MI5 and GCHQ chiefs say Chinese embassy risks can’t be removed entirely, but mitigations in place ‘professional and proportionate’
The heads of MI5 and GCHQ have said that measures put in place to deal with the security risks posed by the Chinese “super-embassy” approved for the centre of London are “professional and proportionate”.
In a joint letter to Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, and Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, submitted as part of the government’s consideration of the application, they say that it is not realistic to remove every risk.
But they suggest the level of risk is acceptable.
Sir Ken McCallum, the MI5 director general, and Anne Keast-Butler, the GCHQ director, say:
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.
Referring to the steps that have been taken to reduce the risks, McCallum and Keast-Butler say:
As detailed in classified briefings given to the intelligence and security committee of parliament, the package of mitigations deals acceptably with a wide range of sensitive national security issues, including cabling.
These mitigations will be subject to regular review through a cross-government process, led at senior level in the Home Office.
Further, it is worth reiterating the new embassy will replace seven different diplomatically-accredited sites across London which China currently operates; this consolidation should bring clear security advantages.
Share
Updated at 14.40 CET
Key events
3m ago
No 10 reminds Trump that Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth both issued statements backing Chagos Islands deal
1h ago
Security risks of Chinese embassy ‘can be satisfactorily mitigated’, says intelligence and security committee
1h ago
MI5 and GCHQ chiefs say Chinese embassy risks can’t be removed entirely, but mitigations in place ‘professional and proportionate’
2h ago
14% of Britons would back military retaliation by Europe if US were to invade Greenland, poll suggests
2h ago
Burnham urges Labour to be confident about saying it was ‘arch-Thatcherites of Reform’ who broke Britain
3h ago
Gordon Brown urges global democracies to defy Trump with declaration of support for self-determination and rule of law
3h ago
Tories suspend shadow minister in Senedd for talking to Reform UK about potential defection
3h ago
Government approves plan for Chinese “super-embassy” in London
3h ago
Reaction of global financial markets to Greenland crisis so far ‘more muted’ than feared, Bank of England boss tells MPs
3h ago
Trump’s comments about Starmer show ‘appeasing a bully never works’, Ed Davey says
4h ago
Darren Jones suggests UK unlikely to join Trump’s ‘board of peace’ for Gaza if Putin on it too
4h ago
Trump talking ‘silly nonsense’ about Chagos Islands deal, Lib Dems say
4h ago
Chagos Islands deal now a done deal, chief secretary to PM, Darren Jones, says
4h ago
US speaker Mike Johnson says UK-US ‘special relationship’ will endure, in speech to MPs
5h ago
Badenoch says Trump right to say Chagos Islands sovereignty handover ‘terrible policy’
5h ago
US, all other Five Eyes allies, and key international partners, all backed Chagos Islands deal, UK government says
5h ago
Minister plays down Trump condemning ‘stupidity’ of Chagos deal, claiming PM’s relationship with president ‘is working’
Show key events only
Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature
No 10 reminds Trump that Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth both issued statements backing Chagos Islands deal
Downing Street has said that the UK won’t go back on its deal with Mauritius giving it sovereignty of the Chagos Islands.
At the lobby briefing this morning, the PM’s spokesperson defended the deal, even though President Trump has described it as stupid. (See 8.52am.)
The spokesperson pointed out that in May last year Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, issued a statement saying he welcomed the deal. Rubio said:
We commend both the United Kingdom and Mauritius for their leadership, vision, and commitment to ensure that Diego Garcia remains fully operational for the duration of this agreement. We look forward to working closely with both governments to strengthen our collaboration in support of regional peace and stability.
Following a comprehensive interagency review, the Trump administration determined that this agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint U.S.-UK military facility at Diego Garcia. This is a critical asset for regional and global security. President Trump expressed his support for this monumental achievement during his meeting with Prime Minister Starmer at the White House.
And the spokesperson also pointed out that Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary (although he now calls himself war secretary, also issued a statement defending the deal. In May Hegseth said:
Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the US.
The UK’s (very important) deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region.
We are confident the base is protected for many years ahead.
Asked about Trump’s comments, the PM’s spokesperson suggested the PM agreed with what Pat McFadden, the work and pensions secretary, said about this in an interview this morning. McFadden said:
I think what we saw last night was a series of posts criticising a number of world leaders. That may tell us that the president is frustrated right now.
I don’t really believe this is about Chagos, I think it’s about Greenland, and the best way to resolve that is through dialogue with the Danish government, and that’s what we’ve said all along.
Asked if there was the treaty is definitely going ahead, even though the legislation to implement it has not yet cleared parliament, the PM’s spokesperson replied: “Yes, categorically.”
Share
At the Downing Street lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson said the risks around secret rooms in the Chinese “super-embassy” planned for London are being appropriately managed.
He said:
National security is number one priority. The Home Office and Foreign Office both provided views during the planning process on potential security issues around the build and confirmed in writing when these were resolved.
China is committed, as we’ve said, to replace seven different sites that make up its current diplomatic footprint in London with the new embassy, which will clearly bring security advantages.
And regarding so-called secret rooms, classified facilities are a standard part of any significant diplomatic presence, including British embassies. And the government has seen the plans and we’re content that any risks are being appropriately managed.
Ministers have seen the unredacted plans for the embassy, the spokesman said.
They are aware what the rooms will be used for and there are safeguards in place to ensure it is not torture, it is understood.
Addressing concerns raised by Hong Kong pro-democracy activists in the UK, the PM’s spokesperson said: “We have always stood firm on human rights and we will continue to do so. It’s an issue that we frequently raise in engagement with the Chinese.”
Share
Here is the full text of the letter from the heads of MI5 and GCHQ to the government about the Chinese “super-embassy” proposal quoted at 12.52pm.
Share
Security risks of Chinese embassy ‘can be satisfactorily mitigated’, says intelligence and security committee
Parliament’s intelligence and security committee (ISC) has issued a statement grudgingly accepting the decison to allow the Chinese to build a “super-embassy” in London.
But the ISC, which has been investigating the security implications of the application for the past six months, says it has concerns about the way the intelligence implications were considered.
In a statement issued on behalf of the committee, Lord Beamish (the former Labour MP and former defence minister Kevan Jones) said:
Overall, we recognise that there were a number of factors at play, and that either way the decision would give rise to concerns for some. However, our concern was solely from a national security perspective. Turning to the evidence that we have finally received, on balance we are content that the UK intelligence community had sufficient opportunity to feed in any security concerns and that ministers had the necessary information on which to base their decision.
Nevertheless, 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. We will be writing to the prime minister with our concerns.
On the basis of the evidence we have received, and having carefully reviewed the nuanced national security considerations, the committee has concluded that, taken as a whole, the national security concerns that arise can be satisfactorily mitigated.
But Beamish also said his committee was concerned that the government has not fully absorbed the lessons of a report in published in 2023 about the security threat posed by China. He said:
That report detailed the committee’s concerns that government had been failing to think long term in its response: something China had historically been able to take advantage of.
We are not yet convinced that the government has managed to reconcile internally that China can be both an economic partner and a national security threat: these are not mutually exclusive, even if both require a dexterity not yet evident.
Share
Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, has been tweeting again about Donald Trump’s comments about the Chagos Islands deal. He claims that the Americans were “lied to” by the UK about the plan.
The Americans have woken up to the fact that they were lied to.
They were told that the UK had no choice but to surrender the Chagos Islands. This was simply not true, and now they are angry with us.
In fact, the UK government never argued that it had “no choice” other than to negotiate the transfer of sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. But it did argue that, if it continued to resist the Mauritian territorial claim, it would continue to lose cases on this in international courts, with the result that over time it would become harder and harder to maintain control of the Diego Garcia military base.
Share
MI5 and GCHQ chiefs say Chinese embassy risks can’t be removed entirely, but mitigations in place ‘professional and proportionate’
The heads of MI5 and GCHQ have said that measures put in place to deal with the security risks posed by the Chinese “super-embassy” approved for the centre of London are “professional and proportionate”.
In a joint letter to Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, and Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, submitted as part of the government’s consideration of the application, they say that it is not realistic to remove every risk.
But they suggest the level of risk is acceptable.
Sir Ken McCallum, the MI5 director general, and Anne Keast-Butler, the GCHQ director, say:
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.
Referring to the steps that have been taken to reduce the risks, McCallum and Keast-Butler say:
As detailed in classified briefings given to the intelligence and security committee of parliament, the package of mitigations deals acceptably with a wide range of sensitive national security issues, including cabling.
These mitigations will be subject to regular review through a cross-government process, led at senior level in the Home Office.
Further, it is worth reiterating the new embassy will replace seven different diplomatically-accredited sites across London which China currently operates; this consolidation should bring clear security advantages.
Share
Updated at 14.40 CET
14% of Britons would back military retaliation by Europe if US were to invade Greenland, poll suggests
YouGov has done some polling about how Europe should respond if the US were to seize Greenland militarily. Around a third of Britons would favour economic retaliation, and 14% would back military retaliation, the poll suggests.
Polling on response to potential US invasion of Greenland Photograph: YouGov
And here are the figures according to which party people support.
Pollinng on response to potential US invasion of Greenland Photograph: YouGovShare
Burnham urges Labour to be confident about saying it was ‘arch-Thatcherites of Reform’ who broke Britain
Josh Halliday
Josh Halliday is the Guardian’s North of England editor.
Andy Burnham has been speaking at an Institute for Fiscal Studies event on England’s regional inequalities.
The Greater Manchester mayor spoke largely about how his region had become the fastest growing part of the UK economy by using powers devolved by the previous Conservative governments and accelerated under Keir Starmer.
However, he also addressed one of his favourite topics: Britain’s broken – as he sees it – political system.
Burnham, who has not shied away from his Labour leadership ambitions, urged Starmer’s government and others on the left of British politics to take the fight to Reform UK about “who broke Britain and what will fix it”.
Responding to Reform UK’s repeated claim that Britain is “broken”, the former health secretary said his region was thriving and that Labour should “go out confidently and win the argument”. He said:
The arch-Thatcherites of Reform talk of taking back control but in fact they are the ones who gave that control away.
This is a decisive moment in our politics when the British left should go out confidently and win the argument as to who broke Britain and what will fix it. The lesson from Manchester is that we must build a new politics, more collaborative, so we can take the long-term, prudent approach to repairing the economy.
Burnham said the country had been left in a “low growth doom loop” due to “the four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse”: deregulation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit.
He said there was an urgent need to “reshape the state completely” and de-centralise spending powers to give the UK’s countries and regions greater fiscal autonomy.
Burnham praised Labour ministers for speeding up English devolution but said there was a reluctance in some government departments to real change.
How much does Whitehall and Westminster actually want to empower this? Because there is still a sense of a wrestling match for the power in the sense that the power has to reside here [in London].
I would say that is a barrier to growth and it becomes increasingly incoherent to do that when you see the progress that we’re making so it implies, I’m afraid, massive change for the British state but … we can’t stay where we are. We are in a rut.
Share
Here is the written statement from Steve Reed, the housing secretary, confirming that he has approved the application for the Chinese “super-embassy” in London.
Share
Gordon Brown urges global democracies to defy Trump with declaration of support for self-determination and rule of law
Other Labour figures from the Blair era, like Peter Mandelson (here) and Jack Straw (here), have congratulated Keir Starmer on the way he is handling Donald Trump. But, in a powerful article for the Guardian, the former PM Gordon Brown has taken a different approach.
In his article Brown does not say anything directly critical about Keir Starmer, and he praises him for leading a “European-wide chorus of resistance” to Trump’s plan to buy Greenland, and for his support for the international legal order.
But, implicitly, Brown is saying Starmer, and other European leaders, should be going much further. Starmer and his ministers argue that the UK’s reasonable, non-confrontational approach to Trump is working, and that the UK-US alliance is still functioning in the national interest.
Brown disagrees. He argues that trying to reign in the Trump administration has failed.
In quick succession, the US has abandoned its longstanding championing of the rule of law, human rights, democracy and the territorial integrity of nation states. Gone is its erstwhile support for humanitarian aid and environmental stewardship. Gone, too, is the founding principle of the postwar settlement: that countries choose diplomacy and multilateral cooperation over aggression and unilateral action. We cannot doubt any longer that the president meant it when he said he doesn’t “need international law”, and that the only constraint on his exercise of power would be “my own morality, my own mind”.
Indeed, in the past few weeks, every single promise of the US-led Atlantic charter, authored by Franklin D Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, which foreshadowed the United Nations charter and which includes “freedom of the high seas”, free trade and freedom from colonial aggrandisement, has seemingly been cast aside. For Trump, as his political adviser Stephen Miller tells us, the world is to be “governed by strength … by force … [and] by power”.
And Brown says now is the moment “for Europe and the democracies of the global south to lift their heads out of the sand”. He is proposing some sort of new alliance of democracies.
So how to proceed? The democracies of the world should draft a short values statement, echoing the UN charter’s starting point – “We the peoples …” – and this time showing we mean it. Its first section would assert our full support for self-determination and the mutual recognition of nation states; for the outlawing of war and coercion; and for the primacy of law, civil rights and democratic accountability as the essential means by which human dignity is advanced. A second section would outline the rules that govern the cooperation essential to guarantee food, water and security, economic opportunity and social justice, and climate resilience and health for all, including pandemic prevention.
Such a charter should make it clear that no one need apply for the vacant leadership of the global order for, in our new multipolar world, power has to be shared among countries, each with vastly different traditions, ethnicities and ideologies. But neither can the new world acquiesce in what the US, Russia and China now threaten: a return to the 19th-century arena of spheres of influence and great-power domination.
Quite how this would work, or how it would dovetail with the United Nations, is not clear. And Brown does not rule out the US being part of this. But he clearly implies that it can’t happen while Trump remains president.
Share
Tories suspend shadow minister in Senedd for talking to Reform UK about potential defection
A Welsh Conservative politician has been sacked over suspicions he was plotting to defect to Reform UK, PA Media reports. PA says:
James Evans, the member of the Senedd (Welsh parliament) for Brecon and Radnorshire, has been removed from the shadow cabinet and had the Conservative whip withdrawn.
In a statement on social media, Welsh Conservative leader Darren Millar said Evans was “continuing to engage” with Reform representatives about the possibility of defecting.
Evans was the shadow cabinet secretary for health and social care in the Senedd.
Millar said in his statement: “This morning, I took the decision to remove James Evans from the Welsh Conservative shadow cabinet and withdraw the Conservative whip.
“I did so after being informed by James that he was continuing to engage with Reform representatives about the possibility of defecting to the party, in spite of his personal assurances on Friday that he had rejected an approach they initiated last week.
“Understandably, I expect all Welsh Conservative MSs and candidates to be 100% committed to our party and our plan to fix Wales.
“Regrettably, James was unable to give me that commitment.”
Yesterday Kemi Badenoch wrote to Tory MPs at Westminster suggesting that, if they were minded to defect, they should go now. Anyone undermining the party would dealt with “firmly”, she said.
Share
Government approves plan for Chinese “super-embassy” in London
The government has approved plans for China’s new embassy in London despite criticism from MPs and campaigners over its security implications, PA Media reports.
Pippa Crerar says:
BREAKING: The construction of vast new Chinese embassy complex in east London has been approved, despite concerns about security and impact on political exiles in capital.
The decision brings to an end – for now at least – saga that has been running since 2018 over site at Royal Mint Court near Tower Bridge.
But residents of Royal Mint Court plan to mount legal challenge to decision within weeks, amid concerns they could be forced out of homes, potentially delaying project by months or years.
Share
Updated at 12.06 CET
Reaction of global financial markets to Greenland crisis so far ‘more muted’ than feared, Bank of England boss tells MPs
Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, has said that the reaction of the global financial markets to the Greenland crisis has so far been “more muted” than he feared. But the Bank is still “very alert” to the risks it poses.
Giving evidence to the Commons Treasury committee this morning, Bailey said:
The level of geopolitical uncertainty and geopolitical issues is a big consideration, because they can have financial stability consequences.
Let me put that in a bit of context in two respects. One, having said that, growth in the world economy was a lot more stable than we thought it would be.
The second point is about financial markets and is a fairly similar point, that we worry considerably about how markets react to those things.
Market reactions have actually been more muted than we would have feared and expected.
Overriding those points, I take neither of those as a point of assurance. We have to be very alert to these things.
Share
Trump’s comments about Starmer show ‘appeasing a bully never works’, Ed Davey says
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, says that Donald Trump’s comments about the Chagos Islands deal show that Keir Starmer’s approach to handling the US president has failed.
This shows Starmer’s approach to Trump has failed. The Chagos Deal was sold as proof the government could work with him, now it’s falling apart.
It’s time for the government to stand up to Trump; appeasing a bully never works.
Share
Darren Jones suggests UK unlikely to join Trump’s ‘board of peace’ for Gaza if Putin on it too
In his Today programme interview Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the PM, was also asked about Donald Trump’s decision to Vladimir Putin to join his proposed “board of peace” for Gaza
Jones said:
The idea that President Putin is a man of peace is clearly not true, and for the birds.
Asked if the UK would join, Jones said the UK had received an invitation to join and was talking to US officials about how it might operate.
Asked if the UK would join a “board of peace” including Putin, Jones said:
I agreed that President Putin is not a man of peace and it would be absurd for him to be on the “board of peace”.
Asked if that meant it would be absurd for the UK or Keir Starmer to be on it if Putin were there too, Jones did not firmly rule this out. But he did say this was why British officials were looking into the idea carefully – hinting strongly that the UK would not join up in those circumstances.
Share
Updated at 11.32 CET
According to Jim Sciutto from CNN, Donald Trump told Keir Starmer that he had received “bad information” about the small troop deployment by some Nato countries to Greenland that took place before he announced sanctions on the Nato countries involved because they are opposed to his plan to buy Greenland.
New: President Trump conceded in a weekend phone call with British PM Keir Starmer that he may have gotten “bad information” on the announcement of troop deployments from European countries to Greenland, according to a senior UK official. UK officials see this concession as a potential path to de-escalation.
The Greenland reconnaissance mission was about protecting Greenland from Russia. But Trump seems to have, wrongly, concluded that it was about protecting Greenland from the US.
At his press conference yesterday, Starmer did not dispute the claim that Trump had been misinformed, but he did not say that explicitly either.
In his interview on the Today programme, asked about the CNN report, Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the PM, also insisted that the troop deployment was about looking at options to defend Greenland from Russia and China. The UK just sent one officer.
But Jones would not comment on what Trump did or did not think was happening.
Share
Trump talking ‘silly nonsense’ about Chagos Islands deal, Lib Dems say
The Liberal Democrats have described Donald Trump’s latest comments about the Chagos Islands deal as “silly nonsense”. Asked about them in an interview on Sky News, Tim Farron, a former Lib Dem leader, said:
We have real concerns about the [Chagos Islands] proposals, and we’ve been challenged them in both the Commons and the Lords.
But Donald Trump was in favour of all that.
This is just all silly nonsense from him, because he’s feeling aggrieved that people are not rolling over when it comes to Greenland.
Farron also said he wanted Keir Starmer to be more robust in his handling of Trump.
The problem I have with Keir Starmer is that he’s still being too weak when it comes to Donald Trump.
Our friends across the Channel are being much stronger. They’re saying they would reciprocate with tariffs.
We know the way to deal with bullies is not to appease them. It’s to stand up to them. Otherwise, you end up being their victims.
Share
Source
