Boris Johnson’s decision on Huawei is not final, and quite rightly so

The Conservative rearguard action against Huawei, the Chinese tech company, is being fought vigorously. Senior Tory MPs, led by Sir Iain Duncan Smith and Tobias Ellwood, the Conservative chair of the defence select committee, warn that we in the UK are “turning out to be the mugs in this game”, as we report today.

It is interesting that these MPs – Damian Green, David Davis, Owen Paterson and Bob Seely are the other names on a letter to all Conservative members of parliament – do not regard the decision of the National Security Council (NSC) at the end of last month as final.

These senior parliamentarians believe that a large majority in the House of Commons can still be overturned by determined lobbying if they can make a strong enough case. So let us revisit the arguments that we assumed were closed when the NSC endorsed the prime minister’s decision to allow Huawei to bid for up to 35 per cent of contracts for non-core parts of the 5G network.

To simplify, we believe there are three arguments in favour of giving Huawei the go-ahead to help build 5G, which offers broadband speeds on wireless technology. The first is that Huawei has the expertise and capacity to help build the network sooner than any other big company. For Boris Johnson it is important that the UK be at the forefront of the new system, and blocking Huawei altogether would slow us down in the race to be first.

The second is that Mr Johnson does not want to get into a trade war with China. In his speech last week lauding the benefits of free trade, he railed against protectionism. Denying Chinese companies access to the UK economy is likely to provoke retaliation from the Beijing government, regardless of the risk that Huawei might act as an agent of the Chinese state.

And the third is that Mr Johnson and the NSC were satisfied by the view of the security services that any risk to the 5G network could be “contained”.

It is on this last front that The Independent believes the case for Huawei is weakest. The intelligence agencies have not always covered themselves in glory, and a properly sceptical politician ought to err on the side of caution in interpreting their advice.

No doubt the prime minister thinks he has done so by confining Huawei to non-core elements of the project, and capping its total involvement at 35 per cent. But that ought to invite doubts about whether other companies would be just as capable of delivering less sensitive parts of the system.

We are not convinced that Sir Iain is the best spokesperson for the group, in that his pro-Brexit views seem to contain a strong element of isolationist British nationalism, but he and his colleagues are right to continue to ask awkward questions about a questionable decision.

Mr Johnson’s 80-seat majority in the Commons ought not to protect him from rigorous and continuing parliamentary scrutiny.