Dan Jarvis
Main Page: Dan Jarvis (Labour - Barnsley North)Department Debates - View all Dan Jarvis's debates with the Cabinet Office
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I would like to make a statement on the national security considerations of China’s proposal to build a new embassy at the Royal Mint Court in Tower Hamlets. I know that Members will by now be well aware that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has approved China’s planning application. Some right hon. Members have been briefed by my security officials, and some Members will have seen the statement from the Intelligence and Security Committee, as well as the letter from the director general of MI5 and the director of GCHQ.
The decision made by the Secretary of State for Housing was an independent, quasi-judicial planning one. It concludes a process that began in 2018 when the then Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, gave formal diplomatic consent for China to use the Royal Mint site for its new embassy, subject to planning permission, and welcomed it as China’s largest overseas investment. Given the potential for legal proceedings, it would not be appropriate to give a commentary on the grounds for the decision. In its decision, MHCLG notes that
“the package of security measures proposed would be proportionate to the proposed use of the site”
and that
“no bodies with responsibility for national security, including HO and FCDO, have raised concerns or objected to the proposal on the basis of the proximity of the cables or other underground infrastructure.”
I know that some Members have raised concerns regarding the security implications of the new embassy, and it is on that issue that I want to update the House. National security is the first duty of any Government, and that is why the intelligence and security agencies have been absolutely integral to this process. The ISC, which is the Committee entrusted and empowered by this House to scrutinise the Government’s most sensitive information, has today released its judgment on the security implications. I thank it for its work, and I am reassured by the depth of its scrutiny throughout this process. In its statement, the ISC concluded,
“On the basis of the evidence we have received, and having carefully reviewed the nuanced national security considerations, the Committee has concluded that, taken as a whole, the national security concerns that arise can be satisfactorily mitigated.”
I can confirm today that the Home Office has received a letter from the director of GCHQ and director general of MI5 that makes it clear that
“as with any foreign embassy on UK soil, it is not realistic to expect to be able wholly to eliminate each and every potential risk…However, the collective work across UK intelligence agencies and HMG departments to formulate a package of national security mitigations for the site has been, in our view, expert, professional and proportionate.”
They judge that
“the package of mitigations deals acceptably with a wide range of sensitive national security issues, including cabling.”
Indeed, they note that the consolidation has “clear security advantages”.
Our security services have over a century of experience of managing security matters relating to foreign embassies on UK soil. This Government, and the last, have been aware of the potential for a new embassy at this site since the Chinese Government completed the purchase in 2018. The issues that continue to be raised in media reports are not new to the Government or the intelligence community, and an extensive range of measures have been developed to protect national security. We have acted to increase the resilience of cables in the area through an extensive series of measures to protect sensitive data, and I can confirm that, contrary to reporting, the Government had seen the unredacted plans for the embassy and the Government have agreed with China that the publicly accessible forecourt on the embassy grounds will not have diplomatic immunity, managing the risk to the public.
Based on all that, and given our extensive work on this matter, I am content that any risks are being appropriately managed, but let me be clear: the build also brings clear national security advantages. Following extensive negotiations led by this Government, the Chinese Government have agreed to consolidate their seven current sites in London into one site. That is why, following deep scrutiny by security officials, the Government have been able to conclude that we can manage the security concerns related to the embassy.
Although there are those who have, and who will no doubt continue to have, concerns about the embassy, it is a fundamental and normal part of international relations that countries agree to establish embassies in each other’s capitals. While some would stick their heads in the sand and ignore the obvious need to engage, this Government are engaging with China confidently and pragmatically, recognising the complexity of the world as it is and challenging where we need to, because for our security, our economy and our climate, China matters. To be clear, this is not a question of balancing economic and security considerations; we do not trade off security for economic access.
Of course we recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyber-attacks, foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions to the transnational repression of Hongkongers and China’s support for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is why I announced a package in November to protect our national security, which set out the range of work the Government are taking forward to strengthen the security of our democracy against the threat from foreign interference and espionage. It is also why, for example, in December 2025 the UK sanctioned two China-based companies that have carried out cyber-attacks against the UK and its allies; why we have completed work to remove Chinese-made surveillance equipment from sensitive sites; why the UK has sanctioned 50 Chinese companies under the Russia sanctions regulations as part of our efforts to take action against entities operating in third countries over economic and military support for Russia; and why I will be hosting a closed event in February with vice-chancellors to discuss the risks posed by foreign interference from a range of states and to signpost our plans to further increase the sector’s resilience.
Taking a robust approach to our national security also includes engaging with China. Under the previous Government, engagement with China had ground to a halt. That made us no safer; indeed, it is only through engagement that we can directly challenge China on its malicious activity. By taking tough steps to keep us secure, we enable ourselves to co-operate in other areas, including in pursuit of safe economic opportunities in the UK’s interest, and in areas such as organised immigration crime, narcotics trafficking, and serious and organised crime. This is what our allies do and this is what we are doing: delivering for the public, putting more money in their pockets and keeping them safe through hard-headed, risk-based engagement with the world’s most consequential powers.
I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for the ongoing attention that they give to protecting the UK’s national security. China has posed, and will continue to pose, threats to our national security. However, following detailed consideration of all possible risks around the new embassy by expert officials across Government, I am assured that the UK’s national security is protected. Let me assure this House and the country: upholding national security is the first duty of Government and we will continue to take all measures necessary to defeat these threats. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before I call the Minister, I gently remind shadow Ministers and spokesmen that there is a time limit, which the right hon. Gentleman exceeded somewhat.
Dan Jarvis
I listened carefully to what the shadow Home Secretary had to say. There was a glaring gap in his analysis: he did not seem to want to say anything about the level of challenge that we inherited from the previous Government in the laydown of the diplomatic estate. He did not want to accept that, as with other countries, there is a degree of risk that has to be managed. I explained that very carefully and made sure that he had the opportunity to come in this morning for a briefing. I was also at pains to stress in my opening remarks that although, of course, balanced views have to be taken about these things, there are national security advantages to the proposals that have been agreed. I know that he and other Conservative Members do not want to agree with that, but I think it is important that we debate—
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman says it is nonsense. He is entitled to his opinion, as are this Government. I hope that he takes the opportunity to look carefully at what the director general of MI5 and the director of GCHQ have to say. I also say to him and to some, but not all, Conservative Members that this is a moment when I would have hoped we could discuss these things in a sensible and reasonable way. That is how we should approach matters relating to national security.
I do not think it would be such a bad thing to hear a bit of humility from some Conservative Members, not least because the attack that we heard from the shadow Home Secretary and which other hon. Members have already engaged in might have landed a bit fairer and a bit truer if they had not spent 14 years in government flitting between hot and cold, neither consistent nor credible on what is, after all, one of the most complex geopolitical challenges that we face. The Conservatives went from golden age to ice age, and from welcoming China with open arms to choosing to disengage almost entirely with the world’s largest nation, which, along with Hong Kong, is our second-largest trading partner. It is convenient for some Conservative Members to forget that it was Boris Johnson, as Conservative Foreign Secretary in 2018, who granted consent for the Royal Mint site to be used as diplomatic premises. He said he was proud to
“welcome the fact this is China’s largest overseas diplomatic investment.”
That was a Conservative Foreign Secretary. In recent times, we have seen Conservative MPs U-turn on the original position of their Government and take a different approach.
This Government will ensure that the approach we take is underpinned by consistent and pragmatic engagement with China, but we will do so a way that absolutely ensures our national security. The House will have heard the important contributions that have been made by the ISC, and the conclusion that it has drawn. The House and the country will have heard the comments from the directors general. These are important contributions. Nobody should underestimate how seriously the Government have taken this matter. We have engaged with it incredibly closely. The intelligence and security agencies have been involved in the process from the outset. I can give an assurance to those who have doubts that we will, of course, continue to monitor this process carefully, but we believe that this is the right judgment.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I respectfully say to the Minister that that was an incredibly long answer—indeed, longer even than the question. Perhaps questions and responses need to be briefer.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
Many of my constituents will continue to have serious concerns about the proposed new embassy in my constituency. These include concerns about China’s human rights record, espionage and, in particular, local disruption. A development of this scale would cause significant disruption for local residents, especially those in Royal Mint Court, who now face considerable uncertainty, including privacy concerns and the fear of losing their homes. What assurances can the Government provide to my constituents, particularly those residents, regarding their concerns? Can the Minister also say more about the national security concerns and how they will be satisfactorily mitigated?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is an assiduous Member of the House and represents her constituents incredibly seriously. She will understand that, for obvious reasons, there are limits to what I can say about the specific measures and mitigations that will be put in place, but I am grateful to her for entirely understandably raising the concerns that some of her constituents have expressed. I assure her that we will want to work closely with her to minimise any disruption to local residents, and of course I would be happy to discuss these matters with her further.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the time his officials took to brief me earlier today.
The Government’s decision to approve plans for the Chinese mega-embassy represents far more than a planning matter. It shows that Ministers have learned very little from the evidence exposed in recent months of Chinese spying efforts to infiltrate British politics and this House. Throughout this stunted process, the Liberal Democrats have consistently called these plans out for what they are: a mistake. The Government know that the decision they have made today will further amplify China’s surveillance efforts here in the UK, endangering the security of our data. Planning conditions are meaningless without proper enforcement. Given the unprecedented security concerns surrounding this site, how will the Government ensure that planning conditions are rigorously monitored and enforced, particularly in regard to the underground cables that the current plans come dangerously close to?
No amount of planning conditions can address the fundamental problem. The embassy does not clean Chinese officials of their human rights abuses. It is shocking that China has placed bounties on the heads of democracy activists from Hong Kong who live in the UK. That type of interference and intimidation in our country is totally unacceptable, so in the light of this decision, will the Government include all Chinese officials, Hong Kong special administrative region officials and Chinese Communist party-linked organisations on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
Beyond the security and diplomatic concerns, there are fundamental questions about our democratic freedoms. The previous Conservative Government attacked our fundamental right to protest, and this Labour Government have continued to erode those freedoms. As a democratic society, we must protect the right to protest peacefully, including near embassies and including for Hongkongers living in the UK. Will the Government continue to guarantee the right to protest, even as this embassy moves ahead?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, not least because she came along in good faith this morning and attended the briefing at our invitation. I hope she found it helpful. I am acutely conscious that there are technical details that the House will understand I am not able to get into, and that is why we took the opportunity to brief the hon. Lady and other right hon. Members this morning. I am afraid that I do not agree with her analysis of our understanding of the threat. I referred earlier to the significant number of measures that we have taken in recent times to protect our national security.
The hon. Lady also asked me about the cables, so let me take this opportunity to update her and the House on that specific point. The allegations that have been much discussed in the media are not new to us or to the security agencies. Our intelligence services have scrutinised the plans, and an extensive range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect national security, including putting in place additional resilience measures to protect sensitive data—
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
What does that mean?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member asks me what that means. I hope he will understand that it would be unwise of me to get into the technical detail of the mitigations that we are seeking to put in place. Surely he understands that the Security Minister is not able to get into the guts and the detail of precisely what we are going to do—[Interruption.] If he is just patient for—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am simply not going to have this. There is too much chuntering, and indeed yelling, across the Chamber from a sedentary position. The Minister might like to focus on responding to the question that was asked by the Lib Dem spokesperson, not to heckling from the rest of the Chamber.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Opposition Members have made points about transparency, and it is important that I take this opportunity to give as much detail as I can, but it is important for the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) to understand that, as Security Minister, I cannot get into the detail of precisely what we are going to do, for what I thought would have been fairly obvious reasons.
Let me say to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) that the Government have been aware of the potential new embassy proposal since 2018. Our security services have been involved throughout that process, and an extensive range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect our national security. I can give her the assurance that she seeks that an extensive range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect our national security.
The hon. Lady also—quite unfairly, I have to say—criticised the Government’s belief in the right to protest. I do not think that that is a fair critique. The Government take very seriously the right of people to protest in our country. It is a cornerstone of our democracy and the Government will always ensure that people have the ability to protest in a peaceful way.
The hon. Lady asked, entirely reasonably, about the foreign influence registration scheme. I am waiting for Conservative Members to ask me about that as well. She will know that FIRS is still a new scheme. It came into force relatively recently, on 1 July, and more effectively on 1 October. She will understand that any decision with regard to FIRS will be brought to Parliament in the usual way.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, which is of course complex and raises significant issues that are shared on both sides of the House. He has referred to the issue of national security, and I fully appreciate that he is unable to talk about the mitigations that have been put in place. I am grateful that he has re-emphasised that point a number of times. As part of the evergreen nature of assessing the risks that we face, both during the building of the embassy, if it continues, and beyond, is he able to assure the House that, wherever possible, he will keep this place updated about any change in the risk assessments and that, if a more detailed analysis is required, the ISC will be fully apprised of that?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is right to say that these are complex decisions, and right to make the point that there are significant restrictions on what can be said in this Chamber. I can give him the assurances that he seeks. Ultimately, of course, it is for the Intelligence and Security Committee to decide what lines of inquiry it wants to proceed with, but we have given it close assurances of the work being done, and it has had access to material, so that it can take its own view. I make a commitment to him and to the vice-chair of the Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), that we will continue to engage with the Committee in a constructive way, and that when we feel that it is necessary or appropriate to update the House further, we will of course do that.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House would expect, the Intelligence and Security Committee has investigated the security implications of this proposal, and specifically whether the intelligence community had sufficient opportunity to feed in any security concerns, and whether Ministers had the necessary information on which to base a decision. I want to quote directly from our conclusions, which represent the Committee’s unanimous view:
“On the basis of the evidence we have received, and having carefully reviewed the nuanced national security considerations, the Committee has concluded that, taken as a whole, the national security concerns that arise can be satisfactorily mitigated.”
I will say, though, that we have been concerned solely with the national security perspective, not with the other arguments for or against a new embassy.
It has proved more difficult than it should have been to get straightforward answers to our basic questions. The process in Government does not seem to be effectively co-ordinated, or as robust as would have been expected. In particular, there was a lack of clarity about the role that national security considerations play in planning decisions. We will take those matters up further with the Government, as I know the Minister would expect.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and to all members of his Committee. Parliament entrusts the ISC with holding Government to account, and the ISC is able to do that in a way that other right hon. and hon. Members cannot. He made two key points. First, he shared the Committee’s analysis of the concerns expressed about national security. I hope that Members in all parts of the House listen carefully to what he says, and look carefully at the judgment that his Committee arrived at. Secondly, he made an important point about process, which I take seriously. I have no doubt that quite a lot can be learned from the process, and I am happy to talk with him and his Committee to identify the lessons that should be learned, and to ensure that we do things better next time.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I place on the record that I support completely what the deputy Chair of the ISC, of which I am also a member, just said. The process issue needs looking at urgently, and the deputy Chair was clear about the problems we faced. An important letter today from the GCHQ and MI5 heads to the Foreign and Home Secretaries says clearly:
“the collective work across UK intelligence agencies and HMG departments to formulate a package of national security mitigations for the site has been, in our view, expert, professional and proportionate.”
Would the Minister like to comment on that?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I reiterate the points I made about process. I have a huge amount of respect for the Committee. I had the pleasure—that is how I will describe it—of appearing in front of the Committee not so long ago. I do not think it is a state secret to say that the Committee gave me a pretty tough grilling, and that is absolutely how it should be. The point he made about process is important, as is his point about the letter from the director generals. It is a rare occurrence for the director generals to make public comments. They are both extremely professional, and I have the pleasure of working with them regularly. They are both people of great integrity, and the House and the country should listen very carefully to what they have to say. They have made the point that, collectively, our security services have 100 years of experience in dealing with the challenges from foreign embassies. That is not to be remotely complacent about the nature of the threat that we face, because clearly it is very different from what it was in the past.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I do not think I am breaking the Official Secrets Act if I gently point out that when I used to chair the Intelligence and Security Committee, I repeatedly deprecated the use of the word “mitigation”, because it covers such a wide range of sins, but leaving aside security considerations just this once, does the Minister accept, as he should, that this is a colossal propaganda win for totalitarian, communist China? Is there any argument that was used in favour of China getting this embassy that would not have carried exactly the same weight if totalitarian, imperialist Russia had wanted to buy this building? Would the Government have stopped Russia from doing it, and if they would have done, on what grounds?
Dan Jarvis
I genuinely am, because I respect the wisdom of someone who has served in this House for many years. The right hon. Lady questions my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman. I can give her an assurance that I have a huge amount of respect—
Dan Jarvis
I am answering the question. I have a huge amount of respect for Members who have served for a long time, and particularly those who have chaired the ISC. We need to find a mechanism to ensure that Members like the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) have access to some of this information, so that they can make informed comments in this House. I take his point, although I do not agree with it, about mitigations. He understands that there are limits to what I can say on the mitigations. On his substantive point, I do not agree with him that this is a win for China, not least because I could not have been clearer about the importance of the consolidation of the estate. The Government have reached an agreement with China that the existing diplomatic footprint in London will be reduced in size from seven diplomatic sites to one. I am not sure that that constitutes a particularly big win in my book—
Dan Jarvis
Well, it is a statement of truth, and I think it undermines the right hon. Gentleman’s argument.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Even if we accept that the national security concerns about this new embassy have been mitigated, as evidenced by the letters from the security agencies today, and even if we accept that consolidating the seven properties that China owns into one gives us a security advantage, that is still cold comfort to the Hongkongers whom I represent in Leeds South West and Morley. They still have to live with transnational repression. In the case of Chloe Cheung, she still has to live with a £100,000 bounty on her head. Of course, they now have to live in fear that this new embassy might become their prison. What assurances can the Minister give Hongkongers in my constituency and, indeed, the UK that they will be protected from the ever-lengthening arm of the Chinese Communist party?
Dan Jarvis
I do not accept the basis of the argument that my hon. Friend has made. He would be well advised to place more emphasis on the point about consolidation, because I am confident that that will deliver meaningful operational benefits; that has been agreed by the security experts. Let me find what I hope is an important point of consensus: I am absolutely clear about how unacceptable it is for China, or any other nation for that matter, to seek to persecute individuals who are resident in the United Kingdom. The Government take these matters incredibly seriously. That is why the defending democracy taskforce, which I chair, has completed an extensive piece of work looking at transnational repression.
A number of actions have come from that piece of work, which have been routed right across Government. We take this incredibly seriously; I have met a number of people who have been the victim of TNR. It is completely unacceptable for China or anyone else to persecute people in this country. However, I ask my hon. Friend to consider the fact that we are talking about a proposal that will deliver an embassy for China at some point in the future. The Government and I have to deal with the level of threat as it is. Given the point about consolidation, I am confident that this is a proposal that we will be able to make work in the national interests of our country and all the people who live here.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
While I associate myself with the wider security concerns, will the Minister forgive me if I raise a narrow point? He knows what I am going to ask, because I have asked this twice already and not had an answer. The correspondence between the Government and the Chinese reveals that the medieval monastery on the site—an important monastery called Eastminster, rather than Westminster, where we are now—will remain on inviolable Chinese territory. Any UK citizens visiting it will have to be frisked, and will effectively be in China. What reassurance can the Minister give to those who have bounties on their head—the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) mentioned them—or to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who has been sanctioned by the Chinese state? What further reassurances can the Minister give that UK citizens visiting their own heritage will not be in danger when going on to the site?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the Father of the House, who has consistently made this point; this is at least the third time that I have heard him raise it. I hope that he heard the point I made earlier—I looked at him purposefully—about the question that he asks, but let me take this opportunity to say that the bounties are completely unacceptable behaviour, and the Government will not stand for it. The point that he raised is one that I have looked at very carefully, and I responded to it earlier, in my statement.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I have been sceptical about this new embassy, but I take the points made today by Members on the Intelligence and Security Committee, as well as the response from GCHQ and MI5. I have also listened to my constituents, including the Bracknell Forest Hong Kong community, who tell me that they are concerned about the ongoing transnational repression that they are experiencing. My hon. Friend has talked a lot about the work that the Government have already done. Will he commit to continuing to engage with the Hong Kong community, so that we can continue to adapt our response to the emerging threats that they experience?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has consistently raised points on behalf of his constituents, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks. Let me say to him and the House that we condemn the Hong Kong police’s efforts to coerce, intimidate, harass and harm those living in the UK and overseas. These acts of repression will not be tolerated in our country. Along with other ministerial colleagues, I have taken the opportunity to raise these concerns directly with the Chinese authorities, reaffirming that the extraterritorial application of Hong Kong’s national security law is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the UK. I can give him the assurances that he seeks, and I am very happy to discuss this matter with him further.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Hongkongers and other Chinese dissidents in the UK will be rightly concerned about this news. I want to make it completely clear that the Liberal Democrats have serious concerns that this project will enhance China’s ability to conduct transnational repression against Britons and Hongkongers on British soil. What is the timeline for closing the seven existing Chinese consulate buildings, once Royal Mint Court is opened? Will the Government publish the 2018 note verbale confirming that the embassy was contingent on planning approval, ensuring that the Government did not prejudge the application? Finally, paragraph 62 of the Secretary of State’s permission letter states that
“lawful embassy use of the site”
would give no cause for worry about interference with the sensitive cabling that runs adjacent to the secret basement rooms. After China’s proven record of unlawful espionage against MPs and British institutions, does the Minister agree that this is a catastrophic misjudgment, and that we have no hope of our laws being observed by the Chinese Communist party?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. When questions run to two pages and take a minute, perhaps Members might think about cutting them down slightly.
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman has expressed an opinion, and he is entirely within his rights to do that, but I hope he understands that I am also entirely within my rights to point out that his opinion is not backed up by the intelligence services or the security agencies, which have looked incredibly carefully at the detail of the proposal. He states baldly that the proposed embassy site will deliver additional capability to China, but I again make the point about consolidation, and about the security advantages that we think will accrue from this proposal. I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that I will not get into the timeline today, not least because I have to be incredibly careful about what I say, given the likelihood of further legal proceedings, but I am very happy to discuss these matters further with him and his Liberal Democrat colleagues.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I want first to make it clear that I do not agree with this decision. It will have a chilling effect on Tibetans, Hongkongers and Uyghurs, and other Chinese people who merely dissent from the regime in Beijing. I have three questions about the application. First, what guarantees do the Government have that the seven other sites will be closed and disposed of? Will the new site be built by British construction companies hiring workers in the usual way, or by Chinese construction companies bringing in their own labour? What forms of building inspection control will be present during and after the construction?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend has a long and proud track record in this area, and I listen carefully to what he has to say. He will forgive me if I disagree with his analysis of the chilling effect of this decision, not least given the points about consolidation and the security advantage. He has asked about the seven sites. Let me give him and the House an absolute assurance that that is part of the deal agreed with China. The deal is that the seven diplomatic sites forming the existing diplomatic footprint in London will be consolidated in the individual site.
In terms of the precise details about construction and other activities, my hon. Friend will understand that there are agreed procedures for these kinds of activities. I think a point was made earlier about the relationship with the United States and the concerns that they might have expressed—which I do not recognise—but it is useful to note that China built a new embassy in the United States not so long ago, so this is not a particularly uncommon occurrence. However, I give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will keep a close eye on the points he makes.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I raise these issues as a sanctioned individual. Not only am I sanctioned, but my whole family is sanctioned, I have been trolled by operatives from the security service of China, and I am under constant watch by them, all the way through. On the basis of that, I simply ask him this. When the Secretary of State issued his letter, he said—this was quoted earlier—that the concern about cables should not present a problem for “a lawful embassy use”. Nothing about the Chinese is lawful here in the United Kingdom. Is it lawful for them to attack Hongkongers who have fled here? Is it lawful for pop-up police stations to go on pulling people in? Is it lawful for them to place bounties on people’s heads? Is it lawful for them to be asking British citizens living next door to Hongkongers to bring them into the embassy, so they may collect their bounty? These are all unlawful acts. The truth is that this Chinese embassy, with its 200 extra staff, will increase that. In every place where China has put more people in its embassy, transnational repression has increased. Does the Minister not agree with that?
Dan Jarvis
Try though I might, there was never going to be a scenario where I would be able to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman today in what I have been able to say. He and I have had exchanges on these matters on many occasions. It is completely intolerable and unacceptable that he and members of his family have been sanctioned, and he knows the Government’s position on that.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of law. UK law is sacrosanct, and where anyone—whoever they might be—falls short of it, they will be held to account by this Government. He made a specific point about the potential for an increase in staff. Again, there are clear procedures that rest with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office: where a foreign nation seeks to bring additional staff resource into a country, that all has to go through the normal diplomatic channels and has to be agreed by the Foreign Secretary.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not support these proposals. I understand that he has strong views, which I have a lot of respect for, but I hope he can respect the fact that we have engaged seriously with this proposal. The security services have been involved from the outset. Ultimately, Government have to take a view. We have taken the view that the national security implications can be mitigated. We have also taken the view—and I know that some Opposition Members do not agree with it—that there could well be some security advantages as a consequence of these proposals. I undertake to keep him and other Members up to date, and if he wishes to discuss it outside this Chamber, I would be happy to do that.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Will the Minister confirm that the UK Government are happy with rewarding and emboldening a nation that has one of the worst human rights records, that conducts espionage on these islands and in our Parliament, that has imprisoned a UK national—Jimmy Lai—on trumped-up charges, that has committed crimes against humanity against the Uyghurs and that is the single most important enabler of Russia’s illegal war machine against Ukraine and its civilian population, which we as parliamentarians have stood united against?
Dan Jarvis
I am sorry to say that I do not agree with the framing of the hon. Gentleman’s question. While he is entirely right to raise specific concerns, this is not about rewarding China.
Dan Jarvis
It is not. It is about the importance of engaging confidently and pragmatically, in a way that will enable us to take opportunities where they present themselves and where it is in our national security. As I made clear in my earlier remarks, that is not just about economic co-operation; there are other areas where we need to co-operate with China. I referenced three in my opening comments: organised immigration crime, serious organised crime and narcotics trafficking. Those are important areas where we need to work with China. Ultimately, the most important thing is that we safeguard our national security. That is why we have worked incredibly hard to look carefully at the detail of this proposal and to make sure we have the right mitigations in place.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Will the Minister explain how, by giving China the embassy it wants, the Government are demonstrating that they are holding China responsible for—in his words—“unacceptable behaviour” that they will not stand for?
Dan Jarvis
In part, it is because of the reduction in the diplomatic estate from seven sites to one.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
So the Chinese communist regime sanctions Members of this House, spies on Members of this House and carries out more cyber-attacks than any other country. The Minister admits that they are a national security threat, yet the Government think it is a good idea to kowtow to the Beijing bullies and allow this mega-embassy. If the decision is in the national economic interest, could the Minister confirm that some British steel might be used in this Chinese embassy? Can he guarantee that it is in the national security interests of British citizens?
Dan Jarvis
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting the clip that he no doubt will be posting on social media in the not-too-distant future; that is up to him. He seems to operate in a world that is quite selective in the decisions it seeks to make. I looked over to him earlier when I referenced the requirement for co-operation on areas such as organised immigration crime. I do not know whether he thinks that is a good thing. I do not know whether he or his party have a policy about whether, given the concerns that are shared across this House, we should be engaging with China on matters relating to immigration. He will understand, I hope, that as part of the work to stop the small boat crossings in the channel, it is necessary to engage with our near neighbours, but it is also necessary to engage internationally. I am not clear whether he thinks that is a good thing, and I am not clear whether he thinks we should engage with China on those matters.
What I am clear about is that this Government will engage pragmatically, do the right thing and secure the economic opportunities, but fundamentally, we will always make sure that we underpin our national security. The hon. Gentleman’s point about British steel is a fair one. This Government will always want to support UK-based manufacturers and UK-based industry. To end on a point of consensus, let us always look for opportunities to buy British.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
There is a pattern of behaviour here: the failure to act meaningfully over Jimmy Lai, the mysterious collapse of the Chinese spy case and now this abject national humiliation. Let’s call this what it is: this is appeasement of communist China for economic gain. We tried that in the 1930s, and look where it got us. Why are this Labour Government kowtowing to China—a communist regime that imprisons 1 million Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps for having the temerity to believe in God?
Dan Jarvis
In one sense, I can agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a pattern of behaviour; he is right about that. The pattern of behaviour is doing the right thing and making sure that we safeguard our national security.
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman might roll his eyes, but he was a Minister in the previous Government, and he has served in this House for a number of years. He knows that under his Conservative Government there was a complete lack of consistency with regard to our policy on China. This is a significant geostrategic challenge. In the end, Government have to make decisions and have a clear-eyed policy. Anyone who thinks that we should not be engaging with China is naive.
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman uses language that I think is inappropriate, unhelpful and inaccurate. I have made the point about consolidation, about the national security advantages and about this Government’s commitment to securing our national interests. Let me say one final thing. He is right to raise the case of Jimmy Lai. He knows the Government’s clear commitment that Jimmy Lai should be released immediately.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does the Minister believe that the approval of this Chinese mega-embassy makes the British people safer?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman is very experienced from his own time in government, and he will know that difficult decisions have to be made. It is my judgment that, ultimately, this is the right way to proceed and that we have to engage with China for the reasons I have explained. Ultimately, nothing—nothing—will prevent this Government from ensuring our national security. That is why we have progressed this proposal incredibly carefully and made sure we have the right mitigations in place.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Last week, I made it clear that any hostile intelligence service would struggle to find a better location for espionage than the now approved Chinese mega-embassy. What assessment has been made of the risk that this site could be used for surveillance, intimidation or coercion of critics of the oppressive communist regime who are living in the UK? How do Government justify a decision that is both shameful and reckless in its disregard for national security?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful for the points the hon. Lady has made, but of course, we are already dealing with those challenges. Some Members seem to think that we do not have to mitigate and manage those risks at the moment. We do. There are those who think—and it is an entirely reasonable position if people want to take it—that the situation could get worse with the agreement of this embassy. As I have tried to explain, because of the mitigations we have put in place and the consolidation of the diplomatic estate, there are clear national security advantages as a consequence of this proposal. She does not perhaps agree now, but I hope she understands that the Government take these matters incredibly seriously and will do everything they can to safeguard our national security.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
China is notoriously transactional in its international relations, so what do we get in return?
Dan Jarvis
I always listen carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, not least because I seem to remember that he was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Prime Minister, Lord Cameron, whose Government had quite a different relationship with China from the one we have now. He will remember that very well, as do I. While I am grateful for his advice, I hope he has borne in mind the points I made about the consistency of the previous Government, including the one he served in.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
In the light of what you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that you see this as short question and I hope that I get a short answer.
Does the Minister know if the security services have any concerns at all about the proposed new Chinese super-embassy—yes or no?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Lady has seen the letter that has been published today by the director general—
Dan Jarvis
I do not know how much time the right hon. Lady spends thinking about matters relating to national security or understands the nature of the—
Dan Jarvis
Not at all—I am seeking to explain to her that this Government, like the last Government, manage a range of national security risks. That would be the case whatever decision was taken around this proposal.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I am going to ask again: does this make the British public safer—yes or no?
Dan Jarvis
Fundamentally, Government are there to make the British people safer. For the reasons that I have explained, I am confident that this is the right decision from a national security perspective.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Is not the plain truth that this was a predetermined political decision from the moment that the political decision was taken to call it in, when the Government were faced with due process because the council had refused the planning application? After all that has gone on, does this not simply bring the whole planning process into disrepute? London’s Labour group has condemned the decision, so is not one of its members right when he says:
“wrong embassy, in the wrong place, at the wrong time”?
Dan Jarvis
I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman’s analysis. I have been crystal clear that people are entitled to their opinions and will have different views. What sensible members of the public will be interested in is what the security professionals—the security agencies, the intelligence services, those people who really understand the nature of the risk and the threat—have said and what they think, and I have been clear about what they think and about the way in which we have approached the process, which I believe will deliver national security benefits for our country.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Let me point out that when the previous Conservative Government proclaimed a “golden era” of relations with China—when David Cameron welcomed President Xi for a state visit in 2015, as Theresa May was championing Huawei for our 5G infrastructure—the security services supported their then Prime Minister; or they were brought into line, which I expect is what happens under these circumstances. Can we ensure that we are not using the security services for propaganda purposes? I predict that in the fullness of history, we will look back at this decision with great regret.
Dan Jarvis
I know that the hon. Gentleman gives a lot of thought and dedication to these matters. He reflected on the engagement that had taken place under the previous Government, under former Prime Minister David Cameron. The hon. Gentleman will understand, because he thinks about these things very carefully, that there is obviously a need to engage with China. President Trump will be visiting China in the next couple of months. President Macron has been, I think, three times over the past years. Prime Minister Carney has been there recently. Serious, grown-up people understand the need to have engagement and to work closely with countries like China. Sensible people will get that and will also understand that sometimes that involves tough choices. This Government do not shy away from making the tough choices. I accept the challenge that the hon. Gentleman offers—that the decision will be judged over the long term—but I think that this is the right thing to do and I am pleased that the security services agree.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Minister says that China continues to pose a risk, and yet the Government today welcome this Trojan horse of an embassy into the heart of our capital. Consolidation helps China, not us, and planning conditions deal with the establishment but not the actual, real use inside the building in years to come. This has been asked many times before, but I ask again: are the British people safer as a result of this embassy—yes or no?
Dan Jarvis
I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s analysis with regard to consolidation. This Government will always work to ensure that the British public are safer—that is our job, our abiding mission and the first responsibility of Government. I am confident that the decision that has been taken, with the mitigations in place, will deliver good national security outcomes for our country.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Government’s decision to approve China’s spy embassy is utterly wrong and puts national security at risk. Now that the embassy has been approved, if—or rather when—we get evidence that China is using the embassy for surveillance, torture or other inappropriate means, will the Government guarantee to close that embassy?
Dan Jarvis
As with any embassy, either in this country or around the world—let us not be naive about the fact that Britain has embassies right around the world—the Vienna convention lays down the way in which different Governments should behave with regard to the conduct of their diplomatic presences. We take our responsibilities under the Vienna convention very seriously, and we expect every other country, including China, to do the same.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister will be pleased to know that I am not going to ask him about the FIRS, but he quoted extensively from the weighty tome of the planning approval letter. It says that the Secretary of State
“notes that no bodies with responsibility for national security, including HO and FCDO, have raised concerns”,
but he did not mention that it goes on to say that the Secretary of State
“considers that the lack of objection from these bodies on this issue carries significant weight”.
Given that extensive measures had to be put in place to protect sensitive data, will he explain why neither the Home Office not the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office put in any objections to the proximity of the data cables and their vulnerabilities? On the issue of the consolidation of the consular buildings, last week the Government informed me that they had no record of how many properties within London or within the UK are owned by the Chinese state, so how will they keep track on other buildings that are used unofficially by the Chinese state?
Dan Jarvis
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has not asked me about the FIRS—I have a very good response for him that I will not be able to give now. He is not quite right to say that I quoted extensively from the planning document. I did not—I referenced it only very fleetingly and then explained why that was the case. His key point is about the points that have been brought forward by the Home Office and the Foreign Office. No specific objections were raised by both those Departments because they had both satisfied themselves that the mitigations could be put in place to safeguard against the risk that might be faced. That is the reason.