Government facing ‘walk of shame' over Chinese embassy decision
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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Fears of tent cities as rough sleeping is decriminalised in end to 200-year-old law
Tent cities could pop up across the UK as rough sleeping is decriminalised, critics of the policy say. Ministers have announced plans to repeal the Vagrancy Act by next spring, meaning it will no longer be an offence to sleep on pavements. But there are fears scrapping the 200-year-old law despite rising numbers of the homeless will mean more people camping on the streets. Announcing the changes, Angela Rayner said she was 'drawing a line under nearly two centuries of injustice towards some of the most vulnerable in society'. The Housing Secretary pledged to increase funding for homelessness services with an extra £233million this financial year to provide alternatives to rough sleeping. She said: 'No one should ever be criminalised simply for sleeping rough and by scrapping this cruel and outdated law, we are making sure that can never happen again.' Introduced in 1824 to tackle a homelessness crisis after the Industrial Revolution, the law was designed to punish 'idle and disorderly persons, and rogues and vagabonds'. Most parts of the act have been repealed but some remain in force in England and Wales to enable police to move on rough sleepers rather than prosecute them. Homeless charities called the move a 'landmark moment' they had long called for. However, there were concerns that the move could lead to more people sleeping on streets and the creation of 'tent cities'. The charity Shelter estimates there are 326,000 people, including 161,500 children, in England who are homeless, a 14 per cent increase on the previous year. This has caused camps to pop up in several cities, including on Park Lane in central London. Figures published in April showed the total number sleeping rough in the capital – those who spend at least one night on the streets – was 4,427 for the three months to March 2025, which was a near 8 per cent increase from 4,118 for the same quarter last year. The numbers classed as living on the streets had risen by 38 per cent year-on-year to 706 from 511. The Government said 'targeted measures will ensure police have the powers they need to keep communities safe – filling the gap left over by removing previous powers'. These will be new offences of facilitating begging for gain and trespassing with the intention of committing a crime and will be brought in through amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. Ministers said this will ensure organised begging – often by criminal gangs – remains an offence, meaning it is unlawful for anyone to organise others to beg. Ms Rayner's department said spending on homeless services would hit nearly £1billion this financial year. Kevin Hollinrake, Tory communities spokesman, said: 'Labour's approach will result in a pavement free-for-all in our towns and cities. They just don't understand or care how this affects law-abiding local residents and the impact it has on their pride of place.' Chris Philp, the Tory home affairs spokesman, told the Telegraph: 'This move risks turning British cities into a version of San Francisco, which has become overrun by encampments of homeless people.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Is Xi Jinping's time up?
Stories about Xi Jinping's father, Xi Zhongxun, are blowing up on social media. He died in 2002, so why the interest in him now? The weird fact is that Xi Zhongxun is being talked about in the West because he is not being talked about in China. Omission is the perverse way that one learns about what is really going on in the opaque world of Chinese Communist party (CCP) politics. China-watchers live on scraps. Xi Zhongxun was a big cheese in his own right. Born in the north-west's Shaanxi province, he was an early member of the youth league of the CCP. After meeting Mao Zedong at the conclusion of the Long March, which ended up in his home province, he quickly rose through the party ranks. After making a success of his governorship of Guangdong Province, where he set up one of the first of Deng Xiaoping's 'Special Economic Zones', Xi Zhongxun was promoted to the politburo in 1982. His official obituary describes him as 'an outstanding proletarian revolutionary', who was 'one of the main founders and leaders of the revolutionary base areas in the Shanxi-Gansu border region'. In short, Xi Zhongxun was an early hero and 'big beast' of the CCP. He passed his 'red genes' on to Xi Jinping, the primus inter pares of the 'princelings' who have come to dominate China's politics over the past decade. As such, it was no surprise that at the recent inauguration of the Revolutionary Memorial Hall in Shaanxi, it was planned to name it after Xi Zhongxun. But it didn't happen. At the last minute, in a low-key ceremony, his name was not only expunged from the title but omitted entirely from the memorial. A similarly strange story attaches to the 40-episode drama series Time in the Northwest, which followed Xi Zhongxun's life story. This unashamed glorification of President Xi's family, slated to be shown in primetime on CCTV, China's main state broadcaster, was dropped after two episodes. Is it a coincidence that the expunging of Xi Zhongxun has come to light while Xi himself seemingly disappeared from public view in the last two weeks of May? Chinese institutions are always alert to changes in the political wind – no more so than the state media. Recently China-watchers have detected subtle changes. Xi, usually on every front page of the People's Liberation Army Daily, has been much less prominent. Shen Ming-Shih, a director of the Institute for National Defence and Security Research in Taiwan, has observed 'a noticeable decline in the official references to Xi'. In the past, Xi has been described as the 'eternal core of the party'. As recently as December, the People's Liberation Army Daily wrote that decisions should 'rely on a single voice of authority'. Now it praises the virtues of 'collective leadership'. In addition, Shen has pointed out that academics at Peking University and South China University of Technology have not been punished for writing essays critical of Xi's policies. Remarkably, Hu Jintao, Xi's predecessor and faction opponent, who, in front of the world's press, was humiliatingly manhandled out of the CCP's 20th National Congress in October 2022 by Xi's bodyguards, seems to be making a comeback. On 19 May, the People's Daily and Xinhua News both published articles using Hu catchphrases that reference 'scientific, democratic and law-based decision-making'. Wen Jiabao, the supposedly billionaire former Chinese premier, is another elder who is reportedly on manoeuvres. In May, the usual monthly politburo meeting did not take place. Furthermore, Xi has not been present at high-level meetings of the Central Military Commission (CMC) of which he is chairman. His place has been taken by General Zhang, who is not a Xi faction member. CMC chairmanship is central to the power of a CCP General Secretary. CCP elders are disillusioned by a leader who has assumed dictatorial powers but is deemed to have failed Uncertainty about the direction of the People's Liberation Army has contributed to the rumours of change in China's leadership. Hei Weidong, vice-chairman of the CMC and a member of Xi's Fujian faction, was suddenly arrested in April. Xi was governor of Fujian Province in the late 1990s. In November last year, another of Xi's Fujian clique, Admiral Miao Hua, who was head of the CMC's Political Work Department, was put under investigation for 'serious violations of discipline' – the usual newspeak for corruption. On 30 April, he was dismissed. Other Xi generals have reportedly been removed from their posts. In the realm of economic management there are also signs of discontent. It is widely recognised that Xi's repressive handling of the Covid pandemic was catastrophic. In the end it was public protest that forced him to end lockdown. By Chinese standards, post-Covid recovery has been anaemic. A property crash has destroyed consumer confidence and has also landed provincial governments with unsustainable levels of debt. Graduate unemployment has risen sharply. Many are fleeing to the West to find employment. A sense of malaise has cast a pall over China's younger generations. As a recent émigré Chinese dissident, who, like her friends, disparagingly refers to Xi as 'the village headman', confided to me: 'I realise that I was fortunate to live in a golden age of freedom and prosperity. Now it is over.' A sign of Xi's diminishing power is the increasing redundancy of the economic posts he held. The Central Financial and Economic Affairs Commission, which he chairs, has been meeting only sporadically. Foreign direct investment (FDI), which was a main contributor to the explosive economic growth of China after Deng's liberalisation of the economy in the 1980s, has collapsed. Beijing's State Administration of Foreign Exchange reported that FDI in 2023 was the lowest for 30 years. Inevitably a high proportion of blame for capital flight is being put on Xi's 'wolf-warrior' approach to diplomacy, itself an abandonment of Deng's 'softly, softly' approach to the expansion of China's global power. Who has been moving against Xi? Apart from elements within the army, who are thought to oppose military action against Taiwan, the 'princelings', many of whose offspring now reside overseas with the billions that their families have squirrelled away, are thought to be conspiring against the President. Most importantly, the party elders are disillusioned by a leader who has assumed dictatorial powers but is deemed to have failed. In China the elders act like an informal Areopagus, which in extremis checks the power of the executive. Willy Wo-Lap Lam, a Hong Kong-based scholar, has concluded that Xi's 'ability to shape policy in the financial, foreign affairs and other arenas has been truncated'. Lam speculates that 'Xi might be driven out of office this year'. Similarly, Cai Shenkun, a long-standing China-watcher, has reported that CCP leaders have already decided that Xi must step down: 'It's almost certain that an arrangement will be made to allow Xi and his inner circle to withdraw gracefully from the political stage. Once new leadership takes over, a new approach to governance will follow.' In a similar vein, Yao Cheng, a former officer in the CCP navy who deserted and fled to America in 2016, has speculated that Xi will retain 'only the ceremonial title of China's Chairman, before fully retiring at the 21st National Congress [in 2027]'. Xi's two-week disappearance in May seemed to support the theory that he has already been frozen out. So, did his reappearance on 4 June when he met Belarus leader Alexander Lukashenko lay to rest the rumours of his political demise? Quite the opposite. The meeting, which was abnormally held in Xi's house, was strangely subfusc and devoid of normal protocols. Reporting was delayed and brief and did not feature any quotations from the President. The press photographs were lifted from Belarusian media as though Chinese reporters and photographers were not allowed to be present. If the rumours of Xi's defenestration are true, why the delay and subterfuge? The answer may lie in the fact that there is no obvious successor. No surprise here, seeing as, during his 12 years in power, Xi has put his clique in most senior positions. Zhang Lei, a well-connected, US-based YouTuber, has speculated that the CCP elders are casting around for a successor. Her sources suggest that Wang Yang, a liberal 'non-princeling' member of the Politburo Standing Committee of the CCP from 2017 to 2022, has been sounded out. The demise of Xi has been predicted before and there can be no certainty that the recent waves of rumours are accurate. Even if they are true, it remains possible that Xi could stage a comeback and put his enemies to flight. However, given the dire problems facing China and the indifferent performance of its leader, it seems quite plausible that forces within the CCP have had enough of the dictatorial Xi, who, just two years ago, had presumptuously declared his intention to rule until 2032. If Xi falls, or indeed has already fallen, the consequences for Taiwan and US-China relations could be dramatic – and possibly beneficial to both.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Chancellor unveils £6bn NHS funding after health-centred spending review
Some £6 billion will be spent on speeding up testing and treatment in the NHS, Rachel Reeves has announced, after she placed the health service at the heart of Government spending plans. The Chancellor unveiled the investment, which includes new scanners, ambulances and urgent treatment centres aimed at providing an extra four million appointments in England over the next five years, after Wednesday's spending review. The funding is aimed at reducing waiting lists and reaching Labour's 'milestone' of ensuring the health service carries out 92% of routine operations within 18 weeks. In the review, Ms Reeves set out day-to-day spending across Government for the next three years, as well as plans for capital investment over the next four years. The NHS and defence were seen as the winners from the settlement, as both will see higher than average rises in public spending. This comes at cost of squeezing the budgets of other Whitehall departments and experts have warned tax rises may be needed later this year. The Chancellor and Sir Keir Starmer both sought to portray the review as a 'new phase' for the Government, following the criticism Labour has faced during its first year in power, including over cuts to winter fuel allowance. Ms Reeves claimed the NHS had been 'put on its knees' as a result of under-investment by the previous government, adding: 'We are investing in Britain's renewal, and we will turn that around.' The new £6 billion investment will come from the capital settlement for the NHS and will also help to speed up diagnoses with scans and treatment available in places such as shopping centres and high streets. The scale of day-to-day spending for the NHS is akin to an extra £29 billion a year. In a broadcast interview on Wednesday evening, Ms Reeves said the Government was 'confident' it could meet its pledge to reduce waiting lists after the boost to NHS spending. But while health and defence have benefited from the review, the Home Office, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Department for Transport and Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are all in line for real-terms cuts in day-to-day spending. The Foreign Office is also in line for real-terms cuts, mainly as a result of a reduction in the overseas aid budget, which was slashed as part of the commitment to boost defence spending to 2.6% of gross domestic product – including the intelligence agencies – from 2027. Ms Reeves acknowledged 'not everyone has been able to get exactly what they want' following Cabinet squabbling over departmental budgets. She said 'every penny' of the spending increases had been funded through the tax and borrowing changes she had announced in her first budget. The Chancellor also insisted she would not need to mount another tax raid to pay for her plans, but experts warned the money for the NHS might still not be enough and the Government is under international pressure to boost defence funding further. Paul Johnson, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, described the hospital waiting times target as 'enormously ambitious', adding: 'And on defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6% of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' At a summit later this month Nato members will consider calls to increase spending to 3.5% on defence, with a future 1.5% on defence-related measures. Steven Millard, interim director of the NIESR economic research institute, said the Chancellor's non-negotiable fiscal rules, coupled with the 'small amount of headroom' in her spending plans, meant 'it is now almost inevitable that if she is to keep to her fiscal rules, she will have to raise taxes in the autumn budget'. Elsewhere, policing leaders warned forces may need to make deep cuts after their settlement was announced. The spending review provides more than £2 billion for forces, but ministers have acknowledged some of that 'spending power' will come from council tax hikes.
