China’s new "super-embassy in London expected to win approval amid spy concerns

A sweeping new Chinese embassy complex planned for east London is expected to secure formal approval next week, even as renewed concerns from Labour MPs focus on possible security implications and the potential impact on Hong Kong and Uyghur communities living in the capital.

The Guardian writes that the proposed “super-embassy” at Royal Mint Court, close to Tower Bridge and covering roughly 20,000 sq metres, has drawn political scrutiny. Endorsement of the project could ease the diplomatic atmosphere ahead of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s anticipated visit to China at the end of January, though officials stress the planning process has been handled without political involvement.

The issue prompted pointed exchanges in the House of Commons on 13 January, where several Labour MPs voiced objections. Responding to an urgent question from shadow Home Office minister Alicia Kearns, Planning Minister Matthew Pennycook emphasised that he was unable to comment on the specifics of what he described as a “quasi-judicial” procedure overseen by his department.

Kearns requested the urgent question following a Daily Telegraph report indicating that unredacted architectural documents revealed more than 200 underground rooms, including one located beside communication cables carrying data into the City of London.

Pennycook told MPs that any new material would be examined, but the scheme is still expected to receive final approval next week once the consultation phase concludes. MI5, as previously reported by the Guardian, is understood to have raised no objections to the project.

Kearns criticised that position as dangerously complacent, warning that physical access to the data cables beneath the complex “would give the Chinese Communist Party a launch pad for economic warfare against our nation.” She said such a development would create “a daily headache” for UK intelligence agencies and called for the Chinese ambassador to be summoned to explain the plans. Referring to Starmer’s upcoming travel to China, she asked whether authorising the embassy would mean the prime minister would “turn up with a gift in hand.”

Officials acknowledge that the timing may be diplomatically convenient but insist it is coincidental. As one official commented: “There is no political pressure, but that has crossed our minds.”

No Labour MP spoke in support of approving the project during the session. Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Select Committee, stressed that concerns had been raised by “multiple government agencies and government departments,” as well as international partners. She added: “Every security briefing I’ve had identifies China as a hostile state to the UK. I am in no doubt this mega-embassy should not be allowed to go ahead.”

Several Labour backbenchers focused on the possible consequences for diaspora groups, particularly those originally from Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang. They argued that Chinese diplomatic missions have previously been used to monitor or pressure such communities.

Alex Sobel, MP for Leeds Central and Headingley, cautioned that the site could pose a “real threat” to Hong Kongers and Uyghurs living in the UK. Uyghurs, a predominantly Muslim minority in Xinjiang, have long reported abuses including forced labour and arbitrary detention.

Rushanara Ali, MP for Bethnal Green and Stepney—the constituency in which the embassy would be located—said the concerns of local residents must be taken into account, noting the area’s sizable Muslim population and heightened attention to Xinjiang.

Another Labour MP, James Naish, representing Rushcliffe, said the debate extended beyond planning considerations and touched on broader questions of national security and the protection of diaspora communities. He pressed the government for assurances that the process had been conducted properly.

Pennycook maintained that the procedure remained intact and impartial. “The planning process hasn’t been compromised,” he said. “We will make a planning decision on the basis of the relevant propriety guidance.” He noted that the timetable had been extended due to “the detailed nature of the representations that have been provided, and the need to give parties sufficient opportunity to respond.”