After years of delay, deliberation and furious debate, the UK has approved plans for a Chinese “mega-embassy” right in the heart of the City of London.
You can attach your own symbolism to the 20,000 square metre Royal Mint Court site in the shadow of the Tower of London, purchased for £255m back 2018. It is a ten-minute walk, for example, from the location of the potential embassy to Traitor’s Gate, through which those accused of treachery were brought by barge to their famous prison 500 years ago. On an entirely unrelated note, planning documents for the embassy the Chinese government wishes to build on the site include a suite of anonymous basement rooms that could, to a suspicious mind, be utilised for less diplomatic activities.
Also intertwined with that specific site are the fibre-optic cables that carry communications between financial institutions in the City and Canary Wharf. The risk this could pose in espionage terms – a hot topic, given the wave of China spying stories we’ve had recently, including the furore over the parliament spying case being dropped – was a major point of contention in the debate over the embassy’s future.
We should not be overly concerned, however. Back in November, MI5 officers told the House of Commons speaker they were “very relaxed” about the prospect of the embassy and reckoned they could handle the espionage risks.
And so, the planning application has been granted. The 240-page planning decision published today states: “There are no other material considerations which would warrant a conclusion other than that planning permission and listed building consent should be granted”.
Not everyone is reassured. James Cleverly has summed up opposition to the decision by calling it “a disgraceful act of cowardice from a Labour government and Prime Minister utterly devoid of backbone”. Cleverly is, of course, shadow housing and communities secretary, and was also foreign secretary under Rishi Sunak, for some of the period during which the issue was being considered by the last government.
The juxtaposition of those two roles is apt. The decision is, quite obviously, a matter of foreign policy. It’s about diplomacy, and the type of relationship the UK wishes to have with China, especially when other mega-powers across the Atlantic are looking more volatile. There are questions about investment (the cabinet is split over how warmly Britain should embrace Chinese money and technology), about leverage, and indeed about our own embassy which the UK government would like to redevelop in Beijing.
Yet a quirk of our politics means the decision was taken not by Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, but, as the government’s statement today notes, “independently by the secretary of state for housing”. That would be Steve Reed.
The statement then emphasises the security point: “National security is our first duty. Intelligence agencies have been involved throughout the process and an extensive range of measures have been developed to manage any risks. Following extensive negotiations in recent months, the Chinese government has agreed to consolidate its seven current sites in London into one site, bringing clear security advantages.” This is fascinating when considered with the inspector’s report, which stresses that embassy planning decisions are “nation-neutral” and that “It is not possible to discriminate against a use on the basis of the anticipated use.”
So is this about security, or foreign policy, or planning rules? And in the tangle between the three very different policy areas, which takes priority? The government’s statement offers one perspective, the inspector’s report another.
One other twist to this tale. Steve Reed has confirmed that “The decision is now final unless it is successfully challenged in court.” No doubt this will come up in discussions when Keir Starmer heads to Beijing, on a trip expected in the coming weeks. If you’re wondering who that challenge might come from – concerned intelligence experts, perhaps, or dissidents fearing persecution – the answer is local residents. The Royal Mint Court Residents’ Association of leaseholders is fundraising for a judicial review to block the decision on planning grounds.
The idea that a core aspect of Britain’s diplomatic relationship with China, hashed out over many years by various ministers and Chinese officials, could be stymied at the last moment by a hundred ordinary households saying “not in my back yard” to a mega-embassy with secret prison cells and the potential ability to snoop on the UK’s most sensitive financial communications is almost too British for words. Try explaining that to Xi Jinping.
[Further reading: Europe must break free from America]
Content from our partners
Related
Join the debate
Subscribe here to comment