By Sean Rayment

MI5 has warned that it is unrealistic to “eliminate every potential risk” posed by the new Chinese mega-embassy in London.

Sir Ken McCallum, the MI5 director-general, and Anne Keast-Butler, director of GCHQ, have told the home and foreign secretaries that it is not feasible to expect “to be able wholly to eliminate each and every potential risk” associated with the new site.

Ministers approved the establishment of China’s new mega-embassy in central London on Tuesday, a move hoped to facilitate new trade deals with Beijing. But the decision is expected to attract significant political backlash due to security concerns.

In their letter, McCallum and Keast-Butler said: “MI5 has over 100 years of experience managing national security risks associated with foreign diplomatic premises in London. For the Royal Mint Court site, 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. (And even if this were a practicable goal, it would be irrational to drive ‘embassy-generated risk’ down to zero when numerous other threat vectors are so central to the national security risks we face in the present era.) But the collective work across UK intelligence agencies and [government] departments to formulate a package of national security mitigations for the site has been, in our view, expert, professional and proportionate.”

The planning inspector’s report, released alongside the government’s decision, said that decisions regarding embassies must be “nation-neutral.” It added: “It is not possible to discriminate against a use on the basis of the anticipated user. Otherwise, that could give rise to an untenable situation of the embassy of one nation being permitted, but another nation’s embassy being refused.”

Steve Reed, the housing and communities secretary, determined that the development at the former Royal Mint should receive planning permission following more than a year of deliberations. The approval came after British security services assessed that the risks posed by the new embassy, located near sensitive data cables connecting the City of London to Canary Wharf, were manageable.

The decision is expected to lead to a visit to China by Sir Keir Starmer later this year, which ministers hope will enhance British exports to the communist state in areas such as food and pharmaceuticals.

But Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, believes that the UK should not permit a country that spies on British politicians to establish a “super-embassy” in the capital.

Security services reportedly believe that a single Chinese embassy in London would be easier to monitor than the current arrangement, which features around half a dozen sites across the city. Concerns have arisen within the government that the decision may further strain relations with the White House, which has previously expressed reservations regarding the super-embassy. Officials have voiced worries about the project and whether it could enhance Chinese espionage capabilities.

John Moolenaar, chairman of the US House of Representatives’ select committee on China, stated that he “opposed” the embassy plans, raising fears that Americans’ data may be “at risk.” He remarked: “The CCP is a threat to the UK, a Five Eyes intelligence partner, and free people everywhere.”

A comprehensive 240-page document released on Tuesday indicated that Reed considered evidence from security services and others to “ensure that the breadth of national security issues associated with this planning application have been considered and addressed.” The document said that previous concerns raised last January have now been “resolved.”

Specifically, it addressed worries regarding “potential sensitivity and security risks to telecommunications cables” near the embassy, asserting: “There is no suggestion that the operational development permitted by any grant of planning permission would interfere with the cables, nor that a lawful embassy use of the site would give rise to any such interference. In light of the above, he [Reed] does not consider that the generalised concerns which have been raised about these cables are a reason to refuse planning permission.”

Ministers confirmed that the Metropolitan Police, the Home Office, and Foreign Office had “not raised any objections relating to terrorist activities.” The document further stated:

“He [Reed] also agrees with the [planning] inspector that whether or not a specific threat would arise from the proposed use of the site is somewhat academic because the threat to the UK from terrorism is currently assessed as being ‘substantial,’ meaning an attack somewhere in the UK is likely.”

A spokesman for Starmer asserted that opponents of the embassy were “either naive or recklessly isolationist.” He told reporters: “It’s of course a normal part of international diplomatic relations for countries to agree to establish embassies in each other’s capitals. They are the first line of communication between countries. They offer vital help to their nationals when they need it and, above all, they help us to advance our economic, cultural and defence goals abroad to deliver for and protect our citizens at home. Those who don’t accept this basic premise are either naive or recklessly isolationist.”

The spokesman added that risks related to “so-called secret rooms” in the embassy “are being appropriately managed.”

The Conservatives, who have been staunch critics of the plans, labelled the decision to approve the embassy a “disgraceful act of cowardice.” Sir James Cleverly, shadow housing, communities and local government secretary, asserted: “This is a disgraceful act of cowardice from a Labour government and prime minister utterly devoid of backbone. The first duty of any government is to keep the country safe. But Keir Starmer has relegated that most critical priority beneath his desperate desire for Beijing’s approval. Labour’s latest sell-out confirms they cannot be trusted to stand up for Britain on the international stage.”

It is expected to take some time before construction begins, and the decision may lead to further controversy. Residents living near the embassy site at Royal Mint Court, next to the Tower of London, are preparing to launch a judicial review, contending that the government’s decision was “pre-determined.”

They will request the government to disclose all information regarding meetings and calls between the prime minister and President Xi of China. Additionally, they will demand that ministers and officials provide WhatsApp messages, emails, and minutes from any meetings or calls related to the embassy. Key targets for these requests are likely to include Starmer, Angela Rayner, the former housing secretary and her successor Reed, along with David Lammy, the former foreign secretary, and his successor, Yvette Cooper.

Luke de Pulford, head of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, remarked: “I don’t think the government realises just how messy this is going to be. Residents will force the disclosure of all relevant communications, and we may even see Jonathan Powell [the national security adviser] and David Lammy on the stand, testifying under oath.”

A government spokesperson stated that the planning decision had been “taken independently by the secretary of state for housing,” adding: “More broadly, countries establishing embassies in other countries’ capitals is a normal part of international relations. National security is our first duty. Intelligence agencies have been involved throughout the process and an extensive range of measures have been developed to manage any risks. Following extensive negotiations in recent months, the Chinese government has agreed to consolidate its seven current sites in London into one site, bringing clear security advantages.”

Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader and prominent critic of China, denounced the decision as a “terrible decision” that “ignores the appalling brutality of the Chinese Communist Party.” He stated: “It practices forced labour at home and spies on the UK and uses cyberattacks to damage our internal security. By ignoring repeated security warnings, a legal opinion that this decision may be unlawful, unresolved concerns over redacted rooms, and China’s refusal to allow the hard perimeter needed to protect historic ruins, the government has handed Beijing a major strategic foothold in the heart of London. At a time when the Chinese Communist Party is intensifying its intimidation of Britain, this decision sends entirely the wrong message.”