🔗 Share this article

As stated by a leading UK development lawyer, approving a Chinese super-embassy in London's eastern district could violate legal standards if government officials provided Beijing with prior commitments about the project.

Possible Legal Violations

If PM Keir Starmer or his administration made promises to the government of China, it could represent "actual or seeming predetermination" of the development proposal, according to the legal opinion by Lord Banner.

The opinion was requested by a coalition of local inhabitants opposed to the proposed Chinese embassy near Tower Bridge, which has generated strong resistance due to security, civil liberties and planning issues.

Ministerial Scrutiny

Government officials now are under pressure to clarify whether they confidentially promised Chinese officials they would progress the proposal after it had halted under the former Conservative government.

The Chinese government reapplied for development approval weeks after Labour came into government last year, and Leader Xi Jinping raised the issue directly with Starmer during their first call in August 2024.

International Exchanges

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

Critics of the planned complex, which would span 20,000 square metres to become the biggest embassy in Europe, are getting ready to seek a legal challenge if the approval is granted.

Mark Nygate, treasurer of the Royal Mint Court Residents Association, confirmed they were gathering funds to challenge the approval.

Legal Obligations

The case is quasi-judicial, meaning the minister responsible – currently the housing secretary – must make his ruling impartially under the law and with an open mind.

In his opinion, Banner stressed that "currently there has been no disclosure or official evidence as to whether any 'promises' have been given" or what the nature of such assurances might be.

Possible Consequences

However, he wrote that if the prime minister had made a promise to Beijing, that "would appear by the reasonable and knowledgeable observer to create a real possibility that the secretary of state had a predetermined position."

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

International Disagreements

Last week, China expressed "grave concern and strong dissatisfaction" after ministers delayed their ruling on the embassy until 10 December.

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

Government Statements

Downing Street said 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, commented: "Lord Banner has established a marker. If the rumours are proven true and illegal assurances were given to Beijing, the government could face a devastating judicial review."

Additional Events

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

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

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

A police representative stated 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."