Minister dismisses US misgivings over Chinese 'super embassy' in London - as Tories warn of 'espionage base'
Peter Kyle told Sky News' Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips that security concerns will be "taken care of assiduously in the planning process".
According to The Sunday Times, the White House has warned Downing Street against the proposed massive embassy at Royal Mint Court.
The site is between financial hubs in the City of London and Canary Wharf and close to three data centres, raising concerns about espionage risk.
Asked for the government's view on the risk, Mr Kyle said: "These issues will be taken care of assiduously in the planning process.
"But just to reassure people, we deal with embassies and these sorts of infrastructure issues all the time.
"We are very experienced and we are very aware of these sorts of issues constantly, not just when new buildings are being done, but all the time."
He added that America and Britain "share intelligence iteratively" and if they raise security concerns through the planning process "we will have a fulsome response for them".
However, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said he shared the US's concerns.
He told Trevor Phillips: "I agree with the United States. We think it is a security risk in the government.
"The Conservatives were very clear. We should not be allowing the Chinese to build the super embassy. It is likely to become a base for their pan-European espionage activities."
He added that underneath the sites are cables connecting the City of London to Canary Wharf and these could be intercepted.
China has been attempting to revise plans for the Royal Mint building, opposite the Tower of London, since purchasing it in 2018.
The proposal for the embassy, which would be China's largest in Europe, was previously rejected by Tower Hamlets council in 2022.
However, Beijing resubmitted it in August after Labour won the election, and the plans were "called in" by Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister and housing secretary.
It means that an inspector will be appointed to carry out an inquiry into the proposal, but the decision ultimately rests with central government rather than the local authority.
Two large protests were held at the site in February and March, which organisers claimed involved thousands of people.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
Readers deeply divided on lowering the voting age to 16 – from ‘only fair' to ‘blatant gerrymandering'
The government's decision to lower the voting age to 16 has sparked intense debate among Independent readers, with opinions sharply divided over whether the move strengthens democracy or serves party politics. A poll of readers found that 38 per cent believe it's fair for 16-year-olds to vote, while 62 per cent said they are too young to head to the polls. Critics were quick to dismiss the reform as politically motivated, arguing that most teenagers lack the life experience or political understanding needed to make informed decisions. 'Why not let 13-year-olds vote next?' one reader scoffed, describing the move as 'blatant gerrymandering' by Labour to win over idealistic young voters. Supporters, however, hailed the change as long overdue. Many pointed out that 16-year-olds in the UK can already marry, work, pay taxes and even join the armed forces – so it's only fair they have a say in how the country is run. 'They're more mature than most adults I know,' said one commenter, while others noted that political education in schools has left many young people well-informed and engaged. Some readers proposed a middle ground – such as lowering the age to 17 or linking voting rights to leaving full-time education. Here's what you had to say: If they can marry and work, they should vote Of course they should. If they don't get the vote, they should pay no tax or National Insurance, be banned from joining the military, become a NEET or do anything the government tells them to do at that age. You can get married at 16, have sex at 16, ride a moped at 16, drive a car at 17 (16 for some severely disabled people), and yet Tories do not wish them to have a say in their futures. LadyCrumpsall Should 16-year-olds be trusted with the vote – or is it a step too far? Share your views in the comments below. So much nonsense about how sixteen-year-olds don't have the experience, wisdom, knowledge, etc., etc., etc., to have the vote. Having been politically active for most of my life, the lesson of decades of canvassing is that the majority of adults don't really have the faintest idea what they're voting for, or why. You'd be amazed, for instance, at the number of people who say that they're going to vote for X Party because they think that they'll be the election winners – as if they're backing a horse race. bottlebank 16-year-olds can be more mature than adults Many 16-year-olds I know are more mature than many adults; not all, I appreciate that, but to say they aren't mature enough is ludicrous. If they're allowed to get married, then they're old enough to vote. I welcome this move – it'll modernise the voting system and bring in more points of view. The voting population will be getting older and older, and we'll end up with a load of pensioners making decisions based on 'what's good for me' rather than what's good for the up-and-coming generations. deadduck They've studied politics – they're clued up At the age of 16, students have studied politics as part of community studies. I am old so don't talk to many teenagers, but those that I have spoken to – serving staff in cafés, relatives, etc. – are all pretty clued up and invested in what is their future. They can join the forces at 16, get married at 16 – surely if they are mature enough to do that, they are mature enough to vote? DafB Zero life skills A very small minority are politically aware, most aren't. They have zero life skills, experience of bills, home or car ownership etc. Some will argue they are old enough to join the forces. Yes, where you are told what to do by others. It is clearly an idea of Labour, backed up by the Liberals and Greens, to gain a potential two million more votes – all three being poor or struggling in the polls. Sooperhooper Most kids don't care – but neither do adults I don't think most kids today give a darn about politics or are educated well enough to know what's at stake. I'd even go so far as to say that many adults aren't educated well enough to understand the same things. We're at a critical junction in world history and politics. We must make wise choices and hope those who make the laws are of good heart and want to represent their actual constituents. At the moment, and with a somewhat cynical eye, it doesn't look that way. AwareReader Wait until they've left school My thoughts are they could have the voting age dropped to 17 years after they have left school and found out what the world of work is all about. Also, in the final year at secondary school they have education in politics and the voting system. Billydes Open to influence In my experience, teenagers have little in the way of original thought when it comes to politics. Lacking experience, they're still malleable and open to influence, and it would be easy to see how their thinking could be influenced by others who have a darker agenda. RickC Five reasons for Yes 16-year-olds should vote. Why? Because: It should encourage an interest in politics and democracy. It might stop some claiming, "What's the point – no-one listens to us..." It seemingly only has a marginal effect on outcomes in any case. It'll focus politicians on our future – our yoof. Although our youngsters are often a tad idealistic – i.e. leftish – that's fair enough, as it should help counter the barmy rightie oldies. :-) DevsAd They live with the consequences Young people have the most to vote for, as they are voting for their future. They are the ones who will have to live through the impact of their vote, which will mostly impact (though not entirely) those who are of working age. Legally, people aged 16 can work, pay taxes, join the military, have children, etc. – then it is only right that they get a say in the running of the country. Those complaining are all moaning about "woke leftie kids voting", but I can assure you they won't be voting Labour! SoMrHarris E lectoral gerrymandering If 16, why not 15? If 15, why not 14? If 14, why not 13? Where is the cut-off? My 7-year-old pays taxes in the form of VAT every time she uses her pocket money to buy something. Should she be allowed to vote? Labour simply has no convincing logical argument in favour of extending the franchise to 16-year-olds, especially given that we as a society currently think they are too immature to buy fireworks, get tattoos, open a bank account, gamble, pawn something in a pawn shop, and view pornography. Yet we are supposed to buy into the notion that they should be allowed to help choose the next government "because they can pay taxes". It is blatant and desperate electoral gerrymandering of the most partisan kind, from a man who promised to "put country before party". Labour appears to have belatedly bought into the idea that there is an emerging crisis of legitimacy in politics that has been brewing for decades. Their publicly-stated analysis of the cause of this crisis is frankly laughable. Do they seriously believe that this crisis can be fixed by managerial tinkering with the electoral process? That people think politicians are duplicitous troughers only because 16 and 17-year-olds are not more engaged with politics? It is nonsense. The issue is that people see politicians continually lying, gaslighting, claiming they will do one thing while literally doing the exact opposite, and generally serving their own agenda rather than that of voters, who they treat with barely disguised contempt. Will giving 16-year-olds the vote solve that? Of course not. It will make it worse. sj99 I trust my teenage son more than some voters My son was 17 this week. He is sane, smart, sober, politically aware and I would back his judgement in a polling booth ahead of any Reform UK voter of any age. SteveHill Why not? Why not? They are at least as intelligent and mature as the pensioner gammons who voted for Brexit. I suggest that as well as lowering the voting age, we should insist on a mental competence test for people over seventy – just like you need to renew your driving licence beyond that age – and I speak as a seventy-two-year-old.
BBC News
4 minutes ago
- BBC News
Epping asylum hotel protests sees one man appear in court
A 51-year-old man has appeared before magistrates charged with violent disorder outside a hotel housing asylum took place outside The Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, on Thursday and Sunday, where police officers were injured during worker Dean Smith of Madells in Epping was charged with one offence of using or threatening the use of unlawful entered no plea at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court and was remanded in custody to appear at the city's crown court in August. District Judge Christopher Williams was told of a WhatsApp group with 600 members who were planning to attend the of people gathered on Thursday, with a smaller group of people holding a pro-refugee demonstration at the same Connor, representing the Crown Prosecution Service, told the court the gathering of those opposing the housing of asylum seekers was initially peaceful, but "quickly escalated" into violent disorder, with fireworks, eggs and bottles being than 100 police officers attended, Ms Connor said, and officers became "overwhelmed" by the Conner said Mr Smith - who works full-time for Waitrose - had attended the protest on Thursday and returned on the Sunday, when he was arrested after being identified on several pieces of Mr Smith, Richard Moughton said his client had attended for a "peaceful protest", and on the Thursday he had returned home before a police dispersal order was put in is due to appear for a plea hearing at Chelmsford Crown Court on 18 August. Another protest staged on Sunday was attended by more than 1,000 people, with projectiles thrown towards police vans blocking the hotel Smith is the second person to appear before magistrates in connection with protests at the Silk, 33, of Torrington Drive in Loughton, Essex, appeared before Southend Magistrates' Court on Monday to deny violent disorder, but entered no plea to another charge of criminally damaging a sign at the hotel by shaking was released on conditional bail, forbidding him from entering Epping and attending any protest in the UK, and will also appear before Chelmsford Crown Court on 18 demonstrations followed a man living in the hotel being charged with sexual assault, harassment and inciting a girl to engage in sexual Kebatu, 41, from Ethiopia, has denied the offences and was remanded in custody during a hearing on Conservative MPs in Essex - Neil Hudson and Alex Burghart - called for the hotel to be closed, while the Tory leader of Epping Forest District Council, Chris Whitbread, described it as a "powder keg" situation. Follow Essex news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
The Sun
4 minutes ago
- The Sun
Insurers slammed for ‘double dipping' customers and it adds up to £51 a year to bills – how to avoid it
INSURANCE companies have been accused of piling hidden costs onto customers who choose to pay in monthly instalments. Some consumers choose to use premium finance, aka paying in instalments rather than in one lump sum, to spread costs. 1 But concerns have been raised by regulator The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) that some insurance companies are earning much more money than it costs to provide a premium finance service. Insurers will generally charge customers extra to pay in monthly instalments rather than yearly. But the FCA believes some "pay monthly" customers are also being forced to pay more for the insurance itself. This is a practice sometimes described as "double dipping", and it means you could be left more out of pocket. Insurers have said some customers paying monthly use payment methods that increase risk. Around half of motor and home insurance policies were paid for in monthly instalments in 2023. Some people might simply prefer to spread the cost but others cannot afford to pay annually. Last year, 60% of motor policyholders who paid through premium finance said they did so because they couldn't afford to make a single annual payment. Usually, insurance companies charge APRs of between 20 to 30% to customers choosing to pay by premium finance. In some cases it can be more than 30%. Drivers warned over common car feature that quietly causes insurance bill to spike – you'll pay more just for having it This would cost an extra £19 to £28 on an illustrative home policy and £35 to £51 on an illustrative motor policy – suggesting it costs consumers typically between 8% and 11% more to pay monthly rather than annually, the regulator said. Ealier this year, consumer champion Which? asked 52 car insurers and 46 home insurers what rates of interest they charged customers to pay for cover monthly. Among the insurers that responded, Which? identified the highest APRs were being charged by One Insurance Solution and The Insurance Factory. One Insurance Solution applied rates of 30.72% to 34.08% for home insurance, while The Insurance Factory imposed the same rates for car insurance. The consumer group highlighted that these rates are comparable to the borrowing costs of credit cards (35.42%), despite credit card providers taking on significantly higher risks when extending credit. More than a third of home insurance customers pay no more for paying monthly than annually, compared with less than 3% of motor insurance customers. Companies do have extra costs when they offer premium finance, including for staff, IT and compliance. Plus they might have funding costs or must sacrifice investment income by delaying the date of full payment. Credit products are also priced to compensate companies for high levels of bad debt or default. But the FCA's rules mean companies should not increase the insurance premium for customers using premium finance without a reasonable basis. It said in its latest update: "Where firms charge for premium finance, revenues appear to materially exceed costs for some providers. "Whereas the profit margin earned on a core insurance policy may be relatively low, we see margins on premium finance that are somewhat higher." Association of British Insurers (ABI) director general Hannah Gurga said: "Having the option to pay for insurance in monthly instalments can provide flexibility for those who need to manage their budgets. "Offering this service does involve costs for insurers and firms also have to keep cover in place for a period of time if a payment is delayed or missed. "Our premium finance principles, which we published last year, outline that any charges should be fair, transparent and reflective of the costs that the insurer faces. "We'll continue to work with our members on this matter and engage with the FCA's review." How you could avoid paying extra It is worth noting that if you don't have the cash to pay for your insurance upfront, you could find other ways of spreading the cost without high APRs. For example, you could use a 0% interest credit card. If you do this you must make sure you pay it off on time. Some banks also allow you to spread the cost of certain payments. For example, online bank Monzo has a Flex feature that lets you pay off some of your outgoings over the course of a few months. 'Concerning' evidence on how insurance claims handled The FCA also looked into how insurance companies handle motor insurance claims. It said it found "concerning" evidence of poor practices, including delays in settling claims, lack of oversight on outsourced services, and high levels of complaints. It also found evidence of failures to promptly identify and resolve claims handling issues, as well as cash settlements being used in some cases where it might not have been suitable. The FCA said it is addressing the issues directly with the companies involved, including taking action against some of them. How to get cheap car insurance CAR insurance is an essential cost that you hope to never use but will need to cover the costs of theft or damage to your vehicle. It's a legal requirement to have car insurance, and going without it could land you with a £300 fine, six penalty points on your licence and even a criminal conviction. But there are several ways to slash your premiums. Pay upfront Insurers give you the choice of paying for insurance monthly or upfront. Paying monthly spreads the cost of your cover but the insurer adds interest charges which means the average motorist pays around ten per cent more overall. If you pay for your car insurance annually you don't pay any interest. A typical motorist can save up to £225 a year by paying in one go, according to comparison site MoneySuperMarket. Increase your excess The excess is what you agree to pay each time you need to make a claim on your policy. You can usually choose your own excess when setting up a policy and it can be as low as £100 and as high as £500 or more. The higher your excess, the lower your premium and vice versa. This means you could bring the cost of your insurance down by agreeing to pay more if you do need to make a claim. But before you hike your excess, make sure you would be able to pay in the event that you do need to make a claim. Tweak your job Certain jobs are seen as more risky than others for insurance purposes. Making small but accurate changes to your job title can save you money. For example, swapping your role from "chef" to "caterer" can save you £20, comparison site GoCompare found. And changing your role from "fast food delivery driver" to "delivery driver" could save you £40. But lying about your job could invalidate your policy so make sure any changes are legitimate and accurate. Shop around Not all comparison sites have the same range of insurers so to get the best price it's a good idea to check two or three from Go Compare, Comparethemarket, MoneySupermarket and Insurer Direct Line is also not on comparison sites so check its prices directly. You can also get a free cash bonus by going via a cashback site such as Topcashback or Quidco. Save the date Renewing your car insurance sooner rather than later could save you some cash. New cover becomes more expensive the closer you get to the renewal date. But you can buy your car insurance up to 29 days before the policy start date and 'lock in' the price you're quoted on that day. A typical driver can save up to £265 buying new cover at least 27 days before their current policy ends, according to Go Compare.
