China embassy approval does not make Ming Yang more likely to go-ahead, says Downing St

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said the decision to approve the massive embassy in the heart of London was “entirely self-contained”.

The controversial decision removes a diplomatic hurdle in the relationship with the Chinese Government, clearing the way for Sir Keir Starmer to make a widely-expected visit to China. The visit could take place in the coming weeks.

Chinese energy firm Ming Yang announced plans in October to build the UK’s largest wind turbine manufacturing facility in Scotland.

The company has said that the £1.5 billion project would create up to 1,500 jobs.

Ming Yang is the largest private wind turbine manufacturer in China and has said the Ardersier green freeport is its preferred location for the site.

When asked by The Scotsman if the China embassy approval meant the Ming Yang project was more likely to go ahead, the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson said: “No, this is a decision that has been taken in a quasi-judicial process. It is entirely self contained, and as I've set out, it's a decision that's been independently taken.

“And the letters this morning attest to that.”

Asked by The Scotsman last week over when the UK government will make a decision on Chinese firms being able to contribute to renewables manufacturing, energy minister and Rutherglen MP Michael Shanks said: "We are making a decision and we will say more about Chinese developers in due course, but I am mindful of the issue."

A government source said on Tuesday that the embassy approval and Ming Yang were separate issues.

On Tuesday UK Local Government Secretary Steve Reed approved the plans for the new embassy at Royal Mint Court, a site near the Tower of London.

Residents living close to the site have vowed to continue to challenge the Government’s approval of the plans.

Critics have raised concerns about what are described as hidden rooms proposed for the site, as well as its close proximity to communication cables essential to the UK’s financial sector.

MPs and peers on the Labour-led Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy had called on ministers to reject the plans, warning the embassy, the biggest in Europe, would “create a hub for expanded intelligence-gathering and intimidation operations”.

Mr Reed insisted the decision was made following “a quasi-judicial process”, adding: “This means they must make decisions fairly, based on evidence and planning rules.”

A written statement from the Communities Secretary also said: “All material considerations were taken into account when making this decision.

“The decision is now final unless it is successfully challenged in court.”

A Government spokesperson meanwhile insisted “countries establishing embassies in other countries’ capitals is a normal part of international relations”.

They added: “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.”

The spokesman also insisted there were “clear security advantages” to the Chinese consolidating their seven different embassy sites in London into one large building.

However, in a joint letter to the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, MI5 director general Sir Ken McCallum and GCHQ director Anne Keast-Butler warned national security risks linked to the new embassy cannot be wholly eliminated.

Sir Ken and Anne Keast-Butler wrote: “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.)

“However, the collective work across UK intelligence agencies and HMG departments to formulate a package of national security mitigations for the site has been, in our view, expert, professional and proportionate.”

They also said “the package of mitigations deals acceptably with a wide range of sensitive national security issues, including cabling”.

Critics of the scheme are already planing to challenge the decision in the courts, with local residents raising money to launch a judicial review against the project.

Mark Nygate, treasurer of the Royal Mint Residents’ Association, said: “The residents are determined to keep fighting today’s decision.”

Luke de Pulford, head of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, which has campaigned to halt the plans, told the Press Association: “This is the wrong decision for the UK, sending all the wrong signals. Wrong for dissidents, wrong for UK national security.

“Our three Cs China policy is less compete, challenge and cooperate, more cover-up, cave in, and cash out.”

Senior Conservatives lined up to criticise the decision, with shadow communities secretary Sir James Cleverly describing it as “a disgraceful act of cowardice from a Labour Government and Prime Minister utterly devoid of backbone”.

Dame Priti Patel, shadow foreign secretary, meanwhile said: “Keir Starmer has sold off our national security to the Chinese Communist Party with his shameful super embassy surrender.”

Speaking in the Commons Dame Priti said it was “unacceptable” to approve the embassy while dual-British national Jimmy Lai remains in prison in China under the Beijing-imposed Hong Kong National Security Law.

She said it would be a “failure” of British diplomacy if Sir Keir fails to get Mr Lai released when he visits China.

In response Ms Cooper said: “The shadow foreign secretary will know that we have made the strongest of criticisms of the decision on Jimmy Lai, and we continue to pursue this issue with the Chinese government and to stress the urgent need for him to be released immediately on humanitarian grounds.”