← Back to House of Commons Debates
UK Telecommunications
28 January 2020
Lead MP
Dominic Raab
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
Foreign AffairsScience & TechnologyBusiness & Trade
Other Contributors: 47
At a Glance
Dominic Raab raised concerns about uk telecommunications in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The Government are committed to securing nationwide coverage of gigabit-capable broadband by 2025, and they have undertaken a comprehensive review of the supply arrangements for 5G and full-fibre networks. The telecoms supply chain review highlighted various risks such as espionage, sabotage, and destructive cyber-attacks. GCHQ’s National Cyber Security Centre has provided detailed analysis on network security and resilience. As a result, the Government are establishing one of the strongest regimes for telecoms security globally to raise standards across all UK operators and vendors, with plans to legislate at the earliest opportunity.
Dominic Raab
Con
Eddisbury
The review concluded that high-risk vendors should be excluded from safety-related and security-critical network functions in critical national infrastructure; limited to a minority presence up to 35% in other network functions, with tight restrictions. The Government will legislate to limit the presence of these vendors in UK networks, expecting their market share to reduce over time as diversification takes place.
Torfaen
I am pleased that the Government have finally set out the conclusions of the telecoms supply chain review in relation to high-risk offenders after far too long a period of dither and delay. A decision was required urgently so that everyone concerned can move forward. Our telecoms sector, businesses and households need clarity and certainty to move forward; leaks, rumour and confusion on this simply cannot continue. The safety and security of our critical national infrastructure is crucial... 5G will shape the economy of the future. Innovative technologies of the future rely on its development, and it must progress speedily. The Government’s original announcement that the UK would be a global leader in 5G was back in 2017. The Government also set a target of the majority of the population being covered by a 5G signal by 2027. In his statement, the Foreign Secretary committed to securing national coverage of gigabit-capable broadband by 2025. Those targets have to be met.
Dominic Raab
15:08:00
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the considered questions he raises. He is right to do so. We have looked at this issue very carefully... As I set out in the statement, the Government recognise the imperative to diversify supply. That will involve UK operators making sure that more challengers can come into the market place. It could well involve—this is something we will want to look at—international co-operation with like-minded, close partners, so that we avoid ever having that shortfall of competition and diversity of supply in this country... The initial approach will be through guidance, as I explained in my statement. We are committed to bringing forward legislation as soon as possible, but we will make sure we have the robust enforcement to go with the rigorous regime that I set out.
Theresa May
15:08:00
I commend the Government for taking a decision that protects our national security but also recognises the interests of our economy. That is right for the UK, because it recognises the construction of our networks and our capabilities, and gives us the toughest regime in the world... Does he agree that it is essential that our Five Eyes partners—all our Five Eyes allies—be willing to work with us and other like-minded countries to ensure the market diversification that is in all our interests in the long term?
John Nicolson
SNP
Ochil and South Perthshire
The Conservative party's decision to allow Huawei in the periphery of the 5G network is a result of short-termism and under-investment, prioritising low cost over security. This decision is criticised for being weak and unsafe given Chinese law mandating companies to cooperate with intelligence services.
Dominic Raab
Con
Eton and Southbury
The Secretary of State defends the government's decision as a result of thorough analysis, including telecoms supply chain review and security analysis by the National Cyber Security Centre. He argues that an outright ban on Huawei would not address security concerns effectively and would increase costs and delay 5G roll-out.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Questions if Huawei should be regarded as a private company given its links to the Chinese Communist state, asking for reassurances about safeguards against potential security threats from such an entity.
Kevan Jones
Lab
Durham
Welcomes the statement but asks for clarity on government plans regarding R&D investment and acquisition regulations for companies in the sector to mitigate Chinese influence.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
Advocates for a ban of Huawei from UK networks due to its ties with the People’s Liberation Army and the 2017 law requiring it to take instructions from Chinese intelligence.
Chi Onwurah
Lab
Newcastle upon Tyne Central
Critiques the statement for lacking detail, focusing on short-termism. Asks for guarantees that Huawei equipment can be swapped out and what is being done to support British telecoms equipment manufacturers.
Penny Mordaunt
Con
Havant
Regrets the decision due to its implications on discouraging companies not operating under international norms. Agrees that measures must be taken to prevent similar situations in future.
Daisy Cooper
Lib Dem
St Albans
Questions the distinction between core and periphery of the network, highlighting concerns regarding radio masts used for emergency services and search and rescue operations.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Deeply disappointed by the decision to allow Huawei a role in UK's future systems, questioning if China is now seen as a cyber-security threat.
Pat McFadden
Lab
Wolverhampton South East
Asked whether US administration linked trade deal potential with UK’s decision on Huawei.
Welcomed the statement balancing technological advantages and security challenges, highlighting collaboration with Five Eyes partners.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Concerned that the decision will strengthen Huawei's grip on the market, making it harder for competitors to enter.
Questioned how security can be guaranteed when software is updatable and technology evolves daily.
Expressed worry about the risk Huawei presents to national security, given its association with Chinese Communist Party.
Liam Fox
Con
Asked whether anxiety in Washington is primarily about Britain's ability to mitigate risks or giving a green light to others.
Matt Western
Lab
Warwick and Leamington
Inquired why the UK cannot develop its own network like Vietnam, instead of relying on high-risk vendors.
Asked for confirmation that Parliament will have a role in defining high-risk and non-high-risk vendors.
Barry Sheerman
Lab
Huddersfield
Expressed concern over Huawei’s access to university research and businesses, potentially leading to intellectual property theft.
Thomas Tugendhat
Con
Tonbridge
Asked for clarity on the 35% restriction—whether it applies to new or existing market share.
Dominic Raab
15:08:00
Acknowledged the 35% market share cap for Huawei, emphasising the need to diversify supply from trusted companies. He stated that this decision will enhance national security and infrastructure resilience.
Mark Hendrick
Lab Co-op
Preston
Congratulated the Government on their decision, believing it enhances digital infrastructure without compromising security. Supported 5G networks' benefits for businesses and individuals while avoiding a trade war with China.
Complimented Raab's serious approach to the issue and urged the Intelligence and Security Committee to review the decision properly, stressing the importance of reciprocity in relations with China.
Asked how the 35% rule will be managed over time as technology evolves.
Acknowledged a question that had already been asked by another member, without providing additional details.
Inquired about the use of Huawei’s technology in China and whether it involves any clandestine services.
Questioned the Government's decision to allow a high-risk vendor like Huawei, expressing concern over network resilience and integrity.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Emphasised the importance of not being distracted by one supplier and protecting supply networks from any vendors based on security considerations.
Justin Madders
Lab
Ellesmere Port and Bromborough
Asked about protections for sensitive data given that Huawei is deemed high-risk.
Referenced the oversight board’s criticism of Huawei's network issues in the UK, questioning whether there are credible plans to remedy them.
Critiqued the decision as a dangerous pact with the Chinese Communist Party and suggested that regulatory measures should precede allowing high-risk vendors like Huawei into 5G networks.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
Questioned whether there will be a review of strategic national failures leading to the current situation with Huawei.
Andrew Griffith
Con
Arundel and South Downs
Suggested phasing the introduction of the share cap over several years to allow industry time to respond.
Dominic Raab
Con
Emphasised the need for a swift response to security and investment challenges, proposed a phased approach with a cap on Huawei's involvement at 35%, aiming to diversify supply over time.
Steve Brine
Con
Questioned the feasibility of easing out high-risk vendors like Huawei due to market failure and raised concerns about future reliance on such vendors.
James Cartlidge
Con
South Suffolk
Highlighted the potential productivity gains from early adoption of 5G, questioning the impact of a delayed roll-out due to security concerns.
Damian Green
Con
Pressed for an explanation behind the specific cap on Huawei's involvement and questioned the timescale for reducing reliance on high-risk vendors.
Simon Jupp
Con
Asked about potential trade retaliation by China in response to a decision to ban Huawei outright, raising concerns over international relations.
Richard Drax
Con
Expressed confusion and concern over the decision, arguing that it undermines national security given the nature of 5G technology.
Asked for reassurances regarding the safety and security of digital infrastructure in rural areas as part of the roll-out plan.
Proposed that Huawei should bear costs associated with breaches of national security, advocating for strict contractual obligations.
Alun Cairns
Con
Inquired about the political fallout from the decision and its impact on international relations with key allies and partners.
North Cotswolds
Suggested a government information campaign to address fears among constituents regarding technical oversight and regulatory powers.
Rob Butler
Con
Asked for assurance that the Government prioritises national security based on advice from security services, particularly concerning critical infrastructure.
Government Response
I thank my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the assiduous and rigorous work done under her leadership and by her Government, which has made possible the decision that we make today. I can confirm that, in her words, there will be no impact on intelligence. Defends decision based on thorough analysis by intelligence agencies. Argues against an outright ban due to its ineffectiveness in addressing security concerns, impact on competition, costs, and delays. Emphasised the Government's focus on security risks from China and Russia, stating that a ban is too blunt a tool. Assured that restrictions are in place for Huawei, balancing resilience with diversity.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.