbridge colleges operate in networks dominated by white, middle-class and southern-dwelling families. Fixated with the idea that they are short of money, the stakes are too high for colleges to risk losing the hundreds of thousands of pounds they receive in annual donations by pioneering a new access policy. Their reluctance to diversify their student intake is as much about preserving capital – whether financial or cultural - as it is an unwillingness to admit applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The admissions tutors we spoke to in our investigation openly discussed the existence of “an unconsciously corrupt relationship between many colleges and independent schools”. No surprise then, that many tutors expressed a desire for admissions to be dealt with by the central university. “Decisions are left almost entirely to a college’s discretion, there is no way that the University can exercise any oversight over the representation of different demographics” they warned.

If Oxford and Cambridge are to become the diverse institutions they claim to want to be, they must address the systemic problems inherit in their admissions systems. Their admissions officers should stop telling the press that disadvantaged applicants are more likely to be shortlisted for interview when the opposite is true. They should follow the lead from other UK universities whose contextual data initiatives have led to almost universal success. And they should encourage all their admissions tutors, by either obligation or incentive, to follow the evidence and give a bias towards, not against, applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds.

No longer can we believe the myth that Oxbridge’s diversity crisis is a result of incompetence alone. The universities’ failure on admissions is so stark and longstanding that even its own students are wondering if it’s wilful.

OxPolicy is a think-tank set up by Oxford University researchers in 2013. It produces regular policy papers on a variety of issues from a non-aligned stance. You can access their reports at their website, www.oxpolicy.co.uk.

George Gillett is a freelance journalist and medical student. He is on Twitter @george_gillett and blogs here.