MPs Press for Clarity; Government Cautions as Stormont Reform Stalls

High-Level Summary

Westminster Hall held five debates covering: a statutory duty of care for universities; the Academic Technology Approval Scheme (ATAS); airport drop‑off charges; security in the Arctic and High North; and potential reform of Northern Ireland’s institutions. Members pressed for clearer legal duties on student welfare, better ATAS performance and communication, fairer airport forecourt regimes, stronger Arctic posture, and changes to Stormont’s structures. Ministers highlighted existing Equality Act protections, set out operational improvements to ATAS, reiterated that airport pricing is for operators within consumer law safeguards, and described UK/NATO activity in the High North. Four debates ended with the customary agreement to the neutral motion; the Northern Ireland debate concluded without a decision.

Detailed Summary

Universities: statutory duty of care

James Naish asked whether universities’ duties for students’ health, wellbeing and safety are sufficiently clear, arguing that “no statutory duty requires universities to take reasonable care to protect adult students from foreseeable harm” and that current obligations arise “in a fragmented way” [ref: a280.0/3]. Citing Abrahart v University of Bristol, he said courts had indicated Parliament should decide the wider issue, noting the judge called the duty question “one of potentially wide application and significance” [ref: a281.1/6]. Members raised parental contact, clinical placements, sexual harassment, and resource implications; the British Medical Association urged Government “to bring forward legislation that introduces a statutory duty of care on higher education institutions for their students” [ref: a282.1/3].

Minister Josh MacAlister stressed existing legal duties (including under the Equality Act) and warned that creating a statutory duty could mean “defining a minimum legal standard for universities, which risks becoming a ceiling rather than a floor” [ref: a301.1/4]. He also observed that “students in higher education have a lower suicide rate than others of the same age in the general population” [ref: a301.1/5], and said the mental health taskforce would continue to drive accountability and best practice while evidence is reviewed. The motion to consider the subject was agreed: “Question put and agreed to” and “Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of a statutory duty of care for universities” [ref: a302.0/5, a302.0/7].

Academic Technology Approval Scheme (ATAS)

Wendy Chamberlain explained ATAS and concerns about delays, case visibility and compassionate handling. She noted the Minister had confirmed “a standard timeframe of 30 working days—six weeks—to process applications” [ref: a305.0/2], but reported cases taking months, with knock‑on impacts on offers, visas and funded projects. She also highlighted contact difficulties: “There is just one email address” for ATAS enquiries [ref: a305.0/7].

Responding, Seema Malhotra said “ATAS is a national security vetting process, not a routine administrative check” [ref: a307.0/5]. Demand had roughly doubled since 2017, yet “about 98%—are processed within the 30 working-day service standard” [ref: a307.0/6]. She cited work on “faster triaging, providing surge support for more complex cases, and IT improvements” [ref: a307.0/7], and acknowledged communication shortcomings in a bereavement case, committing to improve responsiveness and transparency, saying “the continuous improvement of our operations should be a matter of concern to all of us” [ref: a309.1/3]. The debate concluded with “Question put and agreed to” [ref: a311.0/3].

Airport drop‑off charges

Yasmin Qureshi called for “ending airport drop-off charges altogether, or at the very least introducing a free grace period”, as well as consistent national signage and fair payment systems [ref: a312.2/3]. Using Manchester Airport, she described barrierless ANPR and a potential “parking charge notice of £100” for non‑payment [ref: a312.2/5], and urged transparency and reminders before penalties. Members from several regions compared UK fees unfavourably to some European airports, raised accessibility for disabled passengers, and questioned reliance on after‑the‑event online payments.

Aviation Minister Keir Mather said pricing is for operators but must be fair and proportionate, adding “the Government do not believe that it is their role to dictate parking prices from Whitehall” [ref: a334.1/3]. He undertook to raise signage and payment concerns with airports: “I undertake to remind airports … of their obligations” [ref: a334.1/6], and pointed to consumer‑law protections, trade‑association codes and Government proposals to “raise standards” for private parking operators with a new code of practice [ref: a335.1/3]. The House then agreed the motion: “Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of regulating airport drop-off charges” [ref: a336.1/3, a336.1/4].

Arctic and High North: implications for UK security

Graeme Downie warned that melting ice is opening routes and resources amid Russian and Chinese activity, heightening risks to UK interests from subsea infrastructure to the GIUK gap. He argued the UK “is a frontline nation—that frontline is in the High North and the Arctic” [ref: a340.1/9], urging stronger UK/European posture and investment.

Minister Alistair Carns described Russia as “the most acute danger to the security of the northern near Atlantic” [ref: a341.3/6] and said “Russian submarine activity is nearing the highest levels since the cold war” [ref: a341.3/7]. He highlighted NATO strengthening (including Sweden and Finland), Royal Marines’ Arctic deployments, and interoperability with allies, reaffirming that “the future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and the Danes, and no one else” [ref: a343.1/1]. He stated defence spending is intended to rise “to 5% of GDP over the next decade” [ref: a344.3/2]. The debate ended with “Question put and agreed to” [ref: a344.3/3].

Northern Ireland political institutions: reform

Sorcha Eastwood advocated modest reforms to prevent collapses and improve decision‑making, including “removing the ability of any one party to block the formation of an Executive” and restoring the petition of concern to its original purpose [ref: a346.1/14]. Claire Hanna proposed enabling an Assembly even without an Executive via “the election of a Speaker by a two-thirds majority” and renaming the joint First Minister office [ref: a350.1/3]. Other suggestions included returning the Justice portfolio to d’Hondt and limiting vetoes on the Executive agenda [ref: a350.3/3, a350.3/4].

Opposing change, Sammy Wilson warned reforms amounted to “majority rule” [ref: a352.0/1] and said safeguards protect minorities. Jim Allister proposed retaining legislative and scrutiny devolution while shifting Executive powers to the UK Government: “We should sustain the legislative devolution” [ref: a353.1/3]. Jim Shannon cited tangible outputs from devolution, noting “14,500 children now benefit from a subsidy that has slashed childcare costs” [ref: a355.0/4]. The Government said any changes must command wide support; the Prime Minister is “always happy to discuss any proposals for reform that would lead to a consensus” [ref: a361.1/8]. The motion lapsed and the sitting adjourned without a decision [ref: a362.5/5].