Theresa May has backed a decision to give Huawei a 'non-core' role in the UK's 5G development

Speaking at a conference in Brussels in February, the head of the UK's National Cyber Security Centre had this opening gambit: "The first thing to say is that 5G is complicated."

The ultimate message that ran through Ciaran Martin's speech was that when it comes to the introduction of a new telecommunications network, there is no perfect option - risk is unavoidable.

The only real question, he argued, was how you mitigate that risk against the challenges of "complex technical functions, a complex global threat environment, and a complex global market".

It seems Mr Martin's outlook is one the prime minister agrees with.

Whitehall sources have confirmed that despite heavy lobbying from the US and Australia, as well as concerns from some ministers within her cabinet, Theresa May's National Security Council has granted the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei restricted access to building some "non-core" parts of the UK's new 5G network.


The decision has the potential to strain relationships between the Five Eyes alliance of intelligence agencies, of which the UK is a part alongside the US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

The US in particular argues that Huawei, as a Chinese company, is legally obliged to co-operate with state intelligence agencies, and that granting it a role in building digital infrastructure creates an increased risk of espionage that threatens the whole alliance.

Such a view has had resonance in some quarters in Westminster.

Image: It is reported home secretary Sajid Javid opposed the decision, along with several senior cabinet colleagues

Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the foreign affairs select committee, responded to the National Security Council's decision on social media saying it would "cause allies to doubt our ability to keep data secure and erode the trust essential to #FiveEyes cooperation. There's a reason others have said no".

According to the Daily Telegraph, Home Secretary Sajid Javid, Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson and International Trade Secretary Liam Fox were among those who raised concerns during Tuesday's meeting.

So why would a prime minister, who has made combating online "malign state activity" one of the key planks of her foreign policy agenda, back a decision that some argue would leave the country vulnerable to precisely that?

The answer might lie in the value Mrs May, who was of course one of the UK's longest serving home secretaries, places on the advice of so-called 'securocrats'.

Most notably, in recent months she promoted her national security adviser Sir Mark Sedwill, who was previously her permanent secretary at the Home Office, to the position of cabinet secretary - the head of the Civil Service.

That's why, despite the diplomatic and ministerial pressure, the assessments provided by her own domestic intelligence chiefs should be assumed to carry significant weight. So it's worth returning to Ciaran Martin's speech in Brussels, because it contained a significant number of indications that this was where things were heading.

In it he points out that Huawei has had a presence in the UK for more than 15 years, and for a decade has been signed up to a "formally agreed mitigation strategy", which he claims, creates the "toughest and most rigorous oversight regime in the world".

He argues further that this oversight is already leading to Huawei making improvements to some of its systems to improve security, at the request of the UK.

Image: Sir Mark Sedwill is one of the so-called 'securocrats' whose advice Mrs May followed

Mr Martin also gives the example of Russia, claiming the fact there is no Russian technology embedded in the UK telecommunications network did not prevent a successful attack being carried out.

But ultimately, he concludes, no network can be totally safe - the key is acknowledging the potential for any infrastructure supplier to be compromised, and designing a system to ensure any such compromise cannot "cause catastrophic national harm".

In other words, if there is no perfect option, go for the best market value - which Huawei likely offers.

Critics will say anything that even remotely increases the chance that a state like China could compromise the UK's critical national infrastructure - regardless of whether there is currently evidence of intent to do so - is akin to giving someone the keys to the backdoor of your house, but hoping they won't break in because there's a double-bolt on the front door.

The 'securocrats', however, seem to be saying it is not that simple, and so the decision to allow Huawei restricted access to build non-core digital infrastructure, but block the company from the most sensitive core parts of the network, is entirely in character for the prime minister.

If the assessment is 'it's complicated', and this extends to pretty much any political issue, Mrs May tends towards finding a solution that is something in the middle - what some might call a fudge.