On October 26, 2025, a series of high-profile reports and political statements ignited debate across the United Kingdom about the extent of Chinese economic influence, particularly in the context of Britain’s controversial migrant hotel scheme. According to an audit by the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), as reported by The Sunday Times, entities linked to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) now control a staggering £190 billion in UK assets. This portfolio encompasses everything from shares in FTSE 100 companies and swathes of national infrastructure, to a network of hotels block-booked by the Home Office to house asylum seekers—hotels that have become a flashpoint in the wider discussion about immigration, security, and foreign investment.
The audit, which has not yet been published in full but was reviewed by The Sunday Times, details how the CCP or organizations it controls own three hotels in the UK that have collectively earned at least £15 million in government contracts for accommodating migrants. Among these is Kew Green Hotels, a £300 million business that owns and manages more than 60 properties, including Holiday Inns in Kent and Cheshire. Kew Green is wholly owned by the Beijing government through its China Tourism Group Corporation, a body set up to promote Chinese interests abroad. These hotels, both block-booked by the state, have been at the center of community protests, especially after reports of criminal incidents involving residents, such as the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl by an Ethiopian migrant in Epping.
Campanile, another hotel chain named in the audit, is owned by the Shanghai municipal government and operates a property in Cardiff that has been housing asylum seekers since 2022. These arrangements, while lucrative for their Chinese owners, have raised questions about the intersection of national security, public policy, and foreign profit. As The Sunday Times analysis reveals, these three hotels are just a fraction of the 442 UK assets now held by Chinese state-backed organizations, private firms, and individuals from China and Hong Kong. The value of these holdings has soared from £134 billion in 2021 to £190 billion in 2025, with about £51.3 billion directly linked to Chinese government entities.
The reach of Chinese investment in the UK extends far beyond hotels. The China Investment Corporation (CIC), Beijing’s sovereign wealth fund, owns 8.7 percent of Heathrow Airport and significant stakes in Thames Water and Cadent Gas. The state-owned China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) holds nearly 27.4 percent of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, one of the UK’s most critical energy projects. Meanwhile, Chinese interests have snapped up 28 independent schools—including the historic Ruthin School in Wales and Plymouth College, alma mater of Olympic diver Tom Daley—alongside a giant warehouse group and a major developer of university accommodation. Even iconic London landmarks such as the Leadenhall Building and the "Walkie Talkie" skyscraper are now owned or partially owned by Chinese investors.
One of the more controversial findings in the IPAC audit, as reported by The Telegraph, is that Chinese companies are also behind the manufacture of most of the small rubber dinghies used by people smugglers ferrying migrants across the English Channel. The so-called "super dinghies" produced in China have dramatically increased the scale of crossings, with the average number of passengers per boat rising from seven in 2018 to 61 in 2025. The National Crime Agency confirmed in December 2024 that it had discussed with Beijing the possibility of restricting the export of Chinese-made outboard engines to disrupt smuggling operations. However, little progress has been made, and the number of illegal small boat arrivals in 2025 has already surpassed the total for the previous year.
The political ramifications of these revelations have been swift and severe. The Labour government, led by Sir Keir Starmer, has faced mounting criticism from opposition figures and security experts for what some see as a dangerously accommodating stance toward Beijing. Earlier this month, the government drew fire for allegedly blocking the prosecution of two suspected Chinese spies, reportedly to avoid jeopardizing diplomatic and economic ties. Shadow Home Secretary Dame Priti Patel was particularly outspoken, telling The Sunday Times and GB News: "Labour are bending over backwards to appease Beijing. Having wrecked our economy, they are now going begging abroad, putting our economic and national security up for sale to the highest bidder."
Patel's remarks echo growing unease within the intelligence community. Anne Keast-Butler, director of GCHQ, has described China as an "epoch-defining and systemic challenge" to the UK’s security, prosperity, and international order. During a recent debate in the House of Commons, Security Minister Dan Jarvis acknowledged the complexity of the UK’s relationship with China, stating, "Where we are able to co-operate economically where it is in our national interest to do so, we should proceed, but we should proceed with a clear set of principles that underpin that. Fundamentally, our national security comes first."
Yet, the economic incentives remain potent. Both Chancellor Rachel Reeves and former Foreign Secretary David Lammy have visited Beijing in the past year, seeking to attract new Chinese investment. The classified China audit completed by the government last year, parts of which informed the national security strategy published in June, remains under wraps. Meanwhile, the IPAC audit warns that trade with China is no longer a neutral or purely commercial matter, but a "strategic competition" with far-reaching implications for governance, technology, and national resilience.
The financial returns for Beijing are substantial. The state’s investments in the UK, from logistics companies like Logicor to blue-chip shares in Shell, BP, Rio Tinto, and AstraZeneca, have delivered hundreds of millions of pounds in dividends and capital growth. According to Susan Baldry, managing director of Argus Vickers, "Our analysis of shareholder registers shows that shares worth at least £92 billion are now owned by China or Hong Kong-based investors. However, the real number may be even higher." She notes that a lack of transparency in ownership registers could obscure the true scale of Chinese influence, a point that has also alarmed national security experts.
Beyond the numbers, the debate has exposed a deeper tension in UK policy: the balance between economic openness and the imperative to safeguard national interests. As Evan Fowler of IPAC put it, "It is wrong to presume that China presents a choice between security and economic opportunity. China understands governments need to prioritize security. Weakness isn’t a sign of trust or friendship, but naivety." The challenge for Britain, as the IPAC report concludes, is to maintain relevance as a global trading nation while protecting its own resilience at home.
As the government weighs its next steps, the controversy over Chinese-owned migrant hotels and broader economic entanglements with Beijing has become a litmus test for how the UK manages foreign influence in an era of strategic competition. With the stakes so high—and the profits so vast—the outcome of this debate will shape Britain’s future for years to come.
