🔗 Share this article

According to a prominent UK development lawyer, authorizing a Chinese large diplomatic compound in east London could breach legal standards if government officials provided Beijing with prior commitments about the project.

Possible Legal Breaches

If PM Keir Starmer or his team made promises to the government of China, it could represent "actual or apparent prejudgment" of the development proposal, according to the expert analysis by Lord Banner.

The analysis was commissioned by a coalition of residents against the planned Chinese embassy near Tower Bridge, which has attracted fierce opposition due to security, human rights and planning issues.

Government Scrutiny

Government officials now are under pressure to clarify whether they privately assured Chinese officials they would progress the application after it had halted under the former Tory government.

China submitted a new application for development approval a short time after Labour took power last year, and President Xi Jinping mentioned the issue directly with Starmer during their first call in August 2024.

Diplomatic Exchanges

Starmer reportedly told the Chinese president during the G20 summit in November 2024: "You raised the Chinese embassy building in London when we spoke on the telephone. We have since acted by calling in that application."

Critics of the proposed complex, which would span 20,000 square metres to become the biggest embassy in Europe, are getting ready to seek a judicial review if the approval is authorized.

Mark Nygate, financial officer of the Royal Mint Court Residents Association, stated they were gathering funds to challenge the approval.

Judicial Requirements

The case is semi-judicial, meaning the minister responsible – currently the housing secretary – must make his ruling objectively under the law and with an unbiased perspective.

In his analysis, Banner emphasized that "for now there has been no revelation or formal evidence as to whether any 'promises' have been given" or what the nature of such assurances might be.

Potential Ramifications

Nevertheless, he wrote that if the PM had made a promise to Beijing, that "would be seen by the reasonable and informed observer to create a genuine risk that the secretary of state had a closed mind."

He said it was of "vital importance" that any relevant written evidence, including any records indicating that promises were given, must be preserved by the government, which would be obliged to reveal them if a judicial review occurs.

International Disagreements

Recently, China voiced "grave concern and strong dissatisfaction" after ministers delayed their decision on the embassy until 10 December.

A representative for the Chinese foreign ministry claimed China had acted with "the utmost sincerity and patience" over the issue and the UK should "promptly fulfil its obligations and honour its commitments, otherwise the British side shall bear all consequences."

Official Statements

The Prime Minister's office stated it did not "accept any claims of commitments or assurances" over the embassy application.

Luke de Pulford, executive director of the International Parliamentary Alliance on China, remarked: "Lord Banner has laid down a marker. If the allegations are proven true and illegal assurances were given to Beijing, the government could face a devastating judicial review."

Additional Developments

On Sunday, the government absolutely denied any political interference in the decision to drop charges against two men, including a ex parliamentary researcher, accused of spying for China.

A government spokesperson declared "there was absolutely no political interference with the evidence provided in this case" and denied reports that the civil servant who drafted the evidence confidentially acknowledged it was influenced by political considerations.

Media reports indicated that one of the two men charged with espionage was carrying £4,000 in cash when detained by police under terrorism laws after arriving at Heathrow from China in February 2023. Both defendants deny any wrongdoing.

A police representative commented at the time: "A man in his 30s was subject to a stop at Heathrow airport under Schedule 3 of the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. He was not arrested and enquiries continued."