logo
Electric cars threaten national security, defence chiefs warn

Electric cars threaten national security, defence chiefs warn

Telegraph17-04-2025

Electric cars pose a potential threat to national security as they are vulnerable to Chinese spying, according to an official defence assessment by the Government's spy lab.
A report by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) found that there were concerns Beijing – which dominates the market – could effectively eavesdrop on conversations using the vehicles, which are to be introduced for all ministers and officials by the end of 2027.
The warning in the report, which was delivered to the previous Tory government, contributed to fears at senior levels in Rishi Sunak's administration that electric cars were 'basically mobile spying platforms' and even those made in the West using Chinese parts were susceptible.
The concerns were raised amid the government fleet going green, given China's dominance in electric vehicles.
Fears of Chinese spying were sufficiently high that the DSTL, an executive agency of the Ministry of Defence, was commissioned to look at so-called 'connected vehicles' and whether they were vulnerable to spying by Beijing.
All electric vehicles are deemed to be ' connected ', meaning that data and information are sent out beyond the vehicle, sometimes over the internet. Increasingly, petrol and diesel cars are also 'connected'.
It is understood the first assessment from the defence scientists flagged broad concerns that electric vehicles and other connected cars could be used by the Chinese state to spy.
A second, more detailed examination was then commissioned by the Sunak government. That report had not been returned when the snap general election was called for July 2024, leading to the Tories being removed from office.
One source in the Sunak government close to the conversations called it an 'oh s---' moment when the implications of the government's electronic vehicle push were realised.
The source said: 'They are basically mobile spying platforms. The array of data you can pick up from these things is extraordinary, particularly conversations that happened in the car.'
In 2023, it was claimed by a Tory MP that Mr Sunak's car had been found to have a hidden Chinese tracking device. The claim was not denied by Downing Street at the time.
A security exemption does exist for the scheme to make all government vehicles electric by 2027, but it appears to be narrowly drawn.
The Government has publicly said 'vehicles that must regularly conduct covert surveillance operations' can be excluded.
To get this additional security exemption, a government body must 'provide evidence to demonstrate it has explored all available options to meet the commitment'.
The Government is publicly committed to making its fleet of 40,000 vehicles electric by 2027, but many are still petrol-run. The private assessment raises the possibility that the plan could yet be ditched.
It could also have ramifications for the wider electric vehicle push, with consumers expected to increasingly demand assurances over security.
The Department for Transport responded by insisting that it remains committed to the 2027 government electric vehicles target.
There is no blanket ban on Chinese-made electric vehicles being purchased for the government fleet, despite concerns about potential spying.
There are some signs of changes inside Whitehall, however, with the i newspaper revealing on Wednesday that electric cars with Chinese components are now banned from sensitive military sites.
The concerns have surfaced after claims that the Chinese company that was preparing to close blast furnaces run by British Steel was committing 'industrial sabotage'.
Sir Keir Starmer stepped in to take over control of British Steel. Chinese government figures have pushed back on suggestions of any wrongdoing.
The row is now widening out into a public debate about the degree of involvement Chinese companies and the Chinese state have in areas of UK critical national infrastructure.
The government fleet, comprising 40,000 cars and vans, is used not only to drive Cabinet ministers between meetings but for all types of government activity.
Hitting the 100 per cent electric vehicle by 2027 target could prove challenging. In 2022, about a quarter of the government fleet was electric.
Campaigners calling for a tougher stance towards China called for a 'rethink' on the push to make the government fleet electric by 2027.
Luke de Pulford, the executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, said: 'Any device requiring remote software update is vulnerable to manipulation.
'The issue with Chinese electric vehicles is that Beijing's regulations make it possible for the Chinese government to use this capability for ill. With China having already been accused of spying on a ministerial car, this is a risk we should not take.
'If we can only meet the 2027 target by purchasing Chinese electric vehicles, with attendant security risks, the policy needs a rethink. National security comes first.'
Charles Parton, an adviser to the Coalition of Secure Technology, which campaigns to raise awareness of the threat posed by technology produced by potentially hostile states, said about the government fleet: 'Do not use a car that is Chinese. And do not use a car that has a Chinese cellular module.
'If you have ministers talking in the back of their cars then that information is vulnerable.'
A DfT spokesman said: 'We remain committed to ensuring all central government car and van fleets are zero emission by the end of 2027'.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

MP accuses government of rail funding bias as £6.6bn project excludes Wales
MP accuses government of rail funding bias as £6.6bn project excludes Wales

Pembrokeshire Herald

time5 minutes ago

  • Pembrokeshire Herald

MP accuses government of rail funding bias as £6.6bn project excludes Wales

David Chadwick calls for rail powers to be devolved to Wales after confirmation East-West Rail brings no funding uplift WELSH Liberal Democrat MP David Chadwick has criticised the UK Government after it confirmed that Wales will receive no additional funding from the £6.6 billion East-West Rail scheme, which runs entirely between Oxford and Cambridge in England. Mr Chadwick uncovered the detail through a written parliamentary question answered by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Simon Lightwood. The project has been classified as an 'England and Wales' scheme, despite not including any infrastructure in Wales — a classification that prevents Wales from receiving a proportional share of funding through the Barnett formula. Not happy over rail funding: Liberal Democrat, David Chadwick MP The issue mirrors the controversy over HS2, which was also designated as benefiting both England and Wales, even though the line does not extend into Welsh territory. Independent estimates suggest Wales could have received over £360 million in consequential funding from East-West Rail if it had been classified as 'England only.' Broader estimates indicate that similar misclassifications over the past decade may have cost Wales more than £4 billion in potential funding. In the House of Commons, Mr Chadwick described the decision as 'shocking,' and renewed calls for the devolution of full rail infrastructure powers to the Senedd. He argued that only through devolution can Wales prevent future misallocations and ensure investment in local lines such as the Heart of Wales Line. Speaking after the exchange, Mr Chadwick said: 'It is simply indefensible that Wales continues to be frozen out of hundreds of millions in rail funding for projects that do not lay a single centimetre of track in our country. We saw this with HS2, with Northern Powerhouse Rail, and now again with East-West Rail. Time after time, Wales is left behind.' He added: 'Wales must be able to invest properly in its own rail network. That includes delivering serious improvements to the Heart of Wales Line, which has been neglected for decades. This line is a lifeline for rural communities, supporting jobs, education and tourism, and it deserves the same level of ambition and investment as rail services elsewhere in the UK.' While critics point to a pattern of funding disparities, the UK Government maintains that major rail projects often bring broader economic benefits across the UK, including Wales — for example, through supply chains or job creation. However, Welsh politicians and transport experts have repeatedly argued that these indirect benefits do not match the level of direct investment seen in other parts of the union. The Welsh Government has long advocated for the devolution of rail infrastructure powers, which are currently reserved to Westminster. It has argued that devolution would enable more targeted investment in Wales's underfunded network — a view backed by a growing number of transport economists. Mr Chadwick and the Welsh Liberal Democrats continue to campaign for East-West Rail to be reclassified as an 'England only' scheme and for a fair funding settlement that reflects actual geographic delivery. They are also pressing for urgent investment in rural rail services, particularly the Heart of Wales Line, which connects Swansea to Shrewsbury via mid Wales.

MP: Grenfell-style mistakes could be repeated over battery storage regulation
MP: Grenfell-style mistakes could be repeated over battery storage regulation

South Wales Argus

time10 minutes ago

  • South Wales Argus

MP: Grenfell-style mistakes could be repeated over battery storage regulation

Liberal Democrat John Milne said there were 'alarming parallels' with the systemic failure which led to the west London tower block fire. Currently there are no laws which specifically govern the safety of battery energy storage systems (Bess), according to the House of Commons library. However, individual batteries could be subject to product safety regulations. Speaking in the Commons, Mr Milne accused the Government of being 'too complacent' as he called for enforceable regulations for the design and construction of the storage systems. The MP for Horsham said: 'The Grenfell disaster was the end result of many failings by both individuals and companies, but at its heart it was a failure of regulation. 'The rules left things wide open for exploitation by cost-cutting developers, and that is exactly what happened. 'Just as with lithium-ion batteries, a new technology, in this case cladding, was being used at scale for the first time without proper understanding of the risks. The time to act is now.' He continued: 'The Government itself has responded to all questions from myself and others to say that it considers the present regulatory regime to be robust. I am tempted to say pride comes before a fall. 'In the last few weeks a Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesman has stated that battery fires at storage sites are rare in the UK, we already have high standards in place that require manufacturers and industry to ensure batteries are safe throughout their lifespan. 'This is just too complacent. 'Fires as a result of cladding were also incredibly rare, but that did not save 72 lives at Grenfell.' Grenfell Tower (James Manning/PA) Mr Milne said the industry would benefit from clear guidance, before adding: 'Any guidance needs to cover-off a number of areas, including transport of batteries to the site, design and construction, fire-fighting, ongoing inspection and decommissioning. 'In the short term, if the Government is for any reason still reluctant to regulate, perhaps it could issue clear national guidelines which are capable of being updated annually. 'Enforcement might then take place through the insurance industry, who would be likely to insist that any new applications followed such guidelines, as no project can go ahead without insurance, it is enforcement by the back door. 'Grenfell was a wholly predictable tragedy. A similar fire at Lakanal House in Camberwell, which killed six people, should have made us understand the risk, but the warning wasn't heeded and history took its course. 'We can't go back in time to stop Grenfell, but we can act now to avoid making the same mistake again with battery energy storage systems.' Elsewhere in the debate, Conservative MP for Mid Buckinghamshire Greg Smith said there should be minimum distances between battery storage sites and housing. Mr Smith said: 'This is not a debate about the principle of energy storage, although I am in principle opposed to such schemes taking agricultural land and challenging our food security, but today's debate, which is deeply concerning, and what this House must urgently address, are the real, growing, and too often overlooked safety implications of these installations, particularly when placed in close proximity to villages, and rural road networks ill-equipped to support them.' He added: 'At the very least the Government should introduce clear national guidelines on the siting of Bess installations, including minimum separation distances from residential properties, fire resilience standards, mandatory site-specific risk assessments and restrictions on placing these facilities on, or near, rural roads.' SNP MP for Aberdeen North, Kirsty Blackman, said developers should pay towards fire mitigation measures. She said: 'If we're saying to those organisations that are creating the battery storage sites, you will need to pay for the fire safety assessment, you will need to consult the local fire and you will need to pay for the training of those local fire teams in tackling fires at battery energy storage sites, I think that would be the most reasonable way forward. 'Ask them to pay for that training, because it's them that are going to be making a huge profit off it.' Energy minister Miatta Fahnbulleh said: 'It is often claimed that there is no regulation in this sector because there is no specific law addressing battery safety. This is simply untrue. 'The safety and standards of batteries are assured throughout their life cycle. The Government is therefore confident that the safety risks posed by grid-scale batteries are relatively small and well managed.' She added there is 'scope to strengthen' the planning process.

US law firm Seyfarth to exit Shanghai in latest China market retreat
US law firm Seyfarth to exit Shanghai in latest China market retreat

Reuters

time21 minutes ago

  • Reuters

US law firm Seyfarth to exit Shanghai in latest China market retreat

June 5 (Reuters) - Law firm Seyfarth Shaw is planning to close its Shanghai office later this year, as major U.S. law firms continue to reduce their footprints in the Chinese legal market. The Chicago-founded firm, which has about 900 lawyers globally and is known for its labor and employment work, will continue to serve clients in the region by consolidating its presence in Hong Kong, a firm spokesperson said in a statement on Thursday. Seyfarth's website lists six lawyers in Shanghai, where it opened in 2013, and several of the lawyers are co-located in Hong Kong or elsewhere. The team advises clients on cross-border transactions, among other areas such as real estate and employment, according to the website. Large U.S. law firms for more than two years have been shuttering offices in Shanghai, Beijing and Hong Kong amid muted deal activity, geopolitical tensions and growing pressures on foreign businesses in the country. Earlier this year, firms including Wilson Sonsini, Cleary Gottlieb and Winston & Strawn have said they would close offices in at least one of those locations. The United States and China struck a 90-day deal on May 12 to roll back some of the triple-digit, tit-for-tat tariffs they had placed on each other since President Donald Trump's January inauguration. Though stocks rallied, the temporary deal did not address broader concerns that strain the bilateral relationship. Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Thursday agreed to further talks between the countries to hash out differences on tariffs. The highly anticipated call came amid accusations between Washington and Beijing in recent weeks over "rare earths" minerals in a dispute that threatens to tear up the fragile truce in the trade war between the two biggest economies.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store