Academic Technology Approval Scheme

Debate between Jim Shannon and Wendy Chamberlain

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Academic Technology Approval Scheme.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher; I wish you a happy new year, although we are probably in the dregs of when we can say that. I welcome the Minister for what I hope will be a constructive half-hour debate. I will start by briefly setting out what ATAS is, because if I have learned one thing in the last few months, it is that it has quite low salience—including, I regret to say, in the Foreign Office. If this debate achieves nothing else, I hope it resolves that.

ATAS, known properly as the academic technology approval scheme, is a system by which additional checks are carried out on international students and researchers of certain nationalities, or those working in security-related fields. It is clearly an incredibly important process, and one that exists in some form in most other countries where advanced research is taking place. ATAS checks are most commonly needed when individuals will be studying, researching or working in subject topics that could be used to develop advanced conventional military technology or weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems.

There is an obvious reason why it is important to get ATAS right. The type of research that, in the wrong hands, could be used to develop weapons of mass destruction is also the type of research that is critical for making many non-military advancements. For example, biophysics research in molecular medicine involves groundbreaking discoveries in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases that can change the lives of millions of people. Creating novel chemical materials could revolutionise food packaging and how it is recycled.

We all know that we need better energy systems and sources. Buses now commonly run on hydrogen, a move that in Scotland, I am proud to say, was supported by experts in the school of chemistry at the University of St Andrews in my constituency. And then there is artificial intelligence. We know that it is having a huge impact on how we live our lives, and I want to ensure that the best and brightest are here in the UK working on it, ensuring that the development of AI includes the necessary guardrails to prevent its abuse. Those are just a few examples of research subjects that could require ATAS approval for an international student or academic.

My point is that if we want the UK to be a world leader in research and development, which is key to the Government’s modern industrial strategy, then we need to attract the brightest and the best. We cannot do that if the security checks needed to process their visas are not working.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for always bringing forward incredibly important subjects, both to Westminster Hall and on the Floor of the House. Universities back home, such as Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University, have many ATAS students and researchers who study in sensitive areas such as science, engineering and technology. Many of the funded research positions have been delayed or even unfilled due to ATAS processing times having a significant impact on the system. Does the hon. Lady agree that more must be done for clearance to be secured in a timely manner so that advantage can be taken of vital research postings?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

The hon. Member always manages to touch in advance on the key topics that we will raise in the debate, and timescales in relation to ATAS is certainly one of the things that I will touch on.

I turn to the time it takes for ATAS checks to be carried out. I am grateful that the Minister wrote to me last week confirming a standard timeframe of 30 working days—six weeks—to process applications. That seems quite reasonable for something technical that we clearly want to get right. The problem is that that response timescale is not exactly everyone’s experience. I have had casework for academics and students coming to the University of St Andrews with delays of up to six months, an experience that is shared by the Russell Group of universities, which reached out to me in advance of this debate.

Processing delays are not anything new, but there are a few elements that I want to pull out. Most postgraduate programmes of study and research programmes have defined start and end dates, which is particularly true when grant funding is being utilised. Missing those start dates due to ATAS delays means that research students miss the start of their course, and that research projects might need to delay their start dates or begin without key personnel. The University of St Andrews will not make a formal offer without ATAS being completed, and the student cannot apply for their visa without receiving a formal offer from the university. These are the different roadblocks on the way to getting approval.

Sir Christopher, can you imagine securing the funding for groundbreaking research and attracting the best global talent, only to find, days before the project is due to start, that you still do not know whether you can go ahead? You find yourself having to go back to the finance provider to ask for leniency and change contract dates and funding arrangements—all while worrying that the funding might ultimately be withdrawn. That could jeopardise your chances of receiving future support, or mean that the individual in question gives up on the process and secures employment elsewhere.

Although I am relieved to know from my conversations with the University of St Andrews that it has managed to deal with the stress of these concerns—but not the losses themselves—I have been told by the Russell Group about other universities that have experienced researchers and students withdrawing applications and going to other research-intensive nations instead, and about large research and development businesses withdrawing from university-led projects because they could not wait any longer for applications to be approved.

I therefore ask the Minister whether the 30-day standard period is a reasonable reflection of capacity. Would a 40 or even 50-day target perhaps be better? Then universities and applicants could plan accordingly. Could that be put into a formal, service-level agreement, so that universities, applicants and funding providers could manage expectations? There are naturally peaks to the number of applications for review over the summer, given that the academic cycle, even for non-taught research, tends to start in the autumn. Could the Government be taking steps to prepare for that? Could extra resources be put in place? I understand that the highly technical nature of the checks being carried out means that there is a need for scientific experts, who are already in high demand in Whitehall. Does the Minister feel that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has sufficient scientific capacity to meet demand? Is that something that engagement with the university sector and the specialists we have here could resolve?

I have mentioned casework, because for MPs that is a huge part of our job. Visa problems, Department for Work and Pensions issues and HM Revenue and Customs delays are the bread and butter of our inbox and the work that our constituency staff do. It is a question of trying to find out the problem and what can be done to unstick whatever is stuck. But frustratingly, we cannot do that with ATAS. There is just one email address, for use by universities, MPs, students or anyone else who needs to get in touch. I am not sure that I have ever received a response from it. I am not surprised—it must be absolutely inundated.

Surely there must be a better system. I would rather we did not have delays with visas or pensions, which my team have to chase up on constituents’ behalf, but this is at least something that we can do and that can give some answers as to why things are moving slowly and when an answer can be expected. Will the Minister look into an MP hotline for ATAS or a dedicated email address for use by registered universities? We can of course get in touch with the Home Office, as ATAS delays stop visas being processed, but this does not help at all, with UK Visas and Immigration officials left as in the dark as everyone else over the status of an ATAS check. Like us, all they can do is wait.

The opacity of the system was thrown into sharp relief for me towards the end of last year by one particular piece of casework. My constituent, an academic at the University of St Andrews, was applying for his visa to be renewed. This was all completely routine, but tragically, after his having submitted all the information and with the ATAS checks under way, his father unexpectedly took ill and passed away. He naturally wanted to travel home to Syria to see his family, pay his respects and, as the eldest son, arrange and play a part in his father’s funeral. He immediately contacted UKVI and asked for permission to travel.

The next developments, I understand, are outwith the remit of the Minister and are not why we are here today, but they are worth noting. There does not seem to be a Home Office exemption to allow time-limited bereavement travel, even where evidence of death has been provided; and the UKVI escalation process, while effective, is still slow in consideration of the cultural norms for burial soon after death in many countries.

All of that means that my constituent had missed his father’s funeral before any answers were received. He still wanted to return home to be with his family and pay his respects as soon as possible, and this is where we return to ATAS, because he was told that if he left the country, he would need to start his visa and ATAS applications all over again. That would require him to incur significant cost and uncertainty and risk serious disruption to his ongoing academic responsibilities. The only option, we were told by the Home Office, was to try to get his visa renewal through as quickly as possible. That left one big stumbling block: the inability to directly contact, chase or otherwise check in with ATAS over his security checks. This was without knowing how long the current waiting period was, and without ATAS having any guidance or grounds for expedition in compassionate circumstances.

My team are a pretty resourceful bunch, and they tried everything they could think of. They obviously emailed the public email address, and we wrote to the FCDO. We rang the FCDO helpline, and I was told on that phone call that the FCDO did not know what ATAS was and whether it was part of its remit. That is a bit worrying. When it was explained, we were told that surely this was the responsibility of the Home Office. It went on.

There is a positive ending in this case. Although my constituent missed the funeral and the initial mourning period, his checks did go through and his visa was renewed. He was able to see his mother and sister and pay his respects to his father. I am not convinced that anything done by my office—or indeed by me, because I did try to speak to a couple of FCDO Ministers in the House—did anything in that regard.

I know that the Minister will point out that in the end my constituent’s ATAS checks were done within the six-week processing window. It is true that this is not one of the cases of terrible delay that I referred to earlier, but it clearly demonstrates the need for escalation routes for MPs or sponsoring universities, transparent processing timeframes, and a compassionate travel route or other allowances for bereaved applicants—or at least knowledge of what the process can and should be and whether indeed it is possible at all. Above all, there should be some form of knowledge or oversight within the FCDO, given that nobody seemed to know that ATAS existed or was an FCDO responsibility.

Something called the academic technology approval scheme might sound incredibly dry, but I hope that this debate demonstrates that it is incredibly important. It is important for our industrial strategy, medical breakthroughs, securing our energy future, and supporting our universities and our security as a nation. It is also about people. These issues are not minor. Roughly a quarter of the University of St Andrews’s skilled worker visa applications last year involved ATAS checks, and a tenth of the ATAS students had their start days impacted. As proud as I am of the university, I know it is not the only top-level research centre in the UK. If we add up those figures, we are looking at thousands of delays and research projects impacted, as well as time and money lost. I hope that the Minister will set out how we can address these issues and bring ATAS and its processes into the light.

ECO4 Scheme Redress

Debate between Jim Shannon and Wendy Chamberlain

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I will go on to mention the particular challenge with older properties, but my hon. Friend’s example illustrates exactly what the issue is. This scheme is under the auspices of Ofgem and is funded through the Government levy on energy bills, but does not have any real oversight, so consumers end up being let down.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. She always brings applicable issues to Westminster Hall, and today is as an example of that, with the horrific example of the almost inconceivable standard of work done to her constituent’s house.

The ECO4 scheme does not apply in Northern Ireland, where we have a fuel assistance scheme. Eligibility can be very tight and residents with more than a certain amount in their savings accounts find that they may not qualify. Does the hon. Lady agree that more could be done to loosen the rules for our elderly generation, particularly in boiler replacement or energy schemes?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

It would not be a Westminster Hall debate without an intervention from the hon. Member. He illustrates that, although this is a GB scheme and not applicable in Northern Ireland, consumers and more vulnerable residents in Northern Ireland face the same challenges regarding energy efficiency. The Government have a responsibility, working with the Northern Ireland Assembly, to improve the situation there.

We need to get this right, not just so there is faith in the schemes—although that is vital—but so works under them do not end up costing people even more in lost energy costs. It is clear that some things are going badly wrong under the ECO schemes as they stand. The Government need to address them for the remainder of properties that might do upgrades under ECO4 and for future iterations of the scheme.

First, there is a complete lack of transparency in how households are driven to the scheme and, as far as I can tell, there is no regulation either. I have talked about how Jackie and her husband felt railroaded from wondering if they would be entitled to anything for upgrades, to their home being pulled apart. She is not a vulnerable person, but she thinks that the company she dealt with was totally unprepared for being challenged over what was happening. Another constituent who had a terrible outcome under the scheme has described themselves as vulnerable and feels that the system was set up to target people like them.

As my team and I have gone further into such cases, I was surprised that more MPs are not shouting about this issue. Clearly, it is not limited just to one company or to North East Fife. When I spoke to Fuel Poverty Action this week, it told me that it is seeing only the most determined victims complaining—the rest are highly vulnerable people. From what I have seen, if companies offer to pay any compensation at all after months of fighting—even if it will not cover the cost of the remedial works—it is on the condition that all complaints be withdrawn. I therefore cannot help but wonder how many people have felt that they had to accept, and now are not in a position to tell us about their experiences.

Secondly, the funding model for ECO4 places incentives on companies to upgrade rural homes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) referred to. I understand the logic of that, but rural homes, as he said, tend to be a lot older and less uniform than urban ones, so we would ideally want a proper survey to be not only done, but carried out by a specialist retrofit co-ordinator. The fact is, however, is that we do not have anywhere near enough of them.

TrustMark data indicates that although more than 2,000 individuals have completed the retrofit co-ordinator qualification, just 612 are registered with the quality mark and only 230 are actively lodging work in the data warehouse. Of the 230 active co-ordinators, around 30% are lodging the majority of those projects. That means around 66 specialists are overseeing the vast majority of retrofit works. We clearly need more, and the Government need to worry about that skills shortage.

According to Ashden, the UK will need up to 50,000 retrofit co-ordinators in coming years if we are going to reach our goals for making homes energy efficient. In the meantime, what requirements are there for works to be properly overseen by a specialist? Do contractors have to employ one and risk cutting into their margins? Are there requirements for co-ordinators to actually visit a property, provide plans, speak with the owners and review works as they go? I wonder if the mysterious middle man I mentioned earlier was a retrofit co-ordinator—it is just not clear. What is clear is that none of these steps took place in that case.

Similarly, the short-term nature of the scheme means that we are not skilling up the workforce—the plasterers, electricians and plumbers—that we need to do these works. ECO4 is the longest iteration of the schemes and has been running for almost four years, but it is due to close next spring, and we still do not know what will replace it. Short schemes with short-notice changes do not allow businesses to invest in training or properly plan for the future. Even for the best-intentioned companies and tradespeople, that is not commercially viable. That was all underlined by evidence from across the sector in the recent Energy Security and Net Zero Committee report. The industry needs a 10-year plan so that it can invest in upskilling, take on apprenticeships knowing there will be work for them after their training, and be prepared to take on the challenge of making our homes future-proof.

Finally on ECO4, there desperately needs to be some clarity over how works are certified and payments are made. These are not just individual contractual disputes; the fact that Ofgem is administering the scheme tells a very different story. As I understand it, to get paid, an installer needs to register the works with TrustMark, providing photos, energy performance certificate ratings and so on. That is then validated before Ofgem releases the funds.

Considering the hundreds, if not thousands, of homes being damaged around the country, what precise validation is happening? Is money being released for those ruined homes? What requirements are there on traders not just to say, “Sure, we installed a heat pump,” but to actually prove they have put a home back to the way it was? Where else is the money going in the supply line of referrals that I talked about earlier? Who is getting paid, by whom and for what?

I have talked a lot about ECO4, but I want to touch briefly on the wider consumer protection landscape because, now that things have gone wrong, that is where my constituents and many others are battling. I do not think it is controversial to say that it is a bit of a mess. The Competition and Markets Authority confirmed that in its 2023 report on consumer protection in green heating and insulation sector. It was reiterated by Citizens Advice in its “Hitting a Wall” report last year, and again by the ESNZ Committee in its “Retrofitting homes for net zero” report in spring.

I am aware—as I am sure the Minister will reference—that the Government are currently considering responses to a consultation on requiring the microgeneration certification scheme to be the sole certification scheme for clean heat installations. Having seen constituents, and my caseworkers on their behalf, battle through a maze of different accreditation and oversight bodies to try to find someone to take responsibility for this work, a single body seems incredibly sensible, but I still have some questions.

How would that one body sit alongside TrustMark and Ofgem? Would it replace TrustMark and, if so, how would it be better equipped to accredit and oversee retrofit contractors? Would it solve the problem of traders being able to say they are accredited, and showing that they are accredited, when complaints have already started coming in? At the moment, it is far too easy for them to chop and change logos, or to continue to display a logo that they should not be able to. How do we make that new, single body sufficiently powerful and reactive so that it can be trusted by consumers?

Policy specialists recently suggested to me that local authorities could be trusted to keep a list of accredited local traders. I had to tell them that some already do. Indeed, in North East Fife, a contractor just told constituents that they were not displayed yet due to a delay in the application process. That is very believable, given how stretched local government is.

What happens to consumers when their homes are left ruined, with works poorly carried out, and the companies have lied about being certified or have now dissolved and vanished? What will happen to people stuck in the original system, whose works were carried out under the current failing scheme, who are being pushed from pillar to post with no end point in sight? Those are the experiences of my constituents and many others. To keep fighting for someone to be on their side is breaking them. Where is their solution?

Failures in consumer protection clearly go beyond the ECO4 scheme, but there are particular problems for consumers funded via ECO4. So many people, often vulnerable, are pushed into having work done, and the nature of the schemes increases the chances of being allocated an unskilled or rogue trader. Some of the people I have spoken to in the run-up to today have said that this is a scandal that no one takes responsibility for, and they are very concerned about speaking out about it. I hope that the Minister will address my concerns this morning.

Unpaid Carers

Debate between Jim Shannon and Wendy Chamberlain

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is great to be back, and to see you in the Chair. I congratulate you on your new position.

Caring or being cared for is an almost universal experience. Almost everybody will find themselves being an unpaid carer for their loved ones at some point in their life, or being cared for by loved ones. Who among us does not know somebody who is helping an elderly parent, or supporting a family member with a long-term illness? As new MPs will come to learn, almost every week here, we have an opportunity to learn about and mark a national awareness day for a different devastating illness. For every person suffering from those illnesses, there will inevitably be a family member—unseen—supporting and caring for them.

According to the recent census, there are 5.7 million unpaid carers in England and Wales, but those are just the people who recognise themselves as such. In 2022, Carers UK research estimated that there were up to 10.6 million unpaid carers. Whichever figure we use, that is a huge number, and the figure is growing. According to very recent research published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, by 2035 there will be an 11% increase in the number of unpaid carers, and as degenerative conditions, including chronic degenerative conditions, become more prevalent, the amount of care that carers do is predicted to go up; it is expected that ever more will provide more than 35 hours of care each week.

The Government should care about carers, not just because that is the right thing to do, and not even because unpaid carers are in homes across every constituency in the UK, but because we need them. Unpaid carers are absolutely vital to our economy and our society.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward. The House is fuller than usual for this Adjournment debate, which indicates the importance of the issue. Every one of us knows people who are carers. I care for my brother, who had a big accident 20 years ago, and I understand what it means to be a carer and to be available at all times, as others do. Does the hon. Lady agree that respite for carers is an essential component of support, and that inability to access respite care will push many into making the unwanted decision to give up caring and instead institutionalise the people they care for, due to the unbearable pressure on their mental health?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. He is absolutely right, and as he and I know, having served in the last Parliament, during covid the lack of respite care was a critical factor for many carers. It is clear that we all need to do more in that area.

We were talking about how vital carers are to our economy and society. The economic value of unpaid care is £162 billion a year in England and Wales, £13.1 billion in Scotland and £5.8 billion in Northern Ireland. We know the country’s finances have been left in a ruinous state by the last Government, and that the social care system is already stretched to breaking point. We must also know that we cannot take the contribution of unpaid carers for granted, so I hope that the Minister will take tonight as an opportunity to show that the Government do care about unpaid carers.

In a debate shortly before the general election was called, the then shadow Minister for care, who is now a Minister, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), committed Labour to developing a new carers strategy if it formed the next Government:

“There will be a carers strategy under the next Labour Government, because we value the vital work our carers do. It will be a cross-Government strategy with the Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Education and the future of work review all feeding into it along with the Department of Health and Social Care. There is a brighter future for those living with dementia and their families and carers. Labour will deliver it.”

Given that promise, I hope that the Minister can understand why I and many whom I have spoken to in the care third sector were disappointed that unpaid carers were not mentioned at all in the Labour manifesto. At the same point in the speech I just referred to, the then shadow Minister said that unpaid carers

“will be at the heart of Labour’s plans in Government.” —[Official Report, 16 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 228WH.]

I hope the Minister will take tonight’s debate as an opportunity to make that case.