Inspector's report into Chinese ‘mega-embassy' with ministers for final decision
Communities minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said a Government determination on the application would be made on or before September 9.
Until then, neither the inspector's report nor its recommendation would be made public.
The plans by Beijing for a super-embassy on the historic former site of the Royal Mint near the capital's financial district have sparked security concerns.
Worries stem from the close proximity of the extensive development to critical data centres and communication cables.
The contentious scheme comes against the backdrop of ongoing disquiet over Chinese interference in the UK, with allegations of spies infiltrating the establishment and secret police stations being used to intimidate dissidents in Britain.
Unease has also previously been raised over ministerial involvement in progressing the plans, after the Metropolitan Police dropped their opposition.
The final decision on the application now rests with Communities Secretary Angela Rayner (PA/Gareth Fuller)
The embassy development was 'called in', which means Communities Secretary Angela Rayner, who is also Deputy Prime Minister, will make the final decision taking into account the inspector's findings.
Updating peers at Westminster, Lady Taylor said: 'The inspector's report was received on June 10 by the department.
'Parties have been notified that a decision will be made on or before September 9 2025.
'As the report has just been received, we have not yet begun to assess the case.
'The inspector's report will form part of the final decision and will be released alongside it.
'Until that point, neither the recommendation nor the report will be made public.'
She added: 'Because we now have the report, we will be considering it, it wouldn't be helpful to comment on any specific security issue raised on the application while it's under active consideration by the department.'
The minister said the inspector's evidence-based recommendation would take into account a wide variety of material planning matters, which 'may include safety and national security'.
Pressed over previous warnings by the head of MI5 over the 'epic scale' of Chinese espionage in the UK, Lady Taylor said: 'National security is, of course, the first duty of government, more generally.
'With regards to the specifics of the case, the inspector's report will consider the application against all of the national issues, local issues and regional issues, according to planning policy, and safety and national security will be taken into consideration, to make sure that we have considered fully all of the issues that may relate to this planning application.'
She added: 'It's difficult to answer general questions about the relationship with China and talk about that in the same space as a planning decision, which has to be taken according to a fixed process.
'But please be assured that national security is (something) we very strongly consider to be our first duty.'
Independent crossbencher Lord Alton of Liverpool, who has been banned by Beijing over his criticism of its human rights record, including its treatment of the Uighur Muslim minority, said: 'It's hard to imagine that if in 1980 the former Soviet Union had asked for a prime site for a new mega-embassy that we in Parliament would have agreed at that time.'
Responding, Lady Taylor said: 'The Government stands firm on human rights, including against China's repression of the people of Xinjiang and Tibet.'
On the plans for the embassy, she added: 'All material planning considerations will be taken into account in determining the case.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
19 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Armed man who attacked officers outside police station jailed for life
Alexander Dighton, 28, knocked one officer unconscious and stabbed another in the leg when he launched an attack on Talbot Green Police Station in Rhondda Cynon Taf on January 31. In a police interview after the attack, Dighton, of Pontyclun, said he did not consider the scope of damage, 'merely that blood had to be spilt'. He previously admitted 10 charges relating to the incident, including attempting to murder Detective Constable Jack Cotton and attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent to Sergeant Richard Coleman. Dighton also admitted assaulting Pc Joshua Emlyn and threatening Pc Stephanie Fleming with an adapted wooden pole. Judge Mark Lucraft KC sentenced Dighton, who had been referred to the anti-terrorism programme Prevent in January 2024, to life imprisonment and ordered him to serve a minimum of 22 years. The judge told the defendant, who represented himself in court, that the offences had 'a terrorist connection'. He said: 'It is clear that you continue to hold entrenched views. 'Other than the early guilty pleas, there is little else to be said to your credit.' The judge said the police officers that encountered Dighton were experienced. He added: 'Whilst they accept potential violence and difficult confrontations are part of the role of being a police officer, they were all deeply shocked by the nature and ferocity of your attack.' Prosecuting, Nicholas Hearn described how Dighton's sister had reported him to Prevent due to concerns he held 'racist and anti-Muslim views' and was likely to be involved with incel groups. The incel movement is made up of people who find themselves unsuccessful in relationships, often harbouring extreme and misogynistic views. On the night of the attack, Dighton arrived at the police station shortly before 7pm, where he lit a petrol bomb and threw it at a police van. When that failed to ignite, he attempted to start a fire by pouring lighter fluid over the van before smashing the windows of two vehicles using a pole. When confronted by officers, Dighton said 'I'm fed up, I'm done', before launching his attack. Attempts to restrain him using a Taser were unsuccessful because of the body armour he was wearing. He swung a pole at one officer, punched one in the head and stabbed another in the thigh, narrowly missing his femoral artery. Two of the three injured officers were taken to hospital for treatment. Speaking after the case, Frank Ferguson of the Crown Prosecution Service said Dighton wanted to attack the Government and the state. 'We were able to show that Dighton's attack was not only pre-meditated and meticulously planned, but that his motivations were connected to terrorism,' he said. 'While it is not a criminal offence to hold extreme or offensive views, it is one to carry out attempted murder and attack police officers because of them.' Chief Superintendent Stephen Jones, of South Wales Police, paid tribute to the 'bravery and professionalism' of the officers at the scene. 'Each officer is not just a public servant but also a husband, wife, or parent, and their families are undoubtedly deeply affected by incidents such as these that officers face daily,' he said. 'I want to also recognise the detectives' unwavering commitment throughout the investigation which is also commendable.'
Leader Live
20 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Pensioners who challenged winter fuel payment decision in court lose case
Peter and Florence Fanning, from Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, raised the petition in the Court of Session in Edinburgh following the announcement last July from Chancellor Rachel Reeves of plans to cut the allowance. The couple lost their entitlement to the financial assistance and became worried about their ability to afford their heating bills. They brought the legal action with the help of ex-SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC, who represented them as senior counsel. In April 2024, the provision of a winter fuel-related payment was devolved to Scottish ministers who proposed a new benefit – the pension age winter heating payment (PAWHP) – causing an adjustment to the block grant funding provided to the Scottish Government by the UK Government. Scottish ministers proposed the payment would be universal, and not means-tested. After Labour swept to power at Westminster in July 2024, Ms Reeves announced the WFP would no longer be available to those not in receipt of pension credit or other means-tested benefits, resulting in a reduction to the block grant estimated to be around £160 million. The court heard Scottish ministers considered they had no option but to replicate the decision of the UK Government with regards to the PAWHP. The Fannings, who received the WFP in 2023 but were not eligible for PAWHP in 2024, challenged both decisions, claiming neither government had considered the Equality Act 2010 and had both 'failed to consult' with pensioners. They sought to quash the decisions of both governments, and sought a finding they both acted in a way which was 'irrational and unreasonable'. The Fannings also sought a finding that both decisions were unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, Judge Lady Hood rejected all six requests. In a U-turn earlier this week, the UK Government announced the vast majority of pensioners in England and Wales will again receive the winter fuel payment this winter, and the Scottish Government said it is 'working through the options' in the wake of that decision. In her decision, published on Friday, Lady Hood found neither government had failed to exercise their duties under the Equality Act 2010, and neither government was under a duty to consult. She also held the decisions were neither 'irrational nor unreasonable' and did not breach the Human Rights Act 1998, and she ruled they were 'in pursuit of a legitimate aim'. In a written judgment, Lady Hood said: 'In this case, the decision which each respondent faced as to whether the payment of WFP, or PAWHP, should be made on a universal or means-tested basis fell within the field of socioeconomic policy. 'It was a policy decision involving questions of the allocation of resources, and practical and political assessments that this court would not be well-placed to judge. 'That the policy decisions could result in hardship for those falling on one side of a brightline rule is not enough to render it irrational in the legal sense.' Lady Hood said: 'The petitioners asserted that elderly people suffering from disabilities rendering them vulnerable to cold temperatures constituted a group in our society which has suffered considerable discrimination in the past… However mere assertion is not enough to bring a group within that definition, and the petitioners did not sufficiently demonstrate to the court that this cohort of the population did do so.' She added that 'in the absence of any evidence of past widespread discrimination against elderly persons by the government having been put before the court by the petitioners, the categorisation could not be applied to elderly people as a cohort'. The petition was refused on all grounds. Lady Hood wrote: 'In respect of each of the respondents, the rules as to eligibility for payments of WFP and PAWHP were set out in terms of the legislation implementing the respective respondents' policy decisions. 'In these circumstances, and standing the decision reached above on the public sector equality duty and the issue of consultation, the schemes are in accordance with law. 'They are in pursuit of a legitimate aim.' Lady Hood's judgment concluded: 'I shall therefore repel the petitioners' first to eighth pleas‑in‑law, and refuse the petition.' The Govan Law Centre, which acted for the couple, said the pensioners should be 'commended for their courage in pursuing this litigation'. A spokesperson added: 'While our clients have lost their case, we have no doubt that this has been influential in securing the partial U-turn made by the Scottish Government last November and the major policy U-turn confirmed by the UK Government earlier this week. 'We hope the Scottish Government will now restore the pension age winter heating payment in full for people such as our clients. 'Even had the petitioners won, the most the court could have done would have been to order each government to go back to the drawing board to reconsider the cuts. The fact they have already reconsidered vindicates our clients' decision to bring litigation.'
Reuters
32 minutes ago
- Reuters
Ford struggles with supply of rare earth magnets, CEO tells Bloomberg News
June 13 (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co (F.N), opens new tab is struggling with supplies of rare earth magnets, the automaker's CEO Jim Farley told Bloomberg News in an interview on Friday. China, which controls more than 90% of global rare earth processing capacity, imposed new export licensing rules in April, tightening supply to Western manufacturers of everything from cars and fighter jets to household appliances. Automakers, especially those focused on EVs, are among the largest industrial consumers of rare earth materials. Western countries have been trying to reduce reliance on Chinese rare earths by investing in alternative sources and refining capacity in places like Australia, Canada, and the United States. Ford did not immediately respond to Reuters' request for a comment.
