But not safe enough to be allowed near sensitive locations such as nuclear sites and military base is the announcement of who always continued role in five G was made after a meeting with Cabinet ministers and security chiefs.

So will there be a diplomatic clash with the United States on could Tory MPs rebel over the matter?

Our political editor, Gary Gibbon, is in Westminster now.

Gary, you'll remember one of the slogans that Boris Johnson repeated a lot in that election in December was full fibre broadband.

He wanted faster connectivity, which he thought would contribute to economic growth, which would allow him the money he wanted to spend on certain goodies.

Well, if he pulled away completely out of the equation on five G there so embedded in there, it would have quite serious implications for that entire program costs delays, the restrictions has decided to go with on their involvement.

That probably brings as some significant cost and a little bit of delay, but nothing like what a complete ban would bring.

So that leaves him dealing with the United States.

We heard bloodcurdling language from some supporters of Donald Trump today who, along with the president himself, have been saying that there should be no involvement of whywe whatsoever in five G in this country.

We haven't actually heard from Donald Trump himself yet, but bated breath, we might yet, and, as you said, Tory MPs, some of them not all of them, but some of them political bed foes from the Brexit crisis with alongside Boris Johnson back then have been raising their voices with their concerns about while way having anything to do with five g.

Or at the very least, they want to see a past way for it to be removed completely.

They're not confident they've seen that he has a massive majority, of course, but he needs to pass a law to get this restriction on the market into statute.

And right now you have to say amazingly with that whopping majority, a few of his parliamentary number crunches or a bit edgy, the United States said Britain shouldn't let Weiwei anywhere near its five g network.

It's already well embedded.

We've gone too deep to turn back one white all source said.

And they're too good.

The National Security Council agreed to let go away be part of the U.

K's five G development, reined it in at 35% market share.

Do you think why we should allowed to build our five g network, Mr.

Wallace, at a meeting of the National Security Council this morning, critics like the defense secretary signed up to the policy.

Do you think it's dangerous to let while we build our five G network?

Mr.

Wallace, right?

Decision collectively in the Commons for the first time since the election, the people who used to cause trouble alongside Boris Johnson were causing trouble for him and say, Yes, I do think what we should be banned from our networks.

It was founded by a member of the P L.

A.

Even if even if we're not, you know, off Chinese government.

2017 Law requires a construction from the Chinese intelligence Agency.

Does he now believe that China is a threat to us in cyber security?

And Willie Guarantee that as he takes on those threats to us, does he think that he will now Dr Weil, way out of our future systems progressively as quickly as he can.

I think my right on the friend in Duncan, Smith heckled his old Brexit ally, the foreign secretary.

Critics of the decision worry that a company that can take orders from the Chinese government could construct back doors into five G technology it could disrupt or crash systems.

Five G means faster downloads on equipment like phones or computers.

It speeds up response time and reliability.

You can get more storage capacity and access it quicker.

But five G also gives the scope for much more real time data exchanges between, say, driverless cars, fridges, monitoring their contents and smart factories that could start running themselves.

The government's decided to restrict y away from sensitive parts of the five g network and from sensitive areas like nuclear weapons or energy sites.

Restricting market share means some companies already exceeding that with their faraway equipment will have to strip it out if they want to buy new a kit.

Having to rip out wall way entirely would cost them hundreds of millions of pounds, so any change will involve some kind of financial impact For them.

Way did some research, which looked a 50% restriction of far away across Britain, and we found that probably would result in something like an 18 months delay to the launch of five G and as much as £4.5 billion hit thio economic development.

As a result, it will work with other vendors in the UK Thio.

Make sure there's diversity in the market.

On dhe.

We're happy with the business that we've been given.

Are you happy about the value of a company makes the Bridges State said nervous well with IV's today because the UK government has accepted us into with the UK network on, ahem, do in and limited you banned you from core networks, banned you from sensitive areas, continuing the need to examine all your equipment for security reasons.

So there are a number of mitigations in place on dhe it.

We're comfortable with those.

We've been working with the U K government for 15 years now.

Allies of President Trump attacked the decision.

Congresswoman Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice president, said by allowing her way into the u.

K five g network, Boris Johnson has chosen the surveillance state over the special relationship.

Senator Mitt Romney, former Republican presidential candidate, said.

By prioritizing costs, the U.

K is sacrificing national security and inviting the Chinese Communist Party surveillance state in spoon.

Some argue the U.

S is suffering a Sputnik moment, an echo of 1957 when United States discovered the communist Soviet Union beating it in the space race.

Any mail, our out echoes of that fear today, as United States falls behind China's lead in cyberspace, something white all think it's that worry, not hard evidence of China's dark intent that is driving the U.

S.

They doubt United States threats to restrict intelligence sharing of the UK I don't think that the voices that we've heard in the British debate from Washington represent the American intelligence community.

I think they are mostly political people around the administration, the White House.

But that relationship between the two intelligence communities is so deep on dhe so trusting, so important to both sides, I don't think that that is going to be threatened.

G C H q of categorically confirmed that how we construct our five G in full fiber public telecoms network has nothing to do with how we share classified data and the U K's technical security experts have agreed that the new controls on hiring vendors are completely consistent with the UK security needs.

The government here says the answer is to build up Western rival's toe.

Haraway something.

Boris Johnson told President Trump my phone this afternoon, catching up China on five G.

He's not going to be easy or cheap.

Joining me now from the House of Commons is the Labour MP Kevin Jones, who has served on the Intelligence and Security Committee and is hoping to be reappointed to that and Tom to get heart, who was chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on, is also hoping to be re elected to that Tom Chicken heart.

When the security Service's and former national security advisers are sure that this is all fine, why are you so sure that it's a mistake?

Well, I think that's a real problem with well, way that is nothing to do with the United States or nothing to do with Australia, but is everything to do with the way this Chinese company is structured on.

Indeed, the government itself recognizes that after all, that's why the government described it as a high risk vendor there's no reason to describe it is a high risk vendor if you don't think it is one.

But it fails all eight tests that the government set out.

And so the government clearly is concerned.

And that's why I support very much the government's efforts that it's made in order to identify high risk vendors in recent months.

But I'm very, very keen that the plan outlined today is not a target of 35% but merely a way point of 35% on the way to a target of zero.

Kevin Jones.

If there is a high risk from who are way limiting it to 35% is not really going to eliminate that risk, is it?

Well, no.

Because if you look at the evidence, which produced by G.

C H Q and was provided to the Internal Security Committee, what risk there is can be mitigated.

The nonsense has been toting about, for example, that it will be able to get involved in the five hours skewer networks just rubbish.

What we need to do here is actually look at the facts.

The facts are is that scoots service's have done a very detailed, intensive investigation into this, and I think the assurance that, given our robust Tom Signal, well, I'm sure Kevin is absolutely right that the ability to get into our secure communications systems is zero.

But that isn't the point for this system.

This system is based on the five G system.

Figure me is based on the idea that many different items will communicate together, creating much more data than is available now from, you know, autonomous vehicles to crack any any number of different items that sort of communicate together through the five G network.

And so the key is here to look at the reality that the court on edge distinction are being eroded.

And that's why I'm absolutely adamant that the government, as it has announced it so far, is welcome progress on the existing situation.

But I'm very keen to see this going to zero, not just a 35% but what you afraid that China would do well.

We've already seen what China has done.

It's not a question of being afraid of.

What it might do is what it has done.

If you look at, for example, the African Union Ethiopia, that has been sending packets of data system Shenzhen between midnight and two in the morning from faraway systems, the same in Uganda.

We've got reports off hick vision using quite way technology, sending information from Tanzania.

And we know that hick vision and hallway are both integral to the police state that is seeing Zhang, where some 1,000,000 also week of Muslims are already in detention.

So it's we know that while WAY is part of the security state in China on dhe, we know that this is causing concern even for example, to the Communist Vietnamese.

So although I am absolutely confident that G c h Q r right that they can mitigate their, the challenge is immediately.

I think it's very interesting that it was the M I five chief and not six or G C H Q.

Who came out to argue that all this was fine?

Kevin Jones isn't that you believe that the opposition to our way is really more to do with on American trade war, of which Britain is not part.

Now.

There's two issues like the examples that Tom gave, you know, compared like with like in the U.

K.

It's not just a security service is that could intercept any intercepts, but also the vendors, the Bt's, the Vodafone's this world as well.

But the rial stark contrast here is, is that we have a system which has bean describe this afternoon the market failure it's not.

It's actually a country which is made of aggressive attempt to dominate this technology on where we're lacking in the West.

I know certain in this country is the technology on investment that's needed in this this'll area of technology that is market failing.

It's not market failure.

It's saying that we've actually turned a blind eye to the fact that the Chinese have invested billions of dollars in research on development on and actually quite technologies from the West.

On what I asked this afternoon with what percentage of monies the government gonna put into R and D And also, are they going to stop, for example, Chinese companies acquiring UK based technologies that they don't do those two things?

The idea of providing a new system is not gonna happen.

I'm taking a lot of your colleagues are very concerned about.

I mean, do you think the legislation that needs to be put through could be amended.

Well, look, I think Kevin's absolutely right that the investment that needs to go into the five d technology this has been a failure of regulation of failure, investments since 2003 and perhaps even longer.

So this is This is not a partisan issue.

And indeed, in like in the United States, this is not a partisan issue.

What we need to do is we need to secure our own crown jewels and technology here.

We need to make sure we work with our five ice partners to create systems that actually really do work for all of us.

And we need to make sure that we get those high risk vendors out of our system as quickly as possible.

Now, I do think you could change the decision.

I mean, this'll isn't the end of it.

Well, I'm looking forward to seeing what the bill is that comes forward.

The former secretary announced that there was a bill coming forward very soon, and I'm very much looking forward to seeing it.

I'm very much looking forward to working with the government who has made real progress here on the existing situation.

I mean, let's let's recognize progress where it is on.

That's what this government has done.

But I think there's a There's a lot further to go because the reality is if you have high risk vendors, as the government calls them in your system, then you've really got to be looking at ways to get them out.