Complacency on China risks bringing London ‘to its knees'
London risks being 'brought to its knees' by the Government's complacency over Chinese investment in critical infrastructure, MPs have warned.
A cross-party group of politicians is calling for an investigation into CK Infrastructure Holdings (CKI) Ltd after it made a bid for Thames Water, the UK's largest water company.
They claimed the deal would make a company linked to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) 'responsible for both keeping the lights on and the water running in the capital'.
It comes after the Government passed emergency legislation to keep the blast furnaces running at British Steel in Scunthorpe where Jingye, the Chinese owner, was accused of industrial sabotage in a bid to make the UK reliant on steel made in China.
CKI, which is based in Hong Kong, already owns the electricity distribution network for London, gas networks across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and another water company, serving 2.7 million people, as well as a power station and multiple wind farms.
It will soon own 49 per cent of Vodafone-Three, the merged telecommunications company, and has recently bid for a major stake in Thames Water, which supplies water to 16 million customers in London and the South.
Despite growing concerns about the business being subject to increasing influence and oversight from Beijing since Hong Kong was handed over in 1997, Ofwat, the water regulator, has said it 'would prefer CKI remained at the table' as Thames Water's future is decided.
The private equity company KKR has been selected as preferred bidder for Thames, meaning CKI will only be given a chance to buy it if that deal falls through.
Victor Li Tzar-kuoi, CKI's chairman, serves as a member of the 14th national committee of the Chinese people's political consultative conference of the People's Republic of China, a political advisory body tasked with promoting unity, democracy and consultation under the leadership of the CCP.
His father, Li Ka-shing, a Hong Kong businessman, owns both CKI and CK Hutchison which owns assets in the Panama Canal. The business was admonished by Beijing over plans to sell this operation to Blackrock, a consortium owned by US investment company, after president Donald Trump criticised China's involvement in the strategic port.
Last week, Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, said that for 'any major Chinese industrial company, there are always direct links to the Chinese Communist Party'.
MPs have written to Pat McFadden, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to raise their concerns. The letter, seen by The Telegraph, reads: 'The trend is clear and alarming – Beijing is exerting ever greater direct control over CK Hutchison and related companies' activities.
'Any activity not in Beijing's interests is regarded as a hostile act and cause for state intervention. Allowing CKI to expand its UK presence without scrutiny sends a signal that the Government is not concerned by Chinese interference. It also risks putting the UK at odds with the Trump administration.'
Urging Labour to investigate the acquisitions made by CKI using its call-in powers under the National Security and Investment Act, the letter adds: 'A national security assessment is particularly vital in the case of the capital, where the electricity distribution networks owned by CKI, and the water infrastructure CKI aspires to own through Thames Water, are both critical to the functioning of Government, the military and the security services. Without power and safe drinking water, the capital would swiftly be brought to its knees.'
CKI's extensive reach into the UK's critical national infrastructure includes a 40 per cent stake in UK Power Networks, the UK's largest electricity distribution network, serving 8.3 million homes, and businesses in London, the South and East of England.
The rest of the company is owned by Power Assets Holdings Ltd, in which CKI is the largest shareholder and CK Asset Holdings Ltd, one of CKI's sister companies. The CKI-led consortium also owns Northumbrian Water, Northern Gas Networks, Wales and West Gas Networks and Seabank Power. The assets were acquired more than a decade ago, before China was widely regarded as a threat.
Under the National Security and Investment Act, CKI's acquisitions since 2020 could be called in if they are deemed to create the potential for 'disruption, erosion or degradation to critical national infrastructure'.
These include Phoenix Energy, the main gas distribution network in Northern Ireland, UU Solar, which owns 70 renewable generation projects, and 32 wind farms previously owned by Aviva Investors. The Vodafone-Three merger could also be investigated along with CKI's bid for Thames Water.
The letter, signed by Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Labour MP Blair McDougall, SNP MP Chris Law, Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran and Lord Alton of Liverpool, comes as the Government attempts to pass the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill to improve the defences of critical services including power and water.
The National Cyber Security Centre recently assessed China as a 'highly sophisticated and capable threat actor, targeting a wide range of sectors and institutions across the globe, including in the UK'.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How a Once-Resistant Trump Decided to Back Israel's Attacks on Iran
The president had sought to persaude Israel to delay its military operation, but he shifted course after the strikes began.


Business Insider
43 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Tesla's (TSLA) Full Self-Driving Could Expand in China Due to New Data Export Rules
China has released draft guidelines that could help EV maker Tesla (TSLA) expand its advanced driver-assistance features in the country, according to a Bloomberg report on Friday. For the first time, Beijing has provided clear rules on how data generated in China, including from driver-assistance systems and product development, can be accessed, used, and exported. This is an important step for companies like Tesla, which need to send data abroad in order to improve their systems. Confident Investing Starts Here: The proposed guidelines were published by China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, along with seven other government agencies, and are now open for public comment. The framework covers key types of information, such as autonomous driving algorithms, training images, operational data, and vehicle-to-road perception data. These are all critical for developing and improving advanced driver-assistance technologies like Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) system. Being able to export this data is especially valuable for Tesla because the core team working on FSD is based in the U.S., and having access to real-world data from Chinese roads would help optimize the system's performance in China, the world's largest car market. It's worth noting that, until now, strict data controls have been a barrier for foreign automakers. However, the new guidelines could provide Tesla with a clearer path to making its most advanced driver-assistance features more competitive in China. What Is the Prediction for Tesla Stock? Overall, analysts have a Hold consensus rating on TSLA stock based on 14 Buys, 12 Holds, and nine Sells assigned in the past three months, as indicated by the graphic below. Furthermore, the average TSLA price target of $285.97 per share implies 12.1% downside risk.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Column: Will Tesla suffer if Musk alienates both political wings?
Donald Trump and Elon Musk — two epic disrupters of U.S. politics and the automotive industry, respectively and vice versa. Over the past year, they united over the election and efforts to cut government spending. They parted ways amicably … and then started trashing each other. It escalated quickly with Musk suggesting that the president be impeached and that he is implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein child-prostitution scandal. Musk later reportedly called the president before posting that he regretted some of his words: 'They went too far.' It was a remarkable breakup — incredible drama between the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man, who had been the closest of allies for hundreds of days of campaigning and governing. To the extent that it was a reality TV train wreck, I'd just as soon leave it be. But since the primary business in Musk's remarkable portfolio is nominally an automaker, it actually matters in this industry we cover. Sign up for Automotive Views, Automotive News' weekly showcase of opinions, insights, ideas and thought leadership. Love it or hate it, this disruptive era in which we live is providing us all with some real-life experiments in economics — the likes of which we probably thought we would never see. For decades, basically everyone who went to college was taught in an economics or history class that widespread tariffs would do more harm than good. Trump argues for a different approach, and he's pursuing it. Or he's pursuing it to negotiate for something else. In either case, we're now seeing how that works: So far, there's been a lot of paralysis, especially among suppliers and foreign automakers, but also a big investment announced recently by General Motors. His political strategy has been unorthodox, yet he's won two electoral colleges and one popular vote. He's only the 21st president to win two elections. So he's had success, whether some people like it or not. Same for Musk, of course: He approached the auto industry unlike anyone else — with an expensive electric car — had a couple of near-total collapses, and came out as the world's richest man and CEO of the world's most valuable automaker. That success helped propel his rocket business SpaceX and other ventures such as Starlink satellites and Twitter, which he bought and renamed X. But the disruptive move I'm watching was his decision to be an automaker CEO who got personally and financially involved in partisan politics. While new-vehicle sales skew to the affluent, when you sell something in the millions or tens of millions, a brand or model has to connect with a broad swath of people. And while there can be success with, say, a polarizing design, mass-market brands generally try to avoid alienating large chunks of their potential customer base. I've cited here before the story about Michael Jordan saying he didn't speak out on politics because 'Republicans buy sneakers, too.' In retrospect, he said it was just a funny line among friends. But the thing is that he wasn't wrong, and every business school graduate knows it. Musk, however, is not your typical MBA type. So out of his frustration with former President Joe Biden — who habitually sided with the UAW and its automakers against the U.S.-based global leader in EVs, even as he advocated for a carbon-neutral future — Musk threw an estimated quarter of a billion dollars behind the Trump campaign. That's an unbelievable sum of money to many of us, but when Trump won, it looked like the greatest bet ever. From late October to late December, Tesla stock more than doubled and its market cap approached $1.5 trillion. While Musk's political activism may have upset many of his loyal, environmentally motivated customers, there were a lot of reasons to be bullish on Tesla under Trump. It seemed likely that NHTSA and the SEC would take a more sympathetic view of the company's issues. Beyond that, Musk has refocused the company's future on artificial intelligence, humanoid robots and robotaxis. (Tesla said it plans to launch its service in Austin, Texas, on June 22.) A new administration with a deregulatory inclination toward self-driving cars was a significant tailwind. Now, those advantages for Tesla are gone or at least seemingly diminished. Structures that have legacy automakers paying to buy Tesla's credits for selling emission-free, fuel-efficient vehicles could be eliminated. (And let's not forget that Trump hinted at ending federal contracts with other Musk-affiliated companies.) Turning back to the auto business: The conventional wisdom is that Musk has now alienated all but the most apolitical consumers. Environmentally minded liberals might like EVs, but Musk's support of Trump (and the far-right Alternative for Deutschland party in Germany) has them seeking out other brands' offerings. There might have been an opportunity to become the preferred electric brand of the president's Make America Great Again movement — especially the tech-forward, high-income types and those motivated by the president's endorsement of the brand on the White House grounds. But after this month's blowup — with longtime Trump adviser Steve Bannon arguing to deport Musk — that notion seemed ever more remote. No fans on the left, no fans on the right. Is Elon out in deep water in an electric boat surrounded by sharks with no friends to bail him out? Maybe not. There is significant animus against Musk on the EV-inclined left, especially in the wake of his DOGE team's deep and sometimes chaotic cuts to government entities and programs. Certainly, protests at auto retail outlets are rare. The damage to stores is not acceptable, but it shows the intensity of the situation. But I still have to wonder how far consumers will follow those kinds of feelings. Michiganders, for instance, often assume that Americans prefer to buy American cars made by American (union) workers. But I've been to America, and most of them don't care. They want the best car for their money, whether it's American, German, Japanese or Korean. Some are clamoring for cheap Chinese cars: If Xi Jinping wants to pay for half of their EV, they ask, why not let him? So maybe they won't care about Elon's politics. Tesla sales are down a little this year, but some of that might be attributable to production hiccups. If the Model Y — the bestselling model in the world last year — provides a great value, they'll probably buy it regardless of what they think of the CEO. And now we get to find out. Have an opinion about this story? Tell us about it and we may publish it in print. Click here to submit a letter to the editor. Sign in to access your portfolio