his love of £95 ”sliders”, preparing for an economic statement, and with his wife, Akshata Murthy, at a reception at the British Museum last weekBeijing court forces Chinese
billionaire to hole up in UK
The billionaire behind one of
China’s biggest property
developments in the West is
holed up in London after a
Beijing court served him with
a travel ban and tough
spending restrictions over
unpaid debts.
Xu Weiping, the
businessman responsible for
developing the Royal Albert
Docks in east London, is also
embroiled in a legal dispute
in Britain after his former
finance director accused his
company of fraudulent
trading. He was staying in a
£5.5 million mansion in an
affluent suburb last week.
His company, Advanced
Business Park (ABP), was
awarded a controversial deal
to revive a stretch of
docklands by Boris Johnson
after Xu pledged to invest
£2 billion and create tens of
thousands of jobs, with Xi
Jinping, the Chinese
president, also throwing his
weight behind it. Johnson
said the deal would be the
jewel in the crown of Chinese
investment in Britain. The
project is on the brink of
financial collapse after Xu
failed to develop 93 per cent
of the 4.7 million sq ft site.
The biggest Chinese state-
owned conglomerate is suing
ABP over unpaid debt and
last week another bank called
in administrators to recover
its investment.
Last year, the Greater
London Authority (GLA)
triggered a clause causing
ABP to lose its ownership of
the site. It was transferred to
its parent company, a British
Virgin Islands entity owned
by Xu and his daughter. The
GLA says it is waiting to see if
Xu can revive the project and
has given him until March to
lay out his plans.
According to Chinese court
documents, Xu is subject to
wide-ranging restrictions on
his daily movements, having
failed to satisfy orders
demanding he repay debts to
four creditors. All brought
separate cases against him
last year and secured what
the Chinese judicial system
refers to as a “restriction on
high-level spending” order.
It means Xu is barred from
engaging in unnecessary
travel, buying or leasingproperty, sending his
children to private school or
visiting night clubs or golf
courses. He must apply to a
court if he wishes to be
temporarily exempt from any
of the restrictions. China
Justice Observer, a website for
the Chinese legal community,
says those subject to such
bans can expect to be barred
from foreign travel.
Xu, who holds a Seychelles
passport, is understood to
have left China last year.
Colleagues believed he had
done so by taking a train to
Hong Kong before flying to
London. A source said Xu was
in the UK on a visitor’s visa
and did not have any long-
term claim to residency.
Xu did not respond to
requests for comment or
clarify whether the debt
relates to his personal life or
business activities. He is
believed to be staying at aDocuments show he
submitted reports saying ABP
was insolvent and had no
right to trade or operate.
A judge said his disclosures
included “a criminal offence
of fraudulent trading due to
cashflow and/or balance
sheet insolvency, breach of
contractual obligations to pay
debts, breach of contractual
obligations to pay liabilities as
and when they fell due, and
wrongful trading due to
cashflow insolvency”.
In a court document, the
judge said Williams had met
the key legal threshold of
having a “pretty good
chance” of demonstrating he
genuinely believed there was
wrongful and fraudulent
trading at ABP. He was
awarded a six-figure payout.
The company could yet
appeal against the ruling.
ABP’s fate will reignite
scrutiny of the original deal
overseen by Johnson. At the
time it was agreed in 2013,
critics said the bidding
process was unorthodox and
saw two British developers
sidelined in favour of ABP,
which had completed only a
single development.
The London Assembly also
raised potential conflicts of
interest. The GLA, then
controlled by Johnson, had
rented office space from ABP
in Beijing, while ABP had
previously been advised by
Lady Xuelin Bates, a Tory
donor who has given
£206,000 to the party. Bates
advised Lord Wei, a Tory peer
serving as an aide to David
Cameron, then the prime
minister, helped fund his
office, and took him on a trip
to China part-funded by ABP.
Last week, it was revealed
that Johnson met Bates in the
run-up to the deal, while his
closest aide, Lord Udny-
Lister, had gone on to work
for a British developer,
Stanhope, which from the
outset of the procurement
process had been selected as
ABP’s local partner at Royal
Albert Court. Bates said she
was never remunerated for
her advice. Lister said he did
not discuss the docks project
with Stanhope.
It is unclear whether GLA
performed rigorous due
diligence on ABP or its parent
company, Dauphin Holdings,
co-owned by Xu and his
daughter. Last night, the GLA
said it had not been aware of
the legal cases against Xu. A
spokesman said: “Dauphin
Holdings must comply with
all of ABP’s outstanding
obligations and bring forward
the development of this site.”Su
nak also
held meet-
ings with 20
or 30 MPs about
whether to keep the
national insurance
rise, exposing those
demanding tax cuts to the
views of others who put balan-
cing the books first. “Lots of MPs
think they know what their col-
leagues think but were surprised to hear
different views. Rishi talks to everyone
and usually has a better sense of the cen-
tre of gravity than they do.”
There remain tensions with Johnson
on economic policy. Since last summer
Sunak has insisted that if Johnson wants
to spend, he would have to find the
money from somewhere other than bor-
rowing. That meant when Johnson
wanted £12 billion to reform social care in
July last year he had to agree to the rise in
national insurance. Both sides blamed
the other for the rise, since Sunak would
not
have
spent the
money and
Johnson would
have preferred to
just borrow.
With his premier-
ship in crisis the prime
minister hinted to MPs he
might ditch the national
insurance rise. Sunak spoke
privately to Johnson, making
clear that reneging on it would
make it much more difficult to cut
income tax before the next general
election. “His single focus now is on cut-
ting taxes for people as soon as possible,”
an aide said.
The next test of their relationship will
come if Johnson is served a fixed penalty
notice for breaking his own lockdown
rules. Privately many members of the
cabinet say he would have to resign. But
Johnson and his aides have made clear he
will not go willingly.
It has been speculated that Johnson
has sought to buy Sunak’s loyalty now ona promise of his backing for
the leadership later. Officials
in 10 and 11 Downing Street do
not buy this. It is not in Johnson’s
nature to openly discuss his demise,
nor in Sunak’s to believe such a pledge.
But only two people know for sure.
“They have a lot of discussion which Rish
never shares with us,” one of his Treasury
team said.
While he cannot be seen to plunge in
the knife, with Johnson’s position still in
peril Sunak does not have the luxury of
not preparing for a potential leadership
contest. As frontrunner he would have to
hit the ground running.
Truss plans to campaign for the leader-
ship by pledging to “axe the Rishi tax” on
national insurance. Sunak would stress
that it was he who had to make all the big
decisions during the pandemic and that it
was he, not her, who was a “conviction
Brexiteer” who supported the leave
campaign.
Some allies are confident Sunak could
beat Truss. They are more concerned
about a compromise candidate catching
light during the campaign, such as Nad-
him Zahawi. All around Sunak think he
would do a good job as prime minister,
their only doubts surround his willing-
ness to be ruthless in pursuit of the job.
“He is only focused on being chancellor,”
his spokeswoman said.
Some friends worry he is too slight in
stature, that his personal wealth would
become a target or that he can get too
emotional about politics. If he won, he
would run a very different government
from Johnson, but to win he might need
the ruthlessness embodied by his boss.
“Politics is a dirty business,” said one
Tory veteran of two other leadership
campaigns.
What everyone agrees is that Sunak is a
quick learner. On Friday he took his team
out to lunch at the Blue Boar restaurant in
Westminster. The chancellor’s choice: a
club sandwich stuffed with bacon.GABRIEL
POGRUND
Whitehall CorrespondentD
The PM
may have
tried to
buy his
loyalty
ILLUSTRATION: TONY BELLmansion in Winchmore Hill,
north London, which deeds
indicate he bought in 2010.
Last week, a woman at the
property said Xu was not
inside but was staying there.
Xu previously said he
remained dedicated to the
Royal Albert Docks and
would in due course fulfil his
pledge to create a “vibrant,
new international business
location”.
He faces legal action here
with one creditor suing him,
another appointing
administrators to recover
their losses and one of the
company’s most senior UK
employees suing it for
unlawful dismissal.
According to tribunal
records, Sam Williams, the
former finance director of
ABP, alleges he was sacked
after blowing the whistle on
financial misconduct.Xu Weiping bought a £5.5m
London home for cashThe Sunday Times February 13, 2022 19
House of Lords
is latest to say
no to Stonewall
after mother
of all rows
Government Equalities Office
and Ministry of Justice.
In November the BBC
dropped the scheme, saying
its membership had raised
questions about impartiality.
Tim Davie, the BBC
director-general, told staff it
was “unquestionable” that its
participation “has led some
organisations and individuals
to consider that the BBC
cannot be impartial when
reporting on public policy
debates where Stonewall is
taking an active,
campaigning, role”.
He added: “While I do not
think that our journalism has
been influenced by our
involvement in the Diversity
Champions programme, not
renewing our involvement is
the correct move at this time
to minimise the risk of
perceived bias and avoid any
perception that engagement
with the programme is
influencing our own decision-
making.”Stonewall said: “Our
Diversity Champions
programme provides
guidance and support on
making HR policies inclusive
for LGBTQ+ employees. It has
no bearing on the drafting of
legislation, which is the
responsibility of the relevant
government department. To
suggest otherwise is to
fundamentally
misunderstand the legislative
process.”
Stonewall says more than
900 organisations in the UK
have signed up to the
scheme, which it claims is
“the leading employers’
programme for ensuring all
LGBTQ+ staff are free to be
themselves in the
workplace”.
However, in recent months
large public organisations
have started to pull out,
including Ofcom, the media
watchdog, the Equality and
Human Rights Commission
and the Cabinet Office,of women being ‘erased’
when talking about
pregnancy, it is once again
trans men and non-binary
people that are erased. And
when not erased,
misgendered by people that
cannot bear to acknowledge
that we know our own sex/
gender better than they do.”
The House of Lords said
this week: “As part of the
wider Action on Inclusion
strategy, the House of Lords
has decided not to renew its
membership of the Stonewall
Diversity Champions
programme.
“This follows an
assessment of the costs and
benefits of the programme.”
A spokesman added that
the decision was taken in
consultation with equality
networks in parliament and
that the Lords “remains
passionately committed to
delivering a more inclusive
workplace for our LGBT+
colleagues”.The House of Lords has
abandoned a workplace
inclusivity programme run by
Stonewall following a row
about the use of gender-
neutral language in
legislation.
It has become the latest
organisation to pull out of the
charity’s Diversity
Champions programme
under which participants pay
for advice on creating a
supportive working
environment.
A spokesman for the Lords
said the decision followed an
assessment of the “costs and
benefits of the programme”.
However, it is understood
that peers lobbied Lord
McFall, the Speaker of the
House of Lords, and Simon
Burton, the chief clerk, to
leave the programme.
Concerns have been raised
about the LGBTQ+ charity’s
position on language. It has
previously told organisations
to replace the word “mother”with “parent who has given
birth”.
The government had
wanted to refer to “pregnant
people” rather than mothers
in its new maternity
legislation, which was fast-
tracked through parliament
to enable Suella Braverman,
the attorney-general who was
expecting her second child,
to take time off after the birth
without having to step down
as a minister.
The wording was changed
after it was rejected by the
Lords, with the government
conceding that “mother” was
acceptable, but some peers
raised concerns that it had
been there at all.
During the bill’s second
reading in February last year,
the Conservative peer
Baroness Noakes said the
phrasing contributed to “the
erasure of women in society”.
TransActual UK, a
transgender group, wrote on
Twitter: “Despite the claimsCAROLINE
WHEELER
Political EditorLegislation
was pushed
through to
aid Suella
Braverman