Sarah Champion MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Israel: E1 Zone Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  It is right that the Government acknowledge that Israel’s presence in Palestine is illegal under international law, but for two years they have not responded to the ICJ’s advisory ruling that Israel’s actions towards Palestinians in the west bank may constitute forcible transfer. The Israeli Government expressly back the E1 scheme, which will necessarily displace tens of thousands of Palestinians and dissect the west bank. Netanyahu said of the plan: “We are going to fulfil our promise that there will be no Palestinian state. This place belongs to us.” The UK’s current situation is unsustainable. Will the Minister acknowledge the Israeli Government’s role in the forcible transfer of Palestinians in the west bank and act accordingly with a full range of diplomatic interventions?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Gulf Conflict · Hansard source

  More

  Lebanon’s humanitarian flash fund secured less than a third of the money that was required. Some 20% of the Lebanese population is currently displaced, and 40,000 housing units have been destroyed. Lebanon is on the brink of economic collapse and social tensions are rising. I thank the Foreign Secretary for the humanitarian support sent to date, including cash transfers, but I ask her to do more. We need to press for a real ceasefire, provide practical support to Lebanon’s armed forces, help the state to tackle negative influences that are trying to undermine its sovereignty and, finally, vigorously oppose the illegal expansion of Israel’s buffer zone in south Lebanon.

• 19 Mar 2026 · International Development · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that my voice will last—the Foreign Secretary might get off lightly. This was meant to be a statement about the 40% cuts that the Government are bringing forward. Instead, the Foreign Secretary spoke at length about the policy and direction shifts that she is making, which I think are the right ones to make, but we have not discussed the policy announcements around the cuts. I have had an embargoed copy of the equality impact assessment, for which I am grateful. When that is in the public domain, we will have the information that would allow us to have an informed debate. I fear that the Government’s decisions have been based on a false dichotomy. Defence has been pitched against international development, but ask any military person and they will say that the best line of prevention and first defence is our development money, because it keeps people safe and secure in their homes, keeps them prosperous and holds Governments to account. In the world we find ourselves in, I am fearful that taking away that first line of defence will have massive consequences. I will give a couple of stats to illustrate where we are. There are 61 ongoing conflicts. Less than 12% of the global population lives under a liberal democracy—the lowest in 50 years—with 5.8 billion people living under autocratic rule. Over the next 15 years, 1.2 billion people will reach working age with only a projected 400 million jobs. Development spend keeps people fed, safe and prosperous. Our aid cuts will reduce that. Girls in South Sudan will no longer have education, polio will surge, civil society is being abandoned and the poorest will not be fed. Rather than providing solutions, we will see the consequences of the UK stepping away from the international stage for our reputation and influence, and, as the former Home Secretary well knows, we will see people come to our shores to seek sanctuary and opportunity. Can we also spare a thought for the staff in the FCDO who face 25% cuts right now, and specifically the country directors who are having to go to people they have spent years building relationships with to say that we are no longer standing by them financially? I do not really have a question because I have not been given the information, but I say to the Foreign Secretary that these cuts do not aid our defence—they make the whole world more vulnerable. Can I please ask that as we go forward, she listens to the ICAI report about transparency, where we are prioritising money and its impact, rather than just chasing the bottom line?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. Polio is one of the success stories to show what can happen when countries work together, and we have almost completely eradicated it—I think we are at 99.98%. I urge the Minister not to step away from that programme. The FCDO has indicated that more information will soon be released about such programmes, including the eradication of polio, that will set out ongoing further funding for ODA projects. However, at present we must be realistic. Members are being asked to vote on billions of spending authority without having that complete picture, which greatly limits our ability to assess the real-world implications of the Government’s decisions. This uncertainty has consequences for long-term partnerships, humanitarian operations and communities that are relying on our support. The estimate also raises questions about staffing and our capability. Crises from Sudan to Gaza, and from the horn of Africa to Ukraine and, of course, the middle east, require experienced personnel and effective programme oversight. Any reduction in FCDO staffing risks weakening the Department’s ability to deliver and evaluate programmes effectively. In this context, the fact that the FCDO faces cuts to its headcount seems incredibly short-sighted. A major restructure is ongoing right now, and it is expected to reduce the workforce by 15% to 25%—we do not know and, unfortunately, the staff do not yet know. The failure to produce and share a workforce plan or equalities impact assessment does little to reassure me that the FCDO has sufficiently engaged the staff or unions in its restructuring, or that it has considered the implications of staffing reductions on its ambitions for ODA. There are unanswered questions about the FCDO’s ability to retain sufficient expertise and manage its complicated portfolio with such a tight funding envelope.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member, my fellow Committee member, and I share his sentiment. For those who do not know, BII is our development bank. The FCDO is its sole stakeholder, and it does seem very short-sighted and out of line with other international development banks that we do not have a seat on the board, even if it is a non-voting seat. I urge the Minister to consider that report of the Committee and its recommendations. I recognise the truly excellent work that BII does, but it is a strategy—

• 3 Mar 2026 · West Bank: Illegal Settlements · Hansard source

  More

  The rapid growth in Israeli settlements in recent months has been fuelled by settler violence, which not only goes unpunished, but receives tacit support from the Israeli Government. The UK Government continue to avoid responding to the International Court of Justice’s 2024 advisory opinion condemning Israelis’ forcible transfer of Palestinians—a war crime. Last month, the UN high commissioner for human rights noted that the forcible transfer of Palestinians from their homes in the west bank raises concerns of ethnic cleansing. Does the Minister agree with his analysis?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Gaza Healthcare System · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister—thanks. Is the shadow Minister aware that the aid that is getting in includes things such as chocolate bars, and not items that are so desperately required to address the medical needs? He speaks about volume, but we are talking about the substance of what is getting in—the lifesaving aid, not the peripheries that people are making money from.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Gaza Healthcare System · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister referenced the aid that—

• 24 Feb 2026 · Gaza Healthcare System · Hansard source

  More

  Will the shadow Minister give way?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Gaza Healthcare System · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this much-needed debate. I will focus on one specific aspect of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza where the UK can really make a difference: medical transfers to the west bank. Israel’s continued ban on medical transfers from Gaza to hospitals in the west bank, including East Jerusalem, costs lives every day. It is not an unintended consequence of conflict, but a deliberate decision. Before October 2023, Gaza’s health system functioned as part of a wider Palestinian medical network, with around 2,000 patients travelling each month from Gaza to hospitals in East Jerusalem and the west bank for specialised treatment. The Augusta Victoria and Makassed hospitals alone handled more than 40% of Gaza’s referrals. At times, nearly one third of their beds were filled with Gazan patients. However, that system collapsed overnight. Since October ’23, Israel has banned all internal medical transfers from Gaza. In January 2026, the Israeli Government confirmed to its own High Court that it is standing by its refusal to allow seriously ill patients to travel to the west bank, including East Jerusalem, citing vague security concerns but offering no evidence of the threat supposedly posed by innocent Palestinian civilians. As of early 2026, more than 18,500 patients approved by the World Health Organisation are waiting for evacuation because their treatment is unavailable in Gaza. More than 4,000 of those patients are children, and more than 1,000 people have already died while waiting for care. For every week that the ban remains in place, more preventable deaths will become inevitable. Israel permits some patients to travel abroad for treatment, with more than 4,000 patients evacuated to third countries. But that only makes its continued refusal to allow access to nearby Palestinian hospitals even harder to defend. Hospitals in East Jerusalem are within a couple hours’ drive of Gaza. The WHO has been clear: reopening that route is the fastest, safest and most cost-effective way to save lives. Instead, patients are forced through the Rafah crossing, which operates under extremely severe restrictions. Exits through the crossing are capped at around 50 patients per day, with each allowed only two accompanying family members. At that pace, they will not survive long enough to be treated. At the current rate, Save the Children estimates that evacuating those in need could take more than a year. Furthermore, while departures through Rafah are possible, re-entry is heavily restricted, with more than 20,000 Palestinians who left Gaza earlier in the war still waiting to return. That puts medical evacuees in an impossible position: if they leave for essential treatment, they risk permanent displacement. Medical evacuations must not become de facto forcible transfer. Under the fourth Geneva convention, Israel, as the occupying power, has a duty to ensure access to medical care and supplies, and to maintain medical services. Article 33 explicitly prohibits “collective punishment”. A blanket ban on all medical transfers imposed regardless of individual circumstances risks breaching all of those obligations. The Government rightly emphasise the importance of international humanitarian law, and now is the time to put that into practice. The Government should publicly urge Israel to lift the ban on internal medical transfers and continue emergency overseas evacuations only as a stopgap, not as a substitute for lawful access to nearby care. Restoring access to hospitals in the west bank and East Jerusalem would save lives, relieve pressure on Gaza’s collapsing health system and reaffirm the basic principle that the sick must never be treated as a security risk by default.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Gaza Healthcare System · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Sir Jeremy. The subject of the debate is medical healthcare in Gaza, but the shadow Minister is not referring to that at all, apart from a tenuous “relating to healthcare” statement. Can you give some clarity, Sir Jeremy, on whether his speech is on point?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Proposed Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  I hear what the Minister has said, but I am not reassured and neither are our partners. We have now had interventions from the Dutch Government, the Swiss Parliament, and the Swedish Parliament, and we have had two interventions from the White House on the risks posed to UK infrastructure by the cabling that runs along Royal Mint Court. Last year, a Minister said that reports regarding the cables were inaccurate. Does the Minister still believe that to be the case? I understand that we are now briefing Five Eye partners that “no sensitive government data is transmitted through cables”. Would the Minister confirm that? Surely, that line is a tacit admission that financial services based in London could be affected by Chinese proximity. Minister, what were the mitigations that MI5 and MI6 suggested to avoid espionage risks, and will their implementation be conditional for planning approval? I remind the House that the US has confirmed three major infrastructure hacks in the past 18 months, while we have faced hacks on the Electoral Commission, the Foreign Office and parliamentarians, to name just a few. A Chinese mega-embassy in the heart of London is an issue of national significance, not purely a planning issue as the Government try to present it. Combined with the heightened risk to dissidents, campaigners and the wider public, is this really a risk we should be taking? Can the Minister offer reassurance to my British Hong Kong constituents that transnational repression will not increase if this mega-embassy is approved? Once planning permission is given, we cannot take it back; we will have lost control. I know I speak for colleagues across the House and the wider country, because they have contacted me, when I say that this is not a risk we can afford to take and the Government should refuse this disastrous plan tomorrow.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Proposed Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on representations made to Five Eyes partners on the potential risks posed by the proximity of sensitive cabling infrastructure to the site of the proposed new Chinese embassy.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  Multiple Government agencies and Departments have raised concerns about this mega-embassy. Our international partners have raised concerns about it, and every security briefing I have identifies China as a hostile state to the UK. I am in no doubt that this mega-embassy should not be allowed to go ahead. Internationally, China is terrorising the people of Hong Kong. It is terrorising democratic people in Taiwan, and it is terrorising some people already in the UK. I look to my local university of Sheffield Hallam, and also to what China is doing to parliamentarians right here. I want my Government to stand up to bullies, not to reward them. We need to put in place rules and limits around China to stop this behaviour, not reward it with the embassy that it so dearly wants.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Sudan: Ceasefire · Hansard source

  More

  The conflict has now reached 14 of the 18 states of Sudan, and let me be frank: the humanitarian support has been paltry. Two weeks ago, I raised in this Chamber compelling evidence that the RSF will take Tawila before Christmas. What plans are being made for the evacuation of civilians and humanitarian workers? Will the Foreign Secretary update us on the Government’s efforts to increase humanitarian support from our international partners, particularly those in the middle east? When it comes to securing a ceasefire and peace, where are the women, and where is civil society? As the UK is the UN penholder, can she do much more to make sure that we amplify their voices?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Gaza and Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  This morning, Members received a private briefing on Sudan, at which one of the academics stated: “El Fasher is a slaughter house. Our low estimate is 60,000 people have been killed there in the last three weeks.” That would make it the biggest atrocity crime since the 1990s. These are civilians, not soldiers, and this is not about conflict; it is about genocide. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has been briefed on the likelihood of a mass-casualty event for years. In November 2021, the FCDO was publicly warned of a likely genocide. The recent Independent Commission for Aid Impact report concluded that last year, officials took “the least ambitious option” on civilian protection. I say to the Foreign Secretary that scrutiny and diplomatic surge can slow down this slaughter, so are we leading the 25 states who signed the joint statement on 11 November to work together to put pressure on the United Arab Emirates? Why has our atrocity prevention team not been surged? Tawila now needs to be our focus of our protection. What are the evacuation plans to protect up to 650,000 people from genocide? The Sudanese civilians need a champion. As UN penholder, will that be us?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Sudan: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Official Development Assistance Reductions · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for his powerful and accurate speech, with which I associate myself. Recent reductions have meant that UK ODA has dropped from the legally enshrined 0.7% to 0.5%, and it is now projected to be at 0.3% by 2027. That represents a significant retreat of UK leadership on international development and on the international stage. If ODA were to remain at 0.5% of GNI in 2027, it would total £15.4 billion; at 0.3%, it would be £9.2 billion, the lowest ODA in cash terms since 2012. That is a reduction of more than £6 billion in support for millions of vulnerable people around the world—people whose safety, health and long-term stability are in the UK’s immediate and long-term interest. The Government acknowledge that this reduction requires many hard choices. In May, when Baroness Chapman appeared before my International Development Committee, she told us: “The days of viewing the UK Government as a global charity are over”. As I said to her then, money spent on aid and development is not charity; it is an investment. Let me give two examples. First, the support that we give to fragile and conflict-affected states helps stabilisation efforts and prevents the creation of conditions ripe for generating extremism, which can lead to problems that end up on the UK’s doorstep and to a direct impact on our national security. Aid is now being cut for victims of the raging conflict in Sudan, from £146 million to £120 million, but the casualties, the victims and the devastation are only increasing. The many millions of Sudanese civilians displaced by the war are at severe risk of food insecurity and may seek security in Europe, worsening the pressure on the continent’s already struggling refugee protection systems. The lack of support for the Sudanese people over recent years has been devastating. My Committee was told last week by Shayna Lewis, an independent expert who works on the ground in Sudan, that the UK has refused to heed warnings and invest in atrocity prevention in Sudan over the past year, which could have been vital in preventing the horrors that are unfolding today in el-Fasher. Secondly, UK ODA has been vital to global health programmes such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which has cut the combined death rate from those three diseases by 61%, saving 65 million lives—arguably the most effective global health initiative of all time. Experts have warned our Committee that cuts to such programmes will reverse the gains in disease prevention, maternal health and pandemic preparedness. Similarly, the Government must protect investment in global nutrition. ODA reductions in 2021 led to a cut in nutrition spending of more than 60%, and in 2023 nutrition spending was drastically cut. In Afghanistan, it was down £87 million to £8.9 million; in Nigeria, it was down £11.8 million to £15.9 million; and in Myanmar, it was down £9.9 million to just £0.2 million. How will the Department deliver the four essential shifts announced by Baroness Chapman when funding, staffing and support programmes around the world are being so dramatically scaled back? It is not clear how the Government will deliver more with so much less. With the United States Agency for International Development shut down, and with other Governments reducing aid, it seems that instead of stepping up to fill the gap, the UK is stepping further back. What is most concerning is that the Government do not seem to have a strategy to manage the impact of the cuts on those who are affected. For example, the Government’s own equality impact assessment acknowledges the disproportionate impact of aid cuts on women and girls, risking the reversal of hard-won gains in that area. Previous cuts to ODA led to a 41% cut in programming to prevent violence against women and girls, and a 66% cut in funding for women’s rights organisations. Furthermore, even a 30% decrease in funding for sexual and reproductive health rights could lead to an additional 1.1 million unintended pregnancies. These programmes are vital for the safety of women and girls and the sustainability of societies around the world. Reducing ODA is not merely a budgetary adjustment. It is a political choice: a choice not to consider the longer-term benefits of investing a small percentage of taxpayers’ money in return for vast benefits to the poorest communities around the world and to our own safety and security. I urge the Government to reconsider the damaging, deadly trajectory that we are on.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and colleague. He is absolutely right, and that is why today is so historic: this is the UK taking that leadership role and hopefully corralling some of the other countries that are more reticent to do the right thing. The International Development Committee and the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean, both of which I chair, have long been calling on both the previous Government and this Government to put in place the necessary legislation to ratify this agreement. To have finally reached this point is a credit to the Ministers—particularly the Minister for Water and Flooding, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), but also the Minister responsible for the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), and the Minister of State for International Development and Africa, my noble Friend Baroness Chapman. In an era of international fragmentation, I am relieved that 145 states have come together to forge this agreement and safeguard a global public good. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) alluded to, 75 countries have already taken the next step of ratification. I am very proud that the Minister for Water and Flooding was championing this in opposition and has delivered on her word, leading this ratification in government. I thank her for that. As a seafaring nation and a centre of expertise in maritime law, the UK is perfectly placed to lead the charge to protect the world’s oceans. Sadly, we are lagging behind many countries, including the Seychelles, St Lucia and Barbados, which ratified the agreement last year. It is not surprising that the small island developing states, or SIDs—or large ocean states, as they prefer to be called—were quick to ratify, because they recognise the existential threat that ocean ecosystem degradation poses to human societies and their economies. As the International Development Committee argued in our report last year, SIDs need reliable partners. The UK talks a good game when it comes to responsible global leadership, but activists and policymakers from SIDs told the Committee they were concerned about the consistency of Britain’s commitment. I hope we will see that change at this moment, under this Government, and that we will stand up for small island developing states, particularly our overseas territories, which the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned. The health of the world’s oceans is not an issue confined to low-income countries; it is an existential issue for all of us. As the Government’s impact assessment acknowledged, the impact of reduced fish stocks and decreased capacity will be borne by all of us, including future generations. The UK must seize this moment to match its international conservation ambitions with tangible action to protect our domestic waters. Bottom trawl fishing, a highly destructive practice, is still permitted across almost all of the UK’s seas, including in more than 90% of our marine protected areas. I welcome the Government’s consultation on that, and hope that they will take the necessary step to ban that practice wherever they can. The Government must consider introducing additional legislation to ensure that the UK’s marine protected areas are actually protected, because sadly, even though they have the title, many of them are not. The Bill also offers plentiful opportunities for the UK’s blue economy as a world leader in marine science and technologies. To support quick progress, the UK needs a definition of the use of “marine genetic resources”, and “digital sequence information”, by the time the agreement is ratified. That is to support all those who will implement it. The UK’s next steps are vital to ensure that we fulfil our leadership role in ocean protection. The 120-day countdown has started. The first conference of the parties, Ocean COP1, will be held within just 12 months. With the clock ticking, will the Minister set out a timetable for the passage of the Bill through both Houses? We need it to pass quickly to allow the UK to play its full part in the first conference. Will the Minister also confirm whether the Bill legally extends the UK’s existing domestic duties to have regard to the precautionary and polluter pays principles to the high seas? If not, will she say whether something to that effect should or could be inserted into the Bill? Will the Minister consider producing an ocean strategy? Ocean issues currently fall between a number of different Departments, which unfortunately means they are under the ownership of none. The Bill is to be commended and must attain Royal Assent without delay. I strongly urge all Members to support it.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister, his Ministers and all the officials who I know have been working incredibly hard behind the scenes for the past two years to get to this historic point. He is right; it is a chance for peace. I am nervous about the next stages, but it is definitely a chance to get aid flooding into Gaza. Will he give us some more details about how that will happen in practice, with Israel controlling all the borders? Will he also speak about the role of UNRWA? I say to the Leader of the Opposition that UNRWA is a UN organisation that acts as the local authority, providing education, medical services, sewerage and desalination. It is an organisation that is central to supporting the Palestinians facing starvation and dealing with the consequences of genocide. I urge the Prime Minister to continue to rally the international community to put pressure on Israel to let that aid flood in and to ensure that the Palestinians are central in the future of their communities.