Chinese Embassy Development

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Iain Duncan Smith

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government what assessment she has made of the United States Government’s national security concerns regarding the proposed Chinese embassy development at Royal Mint Court.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

This Government are committed to the probity of the planning process at all levels to ensure robust and evidence-based decision making. The process includes a role for planning Ministers in deciding on called-in planning applications and recovered appeals, so I hope that the House will appreciate why I cannot comment in any detail on specific planning applications at the Dispatch Box. That said, it may be helpful to Members if I set out the process that these cases follow.

The application referred to by the right hon. Member was considered to meet the published call-in policy set out in the October 2012 written ministerial statement, so it will be determined by Ministers. The application is not yet with the Department. All decisions that come before Ministers are subject to examination by an independent planning inspector, usually through a public inquiry. The planning inspector then provides an evidence-based recommendation, and set out their full reasons for that recommendation. The inspector’s report considers the application against published local, regional and national planning policy, which is likely to contain a wide variety of material planning considerations; in this case, those are likely to include safety and national security.

A public inquiry was held on this case between 11 and 28 February, at which interested parties were able to put forward evidence and make representations. Should any further representations be made that raise material planning considerations before the decision is made, they will also be taken into account. At all times, the decision will be dealt with in line with the published propriety guidance on planning casework decisions. The right hon. Member will be aware that the Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary made a joint representation to the Planning Inspectorate ahead of the start of the inquiry. That will be taken into account, alongside all other relevant matters. Once the planning inspector’s report and recommendation is received, the case will be determined by a planning Minister, who will come to a decision based on material planning considerations.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The US Government, and today the Dutch Parliament, have expressed concerns about sensitive cables under Royal Mint Court. Beijing has a recent history of cutting cables and confirmed infrastructure hacks, including embedding malware capable of disabling all that infrastructure. Surprisingly, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology said on television yesterday that this issue is “in the planning process” and could be managed. Will the Minister correct the record? The planning inquiry has concluded, and no changes at all can be made to the Chinese planning application.

I remind the Minister that the application contains nothing about cabling. Indeed, the Chinese have rejected only two requests by the inquiry—requests to which he referred; they were made by the Government, in the letter from the Foreign and Home Secretaries. That is despite Ministers regularly saying that the letter should “give those concerned comfort.” Rerouting the cables would, we know, cost millions, if the Government are even thinking about that, so I ask the Minister: why did the Government strongly deny, rather than tell this House about, the presence of the cables until the White House actually confirmed it?

Chinese state media have reported that the UK has given assurances to the Chinese that the UK would allow the development, no matter what. Indeed, The Guardian newspaper reported in 2023 that the Chinese would not apply again unless they were given governmental assurances. Can the Minister confirm, or even deny, any of this? Speaking as one of those in the Chamber who have been sanctioned by China, I see this as Project Kowtow. There has been one denial after another, and one betrayal after another. No wonder our allies believe that this Chinese mega-embassy is becoming a walk of shame for the Government.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Member for those questions. I hope he will appreciate, not least because of the quasi-judicial nature of the role of planning Ministers in the planning process, that I cannot comment on the details of the application. As I have said, no decision on the case has been made, and the case is not yet before the Department.

The right hon. Member mentioned cables, but it would not be appropriate to comment on any specific national security issue. On whether the Chinese embassy issue was raised during UK-US trade talks, again it would not be appropriate to comment on the details of those talks. Suffice it to say that we do not recognise the characterisation set out in The Sunday Times article, in which that was referenced. It is important to emphasise that only material planning considerations can be taken into account in determining this case. As I say, I cannot comment in any detail on such a case, and this case is not yet before the Department.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Iain Duncan Smith

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will make a little progress.

Labour Members look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts. The purpose of new clause 98, in the name of my hon. Friends, is simple. It would ensure that the impact of decisions on women and those with protected characteristics was considered and debated at every stage of the negotiation process. It may have escaped the attention of some hon. Members, but the word “equality” does not appear once in the White Paper. Indeed, the White Paper contains no mention of race, disability, sexuality or gender identity, which is astonishing. How can we secure a Brexit that works for everyone, as hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have repeated ad nauseam, if black, Asian and minority ethnic people, disabled people and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities are not given due consideration when the different negotiating positions are being weighed up?

The process and the final deal must have regard to equalities and the protection and extension of rights for those with protected characteristics. New clause 98 would ensure that equalities considerations were at the forefront of Government thinking throughout the withdrawal process and inform the final deal. Doing so would help to ensure that we got the best deal for everyone, wherever they were and, crucially, whoever they were. It would ensure that any negative impact on women or those with protected characteristics must be transparently presented and considered, and that if there was a risk of a disproportionate impact, the Government took steps to mitigate it.

New clause 98 is in line with recommendations from the cross-party Women and Equalities Committee, which has called for greater transparency on the impact of Government decisions on women and those with protected characteristics. It would help to improve scrutiny and accountability, and I look forward to the Minister giving it due consideration in his response.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I do not intend to delay the Committee, as most of these amendments are narrow and address the very specific point that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) raised.

I have a simple concern as to why there is such a peculiar sense of the vital importance of these particular forecasts, which give huge credit to the Treasury’s ability to forecast where we may be going in almost every sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said, many of the forecasts have been fundamentally wrong in the past, so I asked the Library how accurate the Treasury forecast of May 2016 turned out to be. It is worth relating exactly how accurate it turned out to be, even when the Treasury had such a huge array of figures and possibilities before it:

“In May 2016, the Treasury published forecasts for the immediate economic impact of voting to leave the EU. It forecast for a recession to occur in the second half of 2016, with quarterly GDP growth of -0.1% in both Q3 2016 and Q4 2016 forecast (a second ‘severe shock’ scenario was also shown with a deep recession occurring; under this scenario growth of -1.0% in Q3 2016 and -0.4% in Q4 2016 was forecast). In reality, the economy continued to grow at its pre-referendum pace, with quarterly growth of +0.6%”.

Now the figure has been adjusted again by the Governor of the Bank of England to close to 2%, with the prospect of further adjustments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Iain Duncan Smith

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Let me be absolutely clear about the importance of universal credit. In the past, housing providers would get the money paid directly to them while the individuals in difficulties sorted themselves out. Under universal credit, they can apply for an extra payment, and that will be done direct. The key point about this is that the housing provider works with the individual family to help them turn around their circumstances, rather than just leaving them as they are and not doing anything about them. All that is being tested under universal credit. People on universal credit will be better off directly as a result of the changes that we are making.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Section 96 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 stipulates that the level at which the total benefit cap is set will be determined by reference to estimated average earnings. How do the Government justify breaking the link between the cap and average earnings by reducing the rate to £23,000?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The hon. Gentleman should address his question to his Front-Bench team, as they apparently support our move.