Commons Sense

House of Commons · Urgent Question

Proposed Chinese Embassy 2026-01-19

19 January 2026 · 20 other contributors

Opened by Sarah Champion Lab Rotherham

Foreign Affairs

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Sarah Champion raised concerns about proposed chinese embassy 2026-01-19 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.

Key points

  • Concerns raised about potential risks posed by the proximity of sensitive cabling infrastructure to the site of the proposed new Chinese embassy.
  • Minister states that discussions with Five Eyes partners on domestic security matters are primarily the responsibility of the Home Office.
  • Minister indicates that the decision on planning permission for the proposed Chinese embassy rests with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, with a target decision date set for 20 January.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Sarah Champion Lab Rotherham

Will the Minister confirm the representations made to Five Eyes partners on the potential risks posed by the proximity of sensitive cabling infrastructure to the site of the proposed new Chinese embassy?

Other contributors (20)
  • Sarah Champion Lab Rotherham

    Question

    I am not reassured by the Minister's response. We have had interventions from various international bodies expressing concern about the risks posed to UK infrastructure, including sensitive cables running along Royal Mint Court. Does the Minister still believe that reports regarding these cables are inaccurate?

    Minister reply

    Our intelligence services have been involved throughout the process and a range of measures have been developed to protect national security. The Government's decision on planning permission will be made independently by Ministers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

  • Alicia Kearns Con Rutland and Stamford

    Question

    The shadow Minister expressed concern about the unredacted plans for the proposed Chinese embassy, which include 208 secret rooms. Can the Minister confirm whether these concerns were addressed before the publication of the unredacted plans?

    Minister reply

    National security is a top priority and we have been clear throughout that this decision will be taken independently by Ministers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

  • Rushanara Ali Lab Bethnal Green and Stepney

    Question

    The proposed embassy site is in my constituency. My constituents are concerned about security issues, human rights records of the Chinese government, and local disruption due to the development. What assurances can the Government provide regarding the proximity of sensitive communication cables?

    Minister reply

    National security is a top priority for the Government. We have been working closely with our intelligence services throughout this process to ensure that national security measures are in place.

  • Seema Malhotra

    Minister reply

    The decision to provide China with diplomatic status for the Royal Mint Court was made in 2018 under Boris Johnson's tenure and was subject to planning permission. The matter will be decided independently by MHCLG.

  • Graham Stringer Lab Blackley and Middleton South

    Question

    Has the Foreign Office been looking at what has been going on over the last 10 years regarding coercion by the Chinese diplomatic service?

    Minister reply

    We take extremely seriously any attempts to coerce, intimidate or harass. We continue to assess potential threats and protect individual rights through measures in the National Security Act 2023.

  • Julian Lewis Con New Forest East

    Question

    Has the National Security Adviser discussed with the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) on the security aspects of this proposal?

    Minister reply

    We have engaged with the ISC, including a recent appearance on 26 November. Matters of security and intelligence continue to be prioritised by this Government.

  • Alex Sobel Lab/Co-op Leeds Central and Headingley

    Question

    Are the Government listening to all voices before making a decision regarding the proposed Chinese embassy?

    Minister reply

    We continue to engage with a wide range of national security issues, including discussions with the US Congress. The planning application is an independent decision by MHCLG.

  • Andrew Murrison Con South West Wiltshire

    Question

    Will all cabling along Mansell Street at the Wapping exchange be relocated as a condition of any planning permission?

    Minister reply

    Our intelligence services are advising on measures to protect national security. We have engaged with the Intelligence and Security Committee, most recently on 26 November.

  • James Naish Lab Rushcliffe

    Question

    Does the Minister share concerns about the proposed mega-embassy becoming a focal point for intimidation of Hongkongers?

    Minister reply

    The UK has robust powers to counter foreign interference. The new embassy will replace seven sites and have one diplomatic footprint in London, providing security advantages.

  • Mark Pritchard Con The Wrekin

    Question

    Has the National Security Adviser appeared before the Intelligence and Security Committee on this issue?

    Minister reply

    National security is the first duty of Government. We follow legal obligations under the Vienna convention to control the number of diplomats in the UK.

  • Bobby Dean LD Carshalton and Wallington

    Question

    Does this Government truly stand up to China, or will it weaken its hand in trade negotiations by approving the super-embassy?

    Minister reply

    The decision is independent and quasi-judicial. National security considerations are paramount.

  • Desmond Swayne Con New Forest West

    Question

    The urgent question secured by the hon. Member for Rotherham explicitly refers to our Five Eyes partners. The first thing that the Minister said when she got to her feet was that she could not answer any questions about the Five Eyes partners, because that was a Home Office responsibility. Why did she come? Did she argue with those who sent her?

    Minister reply

    I thank the right hon. Member for his question. It is important to acknowledge that we work with our Five Eyes partners on a range of security matters. While we routinely engage with our partners—including the US—on matters relating to security and intelligence, those matters cannot always be shared in the Chamber.

  • Chris Law SNP Dundee Central

    Question

    The UK Government do not seem aware of the message that disregarding safety and approving the Chinese mega-embassy would send to Tibetan, Uyghur and other exile communities in the UK who face intimidation, surveillance and abduction attempts almost daily. On transnational repression, we have heard warm words about upholding various measures, so let me be more specific: what assessment have the Government made of the risk that the proposed embassy will be used to facilitate transnational repression?

    Minister reply

    We continue to raise all human rights concerns at the highest levels of the Chinese Government. It is important to say that any new diplomatic positions at the Chinese embassy must be approved, on a case-by-case basis, by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s protocol department.

  • Harriet Cross Con Gordon and Buchan

    Question

    The Minister said that the intelligence services are engaged, but she has not given any information about whether they are happy or able mitigate any risks. Why can she not give us that information? On the timeline, the first application was rejected in 2022; the revised application was submitted in 2024, and was called in; and we are now in 2026.

    Minister reply

    Let me reiterate: the decision on the embassy must be taken in the proper way. It is a matter for Ministers at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and it is an independent process.

  • Sarah Pochin Reform Runcorn and Helsby

    Question

    The Minister stated several times that national security is a priority for this Government, so why are they letting a hostile state that wants to sabotage and spy on us into the very heart of Government?

    Minister reply

    Is the hon. Lady referring to Russia, or to another country? In relation to China, I will say again what I said earlier: China is the world’s second largest economy and the UK’s third largest trading partner, and not engaging with China is no choice at all.

  • Lincoln Jopp Con Spelthorne

    Question

    Can the Minister not hear herself, and not see how absurd it is for the Government to insist that they should treat the decision on the embassy as a quasi-judicial, independent planning question? It is not a planning question; it is a question of national security.

    Minister reply

    I thank the hon. Member for his lesson in Greek mythology, most of which I am familiar with. It is important to have a serious debate about our relationship with China, and to continue to have a consistent and pragmatic approach to our engagement.

  • Chris Coghlan LD Dorking and Horley

    Question

    Foreign interference in British politics is of enormous concern to most Members, following the conviction of Reform politician Nathan Gill, who betrayed our country for a genocidal Russian dictator. Will they delay the decision on the super-embassy until the Rycroft review has reported?

    Minister reply

    The hon. Member will not be surprised to hear me say that the decision on the embassy is an independent process, but I will just emphasise to him that the UK has a broad range of powers to counter foreign interference.

  • Jim Shannon DUP Strangford

    Question

    I thank the Minister for her answers. In last week’s urgent question on the Chinese embassy, I highlighted that while the consulate is entitled to facilities that enable its citizens to get consular help, the Chinese are not entitled to facilities that pose any type of threat to national security.

    Minister reply

    I thank the hon. Member for his question. It is important to emphasise again that national security is the first duty of Government, and we will always act to protect it.

  • Alicia Kearns Con West Suffolk

    Question

    When I asked an urgent question about this important issue last week, it was shunted to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Today when the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) asked the question, it was shunted to the Foreign Office.

    Minister reply

    indicated dissent.

Government Response

Seema Malhotra

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to it. She will know that discussions with Five Eyes partners relating to domestic security matters are primarily a responsibility for the Home Office. The decision on planning permission for the proposed Chinese embassy at Royal Mint Court rests solely with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in his quasi-judicial capacity. He has set 20 January as the target date for his decision, and I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it would not be appropriate for me to cut across that process. We have been consistently clear that national security is the first duty of Government, and it has been our core priority throughout the embassy process, with the close involvement of the security and intelligence agencies.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy