Academic Technology Approval Scheme

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

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.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), the Minister of State who oversees this area within the Foreign Office, is unable to attend the debate, so I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on his behalf.

It is fundamentally important that there is feedback to the Government and Government Departments on where things could be improved and on where Departments could be better joined up. Sometimes, perhaps unintentionally, things can fall through the cracks. Sometimes there may be system dysfunction, but sometimes it may be the fault of an individual—it could be a training issue or someone who is new to the role. I am not saying that I know all the details, but it is important that we continue to maintain the best possible service for all our constituents and for the whole country. I also appreciate the contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is always an important voice in our debates. A number of matters have been raised to which I will seek to respond.

It is important to reflect on the point that the hon. Member for North East Fife made about our need to attract the brightest and best to our country to support our economy and be part of international research teams. As part of Britain being a global and outward-facing nation, that we are looking to those teams to bring the best knowledge and insights from across the world. Having global talent and working together is part of the United Kingdom’s success as a science and technology superpower. In a similar way, UK talent goes abroad. Sometimes research teams operate and work in this country and then in other countries. That is part of our work and how we grow our economy, but we must also look at where we might work together on sensitive matters that underpin our security.

Recognising the importance of ensuring that we continue to attract talent was also part of our work last year on how we not only secure our borders and control immigration, but widen routes for attracting and supporting talent, particularly where our economy needs to grow in new ways, supporting our future competitiveness in areas of the economy. As the hon. Member acknowledged, it is important to get the balance right between attracting talent and ensuring that we have the right checks in place. Many new technologies have both civilian and military uses, and we are in a more complex world. As proliferation risks grow, research intended to do good can, in the wrong hands, lead to the transfer of sensitive skills, knowledge, networks, relationships and technological capability. That is what ATAS is designed to prevent. Once sensitive knowledge is shared, it cannot be recovered.

I therefore welcome today’s debate on the academic technology approval scheme. It is important to recognise that ATAS is a national security vetting process, not a routine administrative check. It exists to protect the United Kingdom from the unlawful transfer of sensitive knowledge and technologies that could also contribute to the development of weapons of mass destruction or advanced military capabilities. It is important that we remain open to global research talent while rigorously protecting our national security, and that we ensure that security and openness strengthen each other when done well.

The demand for ATAS is a sign of the importance of growing areas of research in our universities. Demand has increased sharply in recent years as the scheme has expanded to reflect the growing and evolving threat landscape. Applications have risen from about 17,000 in 2017 to approximately 35,000 last year. Despite that growth, the vast majority of applications—about 98%—are processed within the 30 working-day service standard, and many are resolved more quickly. Some applications may be more straightforward and present no security concerns, but where cases are more complex or potentially high-risk, there may be a requirement for additional security checks, not all of which are within the FCDO’s or the Home Office’s control. That can take more time—sometimes more time than we might like. I recognise that decisions taking longer than the standard timeframe can have a personal impact, particularly if there are compassionate circumstances that have an impact on applicants and create uncertainty for universities.

Work is under way to look at faster triaging, providing surge support for more complex cases, and IT improvements, and there is ongoing engagement with universities. That is important, because we recognise the challenge. As with other visa circumstances with universities, which might do their own checks for international students, it is important that we recognise that universities and students have start times, and it is important that we do not push into a backlog or create issues just before university term time begins. We continue to do work to smooth that by supporting universities in how they do their checks and looking at how ATAS certificates might need to be issued in advance of visas being issued by the Home Office. The Home Office continues to work with the Department for Education and universities to improve that.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

The Minister has just mentioned the Home Office. I suppose part of our frustration as a team was that ATAS responsibility sits within the FCDO rather than the Home Office, and that there is a lack of knowledge and understanding. I am very pleased to hear that work is ongoing. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that the House is properly updated in relation to that work? Will it take on board some of the suggestions I have made? The key frustration for me and my team is that we are used to being able to get some answers, but with ATAS that feels very, very difficult to do.

[Seema Malhotra]

I do understand the importance of that. There are other issues that in my previous role last year in the Home Office, I experienced when working alongside other Departments, including the DFE and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

The hon. Member has also highlighted the relationship between Foreign Office-led processes, some of which may lead to and require checks being made outside the Foreign Office. I take her point and will relay it to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who oversees this area. I am happy to work with him on it, because I am interested in how Foreign Office-led services and delivery can be the best they can be, and whether there are further lessons to be learned.

We will consider how we can keep the hon. Member for North East Fife and the House updated on where the improvements that we are already working on can lead to change, not least in responsiveness to Members of Parliament, which I take very seriously, as does my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I appreciate the feedback; I continue to believe that it is important that Government continue to learn. We are like any other organisation, in that the continuous improvement of our operations should be a matter of concern to all of us. In this case, it certainly is.

I emphasise that ATAS sits within a much broader Government commitment to supporting research, innovation and international collaboration. Our approach is to combine openness with responsibility and to continue to work closely with universities to improve guidance, streamline communication and ensure that applicants understand ATAS requirements early.

It is not always the case, but sometimes applications are put in very close to the mark. There can also be an assumption that, where there is a 30-day working standard, it will all happen within 30 days. I do not know the details of the hon. Member’s case, although I know that she is very assiduous in raising cases for her constituents, but it is important that we make sure there is that communication and that there are clearer routes for institutions to raise concerns, improve transparency on processes and strengthen engagement with the sector.

At the same time, the Government continue to invest heavily in research and development. In a sense, we are a victim of our own priorities. The increase in demand for ATAS is a reflection of the Government’s own priorities and our recognition that it is important to attract talent in the shorter and the longer term. Work is going on through association with Horizon Europe, long-term funding in AI, clean energy and the life sciences, with deepening science and defence partnerships across regions including the Indo-Pacific, over which I oversee some of our work. ATAS supports that ambition by ensuring that the UK’s research environment remains secure and welcoming to global talent, in good faith. We want to support that work in the UK and internationally.

Before I conclude, I want to make some remarks about the constituency case that the hon. Member highlighted. I very much appreciate that communication with the FCDO has been part of, and a driver for, today’s debate. It is regrettable that the hon. Lady experienced that difficulty and did not receive clear information about her inquiry at an earlier stage, particularly given the sad circumstances. I am grateful to her for the support that she gave her constituent and for telling us that he got a positive certificate and, importantly, was able to spend time with his family in those very sad circumstances.

The hon. Lady said that when we knew about the situation and it got to the team, the application was expedited and the process was completed within, I think, 14 days. That is important to us. I have seen such work previously in the Home Office, so I know that it will have been important to those teams too. That was well inside the published service standard, and it shows what can happen when we mobilise teams in compassionate circumstances. Where there are lessons to learn, it is important that we do so. I appreciate that there was a delay in the correspondence that the hon. Lady received over the Christmas period, but we continue to try to improve our service standards in relation to correspondence. That is a priority matter for the Department as a whole.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I put my thanks on the record—it is great to hear that the case was expedited as a result of our actions—but what I have tried to illustrate today is that we had no real knowledge of that or of how to achieve it, so I am grateful to the Minister for that update.

Rights of Women and Girls: Afghanistan

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alice Macdonald]

I thank the hon. Member for that important point. He is right. The Government have set out new proposals on immigration that have a focus on safe routes, and it is important that we stand with female human rights defenders from Afghanistan. Many of them came over here before there were those routes. It was not easy for them, and many people worked incredibly hard to make that happen. I hope that we can have safer passages, and that it can be much clearer how they can be accessed.

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

The hon. Member and I are members and officers of the all-party parliamentary group on Afghan women and girls. On the point about education and access to healthcare for women, we hosted a meeting last year with Dr Feroz, a former Health Minister in Afghanistan. He spoke movingly about the case for medical care for Afghan women. One of his key asks was for more support in Afghanistan for women to be trained as midwives to improve maternal outcomes. I am potentially anticipating the Minister’s response, and I know how challenging the situation is, but does the hon. Member agree that we should be able to discuss this from a bilateral perspective?

[Alice Macdonald]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, and for everything she has done as chair of the APPG. She has been advocating for Afghan women and girls for a long time. I totally agree, and I will come on to healthcare a bit later in my speech.

To return to education, Afghanistan is the only country in the world that bans girls from attending school beyond the primary level, depriving 1.5 million girls of secondary education. Those girls are stripped of their right to learn and their hopes and dreams for the future. On employment, the Taliban have incrementally removed women from professional roles. Instead, they are confined to their home. Over the past three months, we have heard that the Afghan Ministry of Defence and the Afghan army have reportedly prevented women employees from entering the UN compound and its premises across the country, forcing them to work from home, further isolating women and impacting on the effective delivery of aid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alice Macdonald]

But still those women fight on. Women-led organisations continue to lead the way in so many different respects, delivering humanitarian assistance, supporting survivors and helping communities, all the while navigating life-threatening risks.

I know that the Minister cares deeply about Afghanistan and has huge experience there, and I urge him to continue to do everything possible to stand with Afghan women and girls. I welcome the appointment of Baroness Harman as the UK’s global envoy for women and girls, as she has made Afghan women and girls one of her priorities. Of course we cannot solve the crisis on our own, nor should we, but it is imperative that we play our part and that, importantly, we work with other countries that have influence on the Taliban and in the region.

I want to focus on three specific issues on which I think the Government could act, although they are already acting in many of these areas: aid, accountability and the women, peace and security agenda. Let me begin with aid. Just last week the United Nations launched a $1.7 billion humanitarian appeal for Afghanistan, warning that it will remain one of the world’s largest humanitarian crises, with 22 million Afghans in need of humanitarian assistance this year; but with major donor countries such as the United States turning away, whether that appeal is heard remains to be seen. Funding cuts have already forced the suspension of 218 gender-based violence service points, affecting more than a million people, mainly women and girls. In the light of our own aid cuts, may I ask the Minister to speak about our commitments to Afghanistan and, in particular, how we are ensuring that the money we spend reaches women and girls and human rights defenders?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again. She is speaking powerfully about aid and contributions. May I briefly mention the global polio eradication initiative? Polio could be eradicated in the next three years, which would be a historic milestone for the world, but to do that the UK Government need to commit £50 million a year to the initiative for the next two years. Given how little we can do to support Afghan at present, this is one tangible action that the Government can take. Will the hon. Lady reiterate that call tonight?

[Alice Macdonald]

Absolutely. We were, of course, on the brink of eradicating polio. It exists in very few countries, and to see it surge again in countries such as Afghanistan risks so many development gains.

Can the Minister tell us how much is currently being spent on women’s rights and how much we will spend next year? Will he commit himself to protecting that funding for the future, and will he ensure that the money reaches the women’s rights organisations and women’s rights defenders on the frontline?

However, no amount of aid can address the human rights crisis in Afghanistan, and in that context I turn to my second point, about justice and accountability. Many Afghan women are calling for gender apartheid to be recognised as a crime in international law. Their call is now being taken up by a number of member states as well as international legal experts and lawyers, and I back that call. Can the Minister set out the Government’s position on recognising gender apartheid through the new “crimes against humanity” treaty that is currently under negotiation?

We have seen alarming steps taken by some member states to normalise the Taliban. Can the Minister assure the House that the UK will not normalise relationships with the Taliban? More than four years into the ban on girls’ education, can he point to improvements that have been made through our direct engagement with the Taliban? If there has been no such progress, what will be done differently?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to her for her work with the all-party parliamentary group on Afghan women and girls, and indeed to the other doughty champions for Afghan women represented in the Chamber this evening. As she alluded to, Afghanistan matters to me not only as a Minister, but as a person who knows the country well. I have first-hand experience of dealing with the Taliban, and I am determined that they should be held to account for their horrific treatment of women and girls.

My hon. Friend set out the situation well. She is right to point out that Afghanistan is now one of the worst places in the world to be a woman. Every single aspect of life is restricted by the Taliban. Girls cannot attend school after the age of 12. Women’s employment is almost entirely blocked. The sound of a woman’s voice outside her home is considered a moral violation. Millions are being systematically excluded from society and robbed of their future. Afghan women deserve meaningful, equal participation in all areas of life. These infringements on their freedoms must be reversed.

The UK Government have consistently condemned the Taliban’s treatment of women and girls. Senior officials travel regularly to Kabul, most recently in December, to urge the Taliban to reverse their barbaric decrees. On every visit, the treatment of women and girls is raised. Our officials press the Taliban to meet their international obligations, and we use our voice on the world stage to keep up the pressure. This includes speaking out at the UN, in the UN Human Rights Council and in our other international forums.

During my visit to the UN last January, I made it clear that the Taliban’s actions are unacceptable and that we will not allow the voices of Afghan women to be forgotten. In December, at the UN Security Council, the UK condemned the ongoing restrictions on female staff at the Islam Qala reception centre, which is near the border with Iran. We use our position as chair of the G7+ group to mobilise and co-ordinate international engagement on Afghanistan. We also support the initiative of key member states to hold the Taliban to account for violations of the UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.

I recognise the powerful calls to classify the situation in Afghanistan as gender apartheid. This is a complex and emotive issue. We are still determining our position, but we are actively engaging with civil society and international partners to understand all perspectives.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I know the Minister’s commitment to and experience of Afghanistan. Before Christmas, the APPG, including the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald), met the UNHCR Afghanistan representative. As we know, many people are returning to Afghanistan from Pakistan, Iran and elsewhere, and they are often from single female-headed households, so they are doing so with a degree of trepidation. My understanding from that meeting is that that body receives no funding from the UK Government. Would the Minister consider looking at that, because that surely must be an item of leverage in the meetings with UK officials that he has described?

[Mr Falconer]

We are providing support to returnees from Iran to Afghanistan, and that support is mostly funnelled through the International Organisation for Migration. We have not yet announced our allocation of aid for Afghanistan next year, but we will of course come back to this House when we are in a position to do so.

This year, the Human Rights Council voted to establish an independent accountability mechanism. We are exploring how the UK can contribute meaningfully to that, especially as the scope and operational details become clearer.

There is a growing humanitarian crisis across Afghanistan, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North made so clear—23 million people are in desperate need of humanitarian assistance. As the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) highlighted, women and girls bear the brunt. Afghanistan is one of the most dangerous places in the world to give birth, with the highest maternal mortality rate in the Asia-Pacific region.

We remain committed to tackling this crisis. We have allocated more than £150 million this financial year for lifesaving aid to Afghanistan, ensuring that at least half of the beneficiaries are women and girls. Last November we hosted a successful food security and nutrition conference in London, strengthening our response to the hardships and hunger facing Afghan families. We are focusing on effective solutions, working alongside international partners and those in Afghanistan who know the country best.

Turning to human rights and accountability, we support the mandate of the UN special rapporteur on Afghanistan, Richard Bennett. I met him last year to discuss the situation, and we remain in regular contact with him. We also maintain regular engagement with Afghan women to hear their perspectives. I have met them, and the doughty Baroness Harriet Harman, the UK special envoy for women and girls, held a roundtable for Afghan women in September and attended a parliamentary event on sexual and reproductive health in November.

The UK special envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Lindsay, joined me to brief parliamentarians today. He regularly meets Afghan women both in the diaspora and in their home country. We seek their perspectives on how we can better support their cause and hold the Taliban to account. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), the special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, recently met individuals from the Hazara community. They discussed the discrimination faced by Hazaras, including the plight of Hazara women and girls, and he and I remain focused on supporting such vulnerable communities.

In December, Foreign Office officials participated in the Hear Us conference led by Afghan women demanding accountability for Taliban human rights abuses. Their courage and perseverance in the face of adversity are profoundly inspiring, and their resilience commands my deep respect. Our work on accountability is strengthened by our close engagement with Afghan civil society, both in the UK and abroad.

Those responsible for international crimes in Afghanistan must be held accountable. The Taliban’s systematic erosion of the rights of women and girls is the destruction of every kind of freedom. The Foreign Secretary’s recently announced All In campaign reaffirms our desire to tackle violence against women and girls. At its launch, Dr Sima Samar, an Afghan human rights activist, was present and spoke about the appalling situation for women and girls in Afghanistan, making it a central focus of the campaign.

I have been privileged, both as a Minister and in my previous life, to meet many non-governmental organisations, activists, campaigners and politicians who want a better future for Afghan women and girls. Earlier today I hosted a briefing for parliamentarians on the latest situation. I look forward to meeting, on Wednesday, Chevening scholars from Afghanistan who are now studying in the UK. Some of these women had to be chaperoned out of Afghanistan to take up their studies here. Their studies—from psychology to human rights; from health to construction—put them in a strong position to shape tomorrow’s Afghanistan for the better.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

The Minister rightly mentions the Chevening scholarship scheme. I also commend the work of the Linda Norgrove Foundation in relation to the 19 female Afghan medical students who are brought to the UK to study at Scottish universities. That was really groundbreaking work between the UK and Scottish Governments on funding for their studies and the visas that allowed them to come. There are very small numbers of individuals who would like to do the same. Will the Minister take away that request to ensure we have that pipeline, so that hopefully in future those women can return to Afghanistan and provide the care that is required?

[Mr Falconer]

I am very happy to take that away.

In conclusion, the UK will continue to fight for the rights of Afghan women and girls, and will continue to urge the Taliban to reverse their barbaric decrees. As the Foreign Secretary recently said,

“there cannot be peace, security or prosperity without women playing their part, free from violence and free from fear.”

Question put and agreed to.

Gaza and Hamas

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

We have discussed sanctions in this House many times, including the three waves during my time in government, and including against two Ministers. The priority now has to be to make the ceasefire work, to move to phase 2, and to get through all these incredibly important and complex questions, and that is the focus of this Government.

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

Over the past decade there has been a stark absence of diplomatic efforts to address the core issues of the conflict, and the continued advocacy for a two-state solution. Civil society organisations have played a vital role during this time in entering that chasm. Will the Minister outline how the Government are providing help to those organisations? For example, will it be through the recently announced international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace?

[Mr Falconer]

We remain focused on supporting the whole range of civil society. The hon. Member will be aware of some of the proposals in the Knesset, which we have opposed and to which I referred in my opening remarks. We will continue to conduct that work and will have more to say about the fund she refers to in the coming days and weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am familiar with the case and have met the man in question and my hon. Friend’s constituent. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it further. I am travelling to Egypt this weekend and will continue to be in these sorts of discussions.

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

Cuts to spending in Afghanistan inevitably impact women and children disproportionately. They are more likely to be employed by NGOs forced to make cuts and more likely to need assistance. Does the Minister agree that we need to ringfence and protect funding to Afghanistan?

[Mr Falconer]

We have to be clear about who is driving the oppression of Afghan women and girls. The Taliban have put further restrictions on women and girls. They have taken further steps, including restricting the internet, that undermine the viability of Afghanistan’s economy at a fundamental level. But I assure the House that we continue to allocate significant funding to Afghanistan, with £151 million this year. That is a small decrease from last year, but I assure the hon. Member, who I know remains committed to these issues, that we remain very much focused on them.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I can confirm that I was invited to the EU Foreign Ministers’ informal meeting just under two weeks ago, at which these issues were discussed, and I was able to discuss these issues with EU High Representative Kaja Kallas just yesterday.

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

In correspondence to the Business and Trade Committee earlier this year, the Government said that some of the reasoning for not stopping licences for F-35-related components was the need to maintain arms for Ukraine. What practical steps have been taken in the three months since that letter was sent to ensure that weapons manufacture and supply to Ukraine is separated from the supply chains to Israel and the occupied territories?

[Mr Lammy]

I stand by the decisions we have taken to meet our obligations for security around the world and the decisions we have made in relation to the F-35s. I want to make it clear that our decision to suspend arms sales that could be used in Gaza is a serious one, and we are absolutely content that we are meeting all obligations that I set out back in September.

Gavi and the Global Fund

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship for the first time, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) on securing this important debate.

It is just six months shy of five years since I had my own Backbench Business debate on global vaccine access—albeit in the context of the global covid-19 pandemic. I look back on what the then shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), said with interest. I found in her remarks a consistent emphasis on working bilaterally to tackle global health crises, and through those efforts, to tackle poverty and inequality. She said that this was not just the practical but the moral thing to do.

I hope that we have not forgotten what we should have learned from the covid pandemic about how fast a disease can turn into a global threat, about how good health produces sage and secure countries, and about how terrifying it was to reckon with the realities of the pandemic in all aspects of our lives. I do hope that the Government will think about that as they approach the spending review.

Gavi and the Global Fund have been an incredible success, and we ought to celebrate that. The UK has been a leading force in these efforts on the international stage, and that is something to be proud of, because it bolsters our reputation and our standing and forms part of our global soft power.

We will not need to fund such programmes forever. Fifteen years ago, lower income countries were able to fund, on average, only 10% of the costs of their vaccine programmes. Over the next five years, it is estimated that they will cover up to 40% of the costs on average. Some countries are already there, with Indonesia now a donor to Gavi rather than a recipient.

Let us not forget that we need the world to be vaccinated. Disease knows no borders. Disease leads to poverty, which leads to global instability. We also have seen the more immediate and direct effects of global vaccine and treatment availability, through the demand and growth of our life sciences sector here at home—will the Minister tell me that that is not the sort of growth that this Government are looking for? At best, these investments benefit us up and down the UK. In my constituency, the University of St Andrews reported just last month that its infection and global health division had been awarded early career funding to identify new therapeutic strategies for infectious diseases.

I have almost reached the end of my remarks, but I must mention the elephant in the room: the shrinking ODA budget. I have read the statistics, as others have, that show that spending on Gavi and the Global Fund gives some of the best financial returns. Just a few weeks ago, I attended a meeting in Parliament with the chief executive of the World Bank. He was clear that his role and that of his organisation is to create opportunities in the global south to develop their economies and reduce emigration from there.

Given the Government’s other priorities, such as immigration, investing in multilateral ODA activities makes sense. I really urge the Minister to look again at that cut and how long it is needed for, and to engage openly with the ONE Campaign’s pre-action letter questioning the legality of the current cut to 0.3%.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

It was important for me to meet Madam Zelensky to discuss this issue when I was last in Ukraine. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), also met the relevant Minister in Ukraine to discuss this issue just a few days ago. I can absolutely give an undertaking to continue to support the group. It is not our assessment that we can meet the shortfall left by the withdrawal of USAID—United States Agency for International Development—funding, but we will continue to work with partners across Europe on this important issue, which is very personal to me.

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

11. What diplomatic steps he is taking to help ensure that Israel allows aid into Gaza.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

Aid should never be used as a political tool. As the Foreign Secretary made clear to the House on 20 March, blocking humanitarian aid into Gaza is appalling and unacceptable. Israel must allow aid into Gaza immediately. The Foreign Secretary made that clear to Israeli Foreign Minister Sa’ar on 21 March and issued a joint statement with his French and German counterparts on 5 March. Gaza is the deadliest place in the world to be an aid worker. More than 400 aid workers have been killed in the conflict. Restoring the ceasefire remains the best chance to see hostages released, allow a surge of humanitarian aid and bring this bloodshed to an end.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

It is clear from the Chamber this morning that we all despair at the recent breakdown of the ceasefire agreement, the resumption of hostilities and the blockade of aid into Gaza. We now have warnings of an unprecedented humanitarian disaster in the Gaza strip, which is hard to imagine after what we have already seen there. The Minister mentioned the conversations that have been had with Israel. First, can he assure me that we are making it clear that the only way we will achieve a lasting peace is through a two-state solution, which will not achieved by subjecting people to such hardship? Secondly, what conversations are ongoing with allies about restoring aid drops directly into Gaza?

[Mr Falconer]

I can confirm that we say regularly to our Israeli counterparts, and indeed to all others in the region, that the only route out of these horrors is a two-state solution, an outcome that provides for the safety, security and dignity of both peoples. We are talking with our partners about what might be done to try to ensure aid gets into Gaza through whatever means are at our disposal, but at the core, Israel must relax the restrictions and allow aid into Gaza. That is the way to get the scale of aid that is required into the strip. During the ceasefire, we saw a massive increase in aid, and that is what we want to do.

Ukraine

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I was in Kyiv, I saw that close to President Zelensky’s office is an apartment block that was blown up a few weeks ago. A couple asleep in their bed were killed. That is the awfulness of this war. Of course, my hon. Friend will recall that when the Prime Minister visited, Putin sought to fire missiles into Ukraine. It is grim and unbelievable brutality, and of course we must continue to stand up to it.

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

In response to the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), the Foreign Secretary said that Russia does not respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. On his comments on the Ukraine defence contact group, the US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth says that the US wants to see

“a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine”,

but given the news that we have just heard about the UN resolution, how confident is the Foreign Secretary that the US will respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very pleased that the US has attempted to bring this horrendous war to an end. That does require conversations with Russia. Those are hard conversations, and I am not sure that the Russians are ready to properly negotiate, but I admire the attempt to try. It is important that Ukraine is at the table; it is important that Europe steps up with burden-sharing and increases its defence. Those are issues that we will discuss with President Trump in the coming days.