UK Telecommunications

Digital connectivity is crucial in modern life, but the UK must secure its telecoms networks. Recent US sanctions on Huawei have led the Government to advise against new Huawei equipment from the end of 2021 and mandate a full removal by 2027. This decision will delay and increase costs for the roll-out of 5G technology.

Responds to the Labour party's criticism by stating that a bill will be introduced in autumn, outlining security measures and working with other countries. Acknowledges previous reliance on Huawei but emphasises the importance of diversification and security.

Welcomes the statement's content but questions how to ensure future-proofing in digital infrastructure, seeking assurances that this decision cannot be reversed by a future government.

Critiques the Government for indecision and delay, noting earlier warnings against trusting Huawei. Asks how the Prime Minister's view changed from January to July and seeks details on protecting 999 emergency services network.

Clark raises concerns about reliance on just two companies for mobile telecommunication equipment, questioning whether the UK can develop new supply chain capacity within this Parliament.

Huq criticises previous government decisions regarding China, suggesting inconsistency in dealing with Huawei and export controls. She questions why telecommunications spyware can be exported to certain countries despite national security concerns.

Ghani expresses concern over human rights abuses against the Uyghur in Xinjiang province and asks about incentives for domestic telecoms equipment supply capabilities to ensure home-grown alternatives.

McCabe questions why it is safe for Chinese tech companies, such as Huawei, to participate in nuclear power station construction while being banned from telecommunications infrastructure due to national security concerns.

Mangnall welcomes the government's decision and urges for a review of human rights violations linked to Huawei. He asks if the 2027 date can be brought forward.

Cooper supports the decision on grounds of national security, human rights, and industrial strategy. She queries whether government investment in open RAN is a viable solution to mitigate risks from relying on just two vendors.

Drummond welcomes the statement and seeks commitment for further financial support for research and development to enable UK telecommunications industry growth.

Flynn inquires about when 5G will be completed across the UK, noting potential delays due to the ban on Huawei's equipment.

Jones discusses recent aggressive Chinese posture against Australia and India, urging Oliver Dowden to confirm if threats from China support the decision made today regarding national security interests.

Gwynne questions about measures being taken to avoid increasing digital divide due to removal of Huawei from 5G infrastructure. He also asks about conversations with local authorities regarding planned infrastructure work.

Asked the Secretary of State to assure the House that everything possible is being done to mitigate and manage the risk resulting from Huawei’s continued involvement in UK telecoms infrastructure.

Stated that measures have been put in place to cap and exclude risks associated with Huawei, aiming for zero presence by 2027. Emphasised the importance of working on security risks through GCHQ's Huawei Evaluation Centre.

Inquired about the D10 alliance, questioning if it has been established and whether there is unity in purpose among its members regarding the decision on Huawei.

Asked what measures the Government could take to promote domestic manufacturing of mobile telephony components, which could potentially lead to job creation and technological advancement.

Critiqued the Government's strategy on mobile telephony as ineffective and predicted. Called for a more definitive timeline towards Huawei's removal from networks by 2027.

Welcomed the announcement while cautioning that repercussions might follow from China and urged for a broader strategic foreign policy reset in response to Chinese ambitions.

Expressed concerns about signal blackouts due to the rapid removal of Huawei equipment, seeking assurances that this would not affect network infrastructure adversely.

Complimented the Government's willingness to take tough decisions based on national interests. Suggested the action sends a clear message about trust in future relations with China.

Characterised the decision as a humiliating U-turn, questioning the economic and financial damage caused by not taking timely action against Huawei's presence.

Asked about the impact of this decision on rural network improvement plans in Derbyshire and elsewhere.

Inquired into how much of the additional money spent would go to UK companies and how many jobs would be created, especially across regions like Warrington.

Suggested that while this decision was a balancing act between security, economics, and geopolitics, it is important for Britain to maintain working relationships with China where beneficial.

Asked about the consequences of breaching manifesto promises to roll out 5G and inquired about discussions with Scotland regarding these decisions.

Discussed ongoing conversations with devolved nations, highlighted the success of the shared rural network deal which improved connectivity to over 90% coverage in Scotland. Emphasised the importance of security implications and bringing forward a telecoms security Bill.

Welcomed the statement and urged for serious consideration of the Staffordshire proposal for a 5G connected region growth deal, which would establish both a regional commercial network and a wide-area test- and-innovation network.

Asked why decisive action against Huawei had taken so long despite being considered high-risk by three Prime Ministers. Inquired about security implications of manufacturing parts in China.

Welcomed the Government's decision to put national security ahead of profit and asked for reassurance on rolling out a 5G network with credible, trustworthy partners. Noted that future technology would involve more software than hardware.

Asked if the Government was to blame for reliance on too few vendors globally and in the UK just half a year ago.

Inquired about guarantees that other western countries would align with Britain's decision, ensuring Huawei’s influence is completely removed from networks.

Pointed out the contradiction between previous announcements and current U-turn on Huawei’s role in 5G. Inquired about mitigating risks posed by Huawei's presence in EE’s 4G core network.

Noted that US sanctions had changed the landscape, agreed on ensuring overall network security rather than focusing solely on Huawei. Suggested a telecoms security Bill to address vulnerabilities.

Highlighted human rights issues related to Huawei's contracts in China and questioned the absence of due diligence on these matters.

Asked about consistency as a long-term reliable partner and its impact on Britain’s place globally post-Brexit, questioned the message sent by this change in policy.

Welcomed eradication of Huawei from 5G but suggested quicker execution. Questioned contradictions between allowing Huawei to continue in 4G/3G while being banned from 5G, and raised issues with Huawei's compliance under the Modern Slavery Act.

Welcomed the statement but noted existing cyber security risks highlighted in the report of the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre Oversight Board, asked how these would be addressed before 2027.

The Minister emphasised the Government's approach to addressing security concerns in telecoms networks. He stated that they will ban procurement from Huawei from January and further restrict by 2027, shifting responsibility from network operators to the government through new legislation. The telecoms security Bill would address security issues more directly than previous measures.

The Member questioned whether the issue was with Huawei's hardware or software, suggesting that open-source software could be mandated in 5G networks as an alternative to proprietary software, highlighting transparency and security concerns.

He raised doubts about the difficulty of replacing telecoms equipment, asking if technical consultations would distinguish between tasks industry representatives prefer not to do and those genuinely impossible. He suggested pushing for clarity on this issue.

Welcoming the decision but cautioning against myopia, he questioned whether Huawei's influence in other critical infrastructure sectors like academia would be addressed through a broader strategy beyond telecoms security measures.

Adding his voice to welcome the decision for national security reasons, he sought assurances that the shared rural network project could be expedited given its importance to many constituents in rural areas lacking reliable mobile signals.

He criticised the government's approach as being under US influence and noted previous government silence on human rights issues. He questioned if Huawei would remain banned should the US change stance and challenged the Minister to address broader risks like components from China used by other vendors.

Welcoming much of what the minister said, he expressed concern over a seven-year timetable for removing Huawei, suggesting that high-risk vendors should not be in critical national infrastructure due to various reasons including economic, security and geopolitical factors.