Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting a debate on this topic, which takes place at such a crucial time for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I also take this opportunity to thank FCDO staff for their ongoing efforts to support British nationals caught up in the conflict in the middle east.

Over successive Governments, we have seen a sustained reduction in the United Kingdom’s development budget, ODA—official development assistance. First we saw the cut from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI, and there is now a stated path towards 0.3% by 2027. It has also been reported that the UK’s international climate finance commitment is now to be slashed by £2.6 billion. Those cuts have consequences: they affect how the UK is perceived internationally, as well as our ability to support stability and prosperity, both overseas and in our own country.

Aid has always been a highly cost-effective way of preventing conflict and reducing pressures that eventually reach our own borders. It allows girls to be educated, women to work, farmers to feed their communities, and disease to be challenged and contained. It also allows civil society to hold Governments to account. It is our soft superpower, and its benefits must not be underestimated.

The FCDO, as the past weekend proved, is constantly dealing with fast-shifting geopolitical sands. In this current financial year, as part of the FCDO’s supplementary estimate, we see further cuts to both day-to-day and investment spending, both of which have reduced quite dramatically—day-to-day spending by £457 million, and investment spending by £228 million. Most of these cuts are focused on the ODA budget, although Parliament has not yet been provided with details showing exactly where these reductions will fall.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady—a champion by name and a champion by conviction. We are very pleased to see her in her place, and we thank her very much for what she does.

I sometimes think there are opportunities for partnerships. For instance, churches in my constituency have very active partnerships in Zimbabwe, Malawi, Swaziland, Kenya, Uganda and Nigeria, so there is perhaps a way of partnering with church groups, non-governmental organisations and individuals that have an interest in helping. Does the hon. Lady feel that the Minister and the Government should take that on board and look at it?

[Sarah Champion]

I thank the hon. Member for his kind words and for expressing that sentiment. Of course, faith communities do so much internationally, because it is the right thing to do, but they should be complementing what Governments are doing. At the moment, we know the scale of the cuts, but we do not know the distribution—it is not fair to be looking for philanthropic kindness to fill those gaps.

We know that reductions are taking place, but we do not know which programmes will be impacted. That is not just us in this House but the people on the frontline trying their very best to deliver these programmes to the very poorest.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I appreciate that my hon. Friend’s answer to this question may well be that we do not know, which I think is the point she is making, but I have asked the Minister a number of questions about the UK leading on the eradication of polio, and I have actually received some very good answers—I am not just saying that because he is in his place. How reassured is my hon. Friend on that issue? Has she asked the FCDO about the need to ensure that the UK remains a leading player in the eradication of polio worldwide?

[Sarah Champion]

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.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her very powerful and pertinent speech. One of the big shifts is from aid to trade, and as trade envoys, we are trying to deliver some of our aid ambitions through trade relationships. However, if we just do not have the people available, there is no way that we can make that shift. I know that she has already started to talk about the importance of ensuring that we have people present, but can she elaborate on the importance of retaining them in the country so that we can deliver the transition that we expect to see?

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, we have FCDO and trade staff working together to support the work that he and many others are doing. Trade is fantastic—it is something that we support. I support British International Investment, which I will come on to in a moment, but it is not something that can stand alone. Our ODA money is there to support the very poorest in the world, to enable them through training, education and entrepreneurial skills to get to a point where we hope they can be a trading partner with the UK.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point about how we develop communities and individuals. Does she agree that co-operatives have an important role to play in economic development, as they not only create jobs but give people a stake in the future of those jobs?

[Sarah Champion]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The only way that I am aware of co-operatives starting is by groups of local people coming together. That is what FCDO and ODA money is particularly good at doing—supporting civil society. I mentioned holding Governments to account, but of course, the economic empowerment that comes from communities being involved in the development of their own countries is something that we have supported so well for decades. I really hope we are able to continue to do so.

One concern I have is about the money that will likely be spent on staff redundancies that would be much better spent on furthering British priorities overseas. Of course, there are also pressures on the wider network of institutions that further the UK’s interests overseas, such as the British Council and the BBC World Service. Those institutions play a really important role in projecting the UK’s soft power, and require stable and predictable funding. Although more funding has been provided in the supplementary estimates, this follows a long period of damaging uncertainty, which has really weakened our hand.

Inadequate transparency over aid spending has been a persistent theme for the past few years. I am proud of the work my Committee has done to shine a light on where aid cuts have fallen and the impact they have had. I am also extremely grateful to the excellent support provided in this task by my Committee staff and the House of Commons financial scrutiny unit, but we do not do this work alone; independent scrutiny bodies such as the Independent Commission for Aid Impact play a central role in maintaining transparency and accountability and in ensuring that Members have the information we need. I am deeply concerned that ICAI may be axed as part of these cuts, and I hope the Minister can reassure us that I am wrong about that.

This estimates debate sits within a broader shift in the UK’s aid strategy towards investment-led development, which is evident in nearly £0.5 billion funding for British International Investment this year. BII’s model is built on long-term investments rather than rapid humanitarian response, but that raises questions about the breadth of our development portfolio, and whether we are still there to help the poorest of the poor if we do not have the other support that underpins BII.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I thank the Chair of the International Development Committee for her opening remarks, and I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Does she agree that it was extremely disappointing that the previous Government, and indeed this Government, did not follow the recommendation of the International Development Committee that there should be someone from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on the board of BII—not to make investment decisions, but to ensure it is aligned with Government strategy and policy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

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—

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Sarah Champion]

I will of course give way.

[Noah Law]

I declare an interest as a former employee of BII. Might I gently share my disagreement with the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and my hon. Friend the Chair on this point? Although it is incredibly important that our development finance institutions adhere to the FCDO’s strategy, my personal experience is that politicisation of some of these state-backed financial institutions can end up with them lurching to and fro. Does my hon. Friend share some of my concerns about the potential for that kind of political influence over some of these institutions?

[Sarah Champion]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern. I do not agree with him on the board point, but if we look at the countries that BII was asked to focus on under the last Government, it is clear that political interference—if we want to call it that—is alive and well. I agree that when we invest in organisations, we should trust them to do their job, but that requires scrutiny, so again, I will be very concerned if ICAI is cut. I will move away from BII now.

Today’s debate gives Members a crucial and timely opportunity to influence the Government’s approach to funding for the FCDO and overseas aid. We face a combination of a diminished budget and a change of strategic direction, all happening at a time of unprecedented global need. Parliament must insist on clarity about where cuts will fall. We must also insist on reassurance that development expertise will be protected and confidence that the United Kingdom’s aid spending remains focused on reducing poverty, supporting development, humanitarian need and contributing to global stability. This House rightly places a premium on transparency, accountability and value for money. Every pound now matters more than ever, and let us be reminded—as I frequently am—that it is the taxpayer’s pound that we are overseeing. Although our formal powers to amend the FCDO’s spending limits are limited, debates such as this allow us to exert influence and have our say at a pivotal moment in the UK’s foreign policy. I know that my colleagues in the House will use this moment wisely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

May I thank all the Members who have spoken with such passion about the projects, schemes and—most importantly—individuals in our diplomatic and development service at the FCDO? I know that I have a really short time, but I have to say that the Government have given us the four pillars on which they will make their future decisions, which were put in place by a former Foreign Secretary and a former Parliamentary Under-Secretary.

My concern now is that, while I believe the funding decisions have already been made and will come into the public domain shortly, we as a House can still influence what is going on with staffing. Our staff in the FCDO are under huge pressure. They are our superpower, as this weekend is showing. They are under a huge level of trauma right now because of the restructure that is going on. Added to that is the confusion over their pensions, and there is no workforce plan. I say to the Minister with absolute respect that I do not believe the resources will be there in our time of need, unless assurances are put in place that we have the necessary skills and expertise that all of us in this Chamber have spoken about with pride. I ask all Members please to draw attention to this, so that decisions are not made that we live to regret.

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

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?

[Mr Falconer]

As ever, I thank my hon. Friend for her important questions. I wish to clarify quickly. The British Government oppose forced displacement in Palestine, and that is our long-held position. While we are due to update Parliament on the wider issues posed by the ICJ advisory opinion, I would not wish for there to be any ambiguity about our position. We oppose forcible displacement and, of course, there must be accountability and justice for all crimes committed right across Palestinian and Israeli territory.

Gaza Healthcare System

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Snowden]

I will make a little progress first, given the time, but I will take interventions. The new NGO restrictions that are about to come into place affect some 15% of the aid agencies operating within Gaza, and those agencies have contributed about 1% of the aid delivery throughout the conflict. Some of those that have been notified of the new restrictions have applied and been approved to operate again in the area.

[Sarah Champion]

The Minister referenced the aid that—

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

He is the shadow Minister.

[Sarah Champion]

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.

[Mr Snowden]

I thank the hon. Lady for my temporary elevation; I enjoyed my 30 seconds as a Minister, but that is all I will get for now. I will come on to future aid, the volume of aid that needs to get in, dual-use items, to which I have referred, and other issues. I just wanted to pick up on and address some of the alternative facts.

The situation in Gaza is serious and severe. Hamas and their Iranian sponsors bear responsibility for the continued suffering. Hamas launched their attack on Israel on 7 October 2023. They have refused to disarm and have infiltrated and used civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, as shields and military defensive positions. The whole House should be united in calling Hamas out, and it is important that the Minister gives us an update on the steps that the Government are taking to support the implementation of the 20-point peace plan for Gaza, including the removal of Hamas.

[Mr Snowden]

I will come on to the UN’s stats on the amount of aid that has been misappropriated shortly. I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but I think it is a tad rich to talk about one-sidedness when the word “Hamas” was hardly mentioned in many of the contributions that we heard earlier.

The Government say that they have been calling for broader aid access, but calling for something is not the same as achieving it. We need to know whether Ministers have put forward specific, concrete proposals for the opening of individual crossings and entry points into Gaza, whether those proposals have been presented directly to the Government of Israel, and their response.

Will the Minister tell us what quantity and type of medical aid has been funded and prepared for this moment? Where is it currently stationed? How much of it has entered Gaza? Which organisations are distributing it? Critically, what new safeguards are in place to ensure that UK aid reaches innocent civilians, not terrorist groups? Aid diversion is not a peripheral concern; it is central.

Since the ceasefire announcement on 10 October 2025 and 11 February 2026, the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs notes that 1,532 aid pallets have been verified as being intercepted during transit within Gaza. Although the destination of the pallets cannot be confirmed, it does not require too much imagination to work out where they have ended up. That is why we cannot discuss Gaza’s healthcare collapse in isolation from the wider political and security situation—the two are inseparable. The ceasefire provides an opening, but a ceasefire is not peace, and the Government seem curiously reluctant to acknowledge what is needed to convert one into the other.

If the ceasefire is to translate into something sustainable, Hamas must be removed from power once and for all, and their terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled. Events of recent days—the violence between Hamas and armed groups and clans within Gaza—underline precisely why Hamas cannot be permitted any future role in the governance of the territory. Hamas have no regard for human life or human dignity; they never have.

That brings me to governance. Rebuilding Gaza’s health system without addressing who actually governs Gaza is an exercise in futility. Have the Government had any meaningful say in the composition of the transitional Administration? Has anything of substance on governance reform emerged from the so-called memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority—a document that did not even address corruption or antisemitism in school curricula? If the Palestinian Authority is to play an extended role, it must implement the most significant reforms in its history. That includes on healthcare, welfare, education, and frankly, basic democratic accountability.

[Sarah Champion]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Mr Snowden]

I am running out of time, and I have taken several interventions. Our support should be conditional on those reforms being delivered. Have the Government made that case clearly to the Palestinian Authority?

I also ask the Minister whether the UK will be scaling up its involvement in the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre. Is Britain contributing to the demilitarisation of Gaza and the disarming of Hamas? Have the Government had any discussions with the United States about the consequences for Hamas if they do not engage constructively with phase 2—

[Sarah Champion]

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?

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. As she knows, because she heard me intervene in the debate earlier, I have been listening carefully to ensure that speakers keep to the subject of healthcare. As she also heard me say to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), it is perfectly in order for speakers to talk about the context to a degree. I have been listening carefully to the shadow Minister; if what he had said had been out of order, I would have told him so.

I will take the opportunity while I am on my feet to say that the hon. Lady and all Members know that this has been a serious and passionate debate throughout. I hope that Members will respect the fact that passionate contributions from both sides of the argument are perfectly rational and in order, and should be heard with the same respect that all other contributions have been heard with.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Savage]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. The treaty does not yet go far enough on plastic pollution, and I hope that the countries of the world will bring their best endeavours to achieving an international agreement in that regard. So far, sadly, those negotiations have not succeeded.

I also want to recognise the serious, constructive work of our Liberal Democrat peers. They chose not to delay ratification, but they worked hard to strengthen the Bill. Lord Teverson pressed Ministers on enforcement gaps, flags of convenience, illegal fishing and human rights at sea, reminding us that the high seas cannot be a legal vacuum for either nature or people, and Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer pushed strongly on plastic pollution, especially the plastic pellets that now turn up throughout the marine food chain. Those issues have not gone away, and they now form the implementation agenda.

As Lord Teverson observed during the debates in the other place, this may be one of the last major environmental agreements that we see from the United Nations for some time, given this era in which respect for international law appears to be under strain in a way that we have not seen for many decades. That makes the treaty not just important but precious. We are under a moral and existential obligation to make it work. This ratification must be the start, not the finish. If the UK wants to lead, the Government should aim to arrive at the first Conference of the Parties with a clear plan for implementation, and I suggest that the plan should include the publication of a proper implementation road map including timelines, responsibilities and funding, so that delivery does not drift.

We should back our world-leading scientific institutions, such as the National Oceanography Centre, the British Antarctic Survey and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. They should be fully supported to provide the evidence, training and technology transfers on which this treaty depends. We should strengthen enforcement using our satellite-monitoring capability and our experience in monitoring vast protected areas in the overseas territories. As a priority, we should get our own maritime house in order. We cannot in good conscience call for protection overseas while allowing destructive practices like bottom-trawling in our own MPAs. Credibility must start at home.

At a time when multilateral co-operation often feels fragile, this treaty shows what is still possible when countries work together to protect the global commons. The Liberal Democrats will support this Bill, but future generations will not judge us on whether we ratified the treaty; they will judge us on whether the oceans are healthier because we did something. Let us match warm words with hard action, and show that Britain still leads when it matters, not just by signing agreements but by protecting the blue parts of our planet, which give us food to eat and oxygen to breathe. To quote Sir David Attenborough, who turns 100 this coming May:

“If we save the sea, we save our world.”

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean, I am delighted to see the Bill’s swift passage through Parliament, and I look forward to its full ratification, but I have some specific questions for the Minister. Can she outline the timeline for the next steps to ensure ratification? Specifically, will it happen ahead of the first ocean COP, expected later this year? If the Minister is unable to give that detail today, would she be willing to meet the APPG for the ocean to discuss the timeline, particularly given that we are now five years away from our 30 by 30 commitment?

I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, tabled an amendment in the other place that would have ensured that the “polluter pays” and precautionary principles, alongside other principles in the Environment Act 2021, must be applied by UK authorities when they exercised powers or duties under this Bill relating to the high seas. As that amendment was not passed, there are concerns across the ocean sector that there is no statutory requirement in the Bill to extend those environmental principles beyond the UK’s territorial or domestic jurisdiction. Can the Minister comment on that? Will she also offer assurances that, when representatives of the Government or public authorities act under the Bill in relation to the high seas, they will apply the UK’s existing environmental principles so that we do have that coverage?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I will make a couple of comments about the timing of amendments in the other place. There have been ongoing discussions with the devolved Governments. It is important to recognise this Government’s respect for the devolution settlements and our adherence to the principles underpinning the Sewel convention; we aim for them to be our core considerations and to inform how we work. We have been working closely with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to get agreement on moving forward with this legislation together, and that was part of the reason for the delays.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Given the scale of the planned FCDO budget reductions and significant staffing cuts, what assessment has been made of which policy areas will be deprioritised as a result of those measures? What redundancy mitigation steps are being taken in line with the 2016 civil service protocols and how those changes are expected to impact both UK personnel serving overseas and country-based staff?

Proposed Chinese Embassy

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

(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.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to it. She will know that discussions with Five Eyes partners relating to domestic security matters are primarily a responsibility for the Home Office. The decision on planning permission for the proposed Chinese embassy at Royal Mint Court rests solely with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in his quasi-judicial capacity. He has set 20 January as the target date for his decision, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham will agree that it would not be appropriate for me to cut across that process.

I appreciate that there has been significant interest in our engagement with allies and partners on this matter. As my hon. Friend knows, we never comment on conversations with allies regarding intelligence matters. I can nevertheless reassure her and the House that we continue to work closely with our Five Eyes partners and other like-minded countries on a wide range of issues, including those pertaining to domestic security. These partnerships are essential for our shared security.

We have been consistently clear that national security is the first duty of Government, and it has been our core priority throughout the embassy process, with the close involvement of the security and intelligence agencies. Our intelligence services have been involved throughout, and a range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect national security. The Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary also publicly identified two issues: the consolidation of China’s diplomatic estate in London and public access. Those require resolution before a decision could be made. In November, they wrote to confirm that appropriate resolutions to those issues had been reached. As the director general of MI5 commented last month, our security services have over a century of experience of managing the risks that arise from foreign embassies on UK soil, and I have full confidence in their ability to do so effectively.

[Sarah Champion]

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.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. I reiterate that our intelligence services have been involved throughout. A range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect national security. She will also know that the Government are still to make a decision. That planning decision will be made independently by Ministers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on planning grounds.

It is also important to recognise that we have set clear red lines through this process. That has included, for example, the consolidation of the diplomatic presence of China from seven buildings to one, which will have security benefits. It is also important to say that we do routinely engage with our allies, including the US, which is our closest ally, on a range of issues, including security and intelligence in relation to China. It is important to recognise that we do that routinely and that it is important to discuss national security factors that we may consider.

My hon. Friend referred to transnational repression. She will know that the UK Government will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the UK. We continually assess potential threats in the UK, and we take the protection of individuals’ rights, freedoms and safety very seriously.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

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?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the way that my hon. Friend has continued to raise this issue, and to shine a spotlight on Sudan and the atrocities. One of the emergency room volunteers from Sudan I met last week is involved in providing support to young women, including children and young girls, who have been brutally raped. What is happening is horrendous, and I have to commend the incredible bravery of those community volunteers in Sudan. Frankly, I think the international community is letting Sudan down, and we need a concerted effort. We recently put forward a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council, but we will continue to raise this issue with all our international partners.

Gaza and Sudan

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

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?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work and that of her Committee on this issue. She is right to point out the truly horrendous nature of what is happening in Sudan and the atrocities that we have heard about. People have been executed in the middle of a maternity hospital and lives are being lost at scale, and the fact that so few people are emerging from the area makes it deeply troubling to consider what more we may discover. Because I am so deeply concerned, I have raised the issue not just at the Manama dialogue, but at every international discussion that we have been having with foreign ministers, and directly with all members of the Quad, including the UAE and the US, as well as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as we need urgent action. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is also about preventing further atrocities, which are at risk of happening at any moment if we do not have that urgent action.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

The Government sought the consent of the Crown dependencies for that permissive extent clause to apply to them, enabling the extension of the Bill to those jurisdictions in the future. As the Isle of Man consented to its inclusion in the permissive extent clause, the Government tabled amendment 3 in Committee to insert that into the Bill.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I welcome this Bill. As chair of the Channel Islands all-party group, I was interested that the Minister tabled an amendment that covered just the Isle of Man. Before the Bill goes to the other place, could her officials please consult the Channel Islands one last time to make sure that they do not also need to be included in the Bill?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments, and yes we will continue those conversations with the Channel Islands.

To conclude, provisions in the Bill would be extended only to British overseas territories and the Isle of Man with their agreement. Clause 25 sets out when most of the Bill’s provisions come into force, and gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations to appoint entry into force and dates for other provisions. In summary, the Bill provides the legal foundation for the United Kingdom’s participation in the new global regime for protecting biodiversity on the high seas. It will enable us to fulfil our international commitments, provide certainty to our scientific and research communities, and demonstrate once again the UK’s leadership in marine conservation. I commend the Bill to the Committee, and look forward to engaging with hon. Members during the debate.

Official Development Assistance Reductions

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I am conscious of time, so I will make some progress.

[Sarah Champion]

You have lots of time.

[Seema Malhotra]

I have a number of points to make, but I will come back once I have made them. On changing from donor to investor, a number of comments were made about British International Investment and other development finance institutions. These are central to the UK’s shifts. BII deploys patient capital to stimulate private-sector growth in developing countries, balancing financial returns with development impact. Indeed, we have seen our partnerships grow, such as with the Gates Foundation. Our co-investments with the Gates Foundation in breeding wheat with higher zinc and climate resilience have benefited more than 97 million people in Pakistan, positively impacting their health and quality of life. In Ghana, the UK is using its development relationship to support Ghana’s goal to move beyond aid. A Ghanaian textile factory financed by British International Investment has grown into one of west Africa’s largest, providing 6,000 jobs, mainly for women, and exporting garments globally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

It is of course the Government’s right to make whatever policy decisions and budget cuts they feel appropriate, but how are they planning to do the four priorities with a 25% cut in staffing and a £6 billion cut in the available money?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will go through how we will take some of the priorities forward and some of the changes that we are seeing through our strategy. I hope that helps answer my hon. Friend’s question. I want to make a point about our investment in Gavi, of which we were a founding member under the last Labour Government. It has generated £250 billion in economic benefits through reduced death and disability. It is a partnership based on the UK’s world-leading expertise in not just funding but research.

From grants to expertise, that partnership comes up in conversations that I have with countries that I work with as Minister with responsibility for the Indo-Pacific. It is important in terms of how we are working to increase the expertise of partners, including the Bank of England, the City of London and the University of Cambridge. We are helping to train financial regulators across countries, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ partnership with the Ghana Revenue Authority used the UK’s expertise to increase Ghana’s tax revenue collection by £100 million last year—revenues that will help fund Ghana’s transition from aid.

I am conscious of time, but I will make a few further remarks. Reducing the overall size of our ODA budget will necessarily have an impact on the scale and shape of the work that we do. But we are sharpening our focus on three priorities, which match partner needs and the long-term needs of people in the UK, and are also in areas where we can drive real change. These priorities have been highlighted in this debate—humanitarian, health, and climate and nature—and they are underpinned by economic development. They will help maximise our impact and focus our efforts where they matter most.

I reassure the House that the UK will continue to play a key humanitarian role, including responding to the most significant conflicts of our era, in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan. We will not let Sudan be forgotten. We are the third-largest bilateral humanitarian donor to Sudan, and in April we announced £120 million to deliver lifesaving services to over 650,000 people affected by the conflict.