Proposed Chinese Embassy

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on her question. One could be excused for feeling that this is groundhog day, because once again the House has gathered to share our collective concern about plans to approve the Chinese Communist party’s mega-embassy and once again the Home Office has declined to answer. I did consider rereading my speech from last week, but as I hope we will get some answers, I have gone back to the drawing board.

The Chinese Communist party’s plans are not normal diplomatic renovations, and it would be laughable to suggest that they are, given the location. Did the Minister see the unredacted plans before their publication, and can she genuinely say that she would have no concerns about her Government approving this shadowy network of 208 secret rooms? Given the claims that the Government and Ministers had not seen these plans until last week, surely the Government need time to review them. Would the Minister confirm that there will be a delay to the decision, which is due tomorrow? No one would seriously suggest that, in the week that has passed, the Government have identified all the mitigations needed to protect our cables and militate against these secret rooms.

The Government have so far shielded themselves behind the mundane language of planning policy, but this is not a normal application. Can the Minister confirm whether our allies have been consulted on the unredacted plans, and if so, who? Can she confirm whether UK Government officials previously denied the existence of these cables to the United States in discussions?

Last week, I asked whether the Chinese Communist party’s ambassador had been démarched and forced to explain his party’s duplicity in the application. The Minister declined to answer. It has now been a week. Has the Minister—not officials—finally found time to prioritise national security and haul in the Chinese ambassador? If not, why not, and what message does that send to China? Not once have this Labour Government démarched the Chinese ambassador since they came to power, despite cyber-attacks, spies in this place and bounties on the heads of Hongkongers. What does the Chinese Communist party have to do for this Government to defend us and act to deter future hostile acts? The Government tell us that security concerns have been addressed, including ones that they only knew about a week ago. Tell us how.

Finally, the Prime Minister has not yet publicly confirmed his vanity visit to Beijing. Has the Chinese Communist party made approval of the new embassy contingent on the visit going ahead? The Government have a duty to protect our country. Without national security, there is no economic security. This House clearly speaks with one voice on this issue and that voice says no, so will the Government join us or will they choose a dereliction of their duties?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the shadow Minister for her remarks. First, in relation to the Prime Minister’s visit, any prime ministerial or ministerial travel will be confirmed in the usual way. Secondly, it is right, and we are clear, that the planning decision is one for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to take independently and that that decision is made in a quasi-judicial capacity. It is also important to say that the decision on the embassy will be taken in the proper way, regardless of any attempts at pressure from anyone, and we have been clear throughout that this is a planning decision for MHCLG Ministers.

It is important to recognise that national security is the first duty of Government—the shadow Minister will understand that more than anyone, given her own background—and we will always act to protect it. It is taken extremely seriously by the Home Office and the Foreign Office. It will be important that we continue to ensure that we have conversations, as we do routinely, with our allies and with the US, and that we take into account any security and intelligence, which we also share on a routine basis, in relation to China. As I have already mentioned, where there are concerns about national security, it is important that our intelligence services are involved throughout, and a range of measures have been developed and are being implemented.

I am sure that these matters will continue to be part of the debate, and that the Minister for Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), will address them further. It is also important that we continue to ensure that there is a focus on security and, in relation to concerns about those who may experience attempts under transnational repression, that we continue to stand up for the safety and security of all our people in the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

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]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. 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. The Minister opened her answer by saying that she could not answer the fundamental question being asked in the Chamber. When I asked her directly whether she had démarched the Chinese ambassador, because that is within her brief, no answer was given, so Ministers will not answer on other people’s briefs, despite collective responsibility; if they will not answer on their own briefs, how are we to get answers in this place?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Lady for advance notice of that point of order. As she will know, the Chair is not responsible for the content of Ministers’ answers—if only we were—but she has most definitely put her point on the record, and the Minister might wish to respond now.