MI5 Admits It Cannot Eliminate Security Risks Posed by New Chinese Embassy

The White House has said it is “deeply concerned” about Chinese threats to national security after Labour gave permission for a new “super-embassy” in London. A senior official told The Telegraph that the US was “deeply concerned about adversaries exploiting the critical infrastructure of our closest allies” after the Government allowed the plans to go ahead. In the wake of the announcement on Tuesday, Britain’s spy chiefs also warned that they could not “wholly eliminate” risks from China’s new embassy, which was granted planning permission after years of delays. The heads of MI5 and GCHQ said that it was “not realistic to expect to be able wholly to eliminate each and every potential risk” at a former Royal Mint site in central London where Beijing is preparing to build its largest diplomatic building in Europe. Steve Reed, the Housing Secretary, said he would give planning consent for the development on Tuesday after months of delays and criticism from China hawks. Downing Street said that after representations from Britain’s intelligence agencies, it was “content that any risks are being appropriately managed”, despite the site’s proximity to sensitive cables carrying financial data. Mr Reed said he had decided “fairly, based on evidence and planning rules” that construction should go ahead, noting that neither the Home Office nor Foreign Office had objected to the plans, and that his decision would be final “unless it is successfully challenged in court”. In their letter, Sir Ken McCallum, the MI5 director-general, and Anne Keast-Butler, the GCHQ director, said it would be “irrational to drive ‘embassy-generated risk’ down to zero” given the “numerous other” national security risks the country faces. They also noted that China operated seven diplomatically-accredited sites across London and that “consolidating” this presence in one major diplomatic hub “brings clear security advantages”. It is understood that MI5 and GCHQ have put together a package of “mitigations” to protect national security, which experts said were likely to include armour for the cables. One telecommunications expert familiar with the matter said: “Most of the tampering that has happened historically has been from physical access to the devices themselves…there is compelling evidence of the Chinese doing this.” The spy chiefs gave extensive private briefings to the Government before the decision and said they wished to share their view “given the high level of interest” in the embassy. However, the decision risks further enraging Donald Trump, the US president, whose officials raised “deep” concerns about the embassy project in private meetings with the UK over the past year. It came as Mr Trump criticised Sir Keir Starmer’s deal to give away the Chagos Islands, writing on his Truth Social platform that the Chagos deal – which he previously supported – was an act of “great stupidity”. Last week, The Telegraph revealed previously redacted blueprints that showed China intended to build a secret room in the embassy’s basement alongside fibre-optic cables carrying sensitive financial information from the City of London. A senior member of Mr Trump’s national security council met Foreign Office officials to discuss the embassy plans in August 2024 and reports that the building contained secret rooms. It is understood that he questioned British officials about the blueprints and requested a technical briefing from British intelligence agencies about the cables and their vulnerability to Chinese interference. Mr Reed also argued that the existence of some unlabelled rooms on the embassy’s blueprints, which critics have said could become torture chambers, was not a risk to national security providing their use by China was “lawful”. He said that if China was to practise “unlawful or improper activity” from its embassy, which could include espionage, the Government would challenge it under the Vienna Convention rather than through the planning process. The decision marks the end of a years-long application process, which was submitted by China in 2018. After planning permission was initially rejected by Tower Hamlets council, Sir Keir Starmer “called in” the decision to be assessed by ministers at the request of Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, in 2024. The call-in decision is expected to form part of a legal challenge to the planning ruling, which a residents’ association near the site plans to launch within weeks. The campaigners have raised more than £50,000 for their appeal and have instructed Lord Banner KC, one of Britain’s leading planning lawyers. If the judicial review is heard by the High Court, he will argue that the planning decision was “predetermined” by Labour to appease China. Mark Nygate, the treasurer of the Royal Mint Court Residents’ Association, said: “Now that the Government has made this decision, which we think is wrong, we are going ahead with a judicial review.” If multiple appeals are allowed by the courts, their battle could run for years and extend beyond the next election. Meanwhile, the Intelligence and Security Committee, the statutory watchdog for intelligence matters, said it was satisfied with the level of risk posed by the embassy but criticised the process followed by ministers. Kevan Jones, the committee’s chairman and a Labour former defence minister, who sits as Lord Beamish, said: “The process within Government was not effectively coordinated, nor was it as robust as we would have expected for a matter of such consequence. “We were surprised both at the lack of clarity as to the role that national security considerations play in planning decisions, and that advice was prepared without some of the key facts at hand. “Key reports lacked the detail necessary, were dealt with piecemeal, and appeared not to have been kept up to date.” Sir James Cleverly, the shadow housing secretary, said the approval was a “disgraceful act of cowardice from a Labour Government and Prime Minister utterly devoid of backbone”. He said that Sir Keir had failed at his duty to keep the country safe in favour of his “desperate desire for Beijing’s approval”, adding: “Labour’s latest sell-out confirms they cannot be trusted to stand up for Britain on the international stage.”