logo
Government facing ‘walk of shame' over Chinese embassy decision

Government facing ‘walk of shame' over Chinese embassy decision

Independent7 hours ago

Plans for a Chinese super-embassy in central London have become a 'walk of shame' for the Government, a former leader of the Conservative Party has said.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith said response by the Government to the proposed embassy near the the capital's financial district had become 'Project Kowtow', as he criticised the Government for 'one denial after another (and) one betrayal after another'.
Sir Iain referred to the warnings reportedly issued by the White House and Dutch government to Downing Street over the plans, which is set to be scrutinised by ministers. The worries stem from the close proximity of the proposed embassy's Royal Mint Court site to data centres and communication cables.
The Sunday Times said the US was 'deeply concerned' about the plans, quoting a senior US official.
In response, planning minister Matthew Pennycook said he could not give a full response as the matter was still to come before the department for a decision, and any verdict could be challenged by the courts.
Sir Iain said: 'Beijing has a recent history of cutting cables and confirmed infrastructure hacks, including embedding malware capable of disabling all that infrastructure.
'Minister Peter Kyle yesterday on television said surprisingly that this was in the planning process and could be managed. Will the minister correct this record? The planning inquiry has concluded, no changes can be made to the Chinese planning application at all.
'I'll remind him the application contains nothing about cabling. Indeed to the inquiry, the Chinese have rejected only two requests, which he referred to actually, made by the Government in the letter from the foreign and home secretaries, despite ministers regularly saying that this letter, and I quote, should give those concerned, 'comfort'.'
The Conservative MP said rerouting the cables would cost millions of pounds, and asked Mr Pennycook why the Government had denied the existence of cables until the White House confirmed it.
He asked Mr Pennycook to deny reports by Chinese state media, saying the UK had given the Chinese assurances that it would allow a development 'no matter what'.
He added: 'I see this as Project Kowtow, one denial after another, one betrayal after another. No wonder our allies believe that this Chinese mega embassy is now becoming a walk of shame for the Government.'
Mr Pennycook replied because of the 'quasi-judicial nature' of his role, he could not comment on details of the application. He also said it would not be 'appropriate' for him to comment on the cabling or national security issues.
He said he did not 'recognise the characterisation' by the Sunday Times of the embassy being raised in talks between the UK and China on trade.
'It is important to also emphasise that only material planning considerations can be taken into account in determining this case,' he said. 'But, as I say, I cannot comment in any detail on a case and it is not yet before the department.'
Tory shadow communities secretary Kevin Hollinrake said Parliament had been treated with disdain by the Government.
Mr Hollinrake said: 'Question after question, letter after letter, the Government has consistently treated Parliament with complete disregard on this matter. Stonewalling legitimate inquiries about national security, about ministerial discussions, and warnings about security bodies.'
He added: 'Why won't the Government follow the examples of the US, Australian, and Irish governments which veto similar embassies that threaten their national security?
'The Government is on the verge of making a decision that will lead to huge risk, that will persist for decades. Will they change course before it is too late?'
Mr Pennycook replied: 'No decision has been made on this case. No application is yet before the department.'
Marie Rimmer, Labour MP for St Helens South and Whiston, said: 'China has a track record of aggressive state-backed espionage, and surely this country cannot afford to make a massive underestimation of what risk if this would go ahead?'
She added: 'We cannot not say anything in this House. We must comment on what we see, and please understand that we must do so.'
Meanwhile, former security minister, Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat, asked whether the Government believed the Chinese would treat a similar application in the same way.
He said: 'Do you honestly believe that thr minister thinks that the Chinese would look at this proposal in the same way?
'Do we actually in this House believe that our economic security being threatened, as highlighted by the Americans and the Dutch, would go through a bureaucratic planning process with no ability to vary it because, frankly, them's the orders?
'I don't think that's the way China would do it, and it's certainly not the way we should.'
Mr Pennycook replied: 'I'm very glad that we have a different and more robust planning system than the People's Republic of China.'
Later in the session, Conservative MP Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) asked if the officer considering the case is 'cleared to receive top secret information'.
Mr Pennycook replied: 'A planning inspector is assessing the case as part of a public inquiry.
'And I'm afraid, while I recognise why (Mr Jopp) has asked the question, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on national security matters.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Britain's dysfunctional finances are stifling aspiration and opportunity
Britain's dysfunctional finances are stifling aspiration and opportunity

Telegraph

time38 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Britain's dysfunctional finances are stifling aspiration and opportunity

SIR – As the Chancellor prepares for her Spending Review tomorrow, it is striking that no political party appears willing to confront the scale of Britain's fiscal problems. Now retired, I reflect on a life in which my generation enjoyed real opportunity. I left school at 16, completed an apprenticeship, studied further, bought a modest home, and raised a family. We lived carefully, but the path to security was there. Today's younger generation faces soaring taxes, student debt (we had grants), unaffordable housing, and strained public services – all while the state borrows heavily and spends over £100 billion a year on debt interest. Despite record tax receipts, driven by stealthy fiscal drag, the public gets little in return. When David Cameron's government attempted to rein in the deficit, this was attacked as 'austerity'. Yet no one now dares say what must be said: we must gradually pay down the national debt if we are to free up resources for housing, education and the NHS. The Government should focus not on how much it spends, but on what it delivers. A country that keeps dodging difficult choices will end up with no choices at all. Paul Allen Fleet, Hampshire SIR – As we await Rachel Reeves's Spending Review, we can only hope that the Government will cut up the national credit card, rather than grant itself a higher limit. But such an outcome would be controversial, not least because state-run institutions are bureaucratic and financially insatiable. We have reached the point where a major spending review should go far beyond manipulation of spreadsheets. It is time for serious questions as to what government does and why, and how it goes about it. However, these questions are too challenging for mere bean-counters. Are there any thinkers and innovators out there, or have they already left the country? David Porter Plymouth, Devon SIR – Britain is the sixth largest economy in the world, but it really doesn't feel like it. The country is seriously in debt and high interest rates mean that the cost of servicing that debt has also risen. This is being compounded by an ever-increasing welfare bill, an immediate demand to boost our spending on defence and a frankly unachievable net zero policy. The only plausible way out of this situation is to encourage economic growth, improve productivity and reduce uncompetitive energy costs. Yet this Government appears to have no solution except to tax and spend. The country is going broke fast, and at some point – perhaps even within this parliament – the IMF or the markets will call time on the situation.

UK has one of ‘worst statutory leave offers for fathers in developed world'
UK has one of ‘worst statutory leave offers for fathers in developed world'

The Independent

time40 minutes ago

  • The Independent

UK has one of ‘worst statutory leave offers for fathers in developed world'

The UK has one of the 'worst statutory leave offers for fathers and other parents in the developed world', the chairwoman of the Women and Equalities Committee has warned. In a new report, the House of Commons committee said a maximum of two weeks' paternity leave is 'completely out of step with how most couples want to share their parenting responsibilities' and 'entrenches outdated gender stereotypes about caring'. The committee has urged the Government to either amend the Employment Rights Bill to legislate for a day one right to paid leave or commit to 'considering this vital change within its review' in consultation with employers. It has also called on the Government to consider raising paternity pay to the level of maternity pay in the first six weeks – 90% of average earnings. The paternity and shared parental leave report by the committee said working parents 'will be let down by a review that leads only to tinkering around the edges of the system'. Chairwoman of the Women and Equalities Committee Sarah Owen said the UK's parental leave system was in 'urgent need of an overhaul to fit with the reality of working parents' lives'. The Labour MP for Luton North said reform 'must start with longer and better paid paternity leave'. Ms Owen said: 'It's essential the Government's proposed review addresses the system's fundamental failings, including low statutory pay, inadequate leave periods for fathers and others, exclusion of many working parents and guardians, plus design flaws and unnecessary complexity in the Shared Parental Leave scheme. 'The UK's parental leave system has fallen far behind most comparable countries, and we now have one of the worst statutory leave offers for fathers and other parents in the developed world.' The Labour MP added: 'Ministers must commit to meaningful reforms in the medium-term, with a view to going further towards a more gender equal parental leave system. 'Tinkering around the edges of a broken system will let down working parents. While much-needed substantial change to our paid parental leave system will require considerable financial investment, this would be outweighed by wider societal and economic benefits.' The report states that the UK's rate of statutory parental pay is 'completely out of kilter with the cost of living, has not kept pace with inflation and is far below rates in most comparable countries'. It recommends phased introduction of increases to statutory pay across the system to bring rates for all working parents up to 80% or more of average earnings or the real Living Wage. The lack of provision for self-employed fathers is 'deeply unfair', the report adds. The committee recommends that the Government consider options for providing statutory paid leave for all self-employed working fathers as part of its review of the parental leave system, including introducing a paternity allowance for self-employed fathers and other parents, similar to maternity allowance. The report states that the shared parental leave system is 'extremely difficult for most parents and their employers to understand'. It said a forthcoming review must examine the function and necessity of eligibility rules, with a view to 'simplifying or removing the employment status, time in service and earnings criteria'. The committee said the review should examine approaches taken in overseas systems, including the German 'partnership bonus' and Portugal's 'sharing bonus', which provide additional paid leave to couples in which both parents take a substantial portion of leave while the other returns to paid work.

Family visa income threshold should not rise to skilled worker level
Family visa income threshold should not rise to skilled worker level

The Independent

time40 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Family visa income threshold should not rise to skilled worker level

The Government has been warned against raising the minimum income threshold for family visas to the same level for skilled workers as it is most likely to conflict with human rights law, an advisory body has said. Skilled workers are only eligible to come to the UK if they earn a salary of £38,700 or more, compared to £29,000 required mainly for British citizens or settled residents to bring their partner to the country under family visas. The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) set out its recommendations after a review requested by the Home Secretary to look at how to set a minimum income requirement (MIR) for family visas that balances economic wellbeing and family life. The previous government planned to introduce the higher threshold for family visa applicants to be equivalent to the skilled worker level. But the committee's report said: 'Given the family route that we are reviewing has a completely different objective and purpose to the work route, we do not understand the rationale for the threshold being set using this method. 'We do not recommend the approach based on the skilled worker salary threshold as it is unrelated to the family route and is the most likely to conflict with international law and obligations (e.g. Article 8).' Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to private and family life that can be applied to migration cases in the UK. The UK's current £29,000 threshold is high compared to other high-income countries reviewed by the MAC. The analysis found a high proportion of applicants for partner visas are women and 90% are under the age of 44. Pakistan is the largest nationality to use the route applying from outside the country. The committee's analysis gave some options that a threshold of £24,000 to £28,000 could give more priority to economic wellbeing, such as reducing the burden to taxpayers, than on family life. It also suggested a criteria of £23,000 to £25,000 to ensure families can support themselves but not necessarily require them to earn a salary above minimum wage. Chairman of MAC, Professor Brian Bell, said: 'While the decision on where to set the threshold is ultimately a political one, we have provided evidence on the impacts of financial requirements on families and economic wellbeing, and highlight the key considerations the government should take into account in reaching its decision.' While the committee said it is not possible to predict how different threshold changes would impact net migration, it said lowering the amount to £24,000, for example, could mean an increase of around one to three percent of projected future net migration. The report added: 'Determining the MIR threshold involves striking a balance between economic wellbeing and family life. 'Whilst a lower threshold would favour family life and entail a higher net fiscal cost to the taxpayer, a higher threshold (below a certain level) would favour economic wellbeing. 'But a higher number of families would experience negative impacts relating to financial pressures, prolonged separation, relationships, adults' mental health and children's mental health and education.' The committee advised against raising the threshold for families with children as despite them facing higher living costs, the impacts on family life appear 'particularly significant' for children. It also recommended keeping the income amount required the same across all regions of the UK. The MAC also said their review was 'greatly hindered' by insufficient data and urged for better data collection by the Home Office on characteristics of each applicant to be linked to outcomes to inform further policy decisions. Reacting to the recommendations, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the report shows that raising the salary threshold will drive migration numbers down and urged for the threshold to be increased to £38,000. 'Migration figures remain far too high. It's time to end ECHR obstruction, raise the salary thresholds, and take back control of who comes into this country,' he said. 'As Kemi and I said on Friday, if the ECHR stops us from setting our own visa rules, from deporting foreign criminals or from putting Britain's interests first, then we should leave the ECHR.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'The Home Secretary commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review. 'We are now considering its findings and will respond in due course. More broadly, the government has already committed to legislate to clarify the application of Article 8 of the ECHR for applicants, caseworkers and the courts.'

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