The official division list for the Huawei vote is now up.

Some 38 Tory MPs actively rebelled - two serving as tellers, and 36 voting against the government. That is 10 more than the number of Conservatives who signed the Iain Duncan Smith amendment that was put to the vote.

There were also 22 Tory MPs who did not vote. Most of those were probably authorised absences, but the list may include some MPs who were actively abstaining rather than supporting the government. There were 17 Labour MPs who did not vote.

Boris Johnson also had the support of the DUP in this vote, but only partially. Five of the DUP’s eight MPs voted with the government; the other three did not vote.

Last year the House of Commons became very good at releasing division lists quickly after votes took place. They were often available within 15 minutes or so. But today they have been hopeless - they’re “a bit rusty”, an official told me - and they are still not available on the Commons website.

But the New Statesman’s Stephen Bush has done us all a favour and compiled a list of the 38 Tory rebels. Here it is.

As well as a rebellion on Huawei, earlier today the government faced some – so far mild and very polite – objections to another area of policy from Jeremy Hunt, the former health secretary and rival to Boris Johnson for the Tory leadership.

At health questions in the Commons, Hunt, who has so far been pointedly loyal since returning to the backbenches, asked about post-Brexit plans for immigration, and how a preferential system for health workers does not apply for social care staff – something the sector is deeply worried about.

Addressing the new junior health and social care minister, Helen Whateley, Hunt said:

Can I congratulate the department on securing this NHS visa, but as the minister knows, it does not apply to nurses and care workers in the social care sector. What is the department’s assessment of the gap there will be in the social care workforce as a result of this new immigration policy, and how are discussions going with the Home Office and No 10 on that issue?

Whateley replied that she was “well aware” of concerns in the social care sector, but indicated the government was not about to shift. She said:

It’s important that employers are taking the steps that they can take to make sure that social care jobs are attractive, and of course should be well paid.

This is a row which could run.

Here is the Labour MP Toby Perkins on the Tory rebels.

This is from the Tory MP Tim Loughton, explaining why he voted against the government.

From the BBC’s Vicki Young

And this is from Bob Seely, who is one of the Tory rebels.

The Conservative MP Steve Baker, who is something of an expert in organising Tory backbench rebellions, but who did back the government over Huawei this afternoon, says he thinks the government will have to include a firm deadline for the exclusion of Huawei from 5G when it introduces its telecommunications security bill later this year.

As City AM’s Cat Neilan points out, the result means that, if another 12 Tory MPs were to change sides, then Boris Johnson would see his majority disappear completely.

This is from Labour’s Lucy Powell, who is missing the vote because her train has been held up.

Earlier during the debate Liam Fox, the Conservative former international trade secretary, made a speech attacking government policy on Huawei. He said he had not accept the government argument that it had to use Huawei to develop 5G. He explained:

This idea we must have Huawei because there are no other alternatives is also untrue.

The United States is going to get 5G without Huawei because they will not bring that risk into their own national security, so what is wrong with the United Kingdom having to wait a little longer to get 5G, but 5G that will give us security in the long-term, even if it means waiting that little bit longer ... So what if it costs us a little bit more?

The government has won the first vote, defeating a Labour amendment, by 343 to 242 - a majority of 101.

According to the Times’ Steven Swinford, Iain Duncan Smith will put his amendment to a vote.

The debate is now over, and MPs are voting on a technical Labour amendment that has nothing to do with Huawei. Voting will take about 15 minutes, and the government will almost certainly win.

Once that is over, Sir Iain Duncan Smith will get the chance to move his amendment. It is still not clear yet whether or not he will, but some of his colleagues certainly want him to. (See 3.09pm and 3.26pm.) They think the Oliver Dowden assurances did not go far enough.

Owen Paterson, the Tory former cabinet minister and one of the supporters of the Iain Duncan Smith amendment, is speaking now.

He says last week the government said it eventually wanted no Huawei involvement in 5G.

But today, he says, MPs wanted to hear how it would get there.

He says they needed to hear that there would be a point where there would be no high-risk vendors in the network. But he says the government is just talking about being able to get to a point where nobody “has to use” Huawei.

He says nobody has to use Huawei; they can always use other suppliers.

What is needed is a commitment to a date at which point there will be no high-risk vendors in the system, he says.

From my colleague Dan Sabbagh

Seely says, if MPs want to know what GCHQ thinks about Huawei, they should read what the Huawei oversight board says about the company. He quotes from the board saying it cannot give assurances about the safety of the company.

These are from the Sun’s Tom Newton Dunn on the Tory Huawei rebels.

In the debate Bob Seely, one of the Tory MPs most critical of Huawei, is speaking now.

He says in a Westminster Hall debate last week Matt Warman, the junior culture minister, was clear about how the government wanted to eventually end Huawei’s involvement in 5G. But he says Oliver Dowden, the culture secretary, was less clear about this today.

In the Westminster Hall debate Warman said: “We want to get to a position where we are not reliant at all on high-risk vendors.”

This is from the Telegraph’s Christopher Hope.

Oliver Dowden has now finished his speech.

Earlier it sounded as if Sir Iain Duncan Smith was preparing to bank the concessions offered by the government and to pull his amendment - there is a very strong overlap between his list of conditions (see 2.29pm) and the Dowden offer (see 1.34pm and 2.48pm) - but at the last minute it started to look as though Dowden might have fluffed the negotiation. He was initially a bit equivocal about the government being committed to ending Huawei’s involvement in 5G, not just reducing it, and, even when he did clarify the government’s desire to see Huawei out for good, he could not set a timetable for this.

Duncan Smith does not have to say until the end of the debate whether or not he will put his amendment to a vote. In theory the debate could run until 6pm, but it is expected to wrap up well before that.

Dowden is winding up his speech now.

He says he accepts he has not given the Tory rebels everything they want.

But he says that he hopes he has given them some of what they want, and explained how the government can get to the point which they all want to see, where there are no high-risk vendors in the network at all.

I hope that through the remarks I’ve made I have given some, and I accept that it is not all that right honourable members have been seeking, some comfort that first of all, the government appreciates the concerns they have raised.

Secondly, that we are starting to set out a path to that ideal point that we all want to get to where we won’t have any high-risk vendors at all and that they in turn will appreciate that this is not the end of the process.

He stresses the point about how there will be “huge opportunities” for Tory MPs to propose amendments when the 5G legislation, the telecommunications security bill, comes to the Commons.

The Tory MP Steve Brine says he will not support the Duncan Smith amendment. But he wants to know if the telecommunications security bill will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny.

Dowden says he wants there to be maximum consultation on it.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith intervenes again. He says the commitment to engage with Five Eyes is new, and a five-year timescale is new.

But he says he wants clarity on the government being committed to having no involvement from Huawei. If he does not get clarity, he will push his amendment to a vote.

Dowden says Duncan Smith will be able to raise this issue in the 5G legislation later this year.

He says Duncan Smith’s message has been heard and understood.

He says the government wants to reduce its reliance on high-risk vendors. And he says he wants to get to the position where the government does not have to use them at all.

But to get from point a to point b, the government needs to generate more capacity, he says.

And he says other committees, as well as the intelligence and security committee, will be allowed to scrutinise this.

Asked if the government can introduce 5G without Huawei, Dowden says of course it could be done without Huawei.

Dowden says the government is clear it wants to diversify away from Huawei. He is setting out today how that might happen.

He says the government is committed to working within this parliament to finding the capacity so that it can start to move away from Huawei.

Owen Paterson, another Tory former cabinet minister who signed the Duncan Smith amendment, asks if the government can commit to getting Huawei’s involvement down to zero.

Dowden says the government is committed to diversification.

David Davis, the Tory former Brexit secretary and a signatory to the Duncan Smith amendment, says Dowden is wrong to say there are no alternative providers.

Dowden says Ericsson and Nokia are the only other providers available. But that is not enough at the moment.

But he says the government is committed to working with its Five Eyes partners within this parliament to find alternative providers.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith intervenes. He asks if it now government policy to move towards “no involvement of high-risk vendors within our system”?

Dowden says he thinks they all agree; they would like to have no involvement from high-risk vendors.

But, he says, there is no alternative capacity at the moment.

Oliver Dowden, the culture secretary, is speaking now.

He says the government will introduce its 5G legislation before the summer recess.

He says the government is “clear-eyed” about the risk posed by high-risk vendors.

He says the 35% cap (the maximum amount of the 5G network allowed to Huawei) will be kept under review.

And the government will be working with partners on finding alternative providers. That work will be carried out in this parliament, he says.

But he says he cannot set a deadline for when Huawei might be excluded.

He says MPs will be able to propose amendments on this when the 5G bill is being debated.

Duncan Smith says the UK is alone in its assessment on this matter. He says its security partners take a different view of the threat posed by Huawei.

Damian Green, the Tory former first secretary of state, says if the UK allows Huawei to build its 5G, other countries will do the same. So the effect of this decision will be to allow the Chinese to infiltrate telecoms in many countries, he says.

Duncan Smith says that is a powerful argument. China will capture telecoms in these countries, he says.

Duncan Smith says there is a danger that the UK would become even more dependent on Huawei. One estimate is that after three years the UK would be fully dependent on it for 5G.

He says this would be a threat to national security.

He says there are three other firms that could supply 5G infrastructure to the UK: Nokia, Ericsson and Samsung.

He says people say these providers would cost more. But in a debate between cost and security, security should win every time, he says.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader and former work and pensions secretary, is speaking now. He has tabled the rebel amendment backed by 26 Tories. (See 12.18pm and 1.30pm.)

He says it is wrong to describe Huawei as a private company. It is owned by Chinese trade unions, and controlled by the Chinese government.

And he says it is wrong to describe this as a market failure problem. He says it is just that other companies have not been able to compete with Huawei because it has been subsidised by the Chinese government.

The Tory MP Tobias Ellwood, chair of the defence committee, intervenes. He says Duncan Smith’s amendment may not be put to a vote today because of the latest assurances from the government. (See 1.34pm.) But he says they will have put down a marker. He says there are five possible global vendors. But two of them are not allowed to operate outside Japan and South Korea. If they were, the UK would not need to use Huawei, he says.

Duncan Smith accepts this point. He says there used to be 12 firms in this market. He says he does not think Huawei technology is superior. It is just that they are cheaper because they are so heavily subsidised.

The Tory MP Alec Shelbrooke asks if Duncan Smith would be willing to change the deadline he has set (December 2022) for the removal of Huawei.

Duncan Smith says he is “flexible” on the date. But what matters is the government’s commitment to getting rid of Huawei, he says.

This is from the Spectator’s James Forsyth on today’s debate.

Onwurah says Labour’s amendment differs from Sir Iain Duncan Smith’s (see 1.30pm) in two respects.

She says Labour’s would ban Huawei (or equipment from a “high-risk vendor”, to use the government’s terminology) immediately, while Duncan Smith’s would only bring in a ban from 2023.

And she says Labour’s amendment would only apply to “newly deployed” telecommunications infrastructure, while Duncan Smith’s would apply to all telecommunications infrastructure, she says.

These are from ITV’s Paul Brand.

Onwurah says Labour is not opposed to the bill as a whole.

But Labour is siding with the Tory rebels. Jeremy Corbyn has tabled an amendment to the bill that is very similar to Iain Duncan Smith’s.

The Corbyn amendment says:

Clause 1, page 2, line 16, at end insert—

“(f) the operator does not use designated high-risk vendors, as defined by the National Cyber Security Centre, in newly deployed electronic communications services.”

And the Duncan Smith amendment says:

Clause 1, page 2, line 16, at end insert—

“(f) the operator does not, after 31 December 2022, use vendors defined by the National Cyber Security Centre as high-risk vendors.”

Philip Hammond has warned that the country should be braced for a “significant dip” in the economy as it deals with coronavirus and urged the new chancellor to intervene to help small businesses. Ahead of the budget tomorrow, Hammond, who served as Theresa May’s chancellor, said the impact of the illness on the country would be “real” and he expected an economic slowdown.

He suggested Rishi Sunak, who was promoted by Boris Johnson last month, should consider helping small firms with cashflow problems by postponing deadlines for VAT payments, national insurance and PAYE deductions. Hammond told the BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme:

[Coronavirus] will have an effect on the economy because that’s already starting to happen. Whatever the outcome epidemiologically, the economic impact will be real and the chancellor will want to address that in his budget speech.

I think he will want, and I would strongly advise that he announces, immediate short-term measures to ease the cashflow pressure that many small businesses will be feeling, and indeed some larger businesses.

In the Commons, Matt Hancock, the health secretary, has just told MPs that the government is considering reviewing the list of people allowed to provide medical services in the light of coronavirus.

Last week Prof Chris Whitty, the government’s chief medical adviser, told a committee that greater use could be made of medical students.

In the Commons Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, asks if government will lift the bureaucratic requirements on GPs so that they have more time to focus on coronavirus.

Jo Churchill, the health minister who is replying, says that she is considering this.

The public administration and constitutional affairs committee hearing has not quite finished, but Sir Mark Sedwill has managed to get through it so far without setting off many ripples across the pond of news.

In the Commons, Matt Hancock, the health secretary, has just started taking health questions.

In response to a question about public health grants to councils, he said local authorities could plan with confidence on the basis that their budgets could be going up in real terms, and that a full announcement would be made shortly.

Q: The government wants to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. But under the act, a committee is due to be set up this summer to review its operation. Will that still go ahead?

Sedwill says in one sense the answer to this is the same as the answer on the democracy commission. (See 11.16am.) Options are being offered to ministers. The act could be repealed wholesale, or non-controversial parts of it could be retained, he says.

Q: Is there a cut-off point when you have to decide whether or not to have the committee reviewing the act?

Sedwill says he thinks that would have to be set up between June and November. He says it has not been decided yet what would happen.

Q: Do you think it is best just to revert to the royal prerogative if the act is repealed?

Sedwill says it is possible. But the question of whether the royal prerogative (ie, the PM’s power to decide the date of a general election) would resume automatically if the FTPA was repealed, or whether if would have to be actively restored, has yet to be decided.

He says elements of the FTPA were good. It gave clarity about the length of a parliament. But other aspects of it did not work well, as people discovered last year.

Q: Can you tell us what the government’s democracy commission will involve?

Sedwill says officials have been working on options, but ministers have not taken the final decisions yet.

Manzoni says there were 800 people working for the Department for Exiting the European Union when it closed.

He says they moved to the Cabinet Office initially. Then around 100 went to the Foreign Office. Large numbers of staff also went to the business department and to HMRC, he says. And some of them joined David Frost’s Brexit negotiating team.

Sedwill says some of the former DExEU staff have been working on coronavirus, because they were already working on contingency planning.

Q: Is there any precedent for all ministers being shared between two departments (as they are now, between the Foreign Office and DfID)?

Sedwill says he is not aware of one. But he says in the past some ministers served the Foreign Office and DfID.

Q: We now have joint ministers serving the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development. To whom are their officials accountable?

To both departments, Sedwill says. He says the costs are shared out.

Q: If someone had expressed support for jihadis online, would they be acceptable?

Sedwill says, of course, in those circumstances security vetting would be removed.

He says he does not want to comment on Andrew Sabisky, or his views or on the vetting that he received.

Labour’s Lloyd Russell-Moyle goes next.

Q: The Conservative spad website says the No 10 communications director would be ultimately responsible for all hiring decisions. Is that correct? Or is the PM ultimately in charge?

Sedwill says the website is not a matter for him.

Q: Will the government benefit from having more weirdos and misfits in government?

Sedwill says he likes Gus O’Donnell’s take on this; O’Donnell, a former cabinet secretary, said anyone willing to work long hours for less money than they would get elsewhere could be considered a weirdo or a misfit.

Sedwill says he would not necessarily use these terms. But he supports the idea of trying to bring new people into government who might have something to contribute.

• Sedwill says that in principle he approves of Dominic Cummings’ desire to bring more ‘weirdos and misfits’ into government.

Q: A new spad website has been set up. How is that being handled?

Sedwill says that is nothing to do with him. It is a Conservative party matter. He says it is up to politicians to identify advisers they might want to recruit.

Q: So who pays for it?

The Conservative party, says Sedwill.

He says Jack Straw, who he used to work for, ran a recruitment process when he was looking for special advisers.

He says after ministers have identified people they want to hire, the civil service then brings them into the system.

Q: Do you decide salaries?

Sedwill says that is a government minister’s decision. Various rules apply.

Sedwill says anyone operating on behalf of the PM has to operate with his authority, and ultimately with his approval.

And he says the PM is the ultimate arbiter of the ministerial code. He says he can only advise the PM on this.

Q: Can you tell us about the new HR adviser being appointed to oversee special advisers (spads)?

Sedwill says the government has been trying to provide more professional HR support to spads.

He says spads serve with the consent of the PM. If that consent is withdrawn, statutory employment rights apply.

Q: When is the review of spads’ employment terms going to end?

Sedwill says it is not a “capital R” review.

Q: Do spads join a trade union?

Sedwill says they can. Some join the First Division Association.

Q: How will incidents like the one involving Sonia Khan be resolved in future?

Sedwill says he cannot discuss this specific case.

But he says any special adviser who loses their job has statutory employment rights.

Q: Does the ministerial code need to be rewritten?

Sedwill says spads are part of collective government, but normally they have a close relationship with their minister too.

Q: There has been media speculation that you could not focus properly on the problems in the Home Office because of your national security role?

Sedwill says he was on leave some of the time during this period. He would have been on leave even if he had not been national security adviser. But he was in touch constantly anyway.

He says the composition of the job has changed in the past, and will change again in the future.

David Mundell, the Tory former Scottish secretary, is asking questions now.

Q: There has been a lot of criticism of your “double jobbing” (Sedwill being national security adviser and cabinet secretary). How do you respond to that?

Sedwill says this is not a new issue. In the past the cabinet secretary was also running the civil service, doing the job that John Manzoni does.

He says, as cabinet secretary and national security adviser, his responsibilities overlap with the PM’s.

He says before 2010 there was no national security adviser. Before 2010 the cabinet secretary also oversaw national security.

Q: Is there anything that the permanent secretary to the Scottish government does not have to report to you?

Yes, says Sedwill. He says he would not expect the Scottish government’s permanent secretary to tell him about Scottish government policy.

Q: If there was a problem in devolved administrations, would the permanent secretary come to you?

Sedwill says the cabinet secretary could become involved.

Q: Has the permanent secretary in the Scottish or Welsh government ever had to report misbehaviour by a first minister to you?

Sedwill says there is a limit to what he can say on this case. But he says the system as he described (that ultimately a complaint would be brought to him) has applied.

Q: Why is the Northern Ireland civil service considered a separate service, but not the Scottish and Welsh civil service?

Sedwill says the Northern Ireland civil service is separate because the Irish civil service was separate before 1922. That separation continued after 1922, he says. But he says they try to bind the Northern Ireland civil service into the GB one, so that they have access to the same talent pool.

Q: Do permanent secretaries still have weekly meetings?

Yes, says Sedwill.

Q: And government policy is discussed there?

Yes, says Sedwill. They also talk about civil service capabilities.

Q: Do the permanent secretaries of the Scottish and Welsh government attend?

Normally yes, says Sedwill. But he says that was not the case during the 2014 referendum (when the UK government and the Scottish government were at odds over independence).

Sedwill says these meetings are normally information sharing meeting.

Sedwill says he is the line manager for the head of the civil service for the Scottish government and the Welsh government.

But he says, in that situation, the first minister is equivalent to a cabinet minister, who is expected to get on with the permanent secretary of their government, but also equivalent to the UK PM, in that they have the final say.

Q: So if the Scottish government managed to stop Brexit, you would have given the permanent secretary of the Scottish government five stars for implementing Scottish government policy.

Sedwill says (jokes?) that that would depend on whether or not the Scottish government’s civil service deserved the credit.

Q: Would you describe yourself as the line manager for permanent secretaries?

Sedwill says he is their line manager. He conducts annual performance appraisals.

He says he has had to have a conversation where someone’s performance was “off the pace”.

• Sedwill says he has had to tell permanent secretaries to improve their performance.

The SNP MP Ronnie Cowan asks about Sir Philip Rutnam’s accusations against Priti Patel.

Sedwill says there is a limit to what he can say. He says Rutnam has threatened legal action, although he has not initiated that yet.

Q: But where could someone like Rutnam go with a complaint like that.

Sedwill says, speaking generally, a permanent secretary could take it to him. He might take it up with the PM.

Q: Have you ever warned a PM before appointing someone to cabinet?

Sedwill says his advice to the PM. But before cabinet appointments are made, he gives advice, based on what he knows.

Q: Would that be a private matter if you were asked about that at an employment tribunal?

Sedwill says he would have to take legal advice on that. But he would not expect to have to disclose that.

• Sedwill indicates that he would not want to tell an employment tribunal about any advice be gave to the PM before he appointed Priti Patel as home secretary.

Sedwill says he regards the resignation of Rutnam as a “regrettable incident”.

But he says he does not see the need for “further regulations” governing the relationship between permanent secretaries and cabinet minister. In most cases, the status quo works, he argues.

• Sedwill says he does not see the case for new rules governing official/ministerial relations in the light of Philip Rutnam’s resignation.

Q: What can a permanent secretary do if they are unhappy with their minister?

Sedwill says their job is to make this work.

Sedwill says the job of officials is to give candid, honest, impartial advice, right up to the point where a decision is taken.

He says secretaries of state have a role in appointing permanent secretaries.

But they have tenure. If they did not, they would be under pressure just to tell ministers what they wanted to hear.

He says 99% of the time people manage these relationships.

Q: What course of action would be available to a minister dissastisfied with her permanent secretary?

Sedwill says you would expect her to raise that with the official. If they could not raise it directly, he would expect them to raise it with him.

Q: A civil servant was quoted in the Sunday Telegraph saying that the convention is that, if the relationship between a senior civil servant and new minister breaks down, the official should move. Is that right?

Sedwill says sometimes officials do move.

But he says the expectation is for officials and ministers to conduct themselves courteously.

But if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. He would then take action.

The Tory MP David Jones is asking the questions next.

Q: There has been a lot of talk about one minister bullying staff. Do we need a definition of bullying for the ministerial code?

Sedwill says he himself may have been seen as “blunt and forthright”.

He says behaviour that might be acceptable towards an equal would be unreasonable if shown towards someone more junior.

He says you can have bullying at junior levels too, between people on the same grade.

He says fortunately people are now more confident about reporting complaints about bullying.

Sir Mark Sedwill is speaking now.

He says the job of the cabinet secretary is try to try to resolve disputes between ministers and civil servants.

Q: Is there a formal process for restoring harmony?

Sedwill says there is no formal process. But he tries to ensure the top team is working together.

If there were a complaint about a minister, just as if there were a complaint about anyone, that would be investigated. That might lead to behavioural advice - telling people what they should do.

Q: Would you recommend a secretary of state going for coaching?

Sedwill says he has not recommended that. But there are proposals for ministers to get training in how to deal with major projects.

Q: What about coaching for dealing with staff?

Sedwill says he has not recommended that, but that might be an option.

• Sedwill does not rule out recommending coaching for ministers who need advice on how to deal with staff.

William Wragg, the Conservative MP who chairs the committee, asks the first question. He asks Sir John Manzoni why he is still in post. He was due to leave last year, Wragg says.

Manzoni says it was decided that it was not a good time to leave. His term of office was extended to 31 March, he says.

Last week BuzzFeed published a lengthy article about Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, by Alex Wickham and Alberto Nardelli exploring how someone who was widely expected to be forced out last summer when Boris Johnson became PM has now made himself indispensable to Johnson and his most powerful adviser, Dominic Cummings. It is worth reading in full, and it may well come up in the select committee hearing. Here’s an extract.

Some, including cabinet ministers, current and former senior officials, and government advisers past and present — who spoke to BuzzFeed News on condition of anonymity — went as far as talking about an “unspoken pact” between Sedwill and the prime minister. Neither side had to formalise the arrangement.

The deal: that Johnson allows Sedwill to remain in his vastly influential dual role, as cabinet secretary and national security adviser, and in return Sedwill lets Johnson and his chief political aide Dominic Cummings, as one former official put it, “do whatever they want” in terms of radical Whitehall reforms, a bold policy programme, and a hardline Brexit negotiating strategy.

One senior official familiar with the workings of Johnson and Sedwill described the cabinet secretary as “Boris’s lackey”.

The phrase underlines the widespread view behind the scenes in Whitehall that Sedwill is failing in his duties to protect civil servants and special advisers — and the government at large — from the excesses of Johnson’s Downing Street, and is unable to now control the conflict inbuilt in his role as adviser to the prime minister, broker to the cabinet, and head of the civil service.

Excluding Huawei from Britain’s 5G network will “significantly set back” the government’s ambitions to extend broadband access, a former chairman of BT has warned. As the Press Association reports, Sir Mike Rake, who now acts as an adviser to the Chinese tech giant, hit out at what he said were “ill-informed assertions” about the dangers of allowing the company access to the UK’s critical national infrastructure. In an open letter Rake said:

Any attempt to further restrict Huawei 5G equipment, or to remove existing 4G equipment, will not only incur very significant costs, but prejudice trade relationships with China and will significantly set back the government’s broadband ambitions.

This in turn will further damage our competitiveness as an economy, at what is a critical moment.

We cannot afford to set back the important technological and communication progress we have made, with ill-informed assertions which are not supported by the facts and the experts.

The government has taken an evidence-based decision and we should all support it.

Rake was speaking ahead of a debate this afternoon which will see Tory rebels try to defeat the government on an amendment saying that Huawei’s involvement in the UK’s 5G network should not last beyond the end of 2022. But it is not clear yet whether or not the amendment will be “called” by the Speaker - ie, put to a vote.