The embassy of any great power in a major capital city is a very serious undertaking.
There will of course be grand reception rooms for elegant diplomatic parties.
But, as John le Carre’s spy thrillers have informed us in detail, even British missions have small back rooms full of coding machines and clever means of communication, where the intelligence men lurk.
Such buildings also boast special soundproofed zones where diplomats hope to speak freely, untroubled by the eavesdropping devices constantly trained on them by the host country.
The uniquely sinister Soviet Embassy in Communist East Berlin was rumoured, in the 1950s, to contain its own torture chamber.
We may be sure that the new Chinese Embassy now planned to stand in London, near the Tower, will not have such a facility.
But what will it contain? The complex is planned to cover almost 24,000 square yards and will be, when completed, the largest embassy anywhere in Europe.
About 200 staff will live on the site, helping to make it a substantial piece of Chinese territory in our capital.
An artist’s illustration of the proposed frontage of the Chinese ‘super-embassy’ in Tower Hamlets, east London
Under the last Tory government, its construction was blocked by the local authority after police and the Security Service expressed alarm about its closeness to crucial communications systems, including one of London’s most important telephone exchanges.
Significant parts of the plans, including some basement rooms and a tunnel, have been ‘redacted’, that is to say, our authorities are not allowed to know what is planned for these parts of the building.
It looked for a while as if the Starmer government were ready to give the go-ahead, but they have recently delayed a decision, to the great annoyance of the Chinese government.
British security experts remain concerned Sir Keir will give in. But in fact he need not fear standing up for himself.
Both Ireland and Australia have recently blocked plans for large new Chinese embassies in Dublin and Canberra, on similar grounds.
If these countries have acted, one far smaller than Britain and the other heavily dependent on good economic relations with China, then Britain can surely stand firm.
After the recent dropping of Chinese-related espionage accusations by the Crown Prosecution Service, the impression is growing that our government is too soft on Beijing.
China, now beyond doubt an economic, military and diplomatic titan, is undoubtedly flexing its muscles and anxious to emphasise its power and prestige.
That is only reasonable. We can assume it will maintain some sort of intelligence presence in our capital, within understood diplomatic limits.
But that does not mean it should be able to use its new premises for intelligence raids on our communications networks.
Nor is it tolerable that it is unwilling even to tell us how some of its embassy space will be used.
The premises may be inviolable under diplomatic convention, but the complex is an embassy, not a military base, and we are entitled to know what is going on there.
China should be prepared to accept planning changes which reduce the potential risk to our electronic networks. If they do not wish to do this, then their existing embassy will have to suffice.
After his government’s recent wobbles on China policy, Sir Keir should take the opportunity to assert our freedom to choose how even the greatest powers are represented in our capital.
If tiny Ireland can stand up to the Chinese dragon, then surely Great Britain can do so as well?
