PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Chinese Embassy - 13 January 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the release of unredacted plans for the proposed Chinese embassy.

This question relates to the proposals for a new Chinese embassy at Royal Mint Court. It is a decision to be taken by Planning Ministers, independent of the rest of Government. As I have said before in the House, this Government are committed to the probity of the planning process at all levels, to ensure robust and evidence-based decision making. Planning Ministers must take decisions following a quasi-judicial process, meaning that they must take decisions fairly, based on evidence and planning rules.

As the case is currently before the Department for consideration, and due to the statutory role of Ministers in the planning process, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment further on this live case. That said, I fully understand Members’ interest in the case, so I will briefly set out the process that the case has followed to date. A public inquiry into the applications was held by an independent planning inspector between 11 and 19 February 2025. The Department received the inspector’s report into the applications on 10 June that year. On 6 August 2025, a reference-back letter was sent to parties seeking further information, specifically in respect of the redacted plans and some issues raised by the Home Office and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. That was recirculated for further comment on 22 August, and again on 16 October, 2 December, and 17 December. It was recirculated for information on 6 January 2026. Referring back to parties is routine when further information is required.

As you know, Mr Speaker, the Government do not provide a running commentary on planning casework decisions, and it would be particularly inappropriate to make any comment on material that has been received. The reference-back material will be available on request when the decision is issued. The timetable has been varied to allow for full consideration of the applications, given the detailed nature of the representations provided, and the need to give parties sufficient opportunity to respond. A final decision will now be made on or before 20 January 2026. Such variation to the timetable is routine when additional time is needed for determination. Members can be assured—I am afraid I will be required to state the following ad nauseam, Mr Speaker—that Ministers will take all material planning considerations into account when the final decision is made, and Ministers will inform the House of the decision accordingly.

In fairness, you brought me into this by saying that I would know about planning—absolutely—but I did not choose for you to be the Minister who answered this. I would have thought it would have been someone from the Home Office, and the Minister for Security. I call Alicia Kearns.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is very disappointing to get a technocratic history lesson rather than an answer to the meaningful question.

Two hundred and eight secret rooms and a hidden chamber, just 1 metre from cables serving the City of London and the British people—that is what the unredacted plans tell us the Chinese Communist party has planned for its new embassy if the Government give it the go-ahead. Indeed, we now know that it plans to demolish the wall between the cables and the embassy—cables on which our economy is dependent; cables carrying millions of British people’s emails and financial data, and access that would give the Chinese Communist party a launchpad for economic warfare against our nation.

The Home Office and the Foreign Office say that security concerns have been “addressed”, so I put this to the Minister: had any Minister seen the unredacted plans before The Telegraph uncovered them? If not, why not? Was Parliament misled when we were told that all documents were publicly available? Is it true that in December a briefing was given to our Five Eyes partners on these risks? Does the Minister really have no concerns at all over plans to install heavy ventilation equipment parallel to those cables? What is that for? If the Government are as shocked as we are today, have Ministers already called in the Chinese ambassador to explain those secret rooms? If not, why not? The embassy would create a daily headache for our security services. What confidence can we have that the CCP’s technological capabilities can be contained for a decade, let alone 10? I have consistently asked the Government to require the Chinese to pay for any re-routing of cables if they are to give this go-ahead, so will the Government commit to that today?

We understand that the Prime Minister is planning to visit Beijing this month. Is it true that the embassy will be approved this week? That the Prime Minister plans to reward the Communist party, which is holding a British national hostage and torturing him in confinement, and which put spies at the heart of our democracy, is bad enough, but to turn up with a gift in hand, begging for handouts, beggars belief. Labour promised a new relationship with China, yet UK goods exports are down 23%. Surrendering our security for Chinese trade was always a bad policy, but surrendering our security while exports plummet is, frankly, insanity. The Government can claim today they had no idea about the secret rooms, and we will take them at their word, but they cannot now say that they have no power to protect us. We must protect our economy, protect the British people, and deny the Chinese Communist party its embassy.

I thank the shadow Minister for her questions. I am obviously not going to comment on speculation in the press. On the specific case before Ministers, at the application stage it was a matter for parties what information was put forward for consideration, and it was a matter for Tower Hamlets what information was put on the planning register and the inquiry website. We have not misled the House. All inquiry documents are publicly available on that website, and if new potentially relevant information is drawn to the Department’s attention, it will be assessed. That includes consideration of its relevance, and whether it is necessary to obtain that information or refer back to parties. That is a routine process.

The Secretary of State transparently sought further information on the redacted drawings via a reference-back letter to parties issued on 6 August. I say again that no decision has been made on the case. I cannot comment on individual aspects of the case, and it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment on any matter of national security, or on behalf of the security services. All inquiry documents, including the redacted drawings put forward by the applicant at application stage, are publicly available on the Tower Hamlets website. When the final decision is published, the decision letter will contain a list of post-inquiry representations, including those received as part of the reference-back exercise, and those will be publicly available on request.

Multiple Government agencies and Departments have raised concerns about this mega-embassy. Our international partners have raised concerns about it, and every security briefing I have identifies China as a hostile state to the UK. I am in no doubt that this mega-embassy should not be allowed to go ahead. Internationally, China is terrorising the people of Hong Kong. It is terrorising democratic people in Taiwan, and it is terrorising some people already in the UK. I look to my local university of Sheffield Hallam, and also to what China is doing to parliamentarians right here. I want my Government to stand up to bullies, not to reward them. We need to put in place rules and limits around China to stop this behaviour, not reward it with the embassy that it so dearly wants.

I thank my hon. Friend for her questions, and I note and appreciate her concerns. We need a consistent position on China, which cannot be boiled down to one word. We recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, and we challenge those robustly. China also presents opportunities to the UK, as the world’s second largest economy and the UK’s third largest trading partner. We will therefore continue to develop a consistent and pragmatic approach to economic engagement, without compromising our national security. On Hong Kong in particular we will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the UK.

On the matter before us, which is the particular case in question, as I have stressed before—I am afraid I will have to do so repeatedly—no decision has been made. I cannot comment on any aspects of the case, which is a live case for Planning Ministers to determine. All material considerations will be taken into account when making a decision, but I am afraid I cannot comment on any specific national security concerns.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The redacted plans for the Chinese super-embassy provide new reasons to reject this application. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government had access before today to the unredacted plans showing the proximity of basements to critical communications cabling? Will he, and other Ministers, ensure that the intelligence agencies update their risk assessments before a final decision is taken?

On 16 December, the Government told the House that an urgent review would be launched into foreign financial interference in UK politics, including by China. Will the Minister now agree to pause any decision on the super-embassy until the Rycroft review has reported? The new super-embassy would also condemn Hongkongers living in Britain to more surveillance, more intimidation, and more bounty hunting. On Saturday, hundreds of Hongkongers are expected to join a protest outside the proposed super-embassy site. Will the Minister, or a colleague, meet the protesters on Saturday outside the embassy, to listen to their concerns first hand?

I want to be very clear about what information the Department had and when it had it. As I said, an independent inquiry into this matter was held by an independent planning inspector. The onus is on the applicant to submit documents to that inquiry. At the point that the inspector’s report was given to us, it was then in the gift of the Department to request further information via a reference back to parties. We did that on 6 August, specifically in respect of those redacted plans. I am not going to comment on live applications to the case, but all material considerations will be taken into account. Similarly, it would not be right for me to comment on the intelligence services or what input they have had into the decision, but the Minister for Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), is beside me on the Front Bench. A decision will be made on or before 20 January. At that point, the decision letter will be issued. It will contain a list of post-inquiry representations, including those received as part of the reference-back exercise, and it will be publicly available on request.

China has used its national security law to criminalise political dissent and target Hongkongers in the UK. My constituency of Stratford and Bow is home to one of the largest Hongkonger populations in our country, and they tell me how scared they are of the proposed Chinese mega-embassy in our neighbouring east London constituency. What assurances can the Minister offer that this Government—the British Government—will stand up for the people of Hong Kong, and that this proposed embassy will not enable and embolden further coercion and intimidation of Hongkongers in the UK, particularly those in London?

I repeat what I said specifically about transnational repression. We will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the UK. The decision that is before Planning Ministers will be taken independent of the rest of Government. Planning Ministers must take decisions following a quasi-judicial process, meaning that they must make decisions fairly, based on evidence and planning laws. I stress again that all material considerations will be taken into account when reaching a decision.

I call the Father of the House.

This is the national Parliament and it deserves answers. I have already asked this question to the Minister for Security, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), and I got no answer at all. It may seem to be a subsidiary point, but it is important. On 14 January 2025, the Secretary of State wrote to the Chinese demanding an answer about whether there will be a perimeter wall so that the public can access the buried Cistercian monastery. With typical arrogance, the Chinese have not even replied. Why is that important? Because if Ministers insisted on what they wrote about last January, there would have to be an entirely new planning permission. The site is near the Tower of London, where so many prisoners of conscience died over the centuries, so—who knows?—maybe the prayers of medieval monks might finally stop this aberration.

I am afraid that all I can say to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, is that all material considerations will be taken into account when reaching a decision on this case.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights undertook an inquiry on transnational repression last year. It found that the Chinese state undertakes considerable transnational repression against the Chinese diaspora in the United Kingdom, much of it co-ordinated out of the existing Chinese embassy. The new super-embassy is a real threat to Hongkongers, Uyghurs and other members of the Chinese diaspora who do not toe the Beijing party line. Will the Minister reassure me that transnational repression of the Chinese diaspora is a material consideration when making this planning decision?

The Foreign Secretary has been robust on human rights, including those in Xinjiang. She has raised our concerns about the implementation of the national security law in Hong Kong and called for the immediate release of Jimmy Lai. When it comes to human rights, we are forthright with the Chinese Government. I am not going to comment on a live case that is in front of Planning Ministers as to what specific material considerations will be taken into account, but I can assure my hon. Friend that they all will be.

Has the Intelligence and Security Committee had an opportunity to question the National Security Adviser—not the deputy—about this matter? If the Minister says that he does not know, then he is the wrong Minister to be answering this urgent question. If he says that he does know, but he cannot say because that information is highly classified, let me assure him that the identities of witnesses interviewed at that level by the Intelligence and Security Committee are not private, but published whenever the Committee is minded to do so. Will he answer the question in a straightforward way: was the ISC given the opportunity to question the National Security Adviser?

It is for the ISC, not me, to comment on its proceedings. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that national security is the first duty of Government. It is not appropriate for me in this instance to comment on any specific matters of national security, but as I continue to repeat, all relevant planning considerations will be taken into account when making a decision on this case.

My hon. Friend will be aware that I have written to the Secretary of State to highlight the concerns of my constituents about the proposed embassy in my constituency. While I recognise the planning dimension and the limits on what he can say, will he none the less reassure me and the House that residents’ concerns about security and human rights, as well as wider local concerns, will be taken seriously as part of the process, not least because the area has one of the largest Muslim populations in the country? We are all aware of the persecution of Uyghur Muslims, which this House has campaigned against, among wider human rights violations.

As I have said, all material considerations will be taken into account when making the decision. Any party can make representations on the case and a number of hon. Members from across the House have done so, and all relevant planning considerations will be taken into account when reaching that decision.

All material considerations will be taken into account, which include matters of national security, but the decision is being taken by my Department, in line with statutory provisions governing planning decisions and published propriety guidance. As I have said, the full reasons for the decision will be set out in the published decision letter, but as I continue to explain, no decision has yet been made.

I appreciate the limitations on what the Minister can and cannot say, but in the light of the publication of unredacted plans for the Chinese embassy, will the Government and the security services look again at whether it would be appropriate to allow the embassy to proceed?

I am not going to comment on behalf of the security services—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are chuntering from a sedentary position, but I am not going to do that. It is not appropriate for me to comment on behalf of the security services, but as I continue to say, all material considerations will be taken into account. I am here answering the urgent question on the Chinese embassy, which is a decision for my Department and Planning Ministers within it.

The Minister talks about this being a planning decision, but essentially it is a political judgment. Many right hon. and hon. Members want to make strong representations to the Government and the National Security Adviser about the judgment call on getting a closer relationship with China and this embassy. The site of the proposed embassy is massive—I went around it over the past couple of days—and Mansell Street is really restricted, meaning it will be completely impossible to monitor what is going on there, so that judgment is wrong.

I note the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and the Security Minister and other Ministers will have heard them too. However, the case is specifically a planning decision to be made in accordance with the propriety rules and other considerations that Planning Ministers have to take into account as part of the quasi-judicial process, but all material considerations will be taken into account as part of that process.

My constituent, Chloe Cheung, has to live with the fact that she has a £100,000 bounty placed on her head under the national security law in Hong Kong. She walks around every day knowing that anyone here could claim that bounty by taking her to the Chinese embassy and handing her over to the authorities. Now she is worried that she might find herself locked away in one of the secret rooms shown in the new embassy plans. What exactly are the Government going to do to ensure that Chloe is protected and kept safe, and that that never happens to her or anyone else with a £100,000 bounty on their head, if the new embassy is approved?

I recognise my hon. Friend’s frustration and anger on behalf of his constituent. We will not tolerate transnational repression of the kind that he is concerned about. Specifically, the counterfactual here is not that the Chinese do not have an embassy; they have seven diplomatic premises in the UK already. Again, I come back to the fact that we will make a decision on this case on the material planning considerations that pertain to it.

Every single day, people from the Tibetan, Hong Kong, Uyghur and Falun Gong communities here in the UK already face intimidation through transnational repression. Their activities are under constant surveillance, and their families living under Chinese rule face arrest and prosecution. There are $1 million bounties placed on them, and their neighbours in the UK are encouraged to pass on information or deliver them to the Chinese authorities. Given the increased threat to their safety that the mega-embassy poses, what action are the Government taking to counter those actions? What message do the Government have for those communities?

We have reviewed transnational repression through the defending democracy taskforce; we take it incredibly seriously, and I note the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I am here on behalf of my Department as the Housing and Planning Minister to make clear what the process is for making a decision on this embassy application.

This debate on the mega-embassy is not just about a building and 208 secret rooms; it is primarily about national security and the safety of those from the Hongkonger, Chinese, Uyghur and Tibetan diasporas in the UK—approximately 700,000 people. We have learned that in 2018, the then Prime Minister committed to no delays in granting permission for the mega-embassy, which has an air of predetermination. What reassurances can the Minister give me and this House that that opinion has not compromised the independence of the planning process?

The planning process has not been compromised. We will make a planning decision on the basis of the relevant propriety guidance. On the delays, given the detailed nature of the representations provided and the need to give parties sufficient opportunity to respond, we have considered that more time is needed for full consideration of the applications. A variation to the timetable is routine when more time is needed for determination, such as when it is necessary to consider that additional information, but as I have made clear, our intention is to make a decision on or before 20 January.

The sentencing hearings of Jimmy Lai, a British subject, are taking place. China has abrogated every agreement that it made with us over Hong Kong. What outrage would China have to commit for us to deny any demand that it made? The Minister says that he could not distil our relationship with China down to one word, but oh yes we can. It is a very big word; it is no.

The UK condemns the politically motivated prosecution of Jimmy Lai. No state can bully and persecute the British people for exercising their basic rights. Following the court verdict, the Foreign Office summoned the Chinese ambassador to underline our position in the strongest terms, and we call again for Jimmy Lai’s immediate release.

The Minister is very artfully avoiding answering the question that my constituents and Hongkongers, Chinese, Muslims and Tibetans all over this country want to know the answer to, and it is not about the planning process. They are concerned about their safety and security, and they are concerned that the redacted photographs show just how close a foreign country is to critical communications cables. That is their concern; they want to know that they are safe and that this Government are taking that into account. That is the question we want to ask, so please do not tell me about the planning process.

With all due respect to the hon. Lady, this is an urgent question in relation to plans that are part of a planning process. I understand her frustration, but it was precisely to secure the information in question that a reference back was made to the parties on 6 August. Her constituents can be reassured that all material considerations will be taken into account by the relevant Ministers when a decision is made on this case.

I am sure that Tower Hamlets building control is very good, but it is not a security expert. If this plan goes ahead—I very much hope that it does not—will the Minister at least assure the House that the agencies will be fully involved in monitoring the demolition of the wall along Mansell Street and around the Wapping exchange? Will the replacement be monitored closely to ensure that our critical national infrastructure is safeguarded?

I note the right hon. Gentleman’s question. For obvious reasons, we do not comment on intelligence matters. I can assure him that national security concerns and all the representations that have been made along those lines will be taken into account as part of the decision-making process. He says that Tower Hamlets does not have the relevant expertise to make the decision in the round; that is precisely why an independent public inquiry was held by an independent public inspector. The report was passed to the Government, and they had the chance to seek further information for a reference back, as we did on 6 August, so that the relevant Planning Minister in my Department can take the decision on the basis of all the required information.

The Minister has asked for a question about planning, so I will give him one. I am struggling to think of an innocent reason why important details would be redacted from the original application. Can he tell me what explanation has been given for those redactions?

As I have said, it was precisely because the Department did not feel that it had all the necessary information to make a decision that we sought that further information via a reference-back letter to parties. As I continue to say, all material considerations will be taken into account when a decision is made.

Making the same mistake repeatedly is a form of stupidity. As a country, we keep doing the same thing. If we cast our minds back to the debacle with Huawei, we will remember that we let the Chinese Communist party essentially into our 5G network. We did not listen to our national security advice, but we stopped and pulled back, and we have done the exact same thing with civil nuclear. The Minister has responsibility for this matter; he can step in and pull the plug. At what point will Ministers wake up and realise that we are making the same mistake again?

Planning Ministers will make a decision taking into account all material planning considerations.

The proposed Chinese embassy includes a subterranean facility just centimetres from cables carrying highly sensitive financial data. Any hostile intelligence service designing an espionage target would struggle to find a better location. Northern Ireland has learned that strategic assets must not be put at unnecessary risk for the sake of diplomatic symbolism. National security cannot be an afterthought. At a time when this House voices concerns about foreign influence online, we must also confront the real-world threat of hostile states exploiting our critical infrastructure. Will the Minister do the right thing and agree that national security should trump planning? Will he therefore say no to this proposal?

I simply cannot provide a running commentary on a live case, but I assure all hon. Members that national security is the first duty of Government generally and that all relevant planning considerations will be taken into account when making a decision.

The Minister has recognised that China poses significant threats, yet this Government are prepared to welcome this Trojan horse of an embassy into the heart of our city, so close to the Link system. He talks about material planning considerations, but that means balancing developing needs with community impact and ensuring that development aligns with local and national policies and site-specific details such as heritage, which was mentioned by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Not one contributor in this House can say that this embassy is not a threat to national security and that it is in any way a good and solid planning application. How can this Government be so naive as to accept it?

No decision has been made on this case.

I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) for submitting her application, and Mr Speaker for granting another urgent question on this issue. Although we are not yet happy with the answers, we have at least been given repeated chances to scrutinise the issue as it has progressed.

I am here on behalf of Hongkongers in Sutton and Cheam and across London who are aghast at the prospect of this project being given permission. We have seen the persecution and conviction of Jimmy Lai; transnational repression of Hongkongers in the UK through, among other things, the withholding of their mandatory provident fund savings that allow them to survive here; bounties placed on activists; and action taken against MPs, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) being prevented from going into Hong Kong, and sanctions being placed on other MPs. If a hostile state is rewarded for all these actions with permission to expand and increase its capabilities for surveillance, espionage and repression in our capital city, what hope can any of us have that the Government will stand up against hostile states for Britain and Britons in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world?

I simply note that all the points the hon. Gentleman has made could apply to the existing seven diplomatic premises in the UK. When it comes to this site, as I have said, a decision will be made on or before 20 January, and all material considerations will be taken into account. We remain steadfast in our support for the Hong Kong community in the UK. As I said in answer to a previous question, we have undertaken a review of transnational repression as part of the defending democracy taskforce—it is something we take incredibly seriously.

For the thousands of British national overseas people in my constituency, the prospect of the Chinese super-embassy is deeply worrying, and that worry is compounded by these unredacted plans. With that in mind, can the Minister confirm whether any Government Minister has called in the Chinese ambassador to discuss these issues, and if they have not, why not?

I am afraid to say to the hon. Gentleman that I cannot provide a running commentary on a live case. All material considerations will be taken into account when making a decision.

This is a complete farce, to be quite honest. We have seen reports in the media that there will be a secret room less than 1 metre away from sensitive cabling, and that since 2018, the Chinese authorities have been cutting off utilities to the UK embassy in China. National security should surely trump the planning system. This is a decision that should be taken by the Prime Minister in Downing Street—it should be a very quick and resolute no. If the Government are not in a position to do that, the framework needs to be changed. If necessary, the Government need to come before Parliament to do that, where they will find a very warm reception.

I do not think I could have been any clearer: all national security considerations will be taken into account when making a decision on this case.

I will offer the Government some advice. It is one word: common sense. [Interruption.] Well, two words. Given the interest in national security, I am quite surprised that a Planning Minister is at the Dispatch Box to talk about this case, but the two issues are intertwined. The Minister has rebutted other Members’ questions with “That is a security issue; it is not my portfolio”, but given what we know, will he review the proximity of other countries’ embassies to major underground fibre-optic cables? That is a big worry for the country’s intelligence services and for many constituents throughout the country.

I note the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and I appreciate his frustration, but this is ultimately a planning case on which a decision is being made. As I have said repeatedly to hon. Members, all material considerations will be taken into account when reaching a decision on this case.

London is a critical global financial centre; we all rely on it, as do all of our constituents. Does the Minister recognise the very serious risk that approving this Chinese super-embassy could, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, pave the way for economic war—not just on our country, but on the western world, including by undermining the security of critical data travelling under the site to and from the City of London?

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said to other hon. Members, is that all national security considerations will be taken into account. He can be reassured of that fact.

Whatever statements have been made publicly, the unredacted plans for this super-embassy will fill our security services with dread, as well they should. The Chinese Communist party is not a friend to the United Kingdom, and nowhere is that more evident than in its consistent espionage—including on this very estate—and frequent cyber-attacks against national infrastructure. Given that the Minister’s Department is responsible for the final decision in this case, can he tell the House whether he will do the right thing by national security and pull the plug?

I am not going to comment on specific considerations that will be taken into account. I have been very clear that we will continue to develop a consistent and pragmatic approach to the People’s Republic of China on economic engagement, and we will not compromise our national security. We have been very clear that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, and I have been as clear as I can be that national security considerations, along with all other material planning considerations, will be taken into account when reaching a decision. As I have said, it is for Planning Ministers to reach that decision, on or before 20 January.

We seem to be in the Chamber every three weeks to address espionage and security concerns with regards to China, be it spying, hacking, or the Government’s failure to add China to the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. China is not an ally, and it features as a security threat in our own security strategy. The Chinese previously stated that they would not resubmit their application after it was rejected unless they were given assurances that it would be approved. To that end, what assurances have been given to China; what are we expecting as a quid pro quo with regards to the rebuilding of our own embassy in Beijing; and what concerns have been raised by our Five Eyes partners, specifically the US?

I appreciate why the hon. Gentleman is tempting me on this matter, but as I have made very clear, it would be completely inappropriate for me to comment from this Dispatch Box on national security considerations in respect of this live case. On his specific question of whether China has been given a commitment that permission will be granted, the decision is being taken by my Department in line with statutory provisions governing planning decisions and published propriety guidance, and as I keep saying, no decision has yet been made on the case.

Why are this Government so evidently in awe of the Chinese Government and their requirements? Is one of those requirements that this mega-embassy be approved before the Prime Minister visits Beijing?

I simply do not accept that characterisation of the Government’s approach to China. We have to take a consistent and pragmatic approach, but we recognise that China poses a series of threats. As I have said, no decision has yet been made on this case, and all material planning considerations will be taken into account when one is made.

I have raised multiple times with the Government the harassment of a constituent of mine, Carmen Lau, by the Chinese authorities. This has included bounty letters, deepfake pornography and her family being interrogated by national security agents in Hong Kong. Every time I am told that the safety of Hongkongers is of the utmost importance to the Government. Given that, does the Minister accept that to approve this application while China is still committing transnational repression would be a kick in the teeth to Hongkongers such as Carmen?

The safety of Hongkongers is of the utmost importance to this Government, and we remain steadfast in our support for the Hong Kong community in the UK. I understand why the hon. Gentleman is asking me, but I cannot comment on a live planning case that is before Planning Ministers in my Department.

It is no coincidence that a week ago, a Protestant church in Chengdu, in Sichuan province in China, was raided by Chinese authorities. The pastor, the elders, and those who attended the church were arrested. What are the Government doing? The facts revealed in the plans for the embassy show a potential risk that must be explored. By all means, the Chinese should have a consulate to enable their citizens to have consular help, but not one that seems so elevated that it poses a threat to national security. The planning question is whether a basement is a real requirement of a functioning consulate. Will the Minister prove that national security will always be the priority?

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s long-standing and passionate advocacy for people across the world to be able to practise their faith freely. In relation to the planning applications that are in front of us, all the relevant inquiry information was submitted as part of the independent public inquiry. At the point at which the inspector handed us a report, my Department sought further information specifically in relation to those redacted plans, so that we are able to take a decision that takes into account all the material planning considerations in this case. As I have said, we will issue that decision on or before 20 January.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was hoping to ask this point of order of Mr Speaker, because it is a little difficult for you, not having been here for most of the urgent question. At the start of the urgent question, Mr Speaker made it clear that he was surprised that a Minister was being put up who would not be able to answer questions, being a Planning Minister, rather than a Security Minister being put up, who would be able to answer questions.

In my 28 years in this House, I have attended many ministerial statements and the questioning that follows, and many urgent questions since they were introduced. Never before has there been an occasion that I have seen where every question asked on both sides of the House was deeply hostile, as was the case today, regarding what the Government were proposing to do. My question is this: if my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) were to reapply to Mr Speaker for a similar urgent question in anticipation that an appropriate Minister—a Security Minister—will be put up to answer it, would that be within the rules of parliamentary order and practice?

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With due respect to the Minister, I submitted this urgent question as the shadow National Security Minister for the Security Minister in the Home Office to answer. How do we in this House get answers on the focus that we have? All questions bar two were on national security, not on planning. The more than capable and diligent Security Minister was forced to sit on the Front Bench, silenced, while his colleague attempted to answer those questions that should have been allowed to be put to him.

I thank both Members for their points of order. As they will know—the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made a salient point from his long-standing experience in the House—the choice of Minister and responding Department is a matter for the Government, not the Chair. Mr Speaker and I are frustrated and understand the frustrations that Members rightly have. Those on the Government Front Bench have heard those concerns and might reflect upon them. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) is perfectly free, as is every Member, to resubmit an urgent question on this matter, but I obviously cannot comment on whether that will be granted; that will be a matter for Mr Speaker.