🚨 PARLIAMENT EXPLODES: Labour Caught RED-HANDED Hiding the Truth on China’s “Super Embassy” Spy Hub! 🚨

Why did they deliberately send the WRONG minister to face furious MPs… and leave the Security Minister in the shadows??

The Commons was pure CHAOS yesterday as screaming politicians demanded answers about China’s massive new embassy plans — right next to the Tower of London, with 208 SECRET UNDERGROUND ROOMS and a HIDDEN CHAMBER built just 1 METRE from Britain’s most vital fibre-optic cables carrying millions of emails, financial data, and the City’s lifeblood!

MPs were raging: “This is INSANITY!” “A launchpad for economic WARFARE against Britain!” “Why no Security Minister to explain what those secret rooms are REALLY for??”

Full details:

London’s political temperature spiked dramatically on January 13, 2026, during an urgent debate in the House of Commons over China’s proposed “super embassy” at the former Royal Mint site in Tower Hamlets. Opposition MPs, backed by cross-party voices including some Labour backbenchers, accused the government of deliberately sending the wrong minister to answer questions on national security risks, leaving critical concerns unaddressed.

The controversy centers on unredacted architectural plans, obtained and published by The Telegraph on January 12, 2026, revealing 208 underground rooms beneath the planned 20,000-square-meter complex, including a concealed chamber positioned just one meter from fibre-optic cables vital to the City of London’s financial infrastructure and broader UK communications.

Conservative shadow Home Office minister Alicia Kearns led the charge, describing the proximity as potentially providing “a launch pad for economic warfare against our nation.” She quoted the leaked drawings, noting the hidden chamber’s location alongside cables transmitting emails, financial data, and other sensitive traffic for millions of users. Kearns demanded to know if ministers had seen the full unredacted plans before the newspaper’s disclosure and why the Security Minister was not present to respond.

Instead, Planning Minister Matthew Pennycook fielded the questions. Pennycook, whose portfolio includes communities and local government, emphasized that the decision remained “quasi-judicial” and that “all material considerations” would be weighed before any approval, expected on or before January 20, 2026. He declined to speculate on press reports about secret rooms, stating the government took security seriously but would not comment on unverified claims.

The absence of a Home Office or security-focused minister drew sharp criticism. Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle rebuked the government for the mismatch, with opposition figures arguing it prevented full scrutiny of espionage risks. Kearns and others highlighted earlier assurances from the Home Office and Foreign Office that security concerns had been “addressed,” questioning whether Parliament had been misled about document availability during the planning inquiry.

Cross-party MPs voiced alarm over broader implications. Labour MP Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Select Committee, noted that “multiple government agencies and departments have raised concerns” about the mega-embassy. She and eight other Labour MPs wrote to Communities Secretary Steve Reed urging rejection, citing unresolved security issues and fears of increased intimidation against Hong Kongers, Uyghurs, Tibetans, and other dissidents in the UK.

Conservative, Liberal Democrat, DUP, and SNP members joined the calls to block the project, warning it could enable transnational repression and cyber-espionage. The site, opposite the Tower of London, would become Europe’s largest embassy if approved, replacing China’s current facilities.

The plans, designed by David Chipperfield Architects, include extensive subterranean facilities. Critics point to proposals to demolish and rebuild basement walls directly beside the cables as particularly troubling, potentially allowing physical access or interference. MI5 has reportedly raised no formal objections, but intelligence experts and opposition politicians argue the setup invites surveillance risks in an era of heightened UK-China tensions.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer faces mounting pressure ahead of his anticipated meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Some Labour backbenchers have broken ranks, insisting Britain “must not reward bullies” by approving the embassy. A residents’ group has vowed a legal challenge, potentially dragging the issue through courts for years, even to the Supreme Court, which could delay construction beyond the next general election.

Government officials maintain no final decision has been made and that planning processes remain independent. Pennycook reiterated commitments to national security in responses, but avoided direct engagement with specifics from the leaked drawings.

Public and media reaction has been intense. The story dominated headlines, with outlets like the BBC, The Guardian, Fox News, and The Telegraph covering the debate live. Social media amplified clips of MPs’ fury, with hashtags calling for rejection trending. Supporters of the project, including some diplomatic observers, argue embassies require secure facilities by nature and that rejecting it on speculation could damage UK-China relations at a time when trade and global issues demand dialogue.

The episode reflects deeper UK anxieties over Chinese influence. Recent years have seen cyber incidents attributed to Beijing, arrests of alleged spies, and debates over foreign interference in politics. The embassy proposal, first submitted years ago, has faced repeated scrutiny, with earlier concerns over its scale and location near sensitive landmarks.

If approved, the complex could house thousands of staff and consolidate operations currently spread across London. Opponents fear it would serve as a base for monitoring exiles and gathering intelligence, while proponents dismiss such claims as unsubstantiated fearmongering.

As the January 20 deadline approaches, the debate underscores divisions within Labour itself and cross-party consensus on security priorities. Whether the government opts for approval, rejection, or further delay, the fallout could shape perceptions of Starmer’s approach to China — balancing economic ties against national safeguards.

For now, the Commons session has left many questions hanging: What purpose do the underground rooms serve? Why the apparent mismatch in ministerial attendance? And will unredacted details prompt a full review? Londoners and the nation await clarity amid rising stakes.