To ask His Majesty’s Government why Ministers have reportedly intervened to support the proposal to convert the former Royal Mint building into a new site for the embassy of China.
My Lords, national security is the first duty of government and it has been our core priority throughout this process. That is why the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary submitted a letter to the Planning Inspectorate on 14 January. That letter is clear that we have considered the breadth of national security issues and that, for China to be permitted to build the new embassy, we want to see the implementation of suitable national security mitigations.
My Lords, the Metropolitan Police and Tower Hamlets Council quite properly both objected to the former Royal Mint being developed into a new site for the Chinese embassy—the largest in Europe. As the Minister will know, the planning application is due to be heard at a public inquiry after a call-in next month. However, these objections were conveniently withdrawn after senior Ministers, including the Prime Minister, met senior members of the Chinese politburo at the end of last year. Can the Minister tell the House which Ministers directly intervened prior to the sending of the letter to the statutory consultees, why they did that and when? What purpose had they to intervene in this local planning issue?
I am slightly surprised that the noble Lord takes that view. I know that he has a background in local government and in planning, but he also has a background in strongly supporting the former Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. It was Boris Johnson who wrote to the Government of China: “Consent is hereby given for the Royal Mint Court London to be deemed as diplomatic premises for the use as the chancery of the embassy of the People’s Republic of China in London”.
My Lords, the scale of the application is surely relevant, given the national security considerations the Minister announced. This Government have announced two elements of our relationship with China: the China audit, and the live consideration as to whether China should be designated for enhancement under the national security legislation because of political interference. Can the Minister reassure me that no planning decisions will be made in advance of these two pieces of work—the China audit and the consideration of China’s status under our national security legislation—being presented to Parliament?
As many noble Lords who have experience of the planning process will understand, this is a quasi-judicial process. It is right that the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have submitted letters outlining their thoughts on this. These will be considered in the usual way by the inspectorate. This is an open process; other noble Lords and interested parties will be able to make representations.
My Lords, the Minister responded by not answering the question put to her as to why Cabinet Ministers wrote the letter that they did without noting the submission from the Metropolitan Police, let alone the one from Tower Hamlets Council. Can the Minister clarify why Cabinet Ministers wrote as they did, disregarding the advice from the Metropolitan Police?
That is not correct. The Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary wrote expressing their consideration of national security issues, which they would like to be taken into account by the Planning Inspectorate. The Met withdrew its concerns of its own accord. I understand that the officers at Tower Hamlets Council recommended approval but the elected members decided that they did not wish to approve the application, as they had every right to do.
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, pointed out, the proposed new embassy would be the biggest Chinese embassy in Europe. Are His Majesty’s Government persuaded that China needs such a very large embassy in the United Kingdom?
Noble Lords might be interested to understand that the Government of China have seven different locations around London although, of course, they have only one embassy. In the future, these sites could well be in one place, which would make it a very large embassy but China is a considerably large country with considerable interests. We want to develop our relationship with China. We want to co-operate, compete and challenge as appropriate but, more than that, to be consistent in our approach. We think that is the best way to raise the issues we have diplomatically and to tackle the growth challenge, as well as the climate challenge that we wish to see addressed.
My Lords, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer came back from her recent visit to China, she boasted about having got £600 million of investment over 10 years. This is about what our bloated government spends every 12.5 hours. If that is all that the Chinese are ponying up, why do they need such a big embassy?
It is not for me to say how much real estate another Government might wish to have as their presence in London. As I just pointed out, at the moment they have seven locations here. Some consolidation is clearly desirable, as I think we can all appreciate.
My Lords, is it not a fact that diplomatic relations are about the conduct of our international relations with countries and do not imply approval or disapproval one way or the other? Right around the world, big countries have big embassies. China is a big country. That is just a fact.
I have so many jokes about size in my head at the moment— I am not going to go there. I note what my noble friend says. I do not think it is any surprise that China would want to have a substantial presence in London.