China's proposed ‘super embassy poses super risk' to security, Tories claim
More than a thousand demonstrators took to the streets of central London earlier this year to protest against the proposed embassy.
Ministers are expected to make a final decision on the redevelopment plans at the historic former site of the Royal Mint, after it was rejected by the local council, Tower Hamlets.
Speaking in the Commons, shadow Cabinet Office minister Alex Burghart accused the Government of being 'too weak' to block the plans.
He said: 'The Government's own cyber experts, Innovate UK, have warned the Government that the proposed Chinese embassy at the Royal Mint threatens to compromise the telephone and internet exchange that serves the financial City of London.
'The experts are now telling the Government what everyone else has known all along: the super embassy poses a super risk.
'Yet the Deputy Prime Minister's office has said that any representations on the planning application have to be made available to the applicants.
'So perhaps the real Deputy Prime Minister can clear this up – is the Government seriously saying that if MI5 or GCHQ have concerns about security on this site, those concerns will have to be passed to the Chinese Communist Party or has the Deputy Prime Minister (Angela Rayner) got it wrong?'
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden replied: 'When it comes to both engagement with China and with an issue like this, we will of course engage properly and always bear in mind our own national security considerations.'
He also accused Tory governments of opting to 'withdraw' from engaging with China for a number of years after they had previously sought a 'golden era' with Beijing.
A spokesperson for Innovate UK said it 'has not raised any concerns', adding: 'Innovate UK does not have responsibility for cyber security.'
Comments referred to by Mr Burghart are understood to have been made in a personal capacity.
Mr Burghart went on to say: 'At the heart of this are two simple facts. First, the Government already knows that this site is a security risk; it's a security risk to the City of London and through it our economy and the economies of all nations that trade in London.
'Second, the Government has the power to block it. Ireland and Australia have both already blocked similar embassy developments. Why is this Government too weak to act?'
In his reply, Mr McFadden said: 'A decision on this application will be taken in full consideration of our national security considerations. That is always part of this and it is part of our engagement with China and with other countries.'
Chancellor Rachel Reeves flew to China in January to meet with the country's leaders and set out a path towards further investment into Britain.
Elsewhere in Cabinet Office questions, Mr McFadden said the Civil Service should be more representative of the UK and speak with 'all the accents of the country'.
This came in response to Labour MP for Dudley, Sonia Kumar, who said: 'I welcome the relocation of the Civil Service across the country and with a recent study showing that Dudley has high levels of economic inactivity, what reassurances can (he) give me that young people in Dudley want every opportunity to build their career in the Civil Service, whether that's training, apprenticeships, or any mentorships?'
Mr McFadden replied: '(Ms Kumar) will not be surprised to hear my strong enthusiasm for greater employment opportunities for young people in the Black Country.
'When we made the announcement last week about the relocation, we also announced a new apprentice scheme because we don't just have to change location, we have to change recruitment patterns too if we're really going (to) get that Civil Service that speaks with all the accents of the country.'
Later in the session, Conservative MP Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) asked for reassurance that 'no Cabinet Office ministers will be attending Glastonbury this year', because 'controversial Ulster rap band' Kneecap remain part of the festival's line-up.
Mr McFadden replied: 'I will not be going to Glastonbury, but I'm very much looking forward to going to see Bruce Springsteen at Anfield Stadium on Saturday night.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Lord Sainsbury: Give Glasgow greater devolved powers
"A major challenge which government faces if it wants to increase Scotland's rate of growth is a way to find and support such clusters," he said. "All the evidence from other countries suggests that the only way to effectively support clusters is to do so at a city region level. Read more: "I appreciate in Scotland, unlike in England, metro mayors have not yet been introduced, but if you want to support high-tech clusters, this is something I think you should seriously consider, with Greater Glasgow being given powers similar to those devolved to Greater Manchester and the West Midlands." Lord Sainsbury was speaking at the Creating the Jobs of Tomorrow conference organised by Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, where he was introduced to the stage by former Labour chancellor and prime minister Gordon Brown. Mr Brown said growth and productivity have been perennial problems in the UK and Scotland, with innovation the key to boosting performance. A new study by economist Dan Turner, head of research at the Centre for Progressive Policy, has suggested this could unlock the creation of hundreds of thousands of high-value jobs. "There are huge sources of innovation and inventiveness in Scotland, just as has been traditional in our history," he said. "The question is can we turn that into scalable companies that stay in Scotland, invest in Scotland, create jobs in Scotland, and Dan's study suggests we could create 300,000 jobs in the next 10 years. "That's 300,000 well-paying jobs, 120,000 in the new industries, the spin-offs in terms of the service sector another 180,000 - that is a possibility if we invest in the infrastructure, the skills, and the development necessary to achieve that." Lord David Sainsbury (Image: Nate Cleary) Lord Sainsbury is a Labour peer and served as minister for science and innovation under Mr Brown and his prime ministerial predecessor, Tony Blair, between 1998 and 2006. He was appointed a life peer in 1997. Lord Sainsbury said there are new opportunities for employment and growth in sectors such as quantum computing, artificial intelligence and biotechnology. "There are economists that will argue that it is investment that is the engine of economic growth, but we have to realise today that capital flows easily around the world, and it flows as it has always done, to where the best investment opportunities are created by innovation," Lord Sainsbury said. "You can sit in London today and you can invest in Silicon Valley, you can invest in practically any country - until recently you could even invest in Chinese venture capital - because that is what modern communication enables you to do. That is why investment is not the real driver of the economy, it's innovation." Among the other speakers was Michael Spence, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 for his work in the analysis of markets with information imbalances. Read more: "There are two things that [people] associate with Adam Smith correctly," Mr Spence said. "One the 'invisible hand', which is the market system is a reasonably efficient tool for decentralising and allocating resources. "That actually is not the most important thing that Adam Smith said, but it's the one that neo-conservatives remember because they elevate market systems to the status of a religion, rather than a way of accomplishing economic and social goals. The most important one for our purposes is specialisation. "Adam Smith meant specialisation within an economy, when of course everything that David Sainsbury talked about in the global economy is just the Adam Smith insight writ large, and of course it is the ultimate source of growth. "Without specialisation you don't get scale of spread your activity over too much territory, and you don't get innovation. You get nothing if everybody has to do everything. "The fundamental message I want to deliver today is that's still true, and that growth is fundamentally about specialisation and structural change."
Wales Online
4 hours ago
- Wales Online
The £6bn rail line argument that masks what you should be really angry about
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info Over the last few days, there has been one hot topic in the world of Welsh politics - a train line which will run between Oxford and Cambridge. Given these two cities are roughly 200 miles from Wales, you can be forgiven for asking why. East West Rail is a railway project which will link Oxford and Cambridge at an estimated cost of £6.6bn. Any money spent on it will trigger extra payments to Scotland and Northern Ireland so they can spend it on their transport systems. But, just as has been the case throughout the HS2 debacle, there won't be any extra money for the Welsh Government. The reason for this is both incredibly simple and reasonable on the surface but devillishly complicated and truly unfair beneath it. It may not necessarily be a scandal in itself. But it symbolises everything that is wrong with how rail funding is allocated in England and Wales. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here On the face of it, this issue isn't linked to the spending review that has been happening in Westminster for the last six months or more and of which chancellor Rachel Reeves will stand up in the Commons on Wednesday and deliver the conclusion. Yet it helps shed a light on why that will be enormously complex to understand and why the real story may not be the one you read in headlines that evening. So bear with us while we go through it. The fury from politicians Opposition politicians in Wales have been fulminating about East West rail. They say that the rail line should have been classified as an England-only project like Crossrail so that the Welsh Government would get a guaranteed share. Lib Dem MP David Chadwick said Wales will lose out to the tune of between £306m and £363m as a result. Describing it as another HS2, he said: "Labour expects people across Wales to believe the ridiculous idea that this project will benefit them, and they are justified in not giving Wales the money it needs to improve our own public transport systems. 'It's a disgrace, and it shows there has been no meaningful change since in the way Wales is treated since Labour took power compared to the Conservatives." Plaid Cymru's leader Mr ap Iorwerth took a similar tack, telling plenary: "For all the talk of the UK Government acknowledging somehow that Welsh rail has been historically underfunded, this is some partnership in power." Yet, while there's a lot of truth to what they're saying, it's also much more complicated. Which is where the spending review comes in. Comparability factors There will be so many numbers in the paperwork that accompanies Wednesday's spending review that finding the most important ones isn't straightforward. Yet if you want to know just how much of the England and Wales transport pot is going to be sucked into paying for massive rail projects in England like HS2 (£66bn) or East West rail (£6bn) or all the tram/train projects being promised in England outside London (£15bn), then look out for the overall transport comparability factor for Wales. Very simply, this is the number that the Treasury uses to work out how much the Welsh Government should get for every £1 it spends on transport in England. The reason everyone has been so, so angry about HS2 and the massive billions being poured is that back in 2015, Wales used to get a comparability factor of 80.9%. Yet when the number crunchers in Horse Guards Road sat down to work out how much the Welsh Government should get at the last spending review in 2021, that comparability factor fell to just 33.5%. Ouch. For every £1 spent on transport by Westminster, since the last spending review the Welsh Government has received a population adjusted share (5%) of 33.5%. Or about 1.6p. For context, it used to be around 4p. If Mr Chadwick and Mr Iorwerth are right and the UK government plans to plough even more money into rail in England in the coming years on projects like HS2, East Coast and what the Tories used to call Northern Powerhouse rail, then the new comparability factor that the Treasury mathematicians will conjure up this time could be even lower. But even that is massively misleading. Because if the UK government also promises to plough vast sums into rail in Wales then the comparability factor for the Welsh Government would not rise - it would fall further still. Is your mind boggling yet? We said it was complex. What the Welsh Government wants Because the Welsh Government isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending, the transport comparability factor really just reflects how much money is going on rail. The less that's spent on rail, the higher a share of the overall transport pot the Welsh Government gets. The more that goes on rail, the lower a share of the overall transport spot the Welsh Government gets. The real problem for Cardiff Bay then is not the comparability factor. Neither is it the fact that East West rail isn't classified as England-only. The problem, as far as the Welsh Government is concerned, is the fact that the England and Wales rail pot itself isn't shared fairly. HS2 and East Coast rail are the symbols of a system that is broken that pours vast sums into English rail projects while Wales misses out. Even if they were classified as England-only, the money would go to the Welsh Government which isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending. "The way that the system operates at the moment—for years I've been saying—is redundant," Wales' transport minister Ken Skates has said. "The east-west line, which has been in development, I believe, for around about 20 years now, is part of the rail network enhancements pipeline, where everything in a large footprint, a substantial footprint, including Wales, is packaged together. "Where you have all schemes in England and Wales packaged together in what's called the regional network enhancement pipeline it means that projects in Wales are always going to be competing on the business case with projects in affluent areas of the south-east, of London. That means that we are at a disadvantage. "I want to see it change. I've been saying it for years. There's nothing new in this story. I've been saying that we need reform for years and suddenly people have woken up to it." Wales' First Minister Eluned Morgan has said the same. "What we have is a situation where there is a pipeline of projects for England and Wales. Are we getting our fair share? Absolutely not. Are we making the case? Absolutely." "I've made the case very, very clearly that, when it comes to rail, we have been short-changed, and I do hope that we will get some movement on that in the next week from the spending review," she said. What does this mean for the spending review When Rachel Reeves stands up in the Commons on Wednesday, we fully expect she will announce some funding for rail in Wales, as you can see in our piece here, and our expectation is that will be about the rail stations earmarked in the work by Lord Burns after the M4 relief road was axed. They would be in Cardiff East, Parkway, Newport West, Maindy, Llanwern and Magor. But what matters is how much and when - and how that compares to the money being spent in England. Imagine the chancellor announces a few hundred million pounds for those rail stations in Wales in the spending review, what we do not - and will likely not know for many years - is whether that amount is a fair reflection of the mass spending she has announced in England because we know she has also touted £15bn of improvements in England. It will likely take years for academics to assess what kind of share of the rail pot has been spent in Wales. In the past, it certainly has not been fair. In 2018, a Welsh Government commissioned report by Professor Mark Barry estimated that the Network Rail Wales route, which covers 11% of the UK network, received just over 1% of the enhancement budget for the 2011-2016 period. In 2021, the Wales Governance Centre told MPs on the Welsh affairs select committee that had rail been fully devolved to the Welsh Government, Wales would have received an additional £514m for enhancements via Network Rail had rail infrastructure been devolved as it is in Scotland. So when Leeds West and Pudsey MP Ms Reeves gets to her feet in the Commons on Wednesday, you can pretty much guarantee there will at least one or two headlines relevant Wales. But we may not understand what they really mean for a while yet and East West rail won't help us understand either.
South Wales Guardian
4 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Rayner faces Labour backbench call to ‘smash' existing housebuilding model
Labour's Chris Hinchliff has proposed a suite of changes to the Government's flagship Planning and Infrastructure Bill, part of his party's drive to build 1.5 million homes in England by 2029. Mr Hinchliff has proposed arming town halls with the power to block developers' housebuilding plans, if they have failed to finish their previous projects. He has also suggested housebuilding objectors should be able to appeal against green-lit large developments, if they are not on sites which a council has set aside for building, and put forward a new duty for authorities to protect chalk streams from 'pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage'. Mr Hinchliff has told the PA news agency he does not 'want to rebel' but said he would be prepared to trigger a vote over his proposals. He added his ambition was for 'a progressive alternative to our planning system and the developer-led profit-motivated model that we have at the moment'. The North East Hertfordshire MP said: 'Frankly, to deliver the genuinely affordable housing that we need for communities like those I represent, we just have to smash that model. 'So, what I'm setting out is a set of proposals that would focus on delivering the genuinely affordable homes that we need, empowering local communities and councils to have a driving say over what happens in the local area, and also securing genuine protection for the environment going forwards.' Mr Hinchliff warned that the current system results in 'speculative' applications on land which falls outside of councils' local housebuilding strategies, 'putting significant pressure on inadequate local infrastructure'. In his constituency, which lies between London and Cambridge, 'the properties that are being built are not there to meet local need', Mr Hinchliff said, but were instead 'there to be sold for the maximum profit the developer can make'. Asked whether his proposals chimed with the first of Labour's five 'missions' at last year's general election – 'growth' – he replied: 'If we want to have the key workers that our communities need – the nurses, the social care workers, the bus drivers, the posties – they need to have genuinely affordable homes. 'You can't have that thriving economy without the workforce there, but at the moment, the housing that we are delivering is not likely to be affordable for those sorts of roles. 'It's effectively turning the towns into commuter dormitories rather than having thriving local economies, so for me, yes, it is about supporting the local economy.' Mr Hinchliff warned that the 'bottleneck' which slows housebuilding 'is not process, it's profit'. The developer-led housing model is broken. It has failed to deliver affordable homes. Torching environmental safeguards won't fix it—the bottleneck isn't just process, it's profit. We need a progressive alternative: mass council house building in sustainable communities. — Chris Hinchliff MP (@CHinchliffMP) June 6, 2025 Ms Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary, is fronting the Government's plans for 1.5 million new homes by 2029. Among the proposed reforms is a power for ministers to decide which schemes should come before councillors, and which should be delegated to local authority staff, so that committees can 'focus their resources on complex or contentious development where local democratic oversight is required'. Natural England will also be able to draft 'environmental delivery plans (EDPs)' and acquire land compulsorily to bolster conservation efforts. Mr Hinchliff has suggested these EDPs must come with a timeline for their implementation, and that developers should improve the conservation status of any environmental features before causing 'damage' – a proposal which has support from at least 43 cross-party MP backers. MPs will spend two days debating the Bill on Monday and Tuesday. Chris Curtis, the Labour MP for Milton Keynes North, warned that some of Mr Hinchliff's proposals 'if enacted, would deepen our housing crisis and push more families into poverty'. He said: 'I won't stand by and watch more children in the country end up struggling in temporary accommodation to appease pressure groups. No Labour MP should. 'It's morally reprehensible to play games with this issue. 'These amendments should be withdrawn.'
