Journalists’ role is to give readers insight into corridors of power

As the journalist who first reported on Theresa May’s decision to give Huawei the green light to help build Britain’s 5G network, I am acutely aware of the political repercussions.

The involvement of Huawei in supplying technology for Britain’s 5G infrastructure is undeniably a matter of huge public interest.

It is a decision that has already led to bitter divides between ministers and MPS on all sides of the Commons and has the potential to open a rift between Britain and its most significant ally – the US.

The technology itself is potentially revolutionary and could transform our everyday lives. It is likely to underpin radical changes to both public services and the private sector, ushering in

everything from driverless cars and telemedicine to automated manufacturing.

So the idea that a Chinese telecoms giant could play a role in building a network that has been billed as the future of the internet matters.

To critics, the involvement of a Chinese company has the potential to undermine trust with other members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance and jeopardise national security.

The US has argued that Huawei is legally obliged to cooperate with the Chinese government and its intelligence agencies.

Rob Joyce, an adviser to the National Security Agency, has suggested it is the equivalent of handing Beijing a “loaded gun”.

Britain, however, takes a markedly different tone. Jeremy Wright, the Culture Secretary, said yesterday that Chinese equipment is likely to play a role in building the 5G network come what may, whether through Huawei or one of its rivals.

Philip Hammond, the Chancellor – and a member of the National Security Council (NSC) – argued on Tuesday that Huawei should be considered because it is cheaper than its rivals, as long as the security risks are contained. The NSC concluded that Huawei could supply technology for “non-core” aspects of the new telecoms network such as antennae.

It is not a distinction that Robert Strayer, a top cyber security official at the US state department accepts. He has made clear that America does not consider there is any “relevant” difference between the “core” and the “edge” of the network.

So here we have a decision that has huge implications for Britain’s national security, for the special relationship and for future governments.

This is an issue of significant importance for the UK’S future, and one that The Daily Telegraph believes should be subject to public debate and scrutiny – especially before it is finalised.

It is the fundamental role of political journalists is to give their readers an insight into what goes on behind closed doors in the corridors of power, and inform them of decisions that will affect their lives.