Syria

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

Before I come to the substance of my statement, I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in offering our heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Sergeant Matt Tonroe from the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, who was killed by an improvised explosive device on 29 March. Sergeant Tonroe was embedded with US forces on a counter-Daesh operation. He served his country with great distinction, and it is clear he was a gifted and intelligent instructor who was respected by everyone he served with. Sergeant Tonroe fought to protect British values, our freedoms and to keep this country safe.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the actions that we have taken, together with our American and French allies, to degrade the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capabilities and to deter their future use.

On Saturday 7 April, up to 75 people, including young children, were killed in a horrific attack in Douma, with as many as 500 further casualties. All indications are that this was a chemical weapons attack. UK medical and scientific experts have analysed open-source reports, images and video footage from the incident and concluded that the victims were exposed to a toxic chemical. That is corroborated by first-hand accounts from NGOs and aid workers, while the World Health Organisation received reports that hundreds of patients arrived at Syrian health facilities on Saturday night with

“signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals”.

Based on our assessment, we do not think that those reports could be falsified on that scale. Furthermore, the Syrian regime has reportedly been attempting to conceal the evidence by searching evacuees from Douma to ensure samples are not being smuggled from the area, and a wider operation to conceal the facts of the attack is under way, supported by the Russians.

The images of this suffering are utterly haunting: innocent families seeking shelter in underground bunkers found dead with foam in their mouths, burns to their eyes and their bodies surrounded by a chlorine-like odour, and children gasping for life as chemicals choked their lungs. The fact that such an atrocity can take place in our world today is a stain on our humanity, and we are clear about who is responsible.

A significant body of information, including intelligence, indicates that the Syrian regime is responsible for this latest attack. Open-source accounts state that barrel bombs were used to deliver the chemicals. Barrel bombs are usually delivered by helicopters. Multiple open-source reports and intelligence indicate that regime helicopters operated over Douma on the evening of 7 April, shortly before reports emerged in social media of a chemical attack, and that Syrian military officials co-ordinated what appears to be the use of chlorine weapons. No other group could have carried out this attack. The opposition do not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs. Daesh does not even have a presence in Douma.

The reports of this attack are consistent with previous regime attacks. Those include the attack on 21 August 2013, where over 800 people were killed and thousands more injured in a chemical attack also in Ghouta; 14 further smaller-scale chemical attacks reported prior to that summer; three further chlorine attacks in 2014 and 2015, which the independent UN Security Council-mandated investigation attributed to the regime; and the attack at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April last year, where the Syrian regime used sarin against its people, killing around 100, with a further 500 casualties.

Based on the regime’s persistent pattern of behaviour and the cumulative analysis of specific incidents, we judged it highly likely that the Syrian regime had continued to use chemical weapons on at least four occasions since the attack in Khan Shaykhun and we judged that it would have continued to do so, so we needed to intervene rapidly to alleviate further indiscriminate humanitarian suffering. We have explored every possible diplomatic channel to do so, but our efforts have been repeatedly thwarted.

Following the sarin attack in eastern Damascus back in August 2013, the Syrian regime committed to dismantle its chemical weapons programme, and Russia promised to ensure that Syria did that, overseen by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. At the weekend, the Leader of the Opposition cited that diplomatic agreement as a

“precedent that this process can work”,

but this process did not work. It did not eradicate the chemical weapons capability of the Syrian regime, with the OPCW finding only last month that Syria’s declaration of its former chemical weapons programme is incomplete. And, as I have already set out, it did not stop the Syrian regime carrying out the most abhorrent atrocities using these weapons.

Furthermore, on each occasion when we have seen every sign of chemical weapons being used, Russia has blocked any attempt to hold the perpetrators to account at the UN Security Council, with six such vetoes since the start of 2017. Just last week, Russia blocked a UN resolution that would have established an independent investigation able to determine responsibility for this latest attack. Regrettably, we had no choice but to conclude that diplomatic action on its own is not going to work. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he can

“only countenance involvement in Syria if there is UN authority behind it”.

The House should be clear that that would mean a Russian veto on our foreign policy.

When the Cabinet met on Thursday, we considered the advice of the Attorney General. Based on this advice, we agreed that it was not just morally right but legally right to take military action, together with our closest allies, to alleviate further humanitarian suffering. This was not about intervening in a civil war and it was not about regime change: it was about a limited, targeted and effective strike that sought to alleviate the humanitarian suffering of the Syrian people by degrading the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability and deterring their use.

We have published the legal basis for this action. It required three conditions to be met. First, there must be convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief. Secondly, it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved. Thirdly, the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian suffering, and must be strictly limited in time and in scope to this aim.

These are the same three criteria used as the legal justification for the UK’s role in the NATO intervention in Kosovo. Our intervention in 1991 with the US and France, and in 1992 with the US, to create safe havens and enforce the no-fly zones in Iraq following the Gulf war were also justified on the basis of humanitarian intervention. So Governments of all colours have long considered that military action on an exceptional basis—where necessary and proportionate, and as a last resort to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe—is permissible under international law.

I have set out why we are convinced by the evidence and why there was no practicable alternative. Let me set out how this military response was also proportionate. This was a limited, targeted and effective strike that would significantly degrade Syrian chemical weapons capabilities and deter their future use, and with clear boundaries that expressly sought to avoid escalation and did everything possible to prevent civilian casualties.

As a result, the co-ordinated actions of the US, UK and France were successfully and specifically targeted at three sites. Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said at the weekend, these were not “empty buildings”. The first was the Barzeh branch of the Scientific Studies and Research Centre in northern Damascus. This was a centre for the research and development of Syria’s chemical and biological programme. It was hit by 57 American TLAMs and 19 American JASSMs. The second site was the Him Shinsar chemical weapons bunkers, 15 miles west of the city of Homs, which contained both a chemical weapons equipment and storage facility and an important command post. These were successfully hit by seven French SCALP cruise missiles.

The third site was the Him Shinsar chemical weapons storage site and former missile base, which is now a military facility. This was assessed to be a location of Syrian sarin and precursor production equipment, whose destruction would degrade Syria’s ability to deliver sarin in the future. This was hit by nine US TLAMs, five naval and two SCALP cruise missiles from France and eight Storm Shadow missiles launched by our four RAF Tornado GR4s. Very careful scientific analysis was used to determine where best to target these missiles to maximise the destruction of stockpiled chemicals and to minimise any risks to the surrounding area. The facility that we targeted is located some distance from any known population centres, reducing yet further any such risk of civilian casualties.

While targeted and limited, these strikes by the US, UK and France were significantly larger than the US action a year ago after the attack at Khan Shaykhun, and specifically designed to have a greater impact on the regime’s capability and willingness to use chemical weapons. We also minimised the chances of wider escalation through our carefully targeted approach, and the House will note that Russia has not reported any losses of personnel or equipment as a result of the strikes. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to all the British servicemen and women, and their American and French allies, who successfully carried out this mission with such courage and professionalism.

Let me deal specifically with three important questions. First, why did we not wait for the investigation from the OPCW? UNSC-mandated inspectors have investigated previous attacks and, on four occasions, decided that the regime was indeed responsible. We are confident in our own assessment that the Syrian regime was highly likely responsible for this attack and that its persistent pattern of behaviour meant that it was highly likely to continue using chemical weapons. Furthermore, there were clearly attempts to block any proper investigation, as we saw with the Russian veto at the UN earlier in the week.

And let me set this out in detail: we support strongly the work of the OPCW fact-finding mission that is currently in Damascus, but that mission is only able to make an assessment of whether chemical weapons were used. Even if the OPCW team is able to visit Douma to gather information to make that assessment—and it is currently being prevented from doing so by the regime and the Russians—it cannot attribute responsibility. This is because Russia vetoed, in November 2017, an extension of the joint investigatory mechanism set up to do this, and last week, in the wake of the Douma attack, it again vetoed a new UNSC resolution to re-establish such a mechanism. Even if we had the OPCW’s findings and a mechanism to attribute, for as long as Russia continued to veto the UN Security Council would still not be able to act. So we cannot wait to alleviate further humanitarian suffering caused by chemical weapons attacks.

Secondly, were we not just following orders from America? Let me be absolutely clear: we have acted because it is in our national interest to do so. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is in our national interest to prevent the further use of chemical weapons in Syria and to uphold and defend the global consensus that these weapons should not be used, for we cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised—within Syria, on the streets of the UK or elsewhere.

So we have not done this because President Trump asked us to; we have done it because we believed it was the right thing to do. And we are not alone. There is broad-based international support for the action we have taken. NATO has issued a statement setting out its support, as have the Gulf Co-operation Council and a number of countries in the region. Over the weekend I have spoken to a range of world leaders, including Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Gentiloni, Prime Minister Trudeau, Prime Minister Turnbull and European Union Council President Donald Tusk. All have expressed their support for the actions that Britain, France and America have taken.

Thirdly, why did we not recall Parliament? The speed with which we acted was essential in co-operating with our partners to alleviate further humanitarian suffering and to maintain the vital security of our operations. This was a limited, targeted strike on a legal basis that has been used before. And it was a decision that required the evaluation of intelligence and information, much of which was of a nature that could not be shared with Parliament. We have always been clear that the Government have the right to act quickly in the national interest. I am absolutely clear, Mr Speaker, that it is Parliament’s responsibility to hold me to account for such decisions, and Parliament will do so. But it is my responsibility as Prime Minster to make these decisions—and I will make them. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

As I have been clear, this military action was not about intervening in the civil war in Syria or about regime change, but we are determined to do our utmost to help resolve the conflict in Syria. That means concluding the fight against Daesh, which still holds pockets of territory in Syria. It means working to enable humanitarian access and continuing our efforts at the forefront of global response, where the UK has already committed almost £2.5 billion—our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis.

Next week, we will attend the second Brussels conference on supporting the future of Syria and the region, which will focus on humanitarian support, bolstering the UN-led political process in Geneva and ensuring continued international support to refugees and host countries, driving forward the legacy of our own London conference held in 2016. And it means supporting international efforts to reinvigorate the process to deliver a political solution, for this is the best long-term hope for the Syrian people. The UK will do all of these things. But as I have also been clear, that is not what these military strikes were about.

As I have set out, the military action we have taken this weekend was specifically focused on degrading the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability and deterring their future use. In order to achieve this, there must also be a wider diplomatic effort, including the full range of political and economic levers, to strengthen the global norms prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, which have stood for nearly a century. So we will continue to work with our international partners on tough economic action against those involved with the production or dissemination of chemical weapons.

I welcome the conclusions of today’s European Foreign Affairs Council, attended by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which confirmed that the Council is willing to consider further restrictive measures on those involved in the development and use of chemical weapons in Syria. We will continue to push for the re-establishment of an international investigative mechanism that can attribute responsibility for chemical weapons use in Syria. We will advance with our French allies the new International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, which will meet in the coming weeks. We will continue to strengthen the international coalition we have built since the attack on Salisbury.

Last Thursday’s report from the OPCW has confirmed our findings that it was indeed a Novichok in Salisbury. I have placed a copy of that report’s executive summary in the House of Commons Library. While of a much lower order of magnitude, the use of a nerve agent on the streets of Salisbury is part of a pattern of disregard for the global norms that prohibit the use of chemical weapons. So while the action was taken to alleviate humanitarian suffering in Syria by degrading the regime’s chemical weapons capability and deterring its use of these weapons, it will also send a clear message to anyone who believes they can use chemical weapons with impunity. We cannot go back to a world where the use of chemical weapons becomes normalised.

I am deeply conscious of the gravity of these decisions. They affect all Members of this House and me personally. I understand the questions that, rightly, will be asked about British military action, particularly in such a complex region, but I am clear that the way we protect our national interest is to stand up for the global rules and standards that keep us safe. That is what we have done and what we will continue to do. I commend this statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe that the action was legally questionable, and on Saturday, the United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres, said as much, reiterating that all countries must act in line with the United Nations charter, which states that action must be in self-defence or be authorised by the United Nations Security Council. The Prime Minister has assured us that the Attorney General had given clear legal advice approving the action. I hope the Prime Minister will now publish this advice in full today.

The summary note references the disputed humanitarian intervention doctrine, but even against this, the Government fail their own tests. The overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe due to the civil war in Syria is absolutely indisputable, but the Foreign Secretary said yesterday that these strikes would have no bearing on the civil war. The Prime Minister has reiterated that today by saying that this is not what these military strikes were about.

Does, for example, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen entitle other countries to arrogate to themselves the right to bomb Saudi airfields or its positions in Yemen, especially given its use of banned cluster bombs and white phosphorus? Three United Nations agencies said in January that Yemen was the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, so will the Prime Minister today commit to ending support to the Saudi bombing campaign and arms sales to Saudi Arabia?

On the mission itself, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of bombing related military facilities, where the regime is assessed as storing chemical weapons? What about the impact on local people of chemicals being released into the local environment? News footage shows both journalists and local people in the rubble without any protective clothing. Why does the Prime Minister believe that these missile strikes will deter future chemical attacks?

As the Prime Minister will be aware, there were US strikes in 2017 in the wake of the use of chemical weapons in Khan Shaykhun, for which the UN OPCW team held the Assad regime to be responsible. In relation to the air strikes against the Barzeh and Him Shinsar facilities, the Prime Minister will be aware that the OPCW carried out inspections on both those facilities in 2017 and concluded that

“the inspection team did not observe any activities inconsistent with obligations”

under the chemical weapons convention. Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether she believes that the OPCW was wrong in that assessment, or does she have separate intelligence that the nature of those activities has changed within the last five months? In the light of the Chilcot inquiry, does she agree with a key recommendation about the importance of strengthening the checks and assessments on intelligence information when it is used to make the case for Government policies? Given that neither the UN nor the OPCW has yet investigated the Douma attack, it is clear that diplomatic and non-military means have not been fully exhausted.

While much suspicion rightly points to the Assad Government, chemical weapons have been used by other groups in the conflict—for example, Jaish al-Islam, which was reported to have used gas in Aleppo in 2016, among other groups. It is now vital that the OPCW inspectors, who arrived in Damascus on Saturday, are allowed to do their work and publish their report on their findings, and report to the United Nations Security Council. They must be allowed to complete their inspections without hindrance, and I hope the UK will put all diplomatic pressure on Russia and Syria, and other influential states, to ensure that they are able to access the site in Douma.

There is a bigger question. More than 400,000 Syrians are estimated to have died in the Syrian conflict—the vast majority as a result of conventional weapons, as the Prime Minister indicated—and the UN estimates that 13.5 million Syrians are in need of humanitarian assistance and that there are more than 5 million refugees. It is more important than ever that we take concrete steps to halt and finally end the suffering. Acting through the UN, she should now take a diplomatic lead to negotiate a pause in this abhorrent conflict. This means engaging with all parties involved, including Iran, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the US, to ensure an immediate ceasefire.

We have the grotesque spectacle of a wider geopolitical battle being waged by proxy, with the Syrian people being used as pawns by all sides. Our first priority must be the safety and security of the Syrian people, which is best served by de-escalating this conflict so that aid can get in. Will the Prime Minister now embark, therefore, as I hope she will, on a renewed diplomatic effort to try to bring an end to this conflict, as she indicated she would in the latter part of her statement? She stated that diplomatic processes did not work. This is not exactly true. The initiative negotiated by John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov led to the destruction of 600 tonnes of chemical weapons, overseen by the OPCW. No one disputes that such diplomatic processes are difficult and imperfect, but that should not stop us continuing diplomatic efforts.

The refugee crisis places a responsibility on all countries. Hundreds of unaccompanied children remain in Europe, but the UK has yet to take in even the small numbers it was committed to through the Dubs amendment. I hope that today the Government will increase their commitment to take additional Syrian refugees. Will the Prime Minister make that commitment today?

[The Prime Minister]

I will start by responding to the Leader of the Opposition’s comments on the Syrian conflict more generally. I think that everybody in the House recognises the nature of the conflict and the impact it has had on the Syrian people, including on the millions of people displaced either within Syria or to countries in the surrounding region. As I said in my statement, the UK, having given almost £2.5 billion, is now the second biggest bilateral donor for Syrian refugees in the region. We have been clear that we believe we can help more people by giving aid in the region, and we have been able to support hundreds of thousands of children in the region through the aid we have given to them. We will continue to provide that support, and we continue to be grateful for all that is being done, particularly by Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, to support refugees in the region. It is a significant task for those countries, and we are supporting them in their effort.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me to launch a new diplomatic effort. As I said in my statement, we will indeed be continuing the work in relation to the wider issue of the conflict in Syria. As I said, that means continuing and concluding the fight against Daesh; it means our humanitarian work, as I have said, and continuing to press for humanitarian access; and it means supporting the international efforts to reinvigorate the process to deliver a long-term political solution in Syria. It is necessary for all parties, however, to be willing to come together to discuss and develop that long-term solution.

I come now to the strikes at the weekend and the issue of chemical weapons. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the legal basis. We have published the legal basis for our action, and I have been very clear—I went through the arguments in my statement—that this is about the alleviation of humanitarian suffering. That is a legal basis that has been used by Governments of all colours. As I said, it was used in 1991 and 1992. It was also used by the Labour Government to justify intervention in Kosovo as part of the NATO intervention.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to other areas of conflict in the world. Let me say to him that what sets this apart particularly is the use of chemical weapons. This is about alleviating the suffering that would come from the use of such weapons, but I believe it is also important, and in this country’s interest and the interests of other countries around the world, for us to re-establish the international norm that the use of chemical weapons is prohibited. We cannot allow a situation to develop in which countries and people think that their use has been allowed to become normalised. That is important for us all.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and about its investigation in Douma. As I said in my statement, the problem is that the investigation is being stopped. The regime and the Russians are preventing the OPCW from investigating. Moreover, again, the regime has reportedly been attempting to conceal the evidence by searching evacuees from Douma to ensure that they are not taking out of the region samples that could be tested elsewhere, and a wider operation to conceal the facts of the attack is under way, supported by the Russians.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the possibility of chemical weapons being used by other groups. As I pointed out in my statement, it is understood that these chemical weapons were delivered by barrel bombs, which are normally dropped from helicopters. There is the evidence that I cited in relation to regime helicopter activity in Douma on the date in question, and it is not the case that the groups to which the right hon. Gentleman referred have access to the helicopters and barrel bombs that would be able to deliver such a chemical weapons attack.

I think that that is clear, and it was on that basis that the Government decided to act, together with the United States and France. I think it important that this was a joint international effort. The strikes were carefully targeted, and proper analysis was carried out to ensure that they were targeted at sites that were relevant to the chemical weapons capability of the regime. We did this to alleviate further human suffering. We targeted the strikes at the chemical weapons capability of the regime to degrade and deter its willingness to use chemical weapons in future, and I continue to believe that it was the right thing to do.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I fully support the proportionate, targeted action that we have taken against these sites, and I hope that the Government will consider similar action in future if anyone is so foolish as to repeat chemical weapons attacks. We can all debate these matters, but it takes a real Prime Minister to actually face up to the grave responsibility.

As for the question of the parliamentary role, I think that the Prime Minister was not relying on the archaic narrow interpretation of the royal prerogative, which no Government have invoked in this country for more than 50 years. Governments will always come to Parliament for debate, and votes if possible, on any military action. The Prime Minister said that there was a problem of time, but surely once President Trump had announced to the world what he was proposing, a widespread debate was taking place everywhere—including among many Members of Parliament in the media. However, there was no debate in Parliament.

Would the Prime Minister consider establishing, once the immediate issues are over, a cross-party commission of some kind to set out precisely what the role of Parliament is in modern times in the use of military power against another state, and what exceptions, if any, there can be to the usual rule that the Government need parliamentary approval before taking grave actions of this kind?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me first thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments about the action that was taken in Syria by the United States, the United Kingdom and France. He referred to the parliamentary position. The decision to act was made on this basis: first of all, obviously, an effort was made in the United Nations Security Council to propose and pass a resolution that would have enabled investigation and enabled accountability for the chemical weapons to be determined. That was vetoed by the Russians, so it was not possible to follow that diplomatic route, but the timing enabled proper planning to take place so that this was a targeted and effective set of strikes, it was done in a timely fashion and it maintained the operational security of our armed forces. Any Prime Minister who commits any of our armed forces into action of this sort must have a care for their safety and security in doing so.

I also refer my right hon. and learned Friend to the written ministerial statement in 2016 on the war powers convention, which concluded:

“After careful consideration, the Government has decided that it will not be codifying the convention in law or by resolution of the House in order to retain the ability of this and future Governments and the armed forces to protect the security and interests of the UK in circumstances that we cannot predict, and to avoid such decisions becoming subject to legal action.

We will continue to ensure that Parliament is kept informed of significant major operations and deployments of the Armed Forces.”—[Official Report, 18 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 11WS.]

That is what I have done today: I have come to Parliament with a statement on the action that took place. As I said in my statement, Parliament will hold me to account for the decision that has been taken.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks on the sad demise of Sergeant Matt Tonroe and pass on condolences to his family and friends? May I also thank the Prime Minister for the phone call ahead of the engagement at the weekend, as well as for advance sight of her statement today?

All of us in this House have an absolute revulsion for the use of chemical weapons, and we need to work here and internationally to make sure that we remove the scourge of chemical weapons from the landscape in Syria and elsewhere.

The Government now seem to have accepted that this House needed time to debate Syria, but why have we had to wait for today? When the Prime Minister called a Cabinet meeting last week, she should have recalled Parliament. The Prime Minister leads a minority Government. As was the case with the action against Daesh in 2015, this should only have happened with parliamentary approval. It was perfectly possible for the House to have been recalled in advance of the Saturday morning airstrikes. Why was that not done? And what does this mean for the Prime Minister’s position if there are further chemical attacks in Syria? Will she continue to authorise military action without consulting and without the authorisation of Parliament?

I am glad to hear the Leader of the Opposition support our calls for a war powers Act, because that is the best way to protect us from getting into this situation again. Have the Government learned nothing from the Chilcot review? Once again we have been dragged into military action with little regard for the humanitarian situation on the ground and no long-term strategic plan. The human suffering in Syria knows no bounds: hundreds of thousands dead; millions fleeing for their lives and 400,000 civilians still trapped in appalling conditions, deprived of food, medicine and basic aid; and over 13 million civilians in desperate need of humanitarian aid. Will the Prime Minister revisit the issue of refugees, particularly child refugees? We must do more than we have been doing.

Why was action taken before international weapons inspectors completed their investigation? In February the Prime Minister told me in this House that she was committed to

“finding a political solution for Syria.”—[Official Report, 21 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 153.]

Why, then, did the UK not support Sweden’s draft UN resolution calling for an international investigation into chemical stockpiles reportedly held by the Syrian regime?

Is the Prime Minister as surprised and concerned as I am at the US President’s language that the situation in Syria was “mission accomplished”? Who does she agree with, the US President or the UN Secretary-General, who like most of us is clear:

“There is no military solution to the crisis. The solution must be political”?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues.

I recognise that the issue of refugees, particularly child refugees, has been of concern to Members across this House for some time, and has been raised in this Chamber on a number of occasions. We took the decision that we could help and support more children and more refugees in general—men and women, as well as children —by acting in the region, and, as I have said, we have become the second biggest bilateral donor to the region. But we also took the decision that there were a number of refugees who were particularly vulnerable and who perhaps required particular medical support, and that it was right to bring them to the United Kingdom under our commitment to the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, which we have been putting in place and continue to put in place. We are operating a number of other schemes to bring refugees—children in particular—here to the United Kingdom, but we continue to ensure that we are supporting the greatest possible number of refugees by acting in region, and that continues to be what we should be doing.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the issue of Parliament. I am sure he would recognise that it is always necessary for the Government to be able to act when decisions need to be taken, but to ensure that if a decision is taken that has not been discussed by Parliament, an opportunity for Parliament to discuss it and ask questions on it should be given at the first opportunity. That is exactly what we have done in this particular circumstance. We have also been as open as possible in terms of publishing the legal basis on which we have taken this decision, making information available to a number of parliamentarians on a Privy Council basis, and trying to ensure that we provide the maximum possible briefing, commensurate with the fact that some of the intelligence on which we are operating cannot be shared with Parliament. We will be as open as possible with this Parliament and, as I have said, I will continue to answer questions from this Parliament on this issue.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Given my right hon. Friend’s narrow target of stopping the Syrians using chemical weapons further and given the need to take swift action, I commend her for taking that action, notwithstanding the fact that others have criticised her for not coming to Parliament. Coming to Parliament is a must, and the Prime Minister has done that today and will do it later on as well. I also want to raise the issue that the Russians and the Syrians are blocking the OPCW from going into the target area, and I understand that a lot of clean-up and change is happening while that block is in place. I therefore have a simple question for my right hon. Friend: given the confusion among some about who is the greatest threat to world peace, does she think it is Russia or America?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that people are seeing the actions that Russia has taken in support of the Syrian regime. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, efforts are being made in Syria to ensure that it is not possible for OPCW inspectors to go in to ascertain the truth about what happened in Douma. We took a decision, and we made an assessment, together with our allies. The three parties that took part in the strikes agreed that all the evidence we had seen—from open-source reporting, and from the reporting of non-governmental organisations and the World Health Organisation—suggested that this was a chemical weapons attack. As I have indicated, a number of pieces of information and intelligence showed that it was highly likely that that was undertaken by the Syrian regime.

My right hon. Friend is right that more could have been done by the OPCW if Russia had not vetoed the resolution in the United Nations Security Council, and it would be possible to make greater efforts on the ground now to establish what happened in Douma if Russia and the regime were not blocking the opportunity for the OPCW to go to the site and if efforts were not being made by the regime to ensure that material from the site was not available for analysis. It is quite clear that every effort is being made. As I pointed out in my response to the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, it is perfectly clear that Russia is preventing, stopping and blocking our opportunities to ensure that we can properly hold to account those responsible for chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

[Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)]

I also regret the fact that the Prime Minister did not seek the prior approval of Parliament, especially as at least some of her arguments are compelling. Further to a question from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) that the Prime Minister did not answer, if the Syrian regime is now foolish enough to use its residual stocks to attack other holdouts, such as Idlib, does the Prime Minister intend to order fresh strikes, or was this, in the words of President Trump, a one-off operation and “mission accomplished”?

[The Prime Minister]

This was a limited, targeted set of strikes by the United Kingdom, the United States and France. The targets were carefully chosen, and the intention was to degrade the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability and to deter its willingness to use those weapons. Nobody should be in any doubt about our resolve to ensure that we do not see a situation in which the use of chemical weapons is normalised.

[Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister accept that the public well understand that when our forces need to act quickly, decisively and safely, in concert with our allies, it must be right to authorise strikes without giving notice? Is it not also clear that if the use of chemical weapons goes completely unchallenged, dictators in other countries will use these awful weapons to suppress opposition?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comment. In fact, the 2016 written ministerial statement from which I quoted earlier was made in my right hon. Friend’s name. It states:

“In observing the convention, we must ensure that the ability of our armed forces to act quickly and decisively, and to maintain the security of their operations, is not compromised.”

It is important that we are able to do that, and I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

This was clearly a vile attack by Assad on his own people, and we have a responsibility to consider how to respond while also not escalating global conflict. However, Parliament has considered these kinds of complex issues before. We have voted for and against military action. We have got things right and got things wrong, and so too have the Executive. The Prime Minister and her Cabinet appear today not just to be arguing about the circumstances of last week, but to be rejecting the entire principle of consulting, debating and voting in Parliament in advance of military action. Given the importance of us pioneering democratic values across the world, will she clarify her position on that and say how important she thinks it is for Parliament to decide on issues of war and peace?

[The Prime Minister]

It is not a question of the Government rejecting that principle. If I can return again to the written ministerial statement, it observes:

“The Cabinet Manual states, ‘In 2011, the Government acknowledged that a Convention had developed in Parliament that before troops were committed the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate the matter and said that it proposed to observe that Convention except where there was an emergency and such action would not be appropriate.’”

It subsequently goes on to make other references and, as I just said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), states:

“In observing the convention, we must ensure that the ability of our armed forces to act quickly and decisively, and to maintain the security of their operations, is not compromised.”—[Official Report, 18 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 10WS.]

When the Government take a decision and act without a debate in Parliament, as has happened on this occasion, it is right that I come to Parliament at the first opportunity to explain that decision and to give Members an opportunity to question it, and to hold me and the Government to account.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I can only imagine the burden on the Prime Minister’s shoulders as she took this onerous decision. From the other side, I can say that when such orders are received, they are about the most sobering thing that one can ever get. I congratulate her on taking action that I believe to be not only legitimate, but right and, indeed, urgent. I also congratulate her, her colleagues and our international partners on standing together on this matter. However, will she reinforce the efforts of the Foreign Office? Few have been shouldering the burden as heavily as Karen Pierce at the United Nations, although others in our diplomatic network have done so. Does the Prime Minister agree that the Foreign Office’s role is to promote the aims and interests of our Government and our people whom we are here to represent, not to wait for a veto and the news that Moscow says no?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it must be the UK Government who determine UK foreign policy. We must not hand over our foreign policy to a Russian veto. It is absolutely essential that we determine our foreign policy; the Foreign Office, of course, is a key part of delivering that.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

There are many who support the principle of humanitarian protection and what it achieved in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and who recognise what its absence cost in Rwanda and, indeed, Syria. Of course we must uphold the international prohibition on the use of chemical weapons but, as someone who supported military action against Daesh in Syria in the vote in December 2015, I say gently to the Prime Minister that she should have come first to the House before committing our forces to action. Therefore, may I ask her to give us an assurance that in the event—heaven forbid—that President Assad chooses to use chemical weapons against innocent civilians once again, she will come to Parliament first, she will share such evidence as she can with us, as she has done today, and she will trust Parliament to decide what is to be done?

[The Prime Minister]

I set out in my statement the basis on which we took this decision. I recognise the importance and significance of Parliament and of Parliament being able to make its views known on these issues, but it is also important that the Government are able to act. There will always be circumstances in which it is important for the Government to be able to act and, for the operational security of our armed forces, to be able to do so without a debate having taken place in Parliament. There will be circumstances where that is the case, and the Government have consistently set that out. If those are the circumstances, as I have said, it is right that the Prime Minister comes to Parliament at the earliest opportunity.

In relation to potential future action, as I said in response to the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), this was a targeted attack. It was targeted at degrading the chemical weapons capability of the Syrian regime. We now look, alongside that, to undertake international work through diplomatic and political channels to ensure that we reinforce the international norm of not using chemical weapons. Nobody should be in any doubt about our resolve to ensure that we do not see a situation developing in which the use of chemical weapons is normalised.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

If the Leader of the Opposition persists in changing the Labour party’s previous adherence to the rule that international law justifies taking unilateral action in the event of humanitarian necessity, does my right hon. Friend agree that the consequence will be that any tyrant, megalomaniac or other person intent on carrying out genocide, if they have the support of an amoral state on the Security Council will be able to conduct that genocide with total impunity, even if it were within our power to act to prevent it? Does she agree that in those circumstances, far from upholding the international rules-based system, the reality is that it would be dead?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. If we were to say that we are prepared to act only when we have the support of the United Nations—given that, as we have seen in this circumstance, a member of the UN Security Council is willing repeatedly to veto the ability to investigate these issues—any tyrant could determine that they can act and use these weapons with impunity. We must not allow that. The use of these chemical weapons must be stopped.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the Prime Minister’s remarks on the passing of Sergeant Tonroe? His courage and valour is another example of the courage and valour of all our servicemen and women, as was exemplified in Syria at the weekend. I thank the Prime Minister for her call with me prior to the action on Saturday morning and for her statement today. Its cogent and well-argued nature in addressing the challenges of these difficult times stands in stark contrast to today’s contribution made by the Leader of the Opposition in this House. Given that this is limited and targeted action, and that diplomacy was tried and, sadly, was unable to succeed, the Prime Minister is utterly justified in the action that she has taken. She should have the support of every right-thinking Member of the House in upholding international law and defending the national interests of the United Kingdom.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right: we undertook this action because we believed it was the right thing to do and it was in our national interest. I believe it is important that all of us across this House recognise the need to uphold the international rules-based order and do what we can to ensure that we maintain it.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I welcome the calm and measured assessment of the Prime Minister, as I suspect do a considerable number of Opposition Members. She mentioned the year 2011. Bearing in mind what happened in Libya after the House retrospectively approved air action in 2011—namely the toppling of the regime—will she give us an absolute and unequivocal guarantee that the use of airstrikes now, specifically, as she says, to degrade and to deter chemical atrocities, will absolutely not be allowed to lead to the Royal Air Force becoming, in effect, the air arm of the jihadist-led rebel forces in Syria? The two roles are and should be held to be entirely separate.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right—they are separate. This was about the degrading of chemical weapons capability; it was not about regime change and it was not about an intervention in the civil war in Syria. It was about the use of chemical weapons and the prevention of future humanitarian suffering.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

There are no easy solutions to the appalling humanitarian crisis and civil war in Syria, but Assad’s repeated use of chemical weapons against his own people, in violation of international law, cannot go unanswered. What is the Prime Minister’s assessment of Assad’s chemical weapons capability after these strikes, and what further and urgent humanitarian action is she planning to protect Syrian civilians?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for her words. We, of course, continue to complete assessments of the action, but the assessment of the strikes that took place in the early hours of Saturday morning is that they were successful and that they will have degraded the chemical weapons capability of the Syrian regime. But we will continue to ensure that we are encouraging humanitarian access to those people in Syria who require it. Again, attempts have been made, through the United Nations, to encourage that access and so forth. Sometimes those have not been successful, but we will continue to press, because we believe it is important that we can ensure that support is available to those people in Syria who need it.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)]

As a former Secretary of State for International Development, I can say that the harrowing stories I heard from Syrian refugees—men, women and children—will stay with me for the rest of my life. Does the Prime Minister agree that, on their behalf, we simply cannot turn a blind eye to this breach of international law and that there will be times when action is urgent and must be taken? Does she also agree that we cannot also allow countries such as Russia and Syria to simply dictate our foreign policy through barring action?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. As she said, she had the opportunity in her former role to speak to and hear from Syrian refugees about their experiences. Nobody who has seen the pictures or read the descriptions of what happened in Douma can think anything other than that this was an absolutely barbaric act that took place, and that it is right that we act in response to that and to the continued use of chemical weapons, because this was about the continued use of chemical weapons and the potential for those weapons to be used in future.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The sight of children and adults suffering from the effects of chemical weapons cries out to all humanity for a humane response, but planning for war without equally robust planning for peace is anything but humane. Conventional and chemical weapons are indiscriminately horrific. In what way will this weekend’s strikes protect children from future monstrous attacks?

[The Prime Minister]

We have undertaken a limited and targeted set of strikes, alongside our allies in the United States and France. The purpose of those strikes—as I just indicated in response to a previous question, our assessment is that they were successful—was to degrade the Syrian regime’s capability to use chemical weapons. They were also intended to deter the regime’s willingness to use chemical weapons. It is that degrading of the regime’s capability that we believe will have an impact and will help to alleviate the situation and ensure that we do not see the same humanitarian suffering in future.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will agree that the use of chemical weapons by anyone, anywhere, under any circumstances, is illegal, contrary to all the laws of war and utterly reprehensible. Will she therefore confirm that the Government will at a later date seek the arraignment at an international court of those who instigate these vile acts, whoever they may be?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the illegality of the use of chemical weapons and the impact of their use. We believe that those who are responsible should be held to account.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The pinpointing and degrading of Assad’s chemical weapons was necessary and appropriate. Intervening to save civilians from future gas attacks was, although not without risks, absolutely the right thing to do. Does the Prime Minister agree that a policy of inaction would also have severe consequences and that those who would turn a blind eye—who would do nothing in pursuit of some moral high ground—should today also be held accountable for once?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and agree with him. Many people focus on the impact of action, but inaction would have given a message that these chemical weapons could continue to be used by the Syrian regime and, indeed, by others, with impunity. We cannot allow that to happen. The use of these weapons must be stopped.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

There are no words to describe the appalling nature of the humanitarian disaster that confronts Syria, which is why I commend my right hon. Friend for the strong action that she has taken and the support she is giving to the Syrian people. Will she assure the House that in the face of the abhorrent abuses perpetrated by the Assad regime, hers will continue to be a strong voice in favour of the international rules-based system, and will she show that Britain will not stand idly by when cruel weapons are used to murder innocent children and families?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. We will ensure that our voice is heard. It is absolutely right that it was the right thing to do and was in our national interest, but it is also important that we are standing up for that international rules-based order and continue to do so.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Britain was absolutely right, with France and America, to take this long-overdue action in response to Assad’s proven and repeated use of chemical weapons. Since 2013, his regime and the Kremlin have lied and lied again about the continued development of his chemical weapons programme and their continued use. Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that if this does not prove to be a sufficient deterrent, she and our allies will not hesitate to act again? In those circumstances, though, I urge her to come to the House to seek Parliament’s consent first.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to refer to the proven and repeated use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. As I said earlier in response to a number of other questions, nobody should be in any doubt about our resolve to ensure that we alleviate human suffering by dealing with the use of chemical weapons and to ensure that their use is not normalised.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Prime Minister was indeed heard in respectful silence because her moderate, determined and sensible attitude deserves respect from this House. May I ask her a question on behalf of the persecuted Christians of the middle east who will face further persecution if it is believed that their sponsors in the west are taking sides in the civil war? Will she assure us that, not just in terms of this airstrike, but generally, we are no longer in favour of regime change, that we do not take sides and that we are only on the side of peace? While we Back Benchers can of course not have access to intelligence, she does, and having had that access, can she look me in the eye and say that she is absolutely clear in her own mind that, beyond reasonable doubt, the regime was responsible for this attack?

[The Prime Minister]

On the first point, I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns about persecuted Christians in the region. Indeed, we are discussing with the Foreign Office how we can look at this issue of Christians and other religious groups who find themselves persecuted in wherever they might be, including in this region. I can give him the absolute assurance that, from the intelligence that I have seen, from the analysis that I have seen and from the assessments that I have heard, I am in absolutely no doubt that the Syrian regime was responsible for this attack in Douma.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Prime Minister has said that the legal basis relies on there having been no practicable alternative to the use of force. Further to that, can she confirm exactly when the UK identified Him Shinsar as a chemical weapons storage facility, when it identified the chemical research facility at Barzeh as a chemical weapons research centre, when this information was reported to the OPCW and whether the UK has asked the OPCW to inspect both sites?

[The Prime Minister]

We have been very clear that we would like it to be possible for the OPCW to investigate sites in Syria, for there to be proper identification of the chemical weapons and for there to be proper accountability for the use of those chemical weapons.

[Caroline Lucas]

Did you ask?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Well, I say to the hon. Lady that, last Tuesday at the United Nations Security Council, there was going to be a proposal and resolution that would have enabled a proper investigative mechanism to be re-introduced to look at the use of chemical weapons and at what chemical weapons were available in Syria and held by the regime and at their capabilities and to be able to ascertain accountability for those chemical weapons. That draft resolution was vetoed by Russia.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the coming days, weeks and months, the image that we must hold in our minds is of children coughing up their lungs? Does she understand that many of us, from all parts of this House, want an Executive, when they are planning such a limited operation, to act in the full knowledge that if they do not and if they try to lay the matter before the House at great length, we will not only put at risk the operation, but possibly put at risk our airmen and complicate working with our partners?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that, when we think about this issue, we should hold in our minds the horrific suffering of children and others in Douma as a result of the use of these chemical weapons.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister has just said that we should hold in our minds the images of the suffering of those children—the human cost of the consequences of Assad and his Russian backers using chemical weapons against the people and it becoming normalised—but we know that this is not the first time. With that in mind, may I beg the Prime Minister to rethink her approach to those Syrians who have fled to Europe, because they are the same people fleeing this horror? They are the people who needed a safe haven. Forty per cent. of those in the Greek camps are Syrian, a third of whom are children, and there is only one Home Office official to deal with the issue for the entirety of Greece. Do those people not deserve more direct support from us, too?

[The Prime Minister]

The Home Office has been looking at this issue very carefully. We have changed the arrangements to ensure that a wider group of children will fall within the remit of our proposals for bringing refugee children into the United Kingdom. There are a number of ways in which we are ensuring that we accommodate, and offer shelter and security to, refugees from Syria, including refugee children. But as I said earlier, we must also recognise the many millions of people from Syria who have been displaced both within and from their country. It is right that we look to ensure that we can provide as much support as possible for them, and that is best done by supporting them in region.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

May I offer the Prime Minister my support for the action that was taken at the weekend and for her stance on Parliament? She is absolutely right that Members of Parliament are there to scrutinise the decisions of the Executive, but it is the Prime Minister’s right, with her Government, to make the difficult decision that she made at the end of last week. In her statement, she talks about continuing to work with “international partners on tough economic action against those involved with the production or dissemination of chemical weapons”. May I suggest to her that that should extend to those who are complicit in the use of chemical weapons, those who turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons and those who veto resolutions of the United Nations? I am talking about much tougher sanctions on Russia and Russian citizens.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her contribution and for her specific proposals. We will be looking very carefully at what further levers can be used. I am pleased that the European Union Foreign Affairs Council has today agreed that it is willing to look at what further measures could be taken, and I will certainly take on board and note the specific suggestions made by my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Speaker]

It is always good to be able to call a fairly new and young Member, particularly when that Member is celebrating her birthday. I call Paula Sherriff.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

After the appalling scenes we saw in Douma, all of us in this House agree that there is a desperate need to provide humanitarian relief and medical care to the civilians who have fled the city and to those who have remained. What action has the Prime Minister taken to that end?

[The Prime Minister]

May I first wish the hon. Lady a very happy birthday?

We will be continuing to work with our international partners to see what more we can do regarding our humanitarian support and to press for humanitarian access. As the hon. Lady and others will know, this has been one of the problems. Time and again, groups of people in Syria have been suffering as a result of the conflict and it has not been possible to get humanitarian access to them. We will continue to press for that access at the international level.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

On Sunday’s “The Andrew Marr Show”, the Leader of the Opposition said that

“our exports that go to Saudi Arabia…end up somewhere in very bad hands, in Syria and other places.”

The Leader of the Opposition has rightly called for evidence to support this intervention and for the Government to be satisfied about it. People who demand evidence and then repeat malicious gossip for which there is not only no evidence, but which is contradicted by the non-governmental organisations that are specialists in the area, are guilty of very poor double standards.

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree.

[Mr Speaker]

On the subject of new, young Members who are early in the parliamentary careers, let us hear from Mr Barry Sheerman.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is not my birthday, but I was born in London on the worst weekend of the blitz. My next-door neighbour’s family were killed that night, including the two children, so I want action when I hear of a tyrant killing children. I have no criticism of the Prime Minister, but I do have one problem and demur. I have been a passionate pro-American for all the time that I have been in this House, and I have seen America as a beacon of our democratic world. But I was at the United Nations on different business last week when all this happened, and the conversations there were quite chilling. Many of us passionate pro-Americans could not remember a time when we were seriously worried about American leadership and the American President at the same time that we did not trust Putin and his horrible gang. We need a Prime Minister and European leaders to show the way in these troubled times. Does the Prime Minister agree?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has seen from the fact that the United Kingdom and France came together with the United States in this action that there is leadership being shown in Europe on this matter. We will continue to work with France, as I said, on the international grouping that it has put together on the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons. It is clear that Europe has taken a stance on this and has shown the way on the importance of the international rules-based order.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Had the Prime Minister first sought our consent, with what detail might she have persuaded us without fundamentally compromising our intelligence-gathering capability?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend has put his finger on a particular aspect of this issue. It is not possible to bring all the intelligence through to this House; it is not possible to make all that intelligence public. Sometimes, actually, more information can be made available after the event than in advance of the event, because we do need to maintain the operational security of our armed forces.

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

Among those of us who have been trying to follow President Trump’s tweets over the past week, I cannot be the only person who has found it extremely difficult to keep track of whether he was for military action or against military action, so I wonder whether the Prime Minister can tell us at what point the President instructed her that military action would be taken.

[The Prime Minister]

The answer to the hon. Lady’s question is this: at no point at all. I took this decision, because I believed it was the right thing to do and it was in our national interest. It is a decision that should, I believe, be supported by anybody who recognises that we need to re-establish the international norms in relation to the use, and the prohibition of the use, of chemical weapons.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

The Prime Minister deserves the support that she is getting from across the House for the action she has taken, just as it has had support from democracies not just in Europe but all around the world. Is not the problem for those who are advocating any and every type of action except military action that the action by the Assad regime was part of a repeated pattern of barbaric use of chemical weapons and that therefore, if she and our allies had not taken military action, we would have sent the message that using chemical weapons was no big deal, thus encouraging their further use on innocent civilians around the world?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was important, I believe, that we took action because what we saw in Douma was part of a repeated pattern of behaviour by the Syrian regime. It was precisely to degrade its capability and to prevent further humanitarian suffering that we took this action.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I accept that the Prime Minister had no real easy options in making this consideration, but given that members of the Security Council are now acting outwith the norms that she says she has acted to defend—ultimately, if the veto is dead for Moscow, it is dead for London—how exactly does she plan to restore order and reform the Security Council?

[The Prime Minister]

We will continue to operate through the United Nations Security Council and continue to make the arguments for ensuring that every country recognises the importance of ensuring that we maintain the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. As I said earlier, the strikes that took place were about degrading the Syrian regime’s capability, but I believe they should have given a message to others as well that we will not accept the use of chemical weapons with impunity.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

May I begin by congratulating the Prime Minister on her leadership and on her sheer guts to take a decisive decision over the weekend to deal with Assad and his friends? In the event of a retaliatory cyber-attack from Russia on our NHS or any other vital part of our infrastructure, would she then, working with our NATO allies, consider invoking article 5?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises the issue of potential cyber-attacks. We have done a great deal as a Government to reinforce our capability to identify and deal with any potential cyber-attacks. The establishment of the National Cyber Security Centre has been a very important development from the United Kingdom’s point of view, enabling us to deal with the issue of cyber-attacks. We always remain on the alert for any such attacks, and we continue to enhance our capability to deal with them.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister referred to the actions of previous Governments. May I remind her and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) that it was a Labour Government, with Robin Cook as Foreign Secretary, that carried out airstrikes in Iraq under Operation Desert Fox in 1998 without a UN resolution, that it was a Labour Government that restored President Kabbah in Sierra Leone without a UN resolution, that it was a Labour Government that stopped the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo without a UN resolution, and that there is a long-standing and noble tradition on these Benches of supporting humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; decisions have been taken by Governments of all colours to take action where it was believed to be in the national interest and important in order to prevent humanitarian suffering. As he said, there has been a long-standing and proud tradition in the Labour party of being willing to step up to the plate and take those decisions when it is necessary to do so.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Such decisions are always difficult, and Prime Ministers must retain the leeway to commit armed forces in extremis, but I hope the Prime Minister will understand that many are concerned, given our track record of errors in previous interventions and in Syria, that Government should be properly scrutinised before committing troops. Given the possibility of future interventions in Syria, under what circumstances does the Prime Minister think it right to come to this place and consult before committing armed forces?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely understand the concern that my hon. Friend and other Members of the House have in relation to the role of Parliament, particularly given the experience, and I know that he has in the past and continues to be concerned about that issue. As I said in response to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), we are not saying that no debate should take place in Parliament; we are saying simply that there needs to be a recognition of the fact that there will be occasions when it is important to act in a timeline and with consideration of the operational security of our armed forces, which means it is not possible to have that debate in advance of a decision being taken.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of the last discussions I had with our murdered former colleague Jo Cox was on the need to protect civilians in Syria. We cannot fire and forget, but neither can we simply debate and talk and forget. What is the Prime Minister’s comprehensive political, diplomatic and humanitarian strategy—not just one-off military actions—to protect civilians in Syria? Does she agree that councils around the country, including Vale of Glamorgan Council in my constituency, need to do much more to support the resettlement of Syrian refugees under the resettlement programme, which they are currently not doing?

[The Prime Minister]

Certainly. There are two areas in which we will undertake this diplomatic and political process. The first is in relation to the use of chemical weapons, following up within a number of international forums on the military action that has taken place. As I said, there have already been comments coming out of the European Foreign Affairs Council and the Gulf Co-operation Council, and we will be discussing with a number of leaders around the world how we can re-establish the international norm prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. That is one strand of activity we will undertake.

The other strand is the full support we will continue to give to the United Nations process in trying to find a solution to what is happening in Syria. We support the work that Staffan de Mistura, the United Nations envoy, is doing in that area. We hope that the Geneva process can be reignited and that we see the parties coming together around the table to find a genuine solution; that means not just all the parties in Syria but actually the backers of the parties in Syria being willing to do that.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The Leader of the Opposition has argued that the airstrikes were illegal, but is it not true that the only illegal act that has taken place in this situation was the war crime—and it was a war crime—of using chemical weapons to murder families and children? Was the Prime Minister not entirely right to authorise these airstrikes to defend the principles of the chemical weapons convention and, in so doing, to uphold international law?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is illegal is the use of chemical weapons, and it is entirely right that we have acted.

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I have not heard much clarity on this, so will the Prime Minister tell us whether she is planning to use Executive powers again with regard to military action in Syria—in breach of the commonly understood parliamentary protocol that would have given the House a say in a matter of war? There is clear opposition from British people to airstrikes, and I think the public are right to be sceptical, so will the Prime Minister also explain how Friday night’s airstrikes have improved the safety and security of Syrian people practically, when we are aware that the bombing and violence are continuing unabated throughout the region?

[The Prime Minister]

I have responded to a number of questions in relation to Parliament. In the second part of the hon. Lady’s question, she asks about what impact this will have. The strikes that took place were about degrading the chemical weapons capability of the Syrian regime. As I have said in answer to other questions, the assessment we have made is that the strikes were successful. We obviously continue to build that picture, but that is our assessment of the strikes that have taken place. It is by degrading its chemical weapons capability that we can have an impact and ensure that we are reducing the likelihood of the humanitarian suffering in the future.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

The conflict in Syria has had the most serious impact on other nations in the region, not least countries friendly to the UK such as Jordan, which has done so much to accommodate refugees from the fighting. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our regional allies have been kept fully informed about the action we took last weekend, and that they will be similarly informed should any future action be necessary?

[The Prime Minister]

I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. He specifically mentions Jordan. In fact, I spoke to His Majesty the King of Jordan on Saturday about this and about the support that the United Kingdom continues to give to Jordan, which is important. There are a large number of refugees in Jordan, and it is absolutely right that we continue to support that country in providing for those refugees and in other ways.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The policy paper on the UK Government’s legal position says:

“The UK is permitted under international law, on an exceptional basis, to take measures in order to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering.”

It does not, however, cite any authority for that proposition: it does not quote the UN charter, and it does not refer to any Security Council resolution nor any international treaty of any kind. Will the Prime Minister tell us why that proposition is unvouched for in the policy paper?

[The Prime Minister]

I say to the hon. and learned Lady that the basis on which we undertook this action is one that has been accepted by Governments previously and one under which previous action has been taken. I believe that it continues to be the right basis for ensuring that we can act to alleviate humanitarian suffering, and I would have thought the alleviation of humanitarian suffering was something that should gain support from across the whole House.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is an historic reality that, of the many hundreds of occasions on which this country has gone to war or committed troops, only four have been voted on in this House prior to taking place, the most notable being when Tony Blair illegally committed our troops to war in 2003—not a great precedent. Does the Prime Minister not agree that she has the secret intelligence, she has the legal advice and she has the military advice to take that most awful and terrible of decisions—to commit our troops to war—and that by coming here and looking for political top cover, rather than empowering Parliament, she is actually emasculating it?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the position that the Government have taken on these matters, as set out in 2016, is absolutely clear: we must retain the right to be able to commit our armed forces where it is necessary and right to do so in a timely fashion, without having a debate in Parliament. However, we recognise the significance and importance of Parliament, and if it is the case that a decision is taken without that prior consideration by Parliament, the Prime Minister should come at the first possible opportunity to the House, which is what I have done.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I am glad that we are finally debating this situation in Syria, but the Prime Minister could and should have recalled Parliament to discuss and vote on this issue last week.

The heartbreaking and sickening images of these chemical attacks leave us in no doubt why so many Syrians have felt forced to take their children and flee their homes and their country. In the same circumstances, which of us would not do the same? But with deeper engagement comes greater responsibility, so does the Prime Minister recognise the jarring contrast between the humanitarian arguments she makes for this military action and her Government’s inhumane and inadequate approach to Syrian refugees, which has left vulnerable children stranded and alone?

[The Prime Minister]

We have been providing significant support to Syrian refugees since the start of this conflict—it is the biggest single humanitarian intervention that this country has made. We have been providing water, food and medical consultations for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Syrian refugees, and we continue to do so. I believe it is right that we continue to recognise the need of those people and that we continue to provide for it.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I sincerely thank my right hon. Friend for making sure Britain stands up against these chemical weapons attacks. Did she see the investigation in The Times on Saturday, which shows that a number of senior academics across universities, including Sheffield and Edinburgh, are disseminating extremist Assad propaganda? The Times describes it as

“an insult to the victims of a depraved regime and a stain on the reputation of the institutions which host its authors.”

Will she act to stop this extremism in our universities?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I have to confess to my right hon. Friend that I had not seen that particular report, and I will, of course, look at it. There are a number of values that underpin our society; of course, academic freedom is one of them. However, I will certainly look at the instances he has referred me to.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I regret that there was not a parliamentary debate and vote on this military intervention. However, standing by and letting President Assad use chemical weapons against his own people would have been the wrong thing to do. To prevent the further deterioration of the humanitarian catastrophe that is unfolding in Syria, and has been for the last seven years, will the Prime Minister support President Macron’s initiative to push for humanitarian corridors to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people?

[The Prime Minister]

We will be pressing for humanitarian access. The exact form in which that humanitarian access might occur, of course, might vary, but we will continue to press with our international allies for humanitarian access.

[Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am very grateful for the Prime Minister’s robust action over the weekend. Given that this action has been legal, precise and timely, would she agree that those who seek to play politics around this issue by raising spurious legal questions do a great disservice to their office and a grave disservice to the innocent civilians in Syria who have faced the horror of chemical attack?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend. From the contributions that have already been made, it is clear that, across the House, there is support for action being taken against the use of chemical weapons and in support of those who have been suffering so abominably from the action of the Syrian regime.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The military action that took place was both correct and proportional in response to the horrific spectacle of women and children being gassed in their own homes in Douma. The military action is, though, only part of the strategy, so could the Prime Minister expand a little further on what will take place in the next few weeks in terms of the broader strategy, including the suggestion from the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) about economic sanctions against those who support the Assad regime?

[The Prime Minister]

There are a variety of ways in which we will be pursuing further action on the international stage. We will be looking at various economic levers, as I have said, and I take on board the comments that have been made in the House about the importance of doing that. We recognise that it was not just a case of the strikes taking place on Saturday morning and that we need to follow up with international action. We will look at the economic levers that we can use. As I have referenced, the Foreign Affairs Council in Europe has already been looking at the willingness to take further action. I have discussed that with a number of European Union leaders as well.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has today made a compelling case for limited military action against the use of chemical warfare in Syria, but the wider diplomatic and political initiatives to bring about the end of these ghastly conflicts in Syria and to achieve a lasting peaceful solution seem no closer to success today than they were five years ago. What does my right hon. Friend believe is possible in trying to refocus all the parties involved on achieving that desperately difficult goal?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that it has been difficult over the years that this conflict has taken place to bring the parties around the table. It is important not only that the opposition parties in Syria are willing to come around the table, which they are, but that the regime is, and Russia needs to play its part in ensuring that the regime is willing to come forward and to sit down and discuss the future of Syria.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

We all know that the Syrian civil war will end only through diplomatic means, which is why this evening’s Stop the War demonstration should be taking place outside the Russian embassy and not outside this Parliament. The truth is that, had the UN Security Council fulfilled its obligations, we would not be facing the scenario that the Prime Minister described this afternoon. However, can I ask her to look again, with the same degree of urgency and same scale of response that she has provided in the last week, at the humanitarian crisis? This country has taken only 11,000 refugees. Syria’s neighbours, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan, are bearing the brunt of the humanitarian crisis. We have a responsibility to protect Syrian civilians, whether they are in Syria, in surrounding countries or making their way to this country, and we have not stepped up to the mark, not nearly enough.

[The Prime Minister]

As I said before, we are of course providing support in the region to those refugees. We have done so on the basis that we believe it is important. We want to see a resolution to the Syrian conflict, such that people will be able to return home in the future. That support in region is more likely to enable that to happen. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he says that Russia must bear its responsibility for what is happening in Syria and for the continuation of this conflict.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I can deal with most things, but it is quite difficult dealing with lawyers.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend asks about other countries playing their part in providing humanitarian support and support for refugees. She is absolutely right. I hope, at the conference due to take place in Brussels towards the end of this month, that countries will step up so we can ensure that support is available.

[Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)]

In the Prime Minister’s statement, she said:

“We are confident in our own assessment that the Syrian regime was highly likely responsible”.

Surely the burden of proof should be beyond reasonable doubt, as opposed to being “highly likely”? In addition, I would be interested to know who “we” are, given that Parliament was not consulted.

[The Prime Minister]

The Government made their assessments. Those were not just the view of the UK Government; they were shared by our allies and on that basis we acted.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

I support my right hon. Friend’s decisive action this weekend. Were we waiting for war crimes prosecutions to take place, we would still be waiting for prosecutions dating back to the events she described that took place in 2013. I urge her to collect evidence relating to war crimes, but if this position arises again may I urge her to act as she did this weekend?

[The Prime Minister]

We will always act in the national interest and there should be no doubt about our resolve in ensuring that we return to the international norm of the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

From Prime Minister Trudeau in Canada to Prime Minister Abe in Japan, and from European leaders to leaders in Australia and New Zealand, the leaders of international bodies around the world stand shoulder to shoulder with my right hon. Friend, France and the United States of America in taking this action. Will she assure me that she will not listen to the increasingly small and isolated number of voices who insist that the Russian regime has a veto on our international actions? Will she instead listen to the numerous voices around the world who support the action she took at the weekend?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Inaction and indecision has its cost. So far in Syria it has been met by the children of Syria, the parents who have lost their homes, the people who have lost their lives and the families who have been displaced. The Prime Minister is, of course, right to take action when there is an emergency—she has that prerogative right. Nearly always, however, it is better to come to the House of Commons first. In the end, the most pernicious role in Syria has been played by Russia: it has systematically refused to allow people to investigate where war crimes have been committed, and it has advanced its own territorial ambitions. Is it not right that we must ensure that it pays the price in the end?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Nobody should be in any doubt about the role that Russia has played. Russia could play a role to ensure we find a diplomatic and political solution to what is happening in Syria. It has been unwilling to do so and it has supported a regime that has illegally used chemical weapons to kill and injure its own civilians, including young children.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Many of the ghastly chemical attacks my right hon. Friend announced this afternoon would be classed as war crimes, so she was absolutely right to take the action she has taken. In contrast, what would have been the consequence for future tyrants if the Leader of the Opposition had failed to take military action?

[The Prime Minister]

The fact is that without action the message would have been sent that it was okay for this regime, and any other regime that chose to do so, to use chemical weapons. It is very important that we re-establish the fact that chemical weapons use is illegal and that the international community will not stand by and see them used.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It seems this is a week in which the Government have sought to lead the Commonwealth, but have nearly deported its citizens; to defend the international rules-based system by ignoring the United Nations; and to reclaim parliamentary sovereignty by not using it. Will the Prime Minister advise the House on where that all fits in with the plan for a global Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

We have not ignored the United Nations. We have tried to work through the United Nations, but Russia has vetoed action in the United Nations. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that this country should effectively give Russia a veto over our foreign policy, then I have to say to him that I absolutely disagree. The United Kingdom Government will determine the United Kingdom’s foreign policy—nobody else.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Russia is waging a propaganda war and it is involved in the cover-up. It is reporting that the attack was staged and it has, over many months, systematically and strategically used social media to undermine western engagement and intervention in Syria. While it is right to hold the Government to account, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Leader of the Opposition is at risk of becoming a voice for our country’s enemies?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important that everybody across this House is in no doubt about the way in which Russia has supported the Syrian regime and the way in which Russia has acted. That has meant it has been much harder to do what the Leader of the Opposition and others have looked for, which is to bring an end to the conflict in Syria. Russia is playing a negative role. It could play a positive role. We should be in no doubt about the actions Russia has taken and the role it is playing.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

When David Cameron came to the House in 2011 following the start of our intervention in Libya, it was for a full debate on an amendable motion. He got that approval by 557 votes to 13. I offer no prizes for guessing who was in the 13, Mr Speaker. Will the Prime Minister follow the precedent set by David Cameron and tomorrow allow the House a vote on an amendable motion, not just a general debate?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman quotes the former Prime Minister. The former Prime Minister also said to the House of Commons in 2014:

“it is important to reserve the right that if there were a critical British national interest at stake or there were the need to act to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, you could act immediately and explain to the House of Commons afterwards.”—[Official Report, 26 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 1265.]

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

The Prime Minister was absolutely right in the actions she took and the way she took them. She was also right, in her statement, to continue to press for the re-establishment of the international investigative mechanism. Does she believe that that mechanism and that ambition will be thwarted unless Russia gives up its veto on the Security Council and the OPCW is allowed to continue its investigations unhindered in Syria?

[The Prime Minister]

I want the OPCW to be able to continue its investigations unhindered, but my hon. Friend puts his finger on it: unless the Russians are willing, within the Security Council, to put aside the position they have taken previously and accept it is important that we re-establish the international rules-based order, we allow the investigations to take place and we hold the Syrian regime accountable for its actions.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

This debate is heavily coloured by the vote that took place in this House in 2013 against the use of military action, after the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons at that time. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how many times the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons against its own people since we took that vote and since Russia promised to oversee the elimination of the Syrian chemical weapons programme?

[The Prime Minister]

I made reference in my statement to a number of occasions on which the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons, as evidenced and accepted by the United Nations. This is exactly the problem. The Syrian regime said it would get rid of its chemical weapons and the Russians said that they would guarantee that that would happen. It did not happen. Chemical weapons have been used on a number of occasions since.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I support the decision that the Prime Minister took both to authorise action that degraded chemical weapons capability and to send a very clear message about its unacceptability. I have listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition and looked at what he has done in this House when opposing military action, whether it was authorised by the UN or, indeed, asked for by the Government of Iraq to deal with Daesh. I know that the Prime Minister took this decision with great care and attention, as a Prime Minister must do, but a Prime Minister who is never willing to use military action is not fit to hold that office.

[The Prime Minister]

There is no harder decision for a Prime Minister to take than to commit British armed forces to action. It is a grave responsibility, but sadly there are occasions when it is necessary to take that decision—and yes, be held accountable for it. But the idea that we would never commit our armed forces to action is completely unacceptable. We have to accept that there are occasions when it is right for our armed forces to be sent out there into action on our behalf, and that is what we have done.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

The international community has a responsibility to protect civilians caught up in conflict, so would the Prime Minister explain how she and the international community intend to hold Assad and his allies fully to account in the interests of preventing further atrocities?

[The Prime Minister]

The first step we have taken in the interests of preventing further atrocities is to take action to degrade the chemical weapons capability of the regime. We also want to follow this up with diplomatic and political pressure on the issue of using chemical weapons. We believe that this is not just about degrading the chemical weapons capability of the regime; I hope that it has sent a message to others as well that the international community is resolved in not being willing to see the use of chemical weapons being normalised.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

The Leader of the Opposition suggested that Britain acted only because it was instructed to by the US. I find that hugely disrespectful to the British Government, the British armed forces and our allies in France. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is vital that the Government can take action rapidly when it is needed and that it is vital to send a message to Putin and Assad that we are ready to use such powers?

[The Prime Minister]

Let nobody be in any doubt: we did not act under instruction from anybody. We acted in the national interest.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

So far today the Prime Minister has ducked out of questions about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world—Yemen—and she has not answered why she did not wait until the outcome of the OPCW inspections. She has not explained why a parliamentary recall would jeopardise the action that President Trump had already tweeted about. She has not answered about providing further humanitarian assistance and additional support for refugees, and yet she talks about parliamentary scrutiny. How is a statement after the event parliamentary scrutiny when she will not answer any hard questions?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman talks about me not answering questions on refugees, but I have done so, or on the OPCW, but I have done so. I have answered many questions and I have to say that I will be answering many more on this particular issue.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The UK and the men and women of our armed forces should be enormously proud of being part of a triumvirate that over the weekend delivered necessary, proportionate and humane military effect, and the Prime Minister should be proud of her leadership. Would the Prime Minister agree that Russia, in addition to its disgracefully deployed veto at the UN Security Council, has another veto that it is able to exercise—by virtue of shifting its military assets around Syria?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that we should look very carefully at the role that Russia is playing in Syria. Russia has the capability of acting in a different way by ensuring that the parties can sit down together, resolve this issue and find a political solution. It has not been willing to do so thus far, but we will make every effort to ensure that all parties are willing to do that and to ensure that we can find a political solution.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

If the targeted buildings were not empty, what assessment does the Prime Minister have of the casualties?

[The Prime Minister]

We have no evidence of casualties so far. If there are reports of casualties, those will be properly investigated. Of course, that is in sharp contrast to the approach taken by the Syrian regime and its Russian backers. The planning was done very carefully to ensure that we minimised the possibility of casualties.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend put to bed the less than constructive comments we are getting from some Members of the Opposition—that Friday’s action was taken as a knee-jerk reaction to President Trump? Rather, can she give assurances that action was taken in the national interest to give a clear message that using chemical weapons anywhere, whether in Syria or Salisbury, is simply unacceptable, and that we cannot turn our backs on action like this?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to repeat to my hon. Friend that this action was taken and we believed that it was the right thing to do. It was in our national interest. It was not under the instruction of anybody else. We determined that it was right for the United Kingdom to be part of this action in order to degrade a chemical weapons capability that could have been used to inflict further humanitarian suffering.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

If not regime change, what is the endgame?

[The Prime Minister]

The step we want to see is the parties coming together around the table to agree a political solution to the future of Syria. There is a key role; we have been pressing for that. We have been supporting the Geneva process. We continue to support Staffan de Mistura and the work that he is doing. It is up to not just the Syrian regime but its backers to ensure that they are willing to see that discussion take place and a proper solution for Syria being resolved in the interests of all its people.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Leadership takes great courage. My right hon. Friend has shown it in spades and I commend her, as do most in the House today. I am sure she would agree that I would be failing if I did not mention the money spent on our armed forces in difficult times such as this. I ask her, please, to consider spending more money on our defences so that we are ready if, God forbid, they are needed more in the future.

[The Prime Minister]

I recognise the interest that my hon. Friend has shown in this topic and the way in which he has championed the armed forces in relation to the financial settlements. Prior to Easter, I was able to announce that some extra money was being made available to the Ministry of Defence, and we have in hand the modernising defence programme, in which we are looking to ensure—he referred to our capabilities—that we have the capabilities necessary to deal with the variety of threats that we face. The capabilities for our security will be of a variety of sorts, not all of which will lie in the Ministry of Defence.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), after this House voted against strikes in 2013 the Government and the Opposition accepted Russia’s assurances that it would oversee the dismantling of Assad’s chemical weapon capability. Yet over the past five years, Russia has used its veto no fewer than five times at the Security Council. Five of those vetoes were specifically on motions that could have hampered the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Does she believe, like me, that we were wrong to accept Russia’s commitment, and can she tell the House about what her next steps will be at the UN Security Council?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, I was one of those who voted in favour of action being taken when the vote was taken in this House in 2013. A guarantee from Russia was accepted, and it has been proved that that was wrong because it did not deliver on that, and the Syrian regime has not delivered on its commitment. It is important that we take the issue of the use of chemical weapons into the United Nations. I spoke to the United Nations Secretary-General about further steps that can be taken over the weekend.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that, contrary to claims over the weekend, there is no evidence that any British defence export products have ended up in the wrong hands in Syria?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to our Royal Air Force personnel, some of whom I had the privilege to meet on a NATO delegation to Qatar last month. Does the Prime Minister agree that international humanitarian law is clear that there is no time and no place, ever, where chemical weapons may be used, and that enforcing that law—that taboo—is absolutely imperative, whether the weapons are used on the streets of Salisbury or the bunkers of Douma? Many Labour Members support the action that she took, and we also support Labour’s proud tradition of taking action to intervene in conflicts to provide humanitarian protection, notably in Kosovo and Sierra Leone. We will act to protect that tradition.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. She is absolutely right that we should be proud of our air force personnel, as we should be of all our armed forces and the work they do to keep us safe. As she said, there is a proud tradition in the Labour party of being willing to take action on these matters when necessary, and she has reflected that proud tradition today.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Following the British military action in Syria over the weekend, what assessment have the Government made of the asymmetrical threats facing the UK, and what actions are being taken to combat them?

[The Prime Minister]

We have been enhancing our ability in a number of areas to deal with potential threats —I referred earlier to the potential for cyber-attacks, and we have enhanced our capability to deal with those—and of course we continue to ensure that we have the right defences whatever the potential threat.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I regret that there was not a parliamentary vote on this issue, but I wish to tell the Prime Minister and the House that she would have had my vote had I been asked to give it. In the future, however, it would be better were the country able to understand what was going on. I also rise to ask that everybody in this place try to have better faith in one another in critiquing whether this is right or wrong. This is not an opportunity for politics about the local elections; it is about children being gassed, and I have heard ridiculous politicking and bad faith on both sides. People need to have good faith in us. And it is not about our voices; it is about the Syrian people’s voices. So with that, I ask: where are they in all this, and what are the British Government doing with aid to try to build Syrian civic society?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, and she is right. It is important that across the House we deal with such issues with the solemnity they require. As she says, at the end of the day this is about the impact on children and men and women in Syria. We will continue to work with Syrian refugees in the region and we want to ensure, of course, that when it is possible for them to return they are able to build a stronger and more stable and secure Syria.

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister believe that when urgent targeted action is required, waiting for a parliamentary vote could not just put our armed forces in harm’s way but give those stockpiling chemical weapons time to conceal them?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that in deciding whether to take such action, it is imperative that we consider the operational security of our armed forces as well as timeliness to ensure that we have the impact we wish to have.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the professionalism of the Royal Air Force in carrying out its task last week, and I agree that deciding to take military action is the most difficult decision a Prime Minister or parliamentarian can take, but does she not understand the frustration of elected Members of the House of Commons at being sidelined in last week’s decision? We had to rely for information on the Twitter account of the US President and the mainstream news. [Interruption.] We did. We should have been consulted, because that Twitter account was giving away all America’s future actions, and we had to find out that way. We should have been called back to the House of Commons to offer our support to the RAF and others.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the support he has given to the Royal Air Force. I simply say to him, as I have said to others, that this is not a question of whether on every occasion one particular approach or another is taken; it is about ensuring that action can be taken in a way that will ensure it meets the need. This was limited, targeted action taken on a legal basis that had been accepted by several previous Governments.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for so clearly laying out the humanitarian grounds on which she made the very difficult decision to take action last Friday. What more humanitarian aid could be provided if only Assad and Putin would allow access to Syria?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. If we could have that humanitarian access, many more people in Syria could be supported and provided with the medical support they need and with food and water and the other necessities of life. Sadly, the Syrian regime and its Russian backers are preventing that.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Hundreds of thousands of people lie dead, 1.5 million people are injured and millions have been displaced by the use of chemical and conventional weapons. Should the House not have been recalled last week to discuss how a de-escalation of the crisis can be brought about? Such de-escalation is vital to long-term security within the region.

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, this action was limited, targeted and taken with a view to minimising the possibility of civilian casualties and the risk of an escalation of the conflict.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Russia and Syria have lied and lied again about the use of these vile weapons for the mass murder of civilians in Syria, but this is not just a distant conflict; we have also seen these vile weapons used in Salisbury, where they would have resulted in the deaths of three people had it not been for the intervention of intensive care and the expert medical help we have access to here. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time for people to stop acting as the useful idiots of the Russian regime by appearing on networks such as Russia Today and to look at the facts and bear their own responsibility?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Nobody should be in any doubt about the actions of Russia, and nobody should be supporting them. We should all recognise the role that Russia has played in backing the Syrian regime and in failing to guarantee that it was dismantling all its chemical weapons, and that it continues to play in vetoing action on the UN Security Council and in not encouraging the Syrian regime to come to a resolution of this conflict.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

The UK should be proud of the role it has played in advancing the principle of intervention to prevent humanitarian catastrophe, and it would be shameful if that were abandoned now by people who in fact would not countenance intervention under any circumstances. But something else is necessary to enable humanitarian intervention in Syria, and that is the military’s guaranteeing the safety of aid convoys getting into besieged areas. It meets the Government’s test. Will she consider it?

[The Prime Minister]

We have, over the time of this conflict, looked several times at how we can ensure humanitarian access to those who need it in Syria. Our overriding consideration must be to ensure that, whatever decisions are taken and whatever access is given, it will genuinely work and provide that access. Unfortunately, of course, the Syrian regime and its backers have been preventing that humanitarian access so far, but we will continue to press for it.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for her leadership on this very difficult issue. The use of chemical weapons, whether in Syria or on the streets of Salisbury, is completely unacceptable. Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that she will stay absolutely resolute and continue to advocate against the use of chemical weapons, and not listen to those in the House who seem happy to put the interests of countries such as Russia before those of our great country?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to press this case to ensure that we can restore the international norm of a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Will the Prime Minister set out what her Government are actively doing to prevent the further escalation of the conflict in Syria, given that she has apparently left open the possibility of more strikes should another chemical attack take place? Does she think there is sufficient public support for more strikes?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, we took limited and targeted action to degrade the chemical weapons capability, to deter the willingness of the Syrian regime to use chemical weapons and to give a clear message to others on the use of chemical weapons, but we are resolved—and no one should doubt our resolve—to ensure that we can restore a position in which no one believes that the use of chemical weapons has been normalised.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Given that representatives of a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council have blatantly lied and suggested that Britain somehow staged the appalling atrocities that we have all witnessed, can my right hon. Friend confirm that she had no choice but to take the actions that she took to help the Syrian people?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. These actions were taken to alleviate future humanitarian suffering by the Syrian people. I continue to believe—and I think this has been made clear by many Members—that they were the right actions to take.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Following the UK’s military intervention in Kosovo in 1999 on humanitarian grounds, Russia invaded Georgia using the same legal justification. What assessment has been made of the misuse of humanitarian reasons for military intervention that may be used by other states in the long term?

[The Prime Minister]

We are responsible for the actions that we take. As the hon. Lady has said, and as I said in my statement, we have used this legal basis on a number of occasions, and I think it was absolutely right to use it on this occasion.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

In 2013, I voted against action in Syria. I did so on the basis of no more information than I had seen on the six o’clock news. That is why we have an Executive, drawn from and accountable to Parliament, and that is why the Prime Minister’s action was 100% correct in this case. The vote that we took in 2013, and the question of whether we were responsible for some of these attacks, will weigh on my conscience ever more.

This afternoon, Members have stood up and accused the Prime Minister of operating on the basis of instructions from Washington. Will she go further and say that not only are their suggestions wrong, but they are a smear, they are disgusting, and they are insulting to our troops?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I think that that accusation is indeed insulting. It is certainly not true. It is insulting to the Government, and, as my hon. Friend has said, it is insulting to our troops who so professionally and bravely carry out the action that we need.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister acted entirely appropriately. If these chemical weapons became normalised, not only would they be used against civilians in the future, but the time would surely come when our own servicemen and women would go into action for our country and they would be used against them too. That would be unforgivable. However, military action is not a replacement for diplomacy. Does the Prime Minister accept that we need a global response on the scale of the Gleneagles summit—when we focused the world’s attention on international development—to tackle Syria and put strategy behind it once and for all?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making the point that if chemical weapons were allowed to continue to be used, they would be used by other people not just against civilians, but potentially against service personnel.

We do want to ensure that there is a major effort on the diplomatic side to find a resolution to the situation in Syria. That is why we continue to back the Geneva process and will work to ensure that it is reignited.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on the clear and calm, but courageous and decisive, leadership that she has shown over the past week. As a humble Back Bencher, I also thank her for not placing on me the responsibility to make this decision without having the full information and intelligence that were available to her. Does she share my view that while we need to learn the lessons of the past, it is time for the House—and, indeed, our country—to get over the mistakes of the past and stand proud on the international stage again?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. Information will be available to the Government that it is not possible for them to make available to the House on all occasions, and it is important to be able to operate in a timely fashion to protect the safety and security of our armed forces when that is done on a legal basis that is accepted.

[Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

Children escaping from war and terrible atrocities in Syria have been refused asylum and protection by this Government in the past. Let me be clear: Britain is better than that, and this military action has not been taken in my name. May I ask the Prime Minister whether bombing a country, then refusing to give asylum to children seeking refuge, reflects the Government’s idea of British values?

[The Prime Minister]

We have been granting asylum to both children and adults from Syria, through a number of schemes. However, we have also been supporting and maintaining, and providing food, medical assistance and water for, hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees in the region. Members of this House, including the hon. Lady, should be proud of the fact that we are the second largest humanitarian bilateral donor.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I commend the Prime Minister for her leadership in the face of the awful atrocities that we have seen in Syria and the use of these chemical weapons, and for trying to prevent them from being used in the future. A decision to use military force is clearly a very serious decision, and serious decisions need to be made by those in possession of all the intelligence and advice and in full knowledge of our military capabilities. Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether making such information available to Parliament in advance of military action could risk the lives of our intelligence and military personnel and the effectiveness of the operation itself?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the factors that a Government must bear in mind in weighing such decisions. We must bear in mind the extent to which information can be made available—and, as I have said, not all of it can—and also the impact that making information available in advance of a decision to act could have on the operation and security of our armed forces personnel, on capability, and on whether or not the action, when it is taken, is successful.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister referred to casualties with foam in their mouths, with burning eyes and in respiratory distress, and to an associated chlorine-like odour. Those symptoms are more in keeping with Assad’s repeated use over the last five years of the respiratory corrosive chlorine gas than with the paralytic neurotoxin sarin, which seemed to be the main target of the military action. Given that chlorine is commonly available, how, without an overarching plan to end the war, does the Prime Minister hope to limit the production and dropping of chlorine gas by the regime on its own civilians?

[The Prime Minister]

This is about chemical weapons, and about continuing action against chemical weapons. The hon. Lady is right: some of that action will have been in relation to the capacity and capability of sarin, which, of course, has been used by the Assad regime. The regime’s willingness to use a variety of types of chemical weapon is what underpins this, and our need to act to degrade that capability and deter its willingness to use such weapons in future.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Eleven million Syrians have been either displaced or killed since this action was taken by Assad’s Government. Like a number of other Members on both sides of the House, I met many of the refugees in the camps that British aid is supporting. Those people want to go home. Does the Prime Minister agree that we have two options? We can either send the message that we will not stand up for chemical warfare that kills and maims, or we can close our eyes, pretend that this is not happening, talk about diplomatic solutions that cannot be delivered, and effectively condemn more innocent people to their deaths.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is imperative for us to act, and to give a very clear message about the use of chemical weapons. This is about preventing humanitarian suffering in future. To stand by would have given the message that such weapons could be used with impunity, and we cannot accept that.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

One of my constituents, who is from eastern Ghouta, came to me inconsolable, in floods of tears, to plead for a ceasefire that would help to protect her family, who are still in the area. May I ask the Prime Minister what comes after military action, and what long-term strategy is in place to prevent this humanitarian crisis and more civilian casualties, to assist my constituent’s family and everyone else who is suffering?

[The Prime Minister]

Sometimes what appear to be simple solutions in relation to matters such as ceasefires do not operate or act on the ground. We have been encouraging ceasefires and humanitarian access. The hon. Lady asks about the longer-term solution. As I have said, this is not just a question for the United Kingdom; it is a question for us and our international allies to work on. We continue to work, and we want to see the Geneva process—the United Nations process—under Staffan de Mistura once again able to come together to find a long-term solution. But it is also necessary for the Syrian regime and its backers to be willing to see a political solution in Syria, and to be willing to come round the table and provide peace and stability for people in that country.

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

In recent weeks we have heard claims from the Russian Government that the British Government were behind the nerve gas attack in Salisbury. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is typical of Russian propaganda, that it shows that Vladimir Putin is not serious about stopping the use of chemical weapons, and that he must not be given a veto over this country’s foreign policy?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

First, I want to pay tribute to our armed forces, who serve so bravely and professionally whenever they are called upon. My husband served in the armed forces, and absolutely nothing would have stopped me returning early from recess last week to Parliament to deliberate such grave matters—not specifics that put service personnel at risk, but the premise of action, as has been the parliamentary precedent. We cannot set the opposite precedent, so will the Prime Minister reassure the House that matters will be debated and agreed by Parliament in the future?

[The Prime Minister]

I have already made reference to the 2016 written ministerial statement, which set out the position. I stand by that and suggest that the hon. Lady looks at it. I thank her for her comments about the armed forces; their professionalism and bravery are beyond doubt.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunately clear that some who claim to support the introduction of a war powers Bill actually wish to see the introduction of a no war powers Bill, the main beneficiary of which would be countries and groups around the world whose interests and values are diametrically opposed to ours? Ultimately, that would make the world a far more dangerous place.

[The Prime Minister]

I sympathise with my hon. Friend’s comments. The Leader of the Opposition says that he wants United Nations support for action, but I believe that even when it supported action in Syria against Daesh, the Leader of the Opposition opposed that.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Recognising that there can be circumstances that preclude a Government from consulting Parliament before taking military action, does the Prime Minister agree that the default position, as per convention, is that Parliament should be consulted in advance—not on operational details, but on the strategy within which those operational details fit? Nothing that she has said so far convinces me that on this occasion there was not the time or opportunity to consult this House. In relation to the future strategy, given that the action was taken to limit further humanitarian catastrophe, what action does the Prime Minister believe that Britain should take? How will it garner international support to prevent the loss of civilian lives in Idlib on the scale of the loss of life in Aleppo and eastern Ghouta?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said to others, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the position set out in the 2016 written ministerial statement about Government action versus parliamentary debate. We have set out very clearly that we will be working with international partners in a number of ways. We have worked with France on the international partnership to ensure that chemical weapons cannot be used with impunity, which has now been established, and through the United Nations and in other forums.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for her statement, which included a timely reminder that the UK is the second largest bilateral aid donor to the region. Does she agree not only that this action sends a clear message to despots who might consider using chemical weapons in the future, but that by taking out the chemical weapons facilities, we will make sure that more vulnerable innocent citizens in Syria are protected?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: by degrading the chemical weapons capability, we will ensure that we alleviate further humanitarian suffering.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

The situation in Syria is clearly very grave and complex, and we cannot ignore it, but for the Government to continue their systematic contempt of Parliament with a retrospective statement is to be regretted. To avoid such an event in the future, will the Prime Minister commit to heeding the calls of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for a war powers Act that would allow the House to debate the exact parameters within which a Prime Minister could order military action without prior parliamentary approval, which would be useful to Members on both sides of the House?

[The Prime Minister]

This is not about saying that Parliament can never have the opportunity to debate these matters. It is about saying that limited and targeted action can be taken on a legal basis that had been accepted by Governments of all types, over a number of years, and that that can be done in a timely manner, allowing for proper planning and also ensuring we are able to have an impact and be effective in our action.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) is comfortable; I am quite bothered that he might not be.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Everybody should think very carefully about the role that Russia is playing in a number of ways—not just in Syria, but in its activities across Europe and elsewhere—through destabilising activities, propaganda, cyber-attacks and the like.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I support the Prime Minister’s action and I am sure that the decision weighs heavily on her shoulders. Does she accept that her Government still have a job to do to convince millions of people in this country that they can show the same resolve and commitment to the search for an end to this conflict that she has been able to show over the way she has dealt with this matter?

[The Prime Minister]

It is absolutely right that, seven and more years on, we have not been able to find a resolution to this conflict. We retain our determination to do so, but it is not just about the UK’s determination; it is about the determination of a whole variety of parties, including the Syrian regime and its backers.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I totally and utterly support my right hon. Friend’s actions. It was right that she took her decision because capitulation allows chemical weapons to be used. The idea that we must come to Parliament and ask first—especially coming from the Leader of the Opposition, who once said that the Falklands conflict was a Tory plot to enrich our business friends—is simply ridiculous. On not taking action—as in 2013, when there was a clear chronological link to the actions that President Putin later took in Crimea and east Ukraine that led to the deaths of tens of thousands more people—does my right hon. Friend agree that inaction has its consequences?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that inaction has its consequences. If people take a particular action such as using chemical weapons but see that there is no reaction or response to that, they assume it is possible to carry on using chemical weapons. It is important that we as an international community have said that we do want to restore the international norm against the use of chemical weapons. We have acted in this way to give that clear message about degrading such a capability in order to alleviate future humanitarian suffering.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

That the butcher Assad and his Russian backers hold the lives of the Syrian people cheap is evidenced by the use of not only chemical weapons, but other weapons of war, siege and barrel bombs. Does the Prime Minister agree that, whatever happened this weekend, the hideous Syrian civil war is not “mission accomplished”? Does she agree that we urgently need to do more to raise the costs of those Syrian lives by taking far tougher action in respect of sanctions and restrictions on the activities of Russian state banks?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that we need to put every effort into finding ways to ensure that the parties come round the table and that we see a political solution in Syria. That is the way to ensure the security and stability of the country such that people can return and get on with their lives in peace.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

One of the darkest stains on the international community’s conscience was the inaction by the EU and the United Nations in preventing the massacre of Muslim men in Srebrenica. International humanitarian and military action was right then. It was right in Bosnia and it is right now to prevent the massacre of innocent people in Syria. We have a moral duty to act.

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with what my hon. Friend has said.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I for one will not be congratulating the Prime Minister on the action taken this weekend. The reason why I say that is that only one day before the airstrikes on Homs and Damascus, the US Defence Secretary, James Mattis, told Congress that the US did not have any hard evidence concerning the chemical weapons attacks, only social media indicators. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether more evidence emerged in the space of those 24 hours, or did she take her action on the basis of social media indicators?

[The Prime Minister]

I suggest that the hon. Lady looks at my statement, in which I set out what led to our assessment in relation to the Syrian regime’s actions.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Having seen the sickening photographs of suffering children who have been poisoned by their own regime, I am in no doubt whatever that the Prime Minister took the right action. Does she agree that that is one of the reasons why so many global leaders of different political persuasions have backed the humanitarian action that she took?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have had support from around the world—from Europe and elsewhere—and from people of all political persuasions who saw the humanitarian suffering, and the need to act to alleviate it and prevent it in the future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on her courageous decision—well done! Last weekend, sources of chemical substances were destroyed. Should another chemical attack take place, can the Prime Minister assure the House that the apparatus of war—helicopters and aeroplanes—will be destroyed next time?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, when we took this action, we looked carefully at targeting it so that it would have what we believed to be the necessary impact on the capability of the Syrian regime in relation to chemical weapons. It was a limited attack, and its intent was to degrade capability and deter future use.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

In my previous role, I was security cleared and briefed to the highest level; as an MP, I am acutely conscious that I am not so well informed. While it is right that the Prime Minister comes to the House to explain these matters to us and to listen to sensible voices from across the Chamber, will she assure me that in future she will take action where necessary in an emergency to protect humanity?

[The Prime Minister]

It is absolutely right that the Government must have the ability to act in an emergency, where it is necessary to do so in order to alleviate human suffering, as was set out in the ministerial statement in 2016.

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will want to congratulate the armed forces on their forensic and brilliant intelligence gathering on the location of those chemical weapons dumps, but can the Prime Minister now give us an assessment of Assad’s remaining stockpile and capabilities after this strike? Families in Syria will not be able to sleep easily in their beds if they know that they could still die at night, choking with their children in their arms.

[The Prime Minister]

The action was targeted very carefully on chemical weapons capabilities. It was designed to degrade those capabilities and also to deter the willingness of the regime to use those chemical weapons and to give a message to others about the resolve of the international community to return to a situation in which it is accepted that the use of chemical weapons is prohibited.

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

In contrast to the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), I should like to say that taking action to prevent the gassing of men, women and children will always be done in my name. Does the way in which the Russians and the Syrians are now attempting to cover up their crimes in Syria not speak volumes about what has occurred and the wilful naivety of those who attempt to deny it?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have set out, attempts are being made to ensure that it is impossible to collect evidence on the ground about what has happened. That speaks volumes about what has been done by the Syrian regime and the position taken by Russia.

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

Our response to the atrocity of a chemical weapons attack must be measured and made in the interests of the Syrian people, not just to reassure ourselves that we have taken action. This year, the UN has received only 5% of the $3.5 billion that it needs to assist the humanitarian needs of the Syrian people, so will the Prime Minister now increase the aid that we send to help to alleviate the suffering on the ground?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, we are the second biggest bilateral donor of humanitarian aid for the Syrian refugees. We will be working with others at the conference that is taking place in Brussels towards the end of this month to ensure that people step up and provide the support that is needed.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Permanent membership of the Security Council is a privilege, but it is one that comes with huge responsibilities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in acting as it has done over this whole issue by blocking peaceful diplomatic solutions and defending the actions of Bashar al-Assad at every stage, the Russian Federation is not only shirking those responsibilities but complicit in the continued horrendous suffering of the Syrian people?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Russia has the ability within the Security Council, and also in its relationship with the Syrian regime, to stop the use of chemical weapons, but it has not done so.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a matter of concern across the country, and I want to thank my constituents who have written to me about this issue to reflect their real and urgent concern that we will not see an end to the Syrian conflict without a diplomatic and political solution for the long term. I am concerned that this does not seem to be happening with the same urgency as military action in a humanitarian emergency. Can the Prime Minister confirm that there will be redoubling of diplomatic efforts and other non-military muscle, that any further military action will be subject to a debate and vote in this House, and that there has been no discussion of any extension of the role of our armed forces as a result of this decision that has not yet been brought to the House?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, I recognise that, in relation to the wider Syrian conflict, we need to ensure that we press ahead with every effort possible to bring that conflict to an end, but this is not just about the position that the United Kingdom has taken. There are other parties that need to be willing to come to the table and to develop that political solution for the future of Syria, not least the Syrian regime and its backers.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that it is frankly astonishing that over the past week the Leader of the Opposition has spent more time and effort attacking us than attacking President Assad? Does she also agree that it is therefore hardly surprising that some people question whose side he is on—theirs or ours?

[The Prime Minister]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that that was, of itself, not disorderly—if it had been, I would have intervened straight away—but I want to say this to the House. “Erskine May” underscores the importance of moderation and good humour in the use of parliamentary language. Very politely, I say that it is all very well for Members to nod approvingly when someone says that we should respect each other’s motives—and to either imply or say, “Hear, hear”—only for someone effectively to attack someone else’s motives a few minutes later. I say to the hon. Gentleman that that is a technique to be used very sparingly, if at all. We are democrats in this place, and we attack each other’s political positions but we should not impugn each other’s integrity—

[Mr Speaker]

No, no! No response is required from the hon. Gentleman. I have said what the position is, and I suggest that we leave it there.

[The Prime Minister]

Like me, I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes the many statements of support that have come from the Labour Benches, as well as from our Benches. Many in the Labour party recognise that it has a long, fine and proud tradition of being willing to take action not only in our national interest, but to ensure the alleviation of humanitarian suffering in the world.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents have contacted me with their fears about the potential escalation of conflict with Russia and to say that we might be sleepwalking towards it. They are also worried that their voices were not heard before the Prime Minister launched this attack, because as their MP I was unable to debate the issue. Will the Prime Minister please reassure the House that the Government have a plan for the de-escalation of the conflict now that airstrikes have taken place and that her decision to act without a parliamentary vote has not set a precedent for the future?

[The Prime Minister]

When the decision to act was taken and when the planning was put into place, we were careful, and one of the issues that we considered was about ensuring that we reduced the risk of escalation. The way in which the strikes were undertaken and the action that we took were about minimising not only civilian casualties, but the risk of escalation.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that the events of Saturday and subsequently have sent a clear message to Mr Putin and, indeed, to President Assad that the so-called protective arm that Putin believes he has put around the shoulders of Assad and Syria, effectively making them inviolate and untouchable, is not true? When small children gurgle their last soaked in chlorine and when our values and international law are undermined by the Putin-Assad axis, we will not stand by; we will always be active.

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we have sent a clear message to the Syrian regime, to Russia and to the Syrian regime’s backers that we will not stand by when we see chemical weapons being used. We have taken action, and we will now follow that up with diplomatic and political action, but we are clear about our resolve to ensure that we return to the international norm of prohibition of the use of chemical weapons.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It adds nothing to our debates if people suggest that Members on either side of the Chamber are not determined to see chemical weapons eradicated. They may will different means, but everyone is equally determined. With that in mind, I believe that Bashar al-Assad should be pursued for all his days until he is arraigned before a court to answer for the crime of using chemical weapons on his people. Having said that, when the Prime Minister comes to this House to speak to Members of Parliament and answer questions, she is speaking to the people of this country, and she missed an opportunity to do that last week. Nine days elapsed before the airstrikes, and if these circumstances arise again in future, she must come to this House and account for what she intends to do.

[The Prime Minister]

A number of actions were taken last week. An attempt was made within the United Nations Security Council to get an investigation, but that was thwarted by Russia. I gave several interviews indicating that we were considering what action was necessary, but we needed to make an assessment of what had happened on the ground. There were different elements to the timeliness, including assessment and proper planning, but also ensuring that the action was effective.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

In September 2013, the OPCW secured an agreement with Syria, Russia and the United States to dispose of such weapons, starting in the middle of 2014, but we are now in 2018 and have seen atrocities committed time and again. Does the Prime Minister agree that the judgment of the Leader of the Opposition is flawed, because the decision was legal and we carried it out on a legal basis?

[The Prime Minister]

I reiterated the legal basis in my statement this afternoon, and that legal basis has been used by Governments of all colours to support action when it has been considered necessary.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister prayed in aid the written ministerial statement from 2016 by the previous Defence Secretary. I have read it carefully, and the problem is that it re-emphasises the Government’s support for the convention and mentions airstrikes carried out in 2013, 2014 and 2015 that were not materially different from the action taken just this weekend. Is it not the case that the Prime Minister could and should have used the convention and come before the House before taking that action?

[The Prime Minister]

I will repeat what I said previously. One element of that written ministerial statement states:

“In observing the Convention, we must ensure that the ability of our Armed Forces to act quickly and decisively, and to maintain the security of their operations, is not compromised.”

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

The Prime Minister was absolutely right to take action with her allies, and it is the sort of action that should have been taken five years ago when this House rather disastrously decided not to act against the Assad regime. Does the Prime Minister agree that not acting now would have been a complete abdication of our moral responsibility both as a nation and as a member of the international community?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree. Failure to act would have sent a message that chemical weapons can be used with impunity, and we must not allow that message to go out. We must show that the international community is resolved to ensure that chemical weapons are not used.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Her Majesty’s armed forces enjoy the respect and admiration of Members right across the House, so the Prime Minister is wrong to suggest that her critics are somehow insulting our armed forces; we are all proud of them regardless of her decisions.

As for the legal basis for the decision—the alleviation of humanitarian suffering—the vast majority of Syrians murdered by Assad have been killed with conventional weapons. Is the Prime Minister only alleviating the suffering of those who are killed with chemical weapons, or does she consider there to be a legal basis for alleviating the suffering of those killed by conventional weapons, too?

[The Prime Minister]

Resolution of the wider conflict in Syria needs to come through a political solution that ensures the security and stability of Syria’s future peace, and that is where we will put our diplomatic and political efforts, which is what we have done in the past and will continue to do.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

There should be no acceptance of and no place in this world for the use of chemical weapons. However, there seems to have been worrying increase in tolerance of their use. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is vital that we send a clear collective message that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that that is an important message for us to send. Our action with the US and France has sent that message, and it is an important message for this House to send, too.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Given what the Prime Minister said about the careful targeting of the strikes, will she tell us what sites involved in the manufacture and stockpiling of chemical weapons had to be ruled out from the scope of the strikes due to their location and proximity to civilians, what the risk of those sites continues to be and what the anticipated consequences of any future attack on them might be?

[The Prime Minister]

We obviously looked at where we felt it was possible to have a clear impact on degrading the chemical weapons capability of the Syrian regime, and that is what we did.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Given the Russian veto on the Security Council not just on investigations in Syria, but on referring Syrian matters to the International Criminal Court, only the use of force is left to deter the usage of chemical weapons. What message would we send to despots around the world if we just sat down, wrung our hands and did absolutely nothing?

[The Prime Minister]

I fear that the message those despots would have taken is that they could use chemical weapons with impunity, and that is unacceptable. We must ensure that the use of such weapons is stopped.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

With two brothers having served, past and present, as officers in the British Army, I of course commend the bravery of our armed forces personnel.

No evidenced chemical attack can go by without consequences, but when our national security was not at immediate risk and when the Prime Minister had time to consult her Cabinet, why did she not recall Parliament so that my constituents could have had their say, as I am convinced they would have done had last week been a sitting week?

[The Prime Minister]

I have already set out the basis on which we took the decision: the need for timeliness and an opportunity for proper planning to ensure that we were able to act in a way that would be effective.

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister do me the service of responding to some concerns raised by my constituents over the weekend drawing a comparison with the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan by explaining to them precisely what the UK action was—how many missiles has the UK launched in Syria this weekend—and by explaining to them why that comparison is without foundation?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to do that. Eight Storm Shadow missiles were launched from our RAF jets, and of course more missiles were launched by the French and Americans together. What I can say to my hon. Friend is that the key issue for his constituents is that this was a targeted and limited action taken in relation to the use of chemical weapons. There has been for nearly a century an acceptance in the international community that chemical weapons should not be used. We have seen the Assad regime use them on a number of occasions, and it was important that we gave the very clear message that we will not accept their use and that we will not stand by and see these weapons being used.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

As my party’s defence spokesman, I commend what the Prime Minister has said thus far. When she is asked why she has not built that cohesive agreement at the UN, would it be useful to reflect that in 2013, when the UN Security Council did pass a resolution, articles 1 and 21 specifically envisaged and outlined coercive action to secure adherence to the protocol?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information and for the support he has shown for the action.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for her statement, which I fully support, and for the leadership—indeed, statesmanship—she has shown in the measured, appropriate and clearly reasoned action she has taken in this grave matter and in the manner in which she has taken it.

The Prime Minister has spoken today of the need for a wider diplomatic effort to strengthen the global understanding that chemical weapons should never be used. To ensure those diplomatic efforts are most effective, will she confirm that not only the UK as a country but she personally, as Prime Minister, will continue to take a similarly strong and engaged global lead?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. This Government and the United Kingdom have a role to play in ensuring that we continue to uphold the international rules-based order both in this and in a number of other areas.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has been categorical in explaining that the need to take action was based on principle. As I was not here in April 2017, may I simply ask why the same action was not taken then?

[The Prime Minister]

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Khan Shaykhun. The United States of America did take action in relation to Khan Shaykhun, and we supported that action. A wider action was undertaken this time to degrade the chemical weapons capability, and it is right that a wider international community took part in it.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

Britain hosted the London conference in 2016, bringing together international donors and humanitarian supporters to help civilians in Syria. Will my right hon. Friend commit to showing British leadership in this area in the years ahead?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

There is to be a Brussels conference later this month that will build on the work done at the London conference, and we will continue to put our efforts into ensuring that that humanitarian support is available.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I understand fully the purpose of the action that has been taken this weekend, and I understand that it was both targeted and limited to degrade chemical weapons and to reinforce the international norm that we do not use chemical weapons. I support the Prime Minister in the action she has taken, but the vast majority of civilian deaths in Syria are a result of bombs, barrel bombs, torture, starvation and other means, not chemical weapons. If this is not about intervening in civil war or about regime change, as the Prime Minister has said, what is the Government’s wider strategy to save Syrian lives? If Assad is still in power in a year’s time and killing and maiming with impunity, what will that mean for “mission accomplished”?

[The Prime Minister]

It is, of course, through the diplomatic and political process that the final resolution of the Syrian conflict can be brought about. That is why we will continue to support the United Nations efforts and the Geneva process, but it needs all parties to be willing to accept the need for bringing about a solution and for ensuring that we can see a peaceful Syria to which displaced people can return and in which the Syrian people can live in peace and security for the future.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that the obvious and inevitable consequence of seeking prior parliamentary approval for airstrikes would have been to give the Syrian regime a heads-up on our plans? A debate on what, where, how and when the attacks would take place would have given the regime the opportunity to move the very weapons that we were seeking to destroy.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is important to plan, to ensure that we are able to do these strikes in a timely and effective fashion. From one or two of the questions that I have been asked this afternoon, it seems that some Members do not realise the importance of keeping certain operational information not public, to protect our servicemen and to ensure that we are effective.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that she wants to deter dictators who may be minded to use chemical weapons against their own people or against anyone else. Does she also agree that we need to deter dictators who commit other heinous war crimes against civilians, including the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia that currently stands accused of around 150 separate war crimes against innocent civilians in Yemen? Does she not see the slightest contradiction between the severe action she has taken in Syria and her willingness to sell another £2 billion-worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia and to invite the Saudis to investigate themselves, rather than submitting them to an international court of inquiry?

[The Prime Minister]

What we are talking about in relation to what has happened in Syria is the use of chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are prohibited—they are illegal—yet we see a Syrian regime that has continued to use those chemical weapons over a number of years. It is important that the international community has come together and said that we will not accept this use of chemical weapons. We must return to a situation in which people accept that the use of chemical weapons is prohibited. We have taken this position to alleviate the humanitarian suffering that comes from the use of chemical weapons, and we continue to support the work that will be necessary to ensure the continued prohibition of the use of these weapons.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I commend the Prime Minister for her calm and well-calibrated response to this situation. Some Opposition Members have questioned the decision to proceed without a vote. Does she agree there are circumstances in which we need to act without a prior vote? If the speed of military or diplomatic movements on the ground make it impossible, if the disclosure of intelligence to the House would make it impossible for the House to make a decision, or if such disclosure would give adversaries a sense of the scope, scale and timing of what is going to happen—if one or more of those conditions applies, it is neither reasonable nor necessary to seek the House’s consent first.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend speaks appropriately about the need to ensure, when one is looking at taking action, that that action can be effective, that nothing is done that reduces the effectiveness of that action, that the action is taken on the basis of intelligence—not all intelligence is able to be made available to everyone—and that we respect and recognise the need to maintain the security and safety of our armed forces personnel.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

When last week did the Prime Minister decide not to recall Parliament? Did she discuss that with the Cabinet on Thursday?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we looked at the timetable for the action we were going to take. The Cabinet considered a number of matters when it met, and it was fully informed of all aspects of this decision.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

When this country was subjected to a chemical attack just a month ago, we called on the support of our allies, and they supported us with strength and speed. They have now asked us for that same support. How credible would we look to the international community, and to those same allies, if we turned an ideological cold shoulder on them when an attack was made on a much greater scale against the innocent civilian population of Syria?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend; it is right to remember, when we talk about the use of chemical weapons, that they have been used at scale in Syria, but of course we have seen one—a nerve agent—used on the streets of the UK. It is imperative that we give a message that these weapons cannot and must not be used.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

A decision of this magnitude required a parliamentary debate and vote. Will the Prime Minister commit to respecting that convention in the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Once again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the position that has been taken in relation to that convention, which is to accept that there are circumstances in which it is necessary for Government to be able to act without coming to Parliament first, but that when Government do so act, they should come to Parliament at the earliest opportunity to explain that action.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

The situation in Syria is deeply complex and full of uncertainties, with perhaps the only certainty being the tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children who have been butchered and killed. Further bombs will result in further death, and we need to pursue diplomacy and the political solution. Will the Prime Minister therefore inform the House what actions she has recently taken to pursue all political channels?

[The Prime Minister]

The strikes that took place were about degrading the chemical weapons capability such that we can alleviate and prevent further humanitarian suffering. Of course it is right that we need diplomatic effort to get a political solution to what is happening in Syria, and we will continue to push on that diplomatic effort, as we do with a variety of international partners. We will continue to support the UN intervention and the Geneva process.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister has described this action as a targeted strike that does not increase tensions in the region. If that is the case, can she confirm that she has ruled out the possibility of any retaliation from Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said in response to a number of questions, when we were looking at this action, one of the issues we took into account was the need to ensure that we minimised the risk of escalation—we did that.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I value the aid we give to the region and the urge that says aid is better provided to refugees in the region, but parts of that region are full to capacity. One in four of the population of Lebanon is now a Syrian refugee, and Lebanon is struggling. Is it not now time for the Prime Minister urgently to review, at next week’s Brussels conference, as many different options to help refugees, both in and out of the region, as we can?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for what the hon. Lady says about valuing the support we are showing to refugees. It is important that we have been providing support in those countries of the region that have accepted significant numbers of refugees from Syria. She refers to Lebanon, but of course Turkey and Jordan have also accepted significant numbers. So we are addressing this across a number of fronts, both providing that support in the region and bringing some refugees here to the UK, and encouraging other countries to ensure that they step up to provide that support as well. As she says, we value the fact that we are the second biggest bilateral donor, and we want to encourage others also to step up in the support they are giving.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Obviously, this is the first major military action since the publication of the Chilcot report, which recommended the need for public support and public understanding, and for sound legal advice. Given that Parliament was not recalled and legal advice was published after the fact, is it the Government’s position that they reject those Chilcot recommendations?

[The Prime Minister]

The Government were clear in their response to the Chilcot recommendations and I suggest the hon. Gentleman looks at the response we provided.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

For this action alone, eight Storm Shadow missiles cost £6.32 million. Deploying an RAF Tornado GR4 reportedly costs £35,000 per plane per hour. How much money is the Prime Minister willing to invest in winning the peace in Syria and rebuilding?

[The Prime Minister]

We have also provided nearly £2.5 billion of humanitarian support for the refugees from Syria. I say to the hon. Lady that we acted because the Syrian regime was using chemical weapons and had done so on a number of occasions, and it is important that we alleviate future humanitarian suffering by degrading its capability to do that.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Except for the target list, there was very little in the Prime Minister’s statement that could not have been said to Parliament and to the public last week. In reviewing what has happened in the past week, will she and her advisers review whether she could have been clearer about the strategy, objectives and legality ahead of action, as that could have taken more of the public with her? I fear that those actions and decisions not to reveal have produced the opposite effect with the public.

[The Prime Minister]

I have answered the question about the timetable for the decision, and the fact that that was taken and Parliament did not have an opportunity to discuss it in advance. That is why I have come here at the first possible opportunity, to enable everybody to question me on that and to set out clearly in my statement the basis on which we took the action.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

Although I readily acknowledge that the Democratic Unionist party is the largest party representing people in Northern Ireland, the 10 DUP Members do not speak for everyone in Northern Ireland and they certainly do not speak for me. So may I reflect to the Prime Minister, as graciously and gently as I can, that many, many people in Northern Ireland, including me, are bitterly disappointed that she did not recall Parliament to seek our approval? It is a different matter when individual MPs have on their conscience walking into the Lobby to support or vote against military action—I know because I have the scars on my back to prove it. I would like the Prime Minister to address the real risks, which none of us should minimise—I am not suggesting we are—of escalating the appalling conflict in Syria and inviting upon us retaliation from Russia. Those are the assurances I seek from the Prime Minister, not just for the people of Northern Ireland, but for the entire country.

[The Prime Minister]

I say to the hon. Lady, as I have said in response to others, that that issue of the risk of escalation, which I recognise she and others have identified, was considered when we took the action. The action was taken in a way so as to minimise the risk of escalation; this was targeted and limited, and it was about degrading the capability of the Syrian regime in relation to its chemical weapons. I continue to believe it is important that we give a very clear message that we will not accept the use of chemical weapons.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

All right-thinking Members of this House will utterly abhor the atrocious use of chemical weapons against the civilian population of Syria, which constitutes a gratuitous war crime upon that population. But the Prime Minister said there was an immediate need to act—contravening the normal practice of consulting Parliament prior to any military action overseas—due to the immediate need to alleviate further humanitarian disasters in Syria. Was that based on a specific intelligence report that there was an imminent risk of further chemical weapons attacks in Syria? Does she accept that the key way of preventing further attacks in the future is by achieving a no-fly and no-bombing zone, internationally policed by the United Nations in Syria? That would be a way of denying the Syrian air force access to the delivery of these weapons.

[The Prime Minister]

As I laid out in my statement, there has been clear evidence of a continuing use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in Syria. We saw what had happened in Douma. We gave time to make the appropriate assessments of what had happened in Douma and to make the proper planning for strikes. We took those strikes in a timely fashion to ensure that they were effective and had an impact on the chemical weapons capability of the Syrian regime. That was the basis on which we took the decision we took. It was clear from the behaviour we have seen from the Syrian regime that it would be prepared to continue to use chemical weapons, with the danger to civilians that we had already seen in Douma and elsewhere, and we were seeking to prevent humanitarian suffering for the future. That was the basis on which we took that action.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before we move on to the next business, I would like to thank the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Scottish National party and all 140 Back-Bench Members who have questioned the Prime Minister over the past three hours.

Syria

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

Let me start by thanking the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) for securing the debate—I congratulate her on doing so. I welcomed her powerful contribution, which included her support for the action that we have taken. Nobody can doubt the passion with which she spoke about this subject. She has shown care, concern and compassion for Syrian refugees in many of her contributions in this House.

The persistent and abhorrent use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime cannot go unanswered. It is in our national interest to prevent the further use of these weapons in Syria, and to uphold and defend the global consensus that these weapons should never, ever be used.

Although I recognise that there are some issues on which there have been disagreements this evening, I welcome the widespread revulsion of this House over the use of chemical weapons, whether in Syria, on the streets of the UK, or elsewhere in the world. I welcome, too, the universal admiration and support that has been expressed today for the remarkable men and women in our armed forces. They once again put their lives on the line to serve this country, and their bravery and professionalism was essential to the success of this mission.

I would like to address head-on some of the most critical questions that have been posed about the military action that was taken. First, there was the question of whether we should have just tried harder at diplomacy. Together with our international partners, we have tried time and time again to use diplomatic channels to prevent the Assad regime from using chemical weapons against its people. The chemical weapons convention, UN Security Council resolutions and decisions of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons executive council all require Syria to produce a comprehensive declaration of its chemical weapons programme.

Following the sarin attack in eastern Damascus back in August 2013, the Syrian regime even committed to dismantle its chemical weapons programme, and Russia promised to ensure that Syria did this, overseen by the OPCW. The Leader of the Opposition referred to action that was taken, but more than five years later, the reality is that Syria did not dismantle its chemical weapons programme and the Russian guarantee had no value. Indeed, the director general of the OPCW reported just last month that Syria had not provided credible evidence to account for 22 serious issues. This includes agents present at facilities that have not been declared and types of chemical warfare agent that Syria has not declared at all. Furthermore, the OPCW has recorded more than 390 allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria since its fact-finding mission was established in 2014.

The OPCW-UN joint investigative mechanism has found Syria responsible for using chemical weapons on four occasions between 2014 and 2017, including at Talamenes in April 2014, at Sarmin and Qamenas in March 2015—both involved the regime using chlorine—and at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April last year, when the regime used sarin to kill around 100 people, with a further 500 casualties. Relying on diplomatic action alone has failed to alleviate the humanitarian suffering caused by chemical weapons in each of these cases. It did not prevent the atrocity in Douma on 7 April, and it would not prevent future chemical weapons attacks either.

I remind the House that, as a number of right hon. and hon. Members have said, inaction is not an option—my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) made that very clear. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said that inaction would have led to more significant chemical attacks. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who I think we all recall making a passionate speech in this House on the issue of action in Syria in 2015, said that selective silence in the face of brutality is not a principle and is not a policy.

Let me address one of the biggest concerns that I know many people had in advance of the decision to take this military action in Syria: would such action make things worse? I was clear that the answer is no, but only because of the specific and precise nature of the intervention that we have made. This action was not about intervening in a civil war and it was not about regime change. Neither have we begun a long military campaign; the action that we have taken was limited and targeted. It was purely about alleviating further humanitarian suffering in Syria caused by chemical weapons attacks by degrading the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability and deterring the use of these weapons in Syria and beyond. So this was a limited, targeted and effective strike with clear boundaries that expressly sought to avoid escalation and did everything possible to prevent civilian casualties.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Did the prospect of a retaliation of a cyber nature from the Government of Russia feature in the Prime Minister’s calculation?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said during my statement, of course, when we were considering taking this action, we considered a whole variety of ways in which reaction might be possible, but as I also said in response to a number of hon. Members, we ensured that we took the action in a way that reduced the risk of escalation taking place. As I have said, the way we did this expressly sought to avoid escalation and did everything possible to prevent civilian casualties. But if the hon. Gentleman is talking about the possibility of Russian cyber-attacks, he does not have to wait for us to take action in Syria for Russia to get involved in cyber-attacks on this country or, indeed, on many other countries.

Together with our allies, we have hit a centre for the research and development of Syria’s chemical and biological programme, we have hit a chemical weapons bunker, which contained both a chemical weapons equipment storage facility and an important command post, and we have hit a location of Syrian sarin and precursor production equipment whose destruction would degrade Syria’s ability to deliver sarin in the future. Hitting these targets with the force we have used will not have a negative impact on the already complex situation in Syria. What it will do is significantly degrade the Syrian regime’s ability and willingness to research, develop and deploy chemical weapons. That is a good thing for the Syrian people and for the security of the wider world.

As we consider our action, we should recognise the role that Russia has played in Syria. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) brought home to the House the reality of Russian activity. We should recognise not only the support being given to the Assad regime by Russia but also Russia’s actions in the United Nations. I want to set out what has happened to the recent resolutions that we and our international partners have tried to secure to constrain the chemical weapons use of the Syrian regime.

On 28 February last year, a resolution to impose sanctions on Syria for the use of chemical weapons was vetoed by Russia. On 12 April, a resolution to condemn the reported use of chemical weapons in Syria calling on the regime to co-operate with an investigation was vetoed by Russia. On 24 October, a resolution to renew the mandate of the mission that investigates the use of chemical weapons in Syria was vetoed by Russia. On 16 November, a resolution to renew an international inquiry into who is to blame for chemical weapons attacks in Syria was vetoed by Russia. On 17 November, a resolution to extend the joint investigative mechanism inquiry for one month was vetoed by Russia.

On 10 April this year, a resolution to establish an independent mechanism investigation to attribute responsibility for chemical weapons use in Syria was vetoed by Russia. Russia’s behaviour means that relying solely on the United Nations Security Council is tantamount to accepting that no action should be taken in response to these chemical weapons attacks on innocent civilians in Syria. As the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) pointed out, relying on that would mean giving the veto on our foreign policy to Russia, and that is not something that we are willing to accept.

I just want to mention one issue about which the hon. Member for Wirral South spoke particularly passionately, as she has done previously—that of refugees. She welcomed and valued the aid that we have given. I continue to believe that it is important that we are providing this significant amount of support in the region as the second-biggest bilateral donor. We have been able to provide healthcare, educational and other support to hundreds of thousands of children in Syria and the surrounding countries for the same investment that it would take to support 3,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children here in the United Kingdom.

These are not easy decisions to take, but it is right to get a balance of support in the region, which enables us to give more support to more people and more children, and at the same time to bring here those who are particularly vulnerable and in need. The hon. Lady is right: while the military action was focused on degrading chemical weapons, we need that wider effort in terms of resolving the conflict in Syria, dealing with Daesh and continuing to press for action in the Geneva process.

This year, we mark the centenary of the end of the first world war, brought home to us starkly this evening by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). The international community came together at that point to stop the use of chemical weapons. This weekend Britain, France and America sent a clear message to those who seek to rip up the international rulebook: stop, and stop now.

Machinery of Government Changes

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

This written statement confirms that the data policy and governance functions of the Government Digital Service (GDS) will transfer from the Cabinet Office to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The transfer includes responsibility for data sharing (including co-ordination of part 5 of the Digital Economy Act 2017), data ethics, open data and data governance. At the same time policy responsibility for digital signatures will move from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) to DCMS, which will also jointly lead with BEIS on the relationship with the Open Data Institute, Digital Catapult and the Alan Turing Institute.

These changes will be effective from 1 April. The expanded Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport brings together in one place data policy for both government and the wider economy. This will support work, led by DCMS, to ensure the UK is fully realising the benefits of the data economy for all.

GDS will continue its work supporting the ongoing digital transformation of government, building digital capability in the civil service and championing service design across government to meet user needs.

Further to the Budget announcement last autumn, strategic geospatial data policy initiatives from BEIS and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are being consolidated into the Cabinet Office from 1 April to support the work of the Geospatial Commission.

[HCWS609]

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Q1. If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 28 March.

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

May I start, Mr Speaker, by wishing you, all Members and everyone who works on the parliamentary estate a very happy Easter?

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Mike Wood]

Under Conservative leadership since last May, Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council has protected social care and other core services. Will the Prime Minister reject the calls from the Opposition to scrap the council tax referendum lock, which prevents excessive council tax rises?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to agree with my hon. Friend, who raises an important point. He also makes a point about the success of Dudley Council under Conservative leadership. People living in the Conservative-led Dudley Council area pay among the lowest council tax in the west midlands. Since taking control from Labour, the council has reversed Labour’s street cleaning cuts, scrapped its plans to charge for green waste collection and maintained the weekly bin collection. It is very clear that if people want to pay less and get good services, they should vote Conservative on 3 May.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in wishing you, Mr Speaker, all Members of the House, and indeed our entire community, a very happy Easter.

This week is Autism Awareness Week, and I welcome the work of the National Autistic Society and others. I hope the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the families of Connor Sparrowhawk and Teresa Colvin for their dignity in campaigning for answers about the deaths of their loved ones at the hands of Southern Health. Last week, the health service ombudsman said that too many patients suffered

“failings in mental health care”

involving

“violations of the most basic human rights of patients.”

How confident is the Prime Minister that deaths like Connor’s and Teresa’s could not happen today?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. First of all, significant steps have been taken in raising awareness of autism and ensuring that there is support available for those who are on the autistic spectrum, but the very sad deaths of Teresa Colvin and Connor Sparrowhawk raise very real questions. I join him in paying tribute to the families for the way in which they have campaigned on this particular issue. Obviously these incidents took place some time ago, and lessons have been learned by the health and social care system as a result of the failings of Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust. The Government are supporting NHS providers to be open and to learn from mistakes so that they reduce the risks to future patients and prevent tragedies from happening. A comprehensive Care Quality Commission inspection of Southern Health is expected later this year.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The ombudsman, Rob Behrens, also said that

“there aren’t enough skilled and qualified staff, there is a problem in recruiting them and there is an overuse of agency staff”,

so could the Prime Minister explain why there are 5,000 fewer mental health nurses than there were in 2010?

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have already committed to improving mental health services on the ground. We are putting extra money into mental health services. I am pleased to say that about 1,400 more people are accessing mental health services every day compared with when we came into power. And of course it is this Government who have ensured that we have given parity of esteem to the treatment of mental health in the national health service and are increasing the training and recruitment of people to provide those mental health services. This is about the NHS; it is also about services in our communities; and it is also about ensuring that we can intervene at an early stage for those young people who develop mental health problems. That is why I was pleased to launch the initiative for there to be training in schools so that there is a member of staff who is able to identify mental health problems and able to ensure that young people get the support they need.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 did indeed embed parity of esteem in law, thanks to a Labour amendment introduced in the House of Lords—but sadly the money never followed. The charity Rethink Mental Illness said recently that

“our overstretched services are failing”.

ITV’s Project 84 campaign highlights the horrifying figure that male suicide is the biggest killer of men under 45, with 84 taking their lives every week. Earlier this month, the Health Secretary said:

“The prime minister and I have made mental health services a personal priority”.

I fully acknowledge and accept the Prime Minister’s very genuine concern about mental health, but mental health trusts have got fewer resources. Why does the analysis by the Royal College of Psychiatrists show that mental health trusts have £105 million less than they had six years ago?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have just said, of course dealing with mental health is not just a question of what is happening inside the health service; there are wider areas of responsibility for dealing with mental health. What have we done on mental health? Yes, parity of esteem is there. As I said, 1,400 more people are accessing mental health services every day compared with when we came into power. Spending on mental health has increased to a record £11.6 billion, with a further £1 billion by 2020-21. We are ensuring that we are putting more money in. We have responded to the report of the Stevenson/Farmer review of mental health in the workplace. [Interruption.] It is all very well Labour Members chuntering about this, but dealing with mental health means addressing it in a variety of ways. We are taking more steps to address the issues of mental health than the Labour Government ever took when they were in power.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Mental health spending fell by £600 million between 2010 and 2015. Far too often, a mental health crisis has to be dealt with by police, friends, neighbours or people in the community, and too many of our fellow citizens suffer alone because there are insufficient staff to help them at a moment of crisis. It is quite clear that the mental health budget is insufficient. The Prime Minister mentioned young people. Can she explain why only 6% of the overall mental health budget is spent on children and young people when they make up 20% of our population?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have just said, we are in fact increasing the services that are available to children and young people, but this is not just about what happens in NHS trusts. It is important we look at this in the round. That is why we are ensuring that there is training in schools to help young people. We have committed to ensuring that 70,000 more children and young people each year have access to high-quality NHS mental health care by 2020-21. We have backed those proposals by additional funding for the work we are doing in schools and how they deal with children and young people’s mental health.

We are also taking action in other areas. When I was Home Secretary, one of the issues I saw was the fact that the police found it very difficult to deal with people in mental health crises because they did not have the training to do it. Putting those people, including young people, into a cell overnight was not helping them. We have changed that. We have seen a dramatic reduction in that number, and we have made it clear that young people will never be taken to a police cell as a place of safety.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I fully acknowledge the work the police do in helping people in a mental health crisis. My point is that there should be more mental health professionals to help people in a crisis. Half of all enduring mental health conditions materialise before the age of 14. Spending on child and adolescent mental health should be a priority. Instead, sadly, the number of child and adolescent psychiatrists has fallen by 6.3%. Fully staffing our children’s and young people’s mental health has to be a priority.

[The Prime Minister]

I am not aware that there was a question at the end of that, but I will repeat the point. Young people’s mental health is a very serious issue; the right hon. Gentleman is focusing on one aspect. That is why we are ensuring that we start to address this at an earlier stage. He is right about the high proportion of mental health problems that start before somebody is 14. That is exactly why we are doing more in our schools and working to ensure that we have training for teachers.

There is a wider issue here, which I am sure everybody in the House will recognise. When I talk to young people who have developed mental health problems and hear about the problems they are facing, sadly, one of the issues that puts increasing pressure on young people’s mental health today is the use of social media and the bullying and harassment that they get on it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will join me in saying that we need both to help our young people to have greater resilience in dealing with that social media bullying and to ensure that social media is not used in a way that leads to mental health problems that could well be with those young people for the rest of their lives.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I hope, in the light of what the Prime Minister just said, that she will support our digital bill of rights, which will ensure that there are proper protections for people.

A young woman wrote to me this week who has been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and is regarded as a high suicide risk. She was told to wait three months for an appointment. That was cancelled and she had to wait a further three months. It is very hard to explain to someone why they have to wait all those months for an appointment while they are in a desperate situation.

Mental health affects us all, and it is welcome that there is now much less stigma surrounding it. However, our NHS is in crisis, and the crisis is particularly acute in mental health services. Despite legislating for parity of esteem, the Government have failed to fund it. We have fewer resources for mental health trusts, fewer mental health nurses and fewer child and adolescent psychiatrists. Will the Prime Minister commit to ring-fencing the NHS mental health budget to support those going through a mental health crisis, at a time when they most need our help and our support?

[The Prime Minister]

The national health service is receiving extra funding from this Government—extra funding for mental health and extra funding for other services. Since November, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that an extra £10 billion is going into our NHS over the next few years. How are we able to do that? We are able to do that because we take a balanced approach to our economy. That means keeping our debts down, ensuring that we are investing in our public services such as the NHS and mental health services, and actually keeping taxes down for ordinary working people. Labour’s approach would mean increased debt, less money for mental health services and higher taxes for working people—and ordinary working people would pay the price of Labour.

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

Q2. May I commend my right hon. Friend for getting on with Brexit? Nearly 60% of voters in North Devon voted to leave. Rather than dismissing them as old people yearning for a world of white faces, should we not respect their decision, and get on and deliver it?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend: we need to get on and deliver Brexit, recognising the vote that was taken. It is a pity that we have seen from the Labour party a track record of trying to frustrate Brexit, rather than trying to make it work. Its MEPs voted against our moving on the negotiations via the European Parliament; the Opposition voted against the Bill that will give us a smooth withdrawal from the EU; and they oppose us spending money to prepare for our exit. It is the Conservatives in government who are getting on and delivering for the voters of North Devon.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

The public must have trust in our political process. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that transparency in political campaign spending and the integrity of electoral laws across the UK must be upheld, and will she join me in saying that all allegations of improper spending during the EU referendum must be fully investigated?

[The Prime Minister]

We have laws about election spending, and parties are required to abide by those laws. I understand that any allegations that have come forward in respect of spending during the referendum have already been investigated by the Electoral Commission, but it is of course right that allegations are investigated by the Electoral Commission.

[Ian Blackford]

We know that before the EU referendum the Democratic Unionist party received £425,000 from the Conservative-run Constitutional Research Council, chaired by Richard Cook, the former vice-chair of the Scottish Tories. We know that some of that money was given to Aggregate IQ, a reported franchise of Cambridge Analytica. We know that Chris Wylie is “absolutely convinced” of a common purpose between Vote Leave, BeLeave, Veterans for Britain and the DUP. The shady business of data mining and undermining electoral laws goes right to the heart of the Prime Minister’s party. Will the Prime Minister issue the full details of the transactions between the DUP and the Scottish Tory-linked CRC?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to the issue of Vote Leave. As I have just said, I understand that this matter has already been investigated twice by the Electoral Commission. He raises questions about inquiries. If there is an allegation of criminal activity, that should be taken to the police. The regulator of election spending is the Electoral Commission, so if there is an allegation of breaches of campaign spending or campaign funding rules, that should be taken to the Electoral Commission. My understanding is that the Electoral Commission does indeed investigate these and will continue to do so when allegations are brought to its attention.

[Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)]

Q4. Out- standing staff dedication, the passion of my community and ambitious leadership have secured huge Government investment and nationally celebrated excellence. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that when the department is fully staffed, 24/7 consultant-led maternity services will be secured?

[The Prime Minister]

This is an issue on which my hon. Friend has campaigned strong and hard in the interests of her constituents. The NHS in north Cumbria is working on plans for considerable investment in local health services, including the completion of the new build at West Cumberland Hospital and the creation of an academic campus. It is committed to doing all it can to maintain consultant-led maternity services at West Cumberland Hospital. Patient safety is the priority, and the NHS is doing all it can to ensure that a safe and sustainable service can be provided to her constituents and to others.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Q3. There are some beautiful stately homes in this country, but our heritage is equally about the history of working people. Shortly, the all-party parliamentary group on industrial heritage, which I chair, will publish its report into how best we can use that great industrial past for the jobs of the future. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss how best we can implement its recommendations?

[The Prime Minister]

I would like, first, to look at the report that the hon. Gentleman’s group is providing. What he is saying would potentially fit into the modern industrial strategy that the Government have already launched. We want to build on the strengths of our economy, but also to ensure that people in the UK are skilled for the jobs of the future. I am happy to look at the report and to ensure that he can meet me or the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to look at the results.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

Q8. The investigative reporter, Patrick Christys, has uncovered questions over serious data breaches by Labour headquarters. The Information Commissioner has been notified. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in asking the Information Commissioner to do a thorough investigation?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said before in this House, it is important that people can have confidence in how their personal data is used and that the Information Commissioner is able to investigate cases that are drawn to her attention. The Data Protection Bill will strengthen the law in this area. We will give the Information Commissioner’s Office tougher provisions to ensure that organisations comply with its investigations. At the heart of the digital charter that we have set out is the principle that personal data should be respected and used appropriately.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Q5. According to the National Audit Office, local councils have had their funding cut by a massive 49.1% since 2010. Children’s services up and down the country are on their knees, a Tory council has gone bust and the gap nationally is £5.8 billion. When will the Prime Minister wake up to this crisis made in Downing Street?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman talks about funding for local councils. Of course, we have heard in the announcements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government that more money is going into local councils over the next couple of years. If the hon. Gentleman worries about what is happening at local council level, he ought to look at the figures that have come out today, which show very clearly that if you live in an area where the council is run by the Labour party, you pay £100 more than under the Conservatives.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Q10. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the recent figures that show that last year the number of first-time home buyers hit a 10-year record high of 359,000? Does she agree that last year’s stamp duty cut and the extension of Help to Buy played an important part in that? Does she agree that promoting home ownership, as Margaret Thatcher did, will remain a central part of the Government’s policy?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that promoting home ownership remains a central part of this Government’s policy. We are also introducing a number of measures that will help people who rent their properties. I am pleased, as he said, that the number of first-time buyers has reached its highest level for—he said 10 years, but I think it is 11 years. Of course it is important that we provide funding for Help to Buy, but that cut in stamp duty was also important. The Labour party sometimes talks about homes, but which party was it that voted against that cut in stamp duty? The Labour party.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Q6. I asked my constituents what they would like me to ask. They overwhelmingly said how can the Prime Minister justify that from next week families in poverty, earning just £145 a week, are expected to find £10 per week for each of their children to eat a nutritious school dinner, while Members of this House, earning 10 times—[Interruption.]

[Ruth George]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. To conclude my question, I was asking about families earning just £145 a week not receiving school dinners for their children while Members of this House, earning 10 times that sum, are subject to subsidised catering from the taxpayer.

[The Prime Minister]

I hope the hon. Lady was not implying that anybody who is currently in receipt of a free school meal will have that taken away from them, because they will not. They will not. She talks about changes that are happening next week. Yes, we will see pensioners getting a boost to their pension next week, 31 million income tax payers will get an income tax cut and 2 million people living on the national living wage will get a pay rise. That is Conservatives delivering for everyone.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

Q12. Today is the most exciting day on which I have ever got to my feet in this House. The Government have today made an announcement that will improve the lives of every single one of my constituents in Telford. Today, the Government have announced a £312 million investment in new hospital services in our area. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in welcoming this fantastic news and the benefits it will bring to Telford? Will she also very kindly wish everyone in Telford a very happy Easter?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to wish everyone in Telford, and indeed around the country, a very happy Easter. I am very pleased to welcome, as my hon. Friend has done, the considerable investment announced by the NHS in the hospital that serves her constituents. This is another example of how all we ever hear from the Labour party is the NHS being done down in funding terms, when what we see on the ground is more money coming into the NHS, improving services and serving constituents.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Q7. Last Sunday, thousands of Iraqi Christians and Yazidis walked through the Nineveh Plains in northern Iraq to celebrate Palm Sunday. They have not done that for six years. That is welcome, as Iraqi Christians are one of the most persecuted religious groups in the world. All Christians celebrate Christ’s resurrection this weekend. Will the Prime Minister pledge her support to help persecuted Christians around the world?

[The Prime Minister]

Easter is of course the most important time in the Christian calendar. It is a time of new life and hope. The message of the cross and the resurrection help to support Christians around the world. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the very real persecution faced by too many Christians around the world. I was pleased to meet recently Father Daniel from Nineveh and Idlib, who talked about the very real persecution suffered by his congregations. He presented me with a bible that had been burned after a church had been set on fire. It was rescued and is now in No. 10 Downing Street. We stand with those persecuted Christians. We will be looking to see what more the Government can do to support them.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

Q13. Adverse childhood experiences include domestic abuse, sexual abuse, parental separation and living with an alcoholic, to name but a few. According to Public Health England, adults who experience four of more of these in their childhood are severely at risk of mental health problems, suicide, incarceration and violent tendencies. Will the Prime Minister commission a national review not only to enable social mobility, but to help save thousands of lives?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. This is why, when we look at the issue of mental health problems and mental health difficulties for young people, we need to look widely at the ways in which those problems can be caused and at the origins of those problems. She is right that the sort of abuse that she referred to can have a very terrible effect on the mental health of young people.

On my hon. Friend’s specific point, our Green Paper on transforming children’s mental health services proposes the establishment of new mental health support teams, who will be there, managed by schools, colleges and the NHS. One of the issues that they will particularly look at is supporting young people who have experienced trauma. She has identified a number of cases where those young people may experience that trauma. This is important: it is about young people’s futures.

[Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q9. LGBT rights in Northern Ireland are in limbo. The Assembly has already voted for equal marriage and public support for it is overwhelming. Will the Prime Minister stop hiding behind the Democratic Unionist party and take this opportunity to put on record her support for the Bill being brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn)?

[The Prime Minister]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises this Government’s record in relation to LGBT rights. We have taken up and championed the issue. He will find that previous legislation—I think actually under the previous Labour Government—ensured that it would be dealt with as a devolved matter, and we hope that a Northern Ireland Executive will be in place soon and be able to address these issues.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

Q14. The people of Ramsgate face an uncertain future regarding their dental care. NHS England South East has entered into a five-year contract with Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust to run Church Hill dental practice, serving 8,000 patients. That contract comes to an end this Saturday; the practice will close and there is no replacement in place. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the appropriate commissioners to work with me to find an urgent solution?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that my hon. Friend’s working with those who are looking for a solution will be important and welcomed. I understand that when Church Hill dental practice closes, NHS England will be working with other dental practices in the area to ensure that services are available and that they can increase their capacity. A wider piece of work is being undertaken about dental services in east Kent—the needs and provision of those services—and I am sure, as I say, that my hon. Friend’s contribution to that will be welcomed.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Q11. The Foreign Secretary was the figurehead for the Vote Leave campaign and the Environment Secretary was co-convenor. Their campaign director, Dominic Cummings, is quoted on the AggregateIQ website as saying that“the Vote Leave campaign owes a great deal of its success to the work of AggregateIQ. We couldn’t have done it without them.”How does the Prime Minister feel about her Ministers being caught red-handed using immoral data-mining techniques?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes certain claims in that question that I did not recognise. I simply say this: if there are those who are trying to suggest that the Government should be rejecting the result of the referendum as a result of these sorts of claims, I say to them very clearly that the referendum was held—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Calm yourself, Mr Brown. I know you were obviously a very popular figure when you rose to ask your question, but you must listen to the answer—my dear chap, patience.

[The Prime Minister]

As I was saying, the referendum was held, the vote was taken, the people gave their view and we will be delivering on it.

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

Q15. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the fantastic Welbeck Defence Sixth Form College in Woodhouse in my constituency. It equips young people planning a career in our armed forces with the skills they need to help to defend this country in the 21st century. Will the Prime Minister confirm that we will continue to invest in strong defences for our country, so that those young people can play their full part in the future in the best armed forces in the world?

[The Prime Minister]

I join my hon. Friend in recognising the work that is done by the Welbeck Defence Sixth Form College in his constituency and the skills that it gives young people who wish to enter the armed forces, but he raises an important point about funding in relation to our armed forces. I can announce today that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I have agreed that the Ministry of Defence will have access to £600 million this coming financial year for the MOD’s Dreadnought submarine programme. Today’s announcement will ensure that the work to rebuild the UK’s new world-class nuclear submarines remains on schedule, and it is another sign of the deep commitment this Government have to keeping our country safe. Along with the £200 million carry-forward agreed at the supplementary estimates, that means that the MOD will benefit from an extra £800 million in the next financial year. We continue to exceed the NATO 2% target and remain the second biggest defence spender in NATO.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Cambridge Analytica revelations suggest that there is something rotten in the state—[Interruption.]

[Caroline Lucas]

The Cambridge Analytica revelations suggest that there is something rotten in the state of our democracy. The current electoral law is woefully inadequate at dealing with the combination of big money and big data, so will the Prime Minister commit to urgent cross-party talks to kick-start a process to ensure that we have a regulatory and legal framework that is up to the challenge of dealing with the digital age?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said previously, clearly the allegations relating to Cambridge Analytica are concerning, because people should be able to have confidence about how their personal data is being used. It is right that we are seeing the Information Commissioner investigating this matter. I expect Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and any others involved to co-operate fully with the Information Commissioner’s Office in the investigation that is taking place. As I said earlier, our Data Protection Bill will strengthen the powers of the Information Commissioner, but it will also strengthen legislation around data protection, as will the other steps that the Government are taking—for example, through our digital charter. This is a Government who are committing to making sure that this is a safe place to be online.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Would the Prime Minister confirm her reported opinion that we are highly unlikely to introduce a new hard border between Britain and Europe by December 2020? Presumably it could take years to train thousands of customs officers and build new lorry parks and other infrastructure at Dover, Holyhead and elsewhere if we tried to, so will she confirm her strongly preferred policy option of frictionless trade in future between the EU and the United Kingdom and an open border in Ireland, in conformity with the Good Friday agreement, and seek a customs arrangement that I personally hope will resemble the existing customs union very closely indeed?

[The Prime Minister]

I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that we are indeed committed. We have given that commitment—we gave it in the December joint report and we have given it in the negotiating stage that was completed last week—to ensure that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and also to ensure that businesses in Northern Ireland can continue to trade freely with the rest of the United Kingdom and vice versa. We are working to ensure that we have tariff-free trade and trade that is as frictionless as possible. As I am sure he will know, trade between the UK and the EU is not completely frictionless today, but we will ensure that trade is as frictionless as possible in the future. We have put forward proposals and we have started discussing them in detail with the European Commission, and I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that the Home Secretary and others are taking the steps necessary to ensure that we have the arrangements in place for when we come to the end of the implementation period.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

It has been four weeks since the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse published a damning report about the treatment of British children sent overseas by their Government. They were physically, sexually and emotionally abused, separated from siblings and wrongly told that their families were dead. Successive Governments supressed information, ignored warnings and continued to send children to harm for decades. The report is unequivocal that compensation is owed and that this is now urgent. Many have died and others are dying, but in the last four weeks the Government have failed to issue a response, to set out any timetable for a response or even to agree which Department is responsible for formulating a response. The Prime Minister commissioned this report. Will she now get a grip on her Government, stand by its verdict and ensure that no more have to die waiting for justice?

[The Prime Minister]

I did indeed commission the work that is being done in looking at the treatment of children and the abuse of children in the past. I think that that was important. I said at the time that I thought that many people would be shocked by some of the results, including, obviously, the issue of former child migrants to which the hon. Lady has referred.

I can confirm that the Department of Health and Social Care is responsible for policy on former child migrants. As the hon. Lady will know, we have funded the Child Migrants Trust since 1990 so that it can expand its work in seeking resolution for former child migrants and their families. It has received more than £7 million, and in the 1990s we provided £1 million for travel to help former child migrants to be reunited with their families. At the time of the Government’s formal national apology to former child migrants in 2010, an £8 million family restoration fund was established.

[Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the young British artist Hannah Rose Thomas and the charity Open Doors? Together they organised the current exhibition in our Upper Waiting Hall to draw attention to the plight of Yazidi women, 3,000 of whom are still in captivity and subject to some form of the slavery that my right hon. Friend has fought so hard to combat.

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to welcome this awareness-raising exhibition, and to commend Hannah Rose Thomas and others who have been involved in bringing the plight of the Yazidi women to the attention of the House and those visiting the House. I know that people felt horror and consternation when they first saw the treatment of the Yazidis, particularly Yazidi women, which is, of course, continuing. As my right hon. Friend says, we must not forget, and we must do everything we can to ensure that those women are freed from what is, as she says, a life of slavery in many cases.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Children at Canal View primary school in Wester Hailes, in my constituency, have just won the ultimate school trip competition, with the prize of a holiday to Mallorca next month. There is just one problem. One of their classmates is a Syrian refugee, and he has been told by the Home Office that he cannot travel with his friends because he does not have the proper documents. The Home Office says that it will take three months for those documents to come through. Will the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary help me to cut through the red tape so that this wee boy can go with his friends to enjoy the holiday of a lifetime?

[The Prime Minister]

I congratulate the primary school on winning the competition. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has heard what the hon. and learned Lady has said, and will look into the case.

[Mr Speaker]

Good.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me say first that I have the greatest sympathy with all those who were victims of Worboys, and I know that the sympathies of the whole House will be with them as well in the light of what they have suffered as a result of his horrific crimes.

I welcome today’s judgment which found in favour of the brave victims who brought this legal action. The court’s findings give rise to serious concerns, and it is right that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary will be making a statement shortly. One of those findings is that it is unlawful to impose a blanket prohibition on the disclosure of Parole Board information. My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary had already been looking into that, and has made it clear that he will ensure that it is dealt with as soon as possible. The decision will now revert to the Parole Board, but the evidence that the board has will be updated, and it will take account of the findings of the court. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is right to say that the case gives rise to serious concerns, and my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary will set out the next steps to be taken in his statement later today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Some 259 years of GKN history will be decided in the next 24 hours—a hostile takeover, not in the British national interest, that the Government have powers to block. May I ask the Prime Minister this? Disturbing evidence has come to light of a hedge fund scam to buy shares in GKN while avoiding paying tax on shares that will determine the future of GKN. Will she agree to condemn this outrageous practice and investigate as a matter of urgency?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is primarily a commercial decision for GKN. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is in discussion with the parties on an impartial basis and has sought reassurance from them on their plans. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence that illegal activity has taken place, that should be reported to the proper authorities.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The first words of the Speaker’s Chaplain this afternoon repeated Jesus’s instruction to love others.

I hope that the Prime Minister and leaders of Opposition parties will help to protect Jews from anti-Semitism and Muslims from Islamophobia.

If the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Home Office and others fail to have an independent inquiry into the recent prosecution of Gurpal Virdi, a Sikh, will the Prime Minister please meet me to discuss the matter?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that this is a case that my hon. Friend has taken up and championed for some time, and I believe that he and I have met and discussed it previously. Obviously, I am willing to meet him to discuss the case again. On my hon. Friend’s wider point, there should be a very clear message from all of us in the House that there is no place for racial hatred or hate crime in our society. That should not be part of our society—whether it is Islamophobia or anti-Semitism. That is something we should all stand up against and do our best to eradicate from our society.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that we all agree that the Speaker’s Chaplain is an example of love, compassion and empathy from which we can all benefit.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Shortly, I will be meeting workers from De La Rue in my constituency who are visiting the House today. Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that no decision or announcement will be made on the passport contract until after the recess, so that the House may discuss the issue?

[The Prime Minister]

This House did, of course, discuss the issue earlier this week during an urgent question to my right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister. I understand that the final decision has not been taken but that a preferred bidder has been announced. There is then a proper process that gives a length of time, as I understand it, for challenges to be brought forward by others in the process. The Home Office is following exactly the right process to ensure that we have secure passports produced on a basis that gives good value to the taxpayer.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The Government inspector’s report into Northamptonshire County Council makes it crystal clear that there is no reason to further postpone the transfer of the fire service from the county council to the police and crime commissioner. Given that that enjoys popular support and the support of the county’s seven MPs, and is essential to protect investment in the fire service and firefighters’ jobs, will the Prime Minister instruct the Policing and Fire Minister to approve the transfer without delay?

[The Prime Minister]

As I think my hon. Friend knows, as Home Secretary I was long a champion of fire services being able to come under police and crime commissioners’ areas of responsibility. Indeed, a former Conservative police and crime commissioner in Northamptonshire was one of the early proponents of that particular move. I have heard what my hon. Friend has said and will make sure that his comments are brought to the attention of the Policing and Fire Minister.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

National Security Capability and Strategic Defence and Security Reviews

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

I am pleased to announce the combined publication of the National Security Capability Review (NSCR) and the 2017 annual report of the National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR). I have placed a copy in the House of Commons Library.

The 2015 National Security Strategy and SDSR set out our vision and three overarching National Security objectives: protect our people; project our global influence; and promote our prosperity. The framework of the National Security Strategy and the SDSR remains right and we are focused on implementing it. The National Security Council (NSC) commissioned the NSCR to identify how we could develop, deliver and deploy our considerable national security capabilities to maximum collective effect.

In the SDSR, we committed to giving Parliament an annual update on implementation of the strategy. This combined publication of the NSCR and second annual report on the SDSR sets out the conclusions from the NSCR and our progress in delivering on our SDSR commitments.

The NSCR updates the SDSR’s assessment of the challenges likely to drive UK security priorities over the next decade. These challenges have become more complex and intertwined as the world has become more uncertain and volatile. Domestic, overseas and online threats are increasingly integrated as adversaries develop capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across borders and between the cyber and physical worlds. We should be confident of the United Kingdom’s ability to rise to these challenges, drawing on our great strengths as a nation, and the strength of our National Security Strategy.

The NSCR focused on capabilities that are critical to our national security to support implementation of the SDSR. As a result we will deliver better military capability through the modernising defence programme, designed to ensure our defence capabilities meet the changing threats we face. We will publish a new counter-terrorism strategy, which will include measures to improve our ability to disrupt terrorist plots in their early stages and improve frontline integration of our counter-terrorism response. We will expand and deepen our overseas network to deliver our ambitions for a truly global Britain, and ensure our development capability responds to changes in global poverty and national security. We will improve assurance of resilience and readiness of local and national capabilities and continue to develop an holistic approach to supporting victims of emergencies. We will take a whole-of-Government approach to serious and organised crime, including a national economic crime centre in partnership with the private sector. Furthermore, we will produce comprehensive strategic threat assessments for the border, and the National Security Communications Team will be significantly expanded. We will continue to implement the National Cyber Security Strategy and ensure it keeps pace with the threat. The cross-Government funds will be strengthened with a new ministerial committee and more efficient administration. Supporting this will be a new national security doctrine, the Fusion Doctrine, which will improve our collective approach to national security, building on the creation of the NSC eight years ago.

We have long been at the forefront of shaping international co-operation on security and the UK is a leading contributor to international missions around the world. The NSCR, alongside successful implementation of the SDSR, will ensure we use our world-leading national security capabilities to greatest effect to protect our people at home and abroad.

[HCWS604]

European Council

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

Before I turn to the European Council, I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our deepest condolences to the families and friends of those killed in the appalling terrorist attack in Trèbes on Friday. The House will also want to pay tribute to the extraordinary actions of Lieutenant Colonel Arnaud Beltrame who, unarmed, took the place of a hostage and gave his own life to save the lives of others—son sacrifice et son courage ne seront jamais oubliés. Just last week, we marked the first anniversary of the attack on Westminster and remembered the humbling bravery of PC Keith Palmer. It is through the actions of people such as PC Palmer and Lieutenant Colonel Beltrame that we confront the very worst of humanity with the very best. And through the actions of us all—together in this Parliament and in solidarity with our allies in France—we show that our democracy will never be silenced and that our way of life will always prevail.

Turning to the European Council, we discussed confronting Russia’s threat to the rules-based order. We agreed our response to America’s import tariffs on steel and aluminium, and we also discussed Turkey and the western Balkans, as well as economic issues including the appropriate means of taxing digital companies. All of those are issues on which the UK will continue to play a leading role in our future partnership with the EU after we have left, and this Council also took important steps towards building that future partnership.

First, on Russia, we are shortly to debate the threat that Russia poses to our national security—I will set that out in detail then—but at this Council I shared the basis for our assessment that Russia was responsible for the reckless and brazen attempted murder of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, and for the exposure of many others to potential harm. All EU leaders agreed and, as a result, the Council conclusions were changed to state that the Council

“agrees with the United Kingdom government’s assessment that it is highly likely that the Russian Federation is responsible and that there is no alternative plausible explanation.”

This was the first offensive use of a nerve agent on European soil since the foundation of the EU and NATO. It is a clear violation of the chemical weapons convention and, as an unlawful use of force, a clear breach of the UN charter. It is part of a pattern of increasingly aggressive Russian behaviour, but it also represents a new and dangerous phase in Russia’s hostile activity against Europe and our shared values and interests. So I argued that there should be a reappraisal of how our collective efforts can best tackle the challenge that Russia poses following President Putin’s re-election. In my discussions with President Macron and Chancellor Merkel, as well as with other leaders, we agreed on the importance of sending a strong European message in response to Russia’s actions not just out of solidarity with the UK, but recognising the threat posed to the national security of all EU countries.

The Council agreed immediate actions including withdrawing the EU’s ambassador from Moscow. Today, 18 countries have announced their intention to expel more than 100 Russian intelligence officers from their countries. That includes 15 EU member states, as well as the US, Canada, and the Ukraine. It is the largest collective expulsion of Russian intelligence officers in history. I have found great solidarity from our friends and partners in the EU, North America, NATO and beyond over the past three weeks as we have confronted the aftermath of the Salisbury incident, and together we have sent a message that we will not tolerate Russia’s continued attempts to flout international law and undermine our values. European nations will also act to strengthen their resilience to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear-related risks, as well as to bolster their capabilities to deal with hybrid threats. We also agreed that we would review progress in June, with Foreign Ministers being tasked to report back ahead of the next Council.

The challenge of Russia is one that will endure for years to come. As I have made clear before, we have no disagreement with the Russian people who have achieved so much through their country’s great history. Indeed, our thoughts are with them today in the aftermath of the awful shopping centre fire in Kemerovo in Siberia.

But President Putin’s regime is carrying out acts of aggression against our shared values and interests within our continent and beyond, and as a sovereign European democracy, the United Kingdom will stand shoulder to shoulder with the EU and with NATO to face down these threats together.

Turning to the United States’s decision to impose import tariffs on steel and aluminium, the Council was clear that these measures cannot be justified on national security grounds, and that sector-wide protection in the US is an inappropriate remedy for the real problems of overcapacity. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade travelled to Washington last week to argue for an EU-wide exemption. So we welcome the temporary exemption that has now been given to the European Union, but we must work hard to ensure this becomes permanent. At the same time, we will continue to support preparations in the EU to defend our industry in a proportionate manner, in compliance with World Trade Organisation rules.

Turning to Brexit, last week the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union reached agreement with the European Commission negotiating team on large parts of the draft withdrawal agreement. That includes the reciprocal agreement on citizens’ rights, the financial settlement, aspects of issues relating to Northern Ireland, such as the common travel area, and crucially the detailed terms of a time-limited implementation period running to the end of December 2020. I am today placing copies of the draft agreement in the Libraries of both Houses, and I thank the Secretary of State and our negotiating team for all their work in getting us to this point.

The Council welcomed the agreement, including the time that the implementation period will provide for Governments, businesses and citizens on both sides to prepare for the new relationship we want to build. As I set out in my speech in Florence, it is not in our national interest to ask businesses to undertake two sets of changes, so it follows that during the implementation period, they should continue to trade on current terms. Although I recognise that not everyone will welcome the continuation of current trading terms for another 21 months, such an implementation period has been widely welcomed by British business because it is necessary if we are to minimise uncertainty and deliver a smooth and successful Brexit. For all of us, the most important issue must be focusing on negotiating the right future relationship that will endure for years to come.

We are determined to use the implementation period to prepare properly for that future relationship. That is why it is essential that we have clarity about the terms of that relationship when we ask the House to agree the implementation period and the rest of the withdrawal agreement in the autumn.

Of course, some key questions remain to be resolved on the withdrawal agreement, including the governance of the agreement, and how our commitments to avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland should be turned into legal text. As I have made clear, we remain committed to the agreement we reached in December in its entirety. That includes a commitment to agree operational legal text for the “backstop option” set out in the joint report, although it remains my firm belief that we can and will find the best solutions for Northern Ireland as part of the overall future relationship between the UK and the EU.

I have explained that the specific European Commission proposals for that backstop were unacceptable because they were not in line with the Belfast agreement and threatened the break-up of the UK’s internal market. As such, they were not a fair reflection of the joint report. But there are many issues on which we can agree with the Commission and we are committed to working intensively to resolve those that remain outstanding. I welcome the fact that we are beginning a dedicated set of talks today with the European Commission and, where appropriate, the Irish Government so that we can work together to agree the best way to fulfil our commitments.

We have also been working closely with the Government of Gibraltar to ensure that Gibraltar is covered by our EU negotiations on withdrawal, the implementation period and future relationship. I am pleased that the draft agreement published jointly last week correctly applies to Gibraltar, but we will continue to engage closely with the Government of Gibraltar and our European partners to resolve the particular challenges our EU withdrawal poses for Gibraltar and for Spain.

Following my speeches in Munich and at the Mansion House setting out the future security and economic partnerships we want to develop, the Council also agreed guidelines for the next stage of the negotiations on this future relationship, which must rightly now be our focus. While there are of course some clear differences between our initial positions, the guidelines are a useful starting point for the negotiations that will now get under way.

I welcome the Council’s restating the EU’s determination to

“have as close as possible a partnership with the UK”

and its desire for a “balanced, ambitious and wide-ranging” free trade agreement. For I believe there is now an opportunity to create a new dynamic in these negotiations. The agreements our negotiators have reached on the withdrawal agreement and the implementation period are proof that, with political will, a spirit of co-operation and a spirit of opportunity for the future, we can find answers to difficult issues together. We must continue to do so. For whether people voted leave or remain, many are frankly tired of the old arguments and the attempts to refight the referendum over the past year. With a year to go, people are coming back together and looking forward. They want us to get on with it, and that is what we are going to do.

I commend this statement to the House.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of the statement. I also join her in condemning the appalling terrorist attack in Trèbes, and in offering our solidarity with the French Government and the people of France, and our condolences to the family of Lieutenant Colonel Beltrame, the hero of the siege. She is right to commend the heroic action of police and security services, both here and in France, and to mark the one-year anniversary of the killing of PC Keith Palmer and others on Westminster Bridge, who were quite properly remembered last Thursday in Westminster Hall and in St Mary Undercroft.

On Russia, I welcome the international consensus that the Prime Minister has built; as I said two weeks ago, the most powerful response we can make is multilateral action. So I would like to place on record our thanks to the EU and other states for their co-operation with us. I know that we will discuss these issues further later this afternoon, but I would add my condolences to all those Russian families affected by the Kemerovo shopping centre fire at the weekend.

On US steel tariffs, we need a co-ordinated response to tackle the dumping of steel by some nations and to resist the retreat into protectionism by the United States. The temporary respite from tariffs is welcome, but we must make it permanent.

We are pleased that some progress seems to have been made on the transition period, especially given that the agreement is identical to what Labour was calling for last summer. The only real question is why it took the Government so long to realise that a transition on the same terms is vital to protect jobs and our economy. The Government wasted months and months, dithering and posturing, before accepting the inevitable. That is the consistent pattern of these Brexit talks: wild claims and red lines quickly become climbdowns and broken promises.

Our coastal and fishing communities were told by the Environment Secretary only this month:

“The Prime Minister has been clear: Britain will leave the CFP”—

common fisheries policy—

“as of March 2019.”

Just a few weeks later, we find out that that will not be the case. What happened when we were told by the Brexit Secretary that the Government would deliver “the exact same benefits” of the single market and the customs union? Well, now the Prime Minister is saying, “We won’t be able to have the benefits of the single market” and, after saying it was a viable option earlier this year, any form of customs union is now ruled out, too. In January, we were told by the Prime Minister that EU citizens arriving during the transition period would not get the same rights as those already in the UK. She said:

“I’m clear there is a difference between those people who came prior to us leaving and those who will come when they know the UK is no longer a member.”

Now she is clear that there is no difference.

The insecurity for families and businesses, and the confusion at the heart of Government, have dogged the first phase of negotiations. So can the Prime Minister today give some clarity and confirm that we will not withdraw from the European nuclear agreement—Euratom—until alternative international arrangements for nuclear co-operation are agreed? Will her Government back those pragmatic amendments to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill? The Prime Minister had previously signalled that there would be flexibility over the duration of the transition period, yet in the withdrawal agreement the Government have accepted a definitive withdrawal date of December 2020. Can the Prime Minister explain what happened to her request for flexibility? And what are the Government doing to ensure that this date could be extended if a deal has not been reached? It has been broken promise after broken promise, and I can only hope that the next broken promise does not involve their commitment to “no hard border” in Ireland. The Government have still offered no credible solution, and now, in order to move negotiations on, the Prime Minister has been forced into an agreement that could result in a hard border in the Irish sea. Will the Prime Minister outline how she will prevent a hard border in Ireland, or in the Irish sea, if she rules out any form of customs union?

Many UK nations and regions have benefited from the European Investment Bank. Given that we are still paying into the EU budget, will the Prime Minister explain why the UK will not be eligible for new funding during transition? Does that not leave us still paying in, but to get less?

Has the Prime Minister signed up to there being an Anglo-Spanish bilateral agreement on Gibraltar? Who will lead the negotiations for the Government?

Last week, the Government presided over a new fiasco over passports. In her last Brexit statement, the Prime Minister told the House:

“We are delivering for the British people, and we are going to make a success of it.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2018; Vol. 637, c. 31.]

Well, tell that to De La Rue workers in Gateshead. It seems that her red, white and blue Brexit has become the blue, white and red of the flag of France. Time after time, the Tories sell off British assets and jobs to the lowest bidder.

The Prime Minister says that last week was a significant breakthrough, but it is the same breakthrough that we were told had been signed off in December, and some of it is still fudged, four months on. Yet we know that the hardest decisions are yet to come. In the second phase of the talks, the Government must stop posturing, drop the impossible red lines, finally put jobs and our economy first and give workers and businesses the clarity that they need.

[The Prime Minister]

First, the right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of steel. As I said in my statement and at the European Council, we want to work with the EU in talking to the United States, to make the EU’s temporary exemption from those tariffs into a permanent exemption. I referenced, as did the right hon. Gentleman, that there is a need for us to deal with the question of overcapacity in the steel market. That is best dealt with in multilateral forums, which is why at the 2016 G20 a forum was set up that included China sitting around the table. The work of that forum should continue and we need to address that issue on that multilateral stage.

The right hon. Gentleman raised various other issues. He will know that membership of Euratom is legally linked to membership of the European Union. We are putting in place the arrangements necessary to ensure that we can continue to operate with others in that area.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about clarity on citizens’ rights. The December joint report and the report on the implementation period that was agreed last Friday do precisely that: they provide clarity for citizens as to what their rights are going to be.

The right hon. Gentleman referred once again to the Northern Ireland border. We are very clear and have set out proposals and ways in which we can ensure that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. We were also very clear in the December joint report, to which both the United Kingdom and the European Union signed up, that there should be no hard border down the Irish sea—in effect, that the internal market of the United Kingdom should be retained—and that all aspects of the Belfast agreement should be respected. We continue to do that.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the fact that the implementation period was a Labour party idea. May I remind him of two things? First, the concept of a smooth and orderly withdrawal from Brexit was first referenced in my Lancaster House speech in January 2017. Secondly, I seem to remember that the day after the referendum result in 2016, the right hon. Gentleman wanted to trigger article 50 immediately. There was no suggestion of an implementation period then, was there? So, there we go.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman talked about changes of opinion. This is the Leader of the Opposition who says that he wants us to continue to be in a customs union, but at the same time refuses to accept the competition policy that is a necessary element of being in a customs union. It is the right hon. Gentleman who, when the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), backed a rerun of the referendum, kept her in her job, but sacked the then shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), when he backed a rerun of the referendum. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is the Conservative party in government that is getting on with delivering on the wishes of the British people and delivering a Brexit that works for everyone.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

May I commend my right hon. Friend for her strong stance on the Russian attacks over the past couple of weeks? That strong stance has shown to the rest of the world that we take action and point the finger when there is evidence, but that we do not have a never-ending dialogue, as was recommended by the Leader of the Opposition, with those who would harm us the most. Did she take further steps in those Council meetings last week to recommend to the Germans that they look again at this pipeline directly to Russia?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, it is very important that we are clear-sighted when we deal with states such as Russia and recognise the threat that they pose. The subject of the pipeline, Nord Stream 2, was not raised in the European Union Council. On further measures that might be taken by the European Union, we have asked EU Foreign Ministers to look at issues that might need to be addressed in June, when the European Council will again be looking at the matter.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement.

I start by wishing Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey and his family the very best following his discharge from hospital last week. I pay tribute to the NHS staff who cared for him in such difficult circumstances, and, of course, our thoughts remain with Yulia and Sergei Skripal. I want to associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks on the terrorist atrocity in Trèbes and on the selfless sacrifice of Lieutenant Colonel Arnaud Beltrame. I pay tribute, too, to those who have been caught up in the terrible fire in Kemerovo in Siberia.

Last week, the Prime Minister secured an important message in the European Council’s formal declaration that it is “highly likely” that Russia was behind the nerve agent attack in Salisbury earlier this month. I note that EU leaders also agreed to recall Markus Ederer, the bloc’s ambassador to Moscow, for consultations. That is a strong position that our friends have taken, and I welcome united efforts in responding to the reckless chemical attack in Salisbury. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what discussions she has had with European partners in ensuring that non-governmental organisations on the ground in Russia continue to have support from the United Kingdom and the EU?

Although the Scottish National party welcomed the Prime Minister’s statement on 14 March, we want to see firm action taken by the Government on Scottish limited partnerships, which are often used by criminals for money laundering. We also want action on Magnitsky amendments to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill. Will the Prime Minister confirm when we can expect to see her Government’s plans to clamp down on Scottish limited partnerships and, more generally, to deal with all forms of Russian money laundering?

Turning to the EU Council’s conclusions on the latest phase of Brexit negotiations, will the Prime Minister tell the House what representations she made to EU leaders to reverse the conclusions on the UK’s fishing rights post Brexit? Last week, fishing communities across Scotland were left in the dark as their industry was bargained away by this Government. Why were the Secretary of State for Scotland and Ruth Davidson permitted to issue a statement on 11 March that we would have control of our fishing grounds for this to be reversed only a week later? What changed? Did the Secretary of State know what was to happen? Had he been properly informed by the Government? It is incumbent on the Prime Minister to secure the rights of fishing communities and to reject any deal that leaves them hamstrung in a transition agreement.

SNP Members continue to hold concerns about the UK Government’s approach to the Good Friday agreement and the Irish border. Time is running out. The Prime Minister cannot play fast and loose with Northern Ireland any longer. Decisions are needed to give businesses and communities in Northern Ireland the certainty in their day-to-day lives that they deserve.

Finally, what discussions has the Prime Minister had with the Prime Minister of Spain on the ongoing situation between Spain and Catalonia and on the arrest warrants that have been issued for democratically elected politicians, including those who are living in Scotland? Surely, we need a political solution, not this situation in which Spain is trying to impose on directly elected politicians.

[The Prime Minister]

I join the right hon. Gentleman, as I am sure everybody in the House does, in wishing the very best to Nick Bailey and his family as he completes his recovery. I also thank the NHS staff who not only treated him, but continue to care for Sergei and Yulia Skripal. I was pleased to meet some of those staff and talk to them about their experience when I was in Salisbury just over a week ago; their dedication was very clear.

The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of issues. We have had discussions with the Scottish National party and others about what a Magnitsky amendment might look like. We have already taken some action, but we are looking to ensure that we take the strongest possible action. Of course, a number of my colleagues in the European Council mentioned their own Magnitsky legislation and that issue.

I will write to the right hon. Gentleman on SLPs, if I may. We have taken some action, but are looking further at what we might be able to do.

On Catalonia, we continue to wish to see the rule of law upheld and to ensure that the Spanish constitution is upheld. On Northern Ireland, talks are starting today with the European Commission on the details of the ways in which we will be able to ensure that there is no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Where appropriate, those talks will also involve the Irish Government.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman mentions the common fisheries policy. We will be leaving the common fisheries policy and taking back control of our waters. But it is a bit rich for him to make those comments, given that he belongs to a party that wants to stay in the CFP in perpetuity.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The European guidelines of 23 March and the EU proposed legal protocol both insist on the autonomy of the EU legal order and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an absolute assurance that in these negotiations the Government will not accept exclusive or sole jurisdiction of the European Court over the UK from 29 March 2019, nor after 30 December 2020—at the end of the implementation period—and that the Government will not enter a treaty or introduce legislation that confers such jurisdiction, which a recently retired European Court judge said would be a “legal viper’s nest”?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said before in this Chamber in response to a question from our hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), during the implementation period, there will of course continue to be that role for the European Court of Justice, because we will be continuing to operate on largely the same basis as currently. Once we have ended the implementation period, it will be a very different story. We will then be absolutely in a position that I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) wants: one of taking back control of our laws. As I said in my statement, there are some issues still to be addressed on the withdrawal agreement, including the governance of that agreement. A number of interesting ideas have been proposed that do not give sole authority to the European Court of Justice, which is not something that we would want.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister’s welcome remarks about European co-operation on Russia show the continued importance of co-operation with the EU after Brexit. She has rightly proposed a security treaty on extradition, Europol and data sharing to be in place by the end of the transition period. But she will also know that a new treaty could take 18 months for other countries to ratify, could yet be referred to the European Court of Justice and will have to deal with some tricky legal and constitutional issues—for example, on extradition, which Norway has taken over a decade to try to resolve. So why is there no fallback clause in the withdrawal agreement, why has the Prime Minister set a hard deadline of December 2020, and what will she do if the security treaty is not in place in time?

[The Prime Minister]

We are absolutely ready to start negotiations with the European Union on the security partnership and treaty for the future. It is in both sides’ interests to have that treaty in place. So far, that has been the very clear message from my European partners. I think that they will have every intention, as we do, of ensuring that those security arrangements are in place when we end the implementation period.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Given the very strong mood in the country to just get on with Brexit, will the Government now produce their draft legislation, so that we can have the new fishing policy, the new farming policy, the new spending policies and, above all, the new borders policies that will represent the Brexit bonus that we are all waiting for?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend has covered a number of issues. He will know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is indeed consulting on what would replace the common agricultural policy, and it will be consulting the fishing industry and others on what would replace the common fisheries policy. Of course, legislation will be coming forward as necessary to cover all the issues that we need to address before we see the end of the implementation period and have in place the future relationship.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement. I welcome the joint statement that she has secured from EU leaders on Russia and, indeed, the actions of the 18 countries today. It is exactly that kind of internationalist approach that we need.

The Prime Minister mentions the discussions on taxing digital companies whose behaviour as guardians of our data is of course a subject of increasing concern. Does she agree that Brexit or no Brexit, the UK’s only hope of tackling the massive and damaging monopoly power of the likes of Google, Facebook and Amazon is to work closely with our European partners on a co-ordinated approach not only on tax but on data protection and competition regulation?

[The Prime Minister]

We are looking at the issues around data as part of our negotiations with the European Union. We are bringing the general data protection regulation into UK legislation. This is another area where we want to ensure that we have a good arrangement for data exchange in the future.

Work is in hand at an international level—at the OECD level—on the taxation of digital companies. We believe that the best result is an international result, but we also think it right to look, as the European Union, at whether any interim steps need to be taken to ensure that we are properly taxing these companies.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

Flowing from her opening remarks, will my right hon. Friend call on the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the President of its Parliamentary Assembly—Michele Nicoletti—and the Assembly itself to join the British delegation in condemning utterly the Russian Federation’s actions, which are wholly unacceptable in a civilised society?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I am very happy to join him and the British delegation in making that request.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on getting unanimity on Russia?

Will the Prime Minister state categorically today that no matter what happens, the implementation period will end at the end of December 2020? Does she agree that to go into any negotiation saying that one will never walk away is not the way to get the best result?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly agree with the hon. Lady on that point, which I have made in the Chamber in the past. Anybody going into a negotiation needs to be able to take that position.

On the end date of the implementation period, I have spoken about it being around two years. In the negotiations, the European Union wanted it to be at December 2020, and I felt it was appropriate that we had that firm date, so that everybody is clear about when the implementation period will end.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

For understandable reasons, defence spending has more than halved as a proportion of GDP since the end of the cold war. Now that the threat from Russia is re-emerging, can we reassess the need to fill the holes in the defence budget identified by the National Audit Office, the Defence Committee, and, most recently, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy?

[The Prime Minister]

This is obviously an issue on which my right hon. Friend has campaigned, and continues to campaign, with great passion and dedication. As he will know, coming out of the national security capability review, we have set out the modernising defence programme. We are looking carefully at the question of our future defence against the background of the threats that we face. Of course, defence and national security covers more than simply what would traditionally be regarded as defence, but we are looking carefully at the capabilities required by the Ministry of Defence.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

The United Kingdom is a world leader in aerospace defence and satellite systems. Can the Prime Minister clarify whether the attempts that the European Commission is apparently making to freeze British companies out of Galileo contracts that are due to be issued in June are consistent with the transitional arrangements? If not, what does she propose to do about it?

[The Prime Minister]

We have been very clear that as long as we are a member of the European Union, we will meet our obligations, but we should continue to be treated as a full member of the European Union. As the Business Secretary has said, the UK has a world-leading space sector that has contributed a significant amount of specialist expertise to the Galileo programme. We believe it is not just in the UK’s interests for us to continue to participate in that programme as we have done, but also in the interests of the European Union, because of the expertise the United Kingdom can provide.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on the implementation period agreed last week. It is something that businesses have been calling for, and it provided much needed certainty. Businesses are still saying that they want to know that there will be regulatory forbearance and understanding by regulators during the implementation period as they adjust to a new set of rules. Is that something Ministers are aware of and have been discussing?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. We are aware of the issue of the regulators’ stance and have been in discussion with certain regulators about how they can work with their European opposite numbers to ensure that there is a sound regulatory footing during the implementation period.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

May I associate my party with the Prime Minister’s words on the courage and sacrifice of Lieutenant Colonel Beltrame and her very appropriate words on the Russian threat?

Does the Prime Minister share the bemusement of many in Northern Ireland that there is so much concentration on the so-called backstop provisions when we should be getting on with negotiating the overall agreement, which will take care of the Irish border issue? Does she share the concern of many in Northern Ireland that that is being used by some in the European Union, and indeed some in the Irish Government, to shape their version of Brexit or to thwart Brexit altogether, by inventing problems when there are none? Will she give a clear assurance to the people of Northern Ireland that there will be no backtracking on her firm resolve that no British Prime Minister could ever sign up to the sort of legal text that the EU put forward?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I am absolutely clear, and I share his bemusement that so much focus is being put on plan C when all parties have clearly said that they want to achieve this through plan A in the joint report, which was the overall agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union on their future partnership. I am happy to confirm that I could not—I do not think it would be possible for anybody standing at this Dispatch Box to do so—support something that destroyed the UK internal market. We are clear that we maintain our commitment to the whole December joint report. We will be working on those options, and we are fully confident that we can find a solution through plan A.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

There were many positive aspects of the Council, for which my right hon. Friend deserves congratulations, including particularly the unanimous support from other European countries over Russia’s appalling behaviour, showing that our European friends are considerably more robust than the leadership of the Opposition. Does she agree that today’s welcome moves to expel Russian diplomats from a number of countries must not be a one-off, but must be seen as the start of a more robust strategy in resisting Putin’s provocation wherever it occurs?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. That is why, as I said earlier, EU Foreign Ministers and the European Council will be looking at that issue again. What happened in Salisbury was part of a pattern of aggressive Russian behaviour, and we need to ensure that we are working across all fronts to deal with that aggressive behaviour, whether it is disinformation, propaganda or cyber-attacks. We need to work together to deal with all those threats.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on the level of support and solidarity she secured from our European friends on Russia. But how is it remotely acceptable that when a young whistleblower exposes compelling evidence of lawbreaking by the leave campaign, implicating staff at No. 10, one of those named, instead of addressing the allegations made, issued an officially sanctioned statement outing the whistleblower as gay and thereby putting his family in Pakistan in danger? That is a disgrace, Prime Minister, and you need to do something about it.

[The Prime Minister]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that any statements issued were personal statements—[Interruption.] They were personal statements that were issued. I of course accept the importance of ensuring that we recognise that, for some, being outed as gay is difficult because of their family and circumstances. I want to see a world in which everybody can be confident in their sexuality and does not have to worry about such things.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Russia respects strength, and one of the lessons of the 1930s is that it is dangerous to give commitments to eastern Europe unless we back up such commitments with military hardware. Our commitment to the Baltic states is relatively modest; I think we have 800 men in the Baltic states. Will the Prime Minister consider increasing our military commitment and our support for the Baltic states, so that we can build European solidarity on the basis of a coalition of peace through security?

[The Prime Minister]

We do look constantly at the contribution that we are making. My hon. Friend is right that we have several hundred troops in Estonia as part of the enhanced forward presence. We are also contributing in other parts of Europe—to the work that is being done, for example, in Poland. However, we will obviously continue to look at this.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Given that the Prime Minister’s political secretary, Stephen Parkinson, is the person responsible for outing the Vote Leave whistleblower, using No. 10 paper and documents, what is she going to do? Prime Minister, you should sack him!

[The Prime Minister]

No. I am sorry, but that is not what I should be doing. My political secretary does a very good job as my political secretary, and as I have said, any statements that have been made were personal statements.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Were we to adopt the Leader of the Opposition’s policy of domestic procurement preference, would that not be a passport to ruin?

[The Prime Minister]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s way with words in his question, and I think he is absolutely right. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration said earlier this afternoon, we want to ensure we are providing a secure document and good value for the taxpayer, and show that we as a Government believe in competition and open markets.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

It has been reassuring to see the other EU member states rally to the United Kingdom’s support on the issue of Russia. Does the Prime Minister agree that all member states, and indeed the UK, should be vigilant about human rights abuses wherever they occur, even when that is within an EU member state?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, within the European Union we all stand up for certain values—European values—and human rights are among the values that we stand up for. Where any difference is shown by any individual country in relation to that, that is pointed out.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister share my incredulity at the crocodile tears of SNP Members over fishing, when they would have had us remain in the disastrous CFP in the first place? May I go on to ask her about the suggestion made last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) of a mitigation scheme to protect our fishermen during the transition period? Has any thought been given to that in the Government, and might we see something about it in the forthcoming fisheries Bill?

[The Prime Minister]

I share my right hon. Friend’s incredulity in relation to the actions of the SNP, which would keep us in the common fisheries policy in perpetuity. We will of course be talking with the fishing industry about the arrangements that will pertain for the industry in the future. I want to see that industry enhanced, and I want to see us doing what we can to ensure—when we are negotiating as an independent coastal state, at the end of the implementation period, in relation to fishing, access to our waters and access for our fishermen to other waters—that the industry can be enhanced, be built on and grow, and that we provide even greater support here in the United Kingdom.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Why is the Prime Minister so attached to the reckless strategy of taking the UK past exit date without settling a treaty on the future relationship that we would have with the EU? She could call that 21-month period an additional negotiation period or a limbo period, but she really should not call it an implementation period, because there may be nothing to implement.

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Gentleman looks back at my statement, he will recall that I said that it is our intention that this House, when it comes to look at the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill and to vote on that Bill, should have sufficient detail of what that future relationship is going to be, and that will take place before we leave the European Union.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Many of us are concerned that, in the transition period, most of the red lines have gone, but we can live with it on the basis that they will be restored when we finally leave. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give me that when we leave, we will be out of the single market, out of the customs union and out of any jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to reiterate what I have said before: we will be leaving the single market, we will be leaving the customs union, and we will be leaving the common fisheries policy—we will be ensuring that we take back control of our waters. My hon. Friend asks me about the European Court of Justice, and we are clear that we will take back control of our laws. However, with his attention to detail, my hon. Friend will know that, within the December joint report, in relation to citizens’ rights, there was, as part of that, for a period of time, for those EU citizens who are here, where cases are taken about those rights to UK courts, the possibility for the UK courts to have due regard to the views of the European Court of Justice.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) is rocking back and forth in a state of some perturbation, and it disquiets me to see him in that situation. Let us hear the fella.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It was reported that the Prime Minister actually stayed at the European Council meeting longer than had originally been intended. Is that a metaphor for our membership of the European Union? Given that she was there longer, did she have an opportunity to have bilateral discussions with other Heads of Government in the margins of the meeting? If so, could she tell us which ones?

[The Prime Minister]

I did indeed stay overnight, and the reason for this was, I believe, a very good one, which I think everybody in this House would support. We had expected to discuss the steel and aluminium tariffs imposed by the United States and the position of the European Union on Thursday night. It became clear that the decision of the President of the United States was not going to come through until the early hours of the morning, European time, and that trade would therefore be discussed on the next day, and in order to speak up for UK steelworkers, I stayed on.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

May I commend the Prime Minister for her statement today? It was noticed by many people that our European Union colleagues and allies acted more quickly in support of the Prime Minister’s firm and fully proper actions against Russia than the President of the United States. What guarantees can she give us—what confidence can she give us—that we will continue to have that great relationship with our fellow members of the European Union once we have left the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

The United States has, of course, today announced the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats. As part of the implementation period agreement, as my right hon. Friend will be able to see, we have come to an agreement as to how we are going to operate on foreign policy issues during the implementation period. However, it is certainly the case that we continue to be part of Europe; as I said, we are leaving the EU—we are not leaving Europe. We will continue to work closely with our allies across Europe in a variety of forums, including—and this includes, not least, the United States as well—in NATO.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the robust attitude Europe has adopted towards Russia. Indeed, I warmly commend the Prime Minister for securing that, because I do not think that that was a small feat. May I make a suggestion to her about dealing with Russia, which is that we should do more to tackle the dirty Russian money sloshing around in the City of London? One measure could be easily taken. The Government have, quite rightly, introduced a register of beneficial ownership of trusts, but they are refusing to make it public. Is now not the time to make sure everybody knows who owns what in this country, and to make sure Russian dirty money will not swill around this country because the City of London Corporation is clean and we will make everything public?

[The Prime Minister]

We do not want dirty money, whatever its source, in the City of London or the United Kingdom. That is why we have taken a number of steps to enhance our ability to deal with that issue. It is why the National Crime Agency will always act where there are issues around criminal activity or illicit finances. It is why we brought forward proposals in the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which gave us even greater strength, and it is why we will be dealing with the other issue that the hon. Gentleman always raises with me, the Magnitsky issue, in the sanctions Bill.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we live in an increasingly dangerous world, and that our European allies and friends must be persuaded to spend more on defence?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend knows that we meet our NATO commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence. We regularly encourage others to meet their commitment.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the steps taken on Russia and on steel, given the steel industry in my constituency. Does the Prime Minister not recognise, however, that there is a complete paradox here? At the very time she talks about the need for more co-operation on Russia, more co-operation on steel, more co-operation on data and more co-operation on counter-terrorism, her Government are pursuing a reckless hard Brexit. Does she not agree that as the facts change, and as people see these changing contexts, people have the right to change their minds?

[The Prime Minister]

Leaving the European Union does not mean we are leaving Europe. As I have just said, we are very clear that we will continue to work with our European allies on issues of mutual interest and mutual concern. Where we are dealing with threats posed to both those countries and the United Kingdom we will do so in a variety of ways, not least within NATO.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Those who doubted the Conservative party’s ability, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, to negotiate with the European Union will surely welcome today’s agreement both on the implementation phase and on the bulk of the future withdrawal agreement. Notwithstanding the mantra that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to share the details of the agreement on citizens’ rights to both European nationals here in the UK and British citizens in the European Union as soon as possible?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We have made efforts in the past to do exactly that, but we will be looking to ensure that we can provide the maximum information possible to EU citizens living here and UK citizens living in the European Union about their rights and their position so they can have certainty.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Our ability to sign our own trade agreements with third countries is hailed as one of the big prizes of Brexit. Delegations from European Free Trade Association countries that can agree their own free trade agreements, when asked what they make of their freedom, say they follow what the EU is doing. With which third countries does the Prime Minister expect the UK to make trade agreements that are different and better than current EU trade agreements during the transition period or indeed afterwards?

[The Prime Minister]

It is of course not the case that the EU has trade agreements with every country that we might wish to have trade agreements with, but a number of countries do have trade agreements with the EU. We have discussed being able to move those over into a bilateral relationship at the point of our leaving. When I talk with those countries, I see a desire to go further than that and to improve the agreements we have with those countries.

[Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that our fishing rights must not be hardwired into any future trade deal?

[The Prime Minister]

I recognise the concern there was at the time when we went into the common fisheries policy about the way in which our fishing rights were dealt with. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will be looking to deal with our fishing in a very different way in the future.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that thanks to sessions such as this in the just over 20 months since the referendum, the British public are much better informed about the costs and benefits of leaving the European Union, and particularly about the dangers to our security and our economy? Given that they are much better educated about Europe and the threats, should we not have another vote, now that we know what the cost really is?

[The Prime Minister]

No.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the response to the Salisbury attack from our friends and allies in the European Union not only shows that she still has a huge degree of standing among our European friends, but bodes well for a pragmatic and mutually beneficial conclusion to the Brexit negotiations?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that not only the way in which other EU members have supported the United Kingdom and taken action in relation to Russia, but the fact that we achieved the December joint report and agreed considerable amounts of the withdrawal agreement and implementation period does indeed bode well for our future negotiations.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment that the UK will remain in the European arrest warrant. Could she be clear, however, how the joint jurisdiction will take place and what the role for the European Court will be in the application of that arrest warrant?

[The Prime Minister]

As we have put in a number of proposals, we need to ensure that once we have left the European Union, we recognise the sovereign legal order of the United Kingdom. Obviously, we recognise the legal order that will pertain for the EU27. We will be negotiating the details of issues such as the European arrest warrant as part of the security partnership and treaty that we will negotiate for the future.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for the progress that she made last week. She will know that the financial services industry particularly welcomes the implementation period and the commitment in the guidelines for a trade in services based on market access and allowing rights of establishment. Is the British Government’s ambition to achieve that under mutual recognition or standards regulatory alignment?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

A number of proposals have been brought forward as the basis on which we could have the recognition of standards on both sides. Of course, there are some aspects of the financial services sector where standards are set internationally and not just at a European Union level. As part of the detailed negotiations we are going into, we will be looking at exactly what a dynamic equivalence of standards might look like in future.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The 23 March European Council guidelines state clearly:

“Being outside the Customs Union and the Single Market will inevitably lead to frictions in trade.”

Does that sentence not confirm beyond all doubt that the Prime Minister’s red lines are leading us inexorably to a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic?

[The Prime Minister]

No, it does not. Of course, the European Union will have set its particular guidelines. We are going into negotiation with it. We have already set out ways in which we can ensure that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland and we will go into detailed discussion on those.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress made thus far in the withdrawal negotiations, but can she confirm that it remains her position that no deal is better than a bad deal, and that all necessary preparations are being made for such an eventuality?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I assure my right hon. Friend that we are ensuring that we are preparing for all eventualities.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

What does the Prime Minister think the effect on GDP will be of the UK leaving the EU?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me say to the hon. Lady what I expect to happen as a result of us leaving the European Union. I believe that we will be able to continue to trade on a very good basis with the countries of the European Union. We will also be able to sign trade deals around the rest of the world. The impact on the GDP of this country is not just about our membership of the European Union, but about the steps that this Government are taking through the modern industrial strategy and other, which is why we see record levels of employment in this country and have seen continuous growth for some period of time.

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

It is welcome that the implementation period will create confidence for British business—for all except perhaps the UK fishing industry. UK fishing must be given confidence and must be prepared. Do the Prime Minister and the Chancellor plan to build that confidence by investing in our fishing fleet, improving the infrastructure of our ports and ensuring that we have adequate fish-producing facilities in the UK by 2021?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my hon. Friend has a particular constituency interest in this issue, and I can reassure him that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be consulting the fishing industry, and working with fishermen and fish processors, to ensure that we have the best possibilities for enhancing and building on our fishing industry in the future.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

If a lorry laden with goods from Ireland or the EU leaves Dublin, drives through the frictionless border to Belfast, boards a ferry to Liverpool, drives 20 miles to my constituency and then unloads, how, in the absence of a customs union or single market, will my constituents know what is in the lorry?

[The Prime Minister]

The idea that the only way there can be reasonable and sensible arrangements for crossing the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is by our remaining in the customs union and single market is simply wrong.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and their teams, on the progress that has been made. In the next stages of the negotiations, will she pay particular attention to young people in this country, who for the past 20 or 30 years have been able to work and study across the EU without hindrance? Can we ensure, even given the red lines, that they and indeed everyone in this country will be able to continue to do so, at least for a limited period—two, three or four years—without needing work permits?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very clear that people from the United Kingdom will continue to want to work and study in EU27 countries, and that EU citizens will continue to want to work and study here in the United Kingdom. We will be considering some of the specific arrangements that have helped to support students, such as Erasmus, and whether we should continue to be involved in them.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister mentioned the Brexit referendum. How concerned is she by reports that the Vote Leave campaign may have broken campaign spending limits in the referendum, and would she support investigations into that?

[The Prime Minister]

The question of whether rules were followed in the referendum is a matter for the Electoral Commission. I did refer to the Brexit referendum, because the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, and that is what we will deliver for them.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when this country is threatened by the kind of actions and stances we have seen recently from Russia, the House should be united against these stances, as that is the only way in which democracy can defeat despotism?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we show our unity across the House in standing up to the threat and behaviour of Russia.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

The co-ordinated expulsions are welcome and highly significant, but will the Prime Minister be prepared to take further action if the Government conclude that Nikolai Glushkov was murdered with the involvement of the Russian Federation? That took place in London just eight days after the Skripal attack, in mysterious circumstances.

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously there is an ongoing police investigation into that individual’s death, and we await its result.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack), does my right hon. Friend agree that any free trade agreement linked to a specific industry such as fishing would constitute not only something that fishing communities could not accept, but cherry-picking?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack), I am aware of how the fishing industry felt it was treated when the UK entered the then Common Market. I am also very clear that as we leave the EU, we need not only to uphold the interests of the fishing industry but, as I have said to other hon. Friends, to give it an opportunity to rebuild and be enhanced.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Given that the Prime Minister’s Government and, unfortunately, the official Opposition have had more positions on Brexit than the Kama Sutra, is it not time that the “I had this idea first” nonsense stopped, and that she and her Government spelled out how our constituents will be protected from the disastrous economic impacts of Brexit?

[The Prime Minister]

The picture that the hon. Lady paints is not one that I recognise—[Laughter.] Indeed, in relation to anything that she said in her question.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) was preparing to divulge further information. I am not sure that it would be entirely seemly in the context of these exchanges.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on the progress that was made last week, and on once again confounding the naysayers and the doom-mongers. I also welcome the comment in her statement about the need for clarity on the terms of the final trade agreement by October. How can we avoid the risk that we end up signing a legally binding exit agreement before we sign a legally binding final-state free trade agreement, given that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?

[The Prime Minister]

There is a legal difference between those agreements. It is not possible legally to sign the new free trade agreement until we are outside the European Union, whereas of course the withdrawal agreement will have to go through Parliament and through the European Parliament before we leave the European Union. As I have said—my hon. Friend alluded to this —it is important that we have sufficient detail, and agreed detail, on that future relationship, so that everyone knows what it will be at the time at which they are asked to look at the withdrawal agreement.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments about Gibraltar, but will she tell us what specific discussions have taken place about the future of Gibraltar International airport?

[The Prime Minister]

We are obviously having discussions with the Government of Gibraltar, but discussions are also taking place to ensure that the challenges posed by the relationship between Gibraltar and Spain, including those concerning the airport, are overcome. Some good discussions have been held so far.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

May I put on record my thanks to the NHS staff who cared for my constituent Nick Bailey so well? The whole community of Alderholt, the village where he lives, is very grateful for that, and pleased with the progress that he is making.

My right hon. Friend clearly attended a very busy Council. During the conversations on the margins, was she able to raise with other European leaders the rather ugly rise in the scourge of anti-Semitism in Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

That was not an issue that I raised at the Council, but I join my hon. Friend in his disquiet at the rise of anti-Semitism that we are seeing, and not just across the European continent. Sadly, we see too many examples of anti-Semitism here in the United Kingdom. There is no place for any racial hatred, hate crime or hate speak in the UK, be it Islamophobia or anti-Semitism.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Last week’s decision to stay in the common fisheries policy and to have no say in the matter for the next 21 months is further evidence of decades-long contempt for the fishing industry. Last week, Niels Wichmann of the Danish Fishermen’s Association said:

“Britain has never ever challenged the quota shares that we have used every year in the annual negotiations”.

If the Tories are so concerned about the fishing industry, why have they never challenged the quotas?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman says that the common fisheries policy shows “decades-long contempt” for the British fishing industry, but it is the Scottish National party that wants to stay in the common fisheries policy and show such contempt.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

Brexit provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for a renaissance of East Anglian fishing, although the provisions of the implementation agreement have created anger and some doubt about whether the Government share the ambition of the industry locally. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that her Government will work with and support East Anglian fishing communities, such as that in Lowestoft, as they work to revive this great industry?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to confirm that we will be working with those who are involved in the fishing industry throughout the United Kingdom to ensure that we can rebuild the industry, and that it will have a very good future.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have listened very carefully to what the Prime Minister has said today—and, in fact, since her appointment—but she has failed to set out exactly how we can have frictionless trade over the Irish border. Will she do that now?

[The Prime Minister]

Not only have the Government set that out, but we have set it out in papers that were published last year. I suggest that the hon. Lady looks at those.

[Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)]

As the Prime Minister is aware, my son Clifford was born on 29 March last year, the day we triggered article 50. For this year’s party, I have ordered only one cake—a Paddington cake—but next year I will be buying two: one to celebrate my son’s birthday; and the other to celebrate our leaving the European Union. I congratulate the Prime Minister on her excellent leadership in getting us to this stage. Next year, may I save her a slice of Victoria sponge to celebrate Brexit day?

[The Prime Minister]

I will be very happy to celebrate Brexit day with my hon. Friend, and indeed with Clifford.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister knows that under single origin principles, most broadcasters in the European Union choose to license within the UK. I met one such last week which told me that it will be moving 700 jobs from the UK to either Dublin, Amsterdam or Luxembourg, and will do so before the implementation period that the Prime Minister talked about. Is this what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) meant by the Brexit bonus, and what is the Prime Minister going to do about it?

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at my Mansion House speech on the future economic partnership, he will see that broadcasting was one of the issues I touched on with regard to a specific strand of the negotiations that we want to address. Of course some broadcasters who are broadcasting into the UK have been licensed in the EU because of the freedoms available at the moment. We recognise that there will be some change to the arrangements, but we want to ensure that we can maintain the strength in broadcasting that we have here.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

May I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement? Does she agree that what my constituents in the Black Country and the west midlands want now is for us to move quickly to the substantive negotiations about our future trading relationship with the EU so that we can build on the positive developments in the regional economy and take advantage of opportunities for exporting and opening up trade links throughout the world?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that people in the Black Country and the west midlands—these views are shared by people across the United Kingdom—want us to move to the negotiations on the future relationship and to see the benefits that will come when we are able to negotiate our own trade deals and encourage exporting outside the EU.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I strongly advise the Prime Minister to read SNP fishing policy before she comments on it, as she has it spectacularly wrong. Will she explain to the fishing communities of Argyll and Bute why she has agreed to a deal that keeps them in the CFP without a voice? Is that not the worst possible deal that her Government could have achieved for our fishing communities?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, for the 2019 catch, we will of course still be a member of the EU and part of the negotiations. We will be consulted on the 2020 catch and the stability key—the quota—will not change. For the 2021 catch, we will be negotiating as an independent coastal state. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the SNP has changed its policy on membership of the common fisheries policy, I am very interested to hear that, but so far as I am aware, it has not. He needs to talk to his party’s Front Benchers.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister’s continuing support for free trade. Is she aware that De La Rue currently exports to more than 140 countries, including 40 to which it exports passports? Does she therefore agree that the biggest threat to British jobs at De La Rue would be to advocate policies that would restrict passport production only to home countries?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Those who say that passports can be produced only in their home country would be denying De La Rue a significant part of its business.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

The European Medicines Agency is departing these shores for the Netherlands. What estimate has the Treasury made of future losses for British science and research, particularly medical research?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady might know, in the Mansion House speech I gave a few weeks ago, I raised the question of our future relationship with agencies including the EMA. We want to discuss with the EU the possibility of an associate membership, crucially so that the system entails only one set of authorisations, which we believe is in everybody’s interests in terms of getting medicines more quickly to market.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate the Prime Minister on the very sensible agreement she reached at the European Council. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, may I add my personal thanks to the Prime Minister and her team for agreeing a very sensible outcome during the implementation period for EU nationals in our country, as well as UK citizens in the EU27? Given my deep interest in this subject, which the Prime Minister knows well, will she help to facilitate a meeting with the Secretary of State so that I understand the proposed settlement rules that will be drafted in due course?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I would be happy to do that. It is important that the rules are clear for those who have been campaigning on this issue, and I am sure that that meeting will take place.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

At the European Council, was the Prime Minister able to speak to the President of France, who on a recent state visit to India managed to secure a trade deal valued at $16 billion, despite having the dead weight of the European Union on his back?

[The Prime Minister]

I did indeed have discussions with the President of France, but we were discussing other issues, such as how we should deal with the threat from Russia.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

In my right hon. Friend’s statement on 14 March on the Salisbury incident, she said that

“the United Kingdom does not stand alone in confronting Russian aggression.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2018; Vol. 637, c. 857.]

We should remember that there were those who questioned that at the time, and also questioned whether some of our allies really believed the evidence that they were shown. Surely what is so significant about today is that we are far from being alone, and that those countries can clearly see the culpability of the Kremlin in this terrible attack.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was reflected in the conclusions of the European Council that took place on Thursday and Friday last week. It has also been reflected in the actions taken by number of EU countries. Those actions are not just about supporting the United Kingdom; they are in the interests of the national security of those countries themselves.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

It is pleasing to see our EU partners expressing unanimity behind the Prime Minister in recognising that the shocking events in Salisbury were in fact made in Russia. Among the actions that we now take, will she please revisit the golden ticket visas—the tier 1 investor visas—in the light of the fact that 2,500 oligarchs have acquired such visas in less than 10 years? Will she at least commit to strengthening the checks on the wealth behind these people so that accusations of rich Russians buying their way into Britain with dirty money simply cannot stick?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has in hand a review of that particular tier of investor visas.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

Our scientists at Porton Down have played a crucial role in our response to Russian actions in Salisbury. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to them, and continue to support and invest in our cyber, scientific and security personnel, whose role in our defence has never been more important?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to our scientists at Porton Down and at various sites of that particular Defence organisation. We should also recognise that the Ministry of Defence has recently announced some enhancement of the capabilities at Porton Down. It is important that we continue to do that and to enhance our cyber capabilities, as we have done with the nearly £2 billion that we are putting into our national cyber-security.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is surely not good enough for the UK—or, indeed, other EU states—to hide behind the Spanish constitution if that constitution allows for fundamental rights, freedoms and democracy to be trampled all over. Is the Prime Minister seriously saying that however many arrests occur and however many people are locked up simply for expressing their democratic views, the EU and the UK will say absolutely nothing about it?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said all along, and as I repeated earlier, we believe it is important that the Spanish constitution is upheld and that the rule of law is upheld.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister is right to stress the importance of standing up for shared values “within our continent and beyond.” That being the case, what does she think about politicians being arrested in Catalonia to suppress the peaceful democratic process?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have just said in answer to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), and as I will continue to say, we believe that the Spanish constitution should be upheld and that the rule of law should be upheld.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

Has the Prime Minister spoken to her Spanish counterpart about the need to uphold democracy in Catalonia? If not, will she do so shortly?

[The Prime Minister]

Conversations that I have had on a number of occasions with the Spanish Prime Minister have contained our reassurance that the Spanish constitution and the rule of law should be upheld.

[Mr Speaker]

I am most grateful to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the 63 colleagues from the Back Benches who questioned the Prime Minister. If others on the Front Bench would follow this textbook example, we would get through lots of questions with commendable speed. I am sure that other Ministers will be taking notice of these important exchanges.

National Security and Russia

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered national security and Russia.

Three weeks ago, the Russian Federation was responsible for an attempted murder here in our country. This was not only a crime against Sergei and Yulia Skripal: it was an indiscriminate and reckless act against the United Kingdom, putting the lives of innocent civilians at risk; it was an assault on our fundamental values and the rules-based international system that upholds them; and it was part of a pattern of increasingly aggressive Russian behaviour, but which, with the first offensive use of a nerve agent on European soil since the foundation of NATO, also represents a new and dangerous phase in Russia’s hostile activity within our continent and beyond.

So this debate is taking place because there is no greater responsibility for this House, for this Government and for me as Prime Minister than recognising threats to our national security and acting to meet them. So let me set out for the House: what we now know about the recklessness of this act and its exposure of innocent people to potential harm; the evidence that Russia was indeed responsible; the wider pattern of Russia’s illegal and destabilising actions within our continent and beyond; the extensive actions this Government have already been taking; and our determination to work with our international partners to confront the evolving nature of this threat, to defend the rules-based international system and to keep our people safe.

Let me start by updating the House on the situation in Salisbury. Sergei and Yulia Skripal remain critically ill in hospital. Sadly, late last week doctors indicated that their condition is unlikely to change in the near future and that they may never recover fully. This shows the utterly barbaric nature of this act and the dangers that hundreds of innocent citizens in Salisbury could have faced. An investigation continues into all the locations at which the Skripals had been present on Sunday 4 March. As a result, we now have a fuller picture of the recklessness of this act against our country. Although Public Health England has made it clear that the risk to public health is low, and that remains the case, we assess that more than 130 people in Salisbury could have been potentially exposed to the nerve agent. More than 50 people were assessed in hospital, with Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey taken seriously ill. Everyone in the House will welcome the news that he has been discharged and, as we said earlier, we continue to hold him and his family in our thoughts as he makes his recovery.

We are quite clear that Russia was responsible for this act. As I set out for the House in my statements earlier this month, our world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down positively identified the chemical used for this act as a novichok, a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by the Soviet Union. We know that Russia has a record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations, and that it views some former intelligence officers as legitimate targets for those assassinations. We have information that indicates that within the past decade Russia has investigated ways to deliver nerve agents, probably for assassination, and has, as part of this programme, produced and stockpiled small quantities of novichoks. That is clearly in contravention of the chemical weapons convention, so it is right that we have been working closely with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, from which a team arrived in the UK last week and collected samples. This is a normal part of our discharging our obligations under the convention, although we are clear as to what the evidence is.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the upholding of non-proliferation regimes with our partners is central to our international security, while Russia has recklessly undermined and violated them. As I have set out, no other country has a combination of the capability, intent and motive to carry out such an act. There is no other plausible explanation—and that is not just the view of the UK Government; it was the unanimous view of every single leader at least week’s European Council and it is the view of our allies in NATO and around the world.

There are some who question whether there could be alternative explanations, so let me be absolutely clear: we have been led by evidence, not by speculation. When faced with the evidence, we gave the Russian Government the opportunity to provide an explanation, but they did not do so. They provided no explanation as to why Russia has an undeclared chemical weapons programme, in contravention of international law; no explanation that could suggest that they had lost control of their nerve agent; and no explanation as to how this agent came to be used in the United Kingdom. Instead, they have treated the use of a military-grade nerve agent in Europe with sarcasm, contempt and defiance.

Incredibly, the Russian Government have deployed at least 21 different arguments about it. They have suggested that they never produced novichoks, or that they produced them but then destroyed them. They have tried to claim that their agents are not covered by the chemical weapons convention. They have pointed the finger at other countries, including Slovakia, Sweden and the Czech Republic, and they even tried to claim that the United Kingdom was responsible for a chemical attack on our own citizens. For a nation state like Russia to resort again to peddling such preposterous and contradictory theories is unworthy of its people and their great history.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Cabinet Ministers in this House defended Russia, despite the growing evidence of the enormity of its crimes, from 1929 to 1931. At least that was understandable on the basis of a shared ideology. Now that Russia has abandoned that ideology, to what can the Prime Minister attribute the reluctance of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) to point the finger where it properly lies?

[The Prime Minister]

I can find no reason to attribute to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for the stance that he has previously taken on this issue. I hope that, like some of his right hon. and hon. Friends, he will take a different position in this debate.

As I was saying, to peddle such preposterous theories is unworthy of the Russian people. It is merely an effort to distract from the truth of Russia’s violation of international law. This unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom is a clear violation of the chemical weapons convention and a breach of the UN charter. This act against our country is the latest in a pattern of increasingly aggressive Russian behaviour, attacking the international rules-based system across our continent and beyond.

Russia’s illegal actions in Crimea were the first time since the second world war that one sovereign nation has forcibly annexed territory from another in Europe. Since then, Russia has fomented conflict in the Donbass, repeatedly violated the national airspace of several European countries and mounted a sustained campaign of cyber-espionage and disruption.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I am very grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. She will know that the 2015 strategic defence and security review states that state-on-state threats have dramatically reduced, but given what she has just said and what we all know, can she tell us whether the modernising defence programme will seek to update the part that underpins the SDSR?

[The Prime Minister]

We have been looking at the overall question of the threats to national security; we do that within the national security capability review. Of course, the modernising defence programme has come out of that, and it will look at the threats that we face and at the capabilities that we need in relation to that, but that will be set in that wider context of the overall national security capabilities that we need to defend ourselves in the future.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will know that, since General Gerasimov updated the playbook of Russian active measures, intervention in democracy abroad has been one of the mainstays of Russian activity around the world. Our national security strategy does not include an explicit objective to defend the integrity of our democracy, and our election law defences are hopelessly out of date. Will she now update that national security strategy and, crucially, update the election law, so that our regulators have the power to keep our democracy safe?

[The Prime Minister]

We take very seriously the need to ensure that we keep our democracy safe and that we have free and fair elections at all times in this country. The right hon. Gentleman is right—as I was about to go on to say—that Russia has meddled in elections elsewhere. We do look at, and are updating, the arrangements in our electoral law in a number of ways.

It is absolutely right, as I have said, that we have updated the national security issues. We responded to the terrorist attacks that we saw here in the United Kingdom last year by setting up the national security capability review, but that review and, of course, the modernising defence programme will look at the overall threats that we face.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

After Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, Alexander Litvinenko and now Salisbury, I believe that we are entering, if not a period of cold war, at least a period of cool war in our relations with Russia, which is likely to last for some time. In that context, does the Prime Minister agree that the robust decision of 18 of our allies to expel Russian diplomats is likely to give Russia pause for thought and hurt it far more than our unilateral expulsions in 1971?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said earlier, those expulsions have taken place not just as a sign of support for the United Kingdom, but because it is important for the national security of those countries. The action will have an impact. The expulsion of 23 undeclared intelligence officers, which we have already undertaken here in the United Kingdom, will have a major impact on Russia’s intelligence network here in the UK, which I will make reference to later in my speech.

I said a little earlier that Russia has meddled in elections. It has hacked the Danish Ministry of Defence and the Bundestag, among many others. It is seeking to weaponise information, deploying its state-run media organisations to plant fake stories and photoshopped images in an attempt to sow discord in the west and undermine our institutions.

During his recent State of the Union address, President Putin showed video graphics of missile launches, flight trajectories and explosions, including the modelling of attacks on the United States, with a series of warheads impacting on Florida. Of course, Russia used radiological substances in its despicable assault here in London on Mr Litvinenko. Russia is also failing to honour its responsibilities in the international community as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

At the NATO Parliamentary Assembly this weekend, the right hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) issued a statement to members. We had 100% support from all the NATO alliance parliamentarians for what happened and for our stance in relation to the blaming of Russia. One matter was raised: some of the members were concerned that Britain has very good chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear capability to investigate, but that many of them would not if such a thing were to happen on their soil. Does the Prime Minister agree that, if another NATO ally were attacked in this way, we should provide them with the capability that we have and that we have demonstrated so well?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. It is clear from the European Council that, within the EU, we will be looking at the whole question of enhancing our ability to deal with potential CBRN attacks. Regarding the wider group of countries to which she refers, I understand that the NATO summit this summer will be looking at the question of sharing capabilities. We recognise that certain countries hold certain capabilities and expertise, and it is important that they can be put to the use of others when necessary.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Although the improvements at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory Porton Down are very welcome, does the Prime Minister agree that the abolition of the CBRN Joint Regiment in 2011 appears, in the light of current events, to have been premature? As part of the defence review, will she consider rebuilding that facility?

[The Prime Minister]

The important issue is that we retain the capabilities. Those capabilities may be retained in a slightly different format and in a slightly different way, but we continue to have excellent CBRN capabilities across our whole national security structure.

I said that Russia was failing to honour its responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. In particular, it has covered up for the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons in Syria, especially in its attempts to impede the joint investigative mechanism of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. This has allowed the Syrian regime to continue to perpetrate atrocities against the Syrian people. For the past month, in contravention of UN Security Council resolution 2401, Russian air power and military co-ordination have enabled the regime offensive in Eastern Ghouta, causing more appalling suffering and impeding the heroic efforts of the humanitarian relief agencies. Over the course of many years of civil war, hundreds of thousands of Syrians have died and many times that number have been displaced, yet Russia has repeatedly failed to use its influence over the Syrian regime to bring an end to this terrible suffering.

From the outset, the UK has been at the forefront of the European and transatlantic response to these actions. In response to the annexation of Crimea, we led the work with our EU and G7 partners in constructing the first sanctions regime against Russia. We have stepped up our military and economic support to Ukraine, including directly training almost 7,000 Ukrainian armed forces personnel. We are the second largest contributor of monitors to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe special monitoring mission. We are driving reform of NATO to better deter and counter hostile Russian activity, and our commitment to collective defence and security through NATO remains as strong as ever. Indeed, our armed forces have a leading role in NATO’s enhanced forward presence, with British troops leading a multinational battlegroup in Estonia.

In the western Balkans, we stepped up our support to our newest ally, Montenegro, when it suffered an attempt by Russia to stage a coup. Our western Balkans summit in July will enhance our security co-operation with all our western Balkans partners, including on serious and organised crime, anti-corruption and cyber-security.

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Is the Prime Minister concerned as I and others in the House are that the Russians appear to be re-arming various Serb groups in the Balkans? Why does she think the Russians are re-arming Serbian groups in the Balkans as well as doing other things, such as handing out Russian passports?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my hon. Friend has particular knowledge and expertise on these matters. This is part of a pattern of increasingly aggressive Russian behaviour, which seeks to foment and sow discord in a number of countries around Europe. I believe that the western Balkans summit will be an important opportunity for this country, as part of the Berlin process, to enhance our security co-operation with our western Balkans partners.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for her speech to the House. Does she agree that, although a functioning relationship is needed with the Russians, the basis of that relationship has to be the foundation of respect, which was and is seriously lacking in the murderous attack by Russia in our country and, indeed, across the whole of Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said earlier regarding our relations with Russia, we have no problem with the Russian people, who have a great history. It is the actions of the current Russian regime that are of concern to us. Many of us had hoped that Russia would take a different type of approach after the break-up of the Soviet Union. Sadly, that has not proved to be the case.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for being so generous in taking interventions. What assessment have the Government made of other approaches? The British Council, for example, did excellent work in Moscow. What is her view now of that work, which will not continue because of the expulsion?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is right that the British Council did extremely good work. As she will know, the Russians have taken action against the British Council. In a few minutes, I will mention one or two other things that might be of interest to her.

We are building up our defences against Russia’s cyber-threat more broadly, investing almost £2 billion in our national cyber-security strategy, and have opened a new National Cyber Security Centre, which is actively working with international partners, industry and civil society to tackle this threat. We are also working with our European partners to support the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats, in Helsinki. We are calling out Russia’s malign behaviour in cyber-space, as we did last month, when, together with the US and other allies, we attributed the NotPetya cyber-attack to the Russian military.

We are investing millions of pounds in countering Russian disinformation efforts, including more investment in public service and independent media operating in the Russian language through projects in the Baltic states, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, and through reinvigorating the BBC Russia service as an independent source of news for Russian speakers.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

The Prime Minister is being very generous in giving way. Given the misinformation being spread by Russian television stations and stations that Russia has a hand in, would not this be a good time to increase our funding of World Service television output, so that we can give our own correct and democratic messages?

[The Prime Minister]

We do, of course, look at the resources that are provided to the BBC World Service; obviously, the BBC World Service television is on a slightly different basis. It is important that we reinvigorate the BBC Russia service, as it can provide an important independent source of news for Russian speakers.

As the House knows, we already have the largest defence budget in Europe and second largest in NATO, meeting the 2% standard and set to increase every year of this Parliament. As I mentioned previously, we have also commissioned the national security capability review, which will report shortly, and the modernising defence programme, to ensure that our defence and security capabilities are optimised to address the threats that we face, including those from Russia.

Following the incident in Salisbury, we have of course taken further measures. We are dismantling the Russian espionage network in our country and will not allow it to be rebuilt. We are urgently developing proposals for new legislative powers to harden our defences against all forms of hostile state activity—this will include the addition of a targeted power to detain those suspected of such activity at the UK border—and considering whether there is a need for new counter-espionage powers to clamp down on the full spectrum of hostile activities of foreign agents in our country.

We are making full use of existing powers to enhance our efforts to monitor and track the intentions of those travelling to the UK who could be engaged in activity that threatens the security of the UK and our allies. This includes increasing checks on private flights, customs and freight and freezing Russian state assets wherever we have the evidence that they may be used to threaten the life or property of UK nationals or residents.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am grateful for the position that the Prime Minister is laying out. She has my wholehearted support, particularly on private flights, which is an area that covers many sins. Will she also talk a bit about the media here? Some media organisations are acting as state assets, even though they claim independence. They are not journalists at all, but agents of propaganda and information warfare.

[The Prime Minister]

As I am sure my hon. Friend will know, the question whether there are certain media outlets such as broadcasters operating here in the UK, and the licence under which they operate, is a matter for Ofcom as an independent body.

We are also cracking down on illicit and corrupt finance, bringing all the capabilities of UK law enforcement to bear against serious criminals and corrupt elites, neither of whom have any place in our country.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister clearly knew that I was going to intervene the moment she mentioned finance. May I suggest two things that she could do which I think would make a dramatic difference and that so far the Government have been reluctant to do? The first of those is a full review of the tier 1 investor visa whereby £2 million has merely to be handed over and is not necessarily checked to get residency rights in the UK. The second is making sure that the register of beneficial ownership of trusts, which many Russians use to hide their finances in this country, is public.

[The Prime Minister]

As I indicated in the previous debate on the statement, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is looking at the question of the tier 1 investor visa and its operation. The hon. Gentleman refers to some of the specific work that we have been doing. As he will know, we have already taken, and are taking, some steps that are world-leading in relation to some of the registers and their transparency, particularly in relation to property. Of course, we continue to look at any further steps we can take in this area.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[The Prime Minister]

I would like to make just a little more progress.

We have given our law enforcement agencies new powers in the Criminal Finances Act 2017, and we will table an amendment to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill to ensure that the UK cannot be a home for those who trade illicit finance or commit human rights abuses.

Crucially, because this threat from Russia is an attack on the whole international rules-based system and the collective security of the UK and its allies, we must continue to work closely with all our international partners—including through the new security partnership we want to build with the European Union as part of our new relationship after we have left. As I said in my speech in Munich, when we leave the EU, it is right that the UK will pursue an independent foreign policy, but around the world the interests that we will seek to project and defend will continue to be rooted in our shared values. Nowhere is this more true than in standing up to Russia’s hostile actions and refuting its attempts to undermine the international rules-based order.

As President Macron said on Friday, Russia’s actions in Salisbury were an act of

“aggression against the …sovereignty of an ally…which demands a reaction.”

As I set out in my statement earlier, the EU and its member states have already taken some immediate actions, including withdrawing the EU’s ambassador from Moscow. As I announced today, 18 countries have announced their intention to expel more than 100 Russian intelligence officers, including 15 EU member states as well as the US, Canada, and Ukraine. I repeat that, as I said earlier, this is the largest collective expulsion of Russian intelligence officers in history.

If the Kremlin’s goal is to divide and intimidate the western alliance, its efforts have spectacularly backfired. Today’s actions by our allies clearly demonstrate that we all stand shoulder to shoulder in sending the strongest signal to the Kremlin that Russia cannot continue to flout international law and threaten our security. As I argued at last week’s European Council, we must reappraise how our collective efforts can best tackle the challenge that Russia poses. But we must and will proceed on a rigorous and legally sound basis, which is why the Council mandated Foreign Ministers to consider how best to proceed and to report back ahead of the next Council.

[Chris Philp]

Given the catalogue of outrages that the Prime Minister has outlined, could she confirm to the House that the measures to be considered by Foreign Ministers in due course will include the possibility of sanctions either against the wider Russian economy or against individuals close to the Putin regime?

[The Prime Minister]

We have asked Foreign Ministers to look at what steps they think it is important for us to take. We, as the UK, have already been at the forefront of the economic sanctions that have been put in place in relation to Russia following the illegal annexation of Crimea, and of course the European Council will want to be looking at those sanctions for the future.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I agree entirely with the approach that my right hon. Friend has adopted. She highlighted the absolute need for our response to be lawful. Does she agree that that is why the collective response that she has achieved across our allies will be so important—because otherwise the temptation will always be that we cannot resist this kind of unlawful assault without resorting to methods of our own that would be unacceptable—and why the alliance that she has forged on this is of the greatest possible importance for us?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right about the importance of the alliance, both in the strength of the signal that it sends but also in the very clear message that we are not resorting to any sort of, as he says, unlawful methods. We are actually acting in full sight of and in accordance with the law.

As I have made clear before, we have no disagreement with the Russian people who have achieved so much through their country’s great history. Indeed, our thoughts are with them today, especially the friends and families of those who died in the awful shopping centre fire in Kemerovo in Siberia. Neither should we wish to be in a permanent state of perpetual confrontation with Russia. Many of us, as I said in answer to an intervention, looked at a post-Soviet Russia with hope. We would much rather have in Russia a constructive partner ready to play by the rules. But while we should continue to keep open this possibility, we must also face the facts. President Putin’s regime is carrying out acts of aggression against our values and interests within Europe and beyond.

The challenge of Russia is one that will endure for years to come. As a European democracy, the United Kingdom will stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies in the European Union and NATO to face down these threats together. We will defend our infrastructure, our institutions and our values against attempts to undermine them, and we will act to protect our national security and to keep our people safe. I commend this motion to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Q1. If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 14 March.

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

I am sure that Members across the House will wish to join me in offering our heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Professor Stephen Hawking, who died earlier today. Professor Hawking’s exceptional contributions to science and our knowledge of the universe speak for themselves. As his children have said:

“His courage and persistence with his brilliance and humour inspired people across the world.”

Members will also have seen reports of a number of suspicious packages targeted at Muslim Members. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning this unacceptable and abhorrent behaviour, which has no place in our society. An investigation is under way and steps are being taken to bring the perpetrators to justice.

I will be making a statement following Prime Minister’s questions updating the House on the Salisbury incident.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Vicky Foxcroft]

I thank the Prime Minister for agreeing to meet me to discuss the work of the cross-party Youth Violence Commission. Youth violence is complex and needs long-term solutions, but some things can be done right now, such as legislating to ensure that all knives and sharp instruments in shops are locked away or stored behind counters to ensure that no one can steal and use them. Will she do this?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady has raised a very important issue. As she says, this is a complex problem, and we need to ensure we have long-term solutions. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will shortly be publishing a new serious violence strategy, which will put an emphasis on early intervention with young people. It is important that we have tough legislation on knives, but we also need to work in partnership with retailers. We have recently consulted on new measures, including restrictions on knives sold online, and in March 2016, when I was Home Secretary, we reached a voluntary agreement with major retailers about how knives should be displayed and the training given to sales staff to support action to tackle knife crime. She is right, however, to raise this as an area of concern.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Q4. On the subject of Northern Ireland, does the Prime Minister stand by the commitments made in the joint report of December, and will she confirm that we will accept nothing that will undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we stand by all the commitments we made in December. We have been clear that our preferred option is to deliver on them through our new partnership with the EU, with specific solutions to address the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland if needed. The work we are undertaking with the Commission will include that on the final so-called backstop, which will form part of the withdrawal agreement. That cannot be the text that the Commission has proposed, which, as I have said, is unacceptable, but we stand ready to work with the Commission and the Irish Government to ensure that all the commitments on Northern Ireland made in the joint report are included in the withdrawal agreement.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I, along with the Prime Minister, absolutely condemn the vile messages and threatening packages sent to Muslim Members of the House and also the rise in Islamophobia and the abusive messages being sent to Muslim families all over this country. It has to be utterly condemned by all of us, just as we would condemn anybody who attempted to divide our country by racism or extremism of any form. We have to stand united with any community that is under threat at any time.

I am sure the whole House will join me in supporting what the Prime Minister just said about Stephen Hawking, one of the most acclaimed scientists of his generation, who helped us to understand the world and the universe. He was concerned about peace and the survival of the world, but he was also a passionate campaigner for the national health service. He said:

“I have received excellent medical attention in Britain… I believe in universal health care. And I am not afraid to say so.”

If we believe in universal healthcare, how can it be possible for someone to live and work in this country and pay their taxes, and then be denied access to the NHS for lifesaving cancer treatment? Can the Prime Minister explain?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me first join the right hon. Gentleman in saying that there is absolutely no place in our society for hate crime or racism, whatever form it takes. We should stand united against such behaviour and such activities.

I am pleased that we have a good record on cancer provision. More people are surviving cancer in this country than ever before as a result of changes that have been made and developments in the national health service. Of course we continue to work to ensure that the treatments that we make available are the best that we can provide. I am not aware of the particular case that the right hon. Gentleman has raised with me, but we want to ensure that all who are entitled to treatment through the national health service are able to receive it. There are, of course, questions about particular drugs that are made available to individuals for treatment, which we continue to look at.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I will indeed be writing to the Prime Minister about the case about which I am concerned. It relates to a man who has lived in this country for 44 years, has worked and paid his taxes—obviously, he is an older gentleman—and is now being denied cancer treatment. I suspect he is not alone in that, and I urge the Prime Minister to discuss the matter with the Home Office and others.

This week, I received a letter from Hilary, a British pensioner—it is relevant to the point that the Prime Minister just made—who wrote:

“I am now having to pay for my thyroid medication because the CCG needs to save money. I have worked all my life, paid national insurance and… this is not fair”.

Last March, the Health Secretary said that

“it is absolutely essential that we…get back to the 95% target”

for accident and emergency waiting times and that that should happen in

“the course of the next calendar year”.

Well, the calendar year is now up. Can the Prime Minister explain why that is no longer possible?

[The Prime Minister]

I look forward to receiving the details of the individual case from the right hon. Gentleman, but let me take this opportunity to remind him that I think he raised a case about Georgina with me last October and has not written to me about that. [Interruption.] As I have said, I look forward to receiving the details of the case that he has just raised.

What we have done in relation to cancer treatment is ensure that more diagnostic tests are taking place. More people with suspected cancer are being seen by specialists, and more people are starting treatment for cancer. That is why I say that we have seen an improvement in the cancer treatment that is available to people in this country.

I am pleased to say that we have more doctors working in accident and emergency departments. We have put more money in—the Chancellor announced this last year—both to deal with winter pressures and to ensure that those working in accident and emergency departments are able to provide the treatment that is right for the patient before them. Some people do not need to be admitted to hospital; they need to see a GP. We are working with the NHS to ensure that the treatment that patients receive is the treatment that is right for them.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My understanding is that Georgina’s case was resolved before the Prime Minister was required to do anything about it—following my raising it here. [Interruption.] If nothing else, Mr Speaker, that proves the power of Parliament.

Key A&E waiting targets have not been met since 2015, and NHS managers are saying that they will not be met until 2019. February was the worst ever month for A&E performance. NHS Providers director Saffron Cordery said:

“This is the first time we have had to accept that the NHS will not meet its key constitutional standards... If we want to provide quality of care, we need the right long term financial settlement.”

The NHS is clearly in crisis, so why was there not a penny extra for it in the yesterday’s statement by the Chancellor?

[The Prime Minister]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we did not wait until yesterday’s spring statement to announce more money for the NHS; we announced it in the Budget last autumn. As a result of that, the NHS is getting £2.5 billion more in the forthcoming financial year 2018-19 and more to fund the nurses’ pay settlement, when that is resolved.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Under Labour, the 18-week target for non-urgent operations was in place. That target has been abandoned by the Prime Minister. When will it be reinstated?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about things that were being delivered under Labour, but perhaps he might look at what Labour is doing in Wales on the delivery of the NHS. The latest annual data on 12-hour waits in A&E show that 3.4% of patients waited more than 12 hours in Wales compared with 1.3% in England. If he wants to talk about meeting targets, he should talk to the Labour Government in Wales.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

NHS England has abandoned its A&E targets until April 2019, so it is a bit rich for the Prime Minister to be scaremongering about Wales while she is abandoning targets in England—[Interruption.]

[Jeremy Corbyn]

A recent National Audit Office report states that NHS funding will fall by 0.3% in 2019. People’s lives are at stake. Is the Prime Minister really saying that the A&E doctors are wrong, that the NHS managers are wrong and that the royal colleges and the health unions are wrong, and that it is actually only she who knows best about the NHS?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about scaremongering in Wales, but I was pointing out the facts about what is happening in the NHS in Wales. That is why we often see people in Wales trying to get treatment in England rather than in Wales. We are putting more money into the national health service, but in order to do that, we need to ensure that we have a strong economy to provide the money for the NHS. What do we know about Labour’s policies? They would cause a run on the pound, crash our economy and bankrupt Britain, so there would be less money for the NHS.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

When people are dying because of overcrowding and long waits in our hospitals, the Prime Minister should get a grip on it and ensure that the NHS now has the money that it needs to deal with patient demand. In a recent interview, the Health Secretary said of NHS staff that

“when they signed up to go into medicine, they knew there would be pressurised moments”.

What they also expected was a recognition of that, with an annual pay rise without cuts in their paid leave, and proper funding for the national health service. When there are 100,000 unfilled posts, there are clearly not enough staff around them to share the burden. We started with Professor Stephen Hawking. Just a few months ago, he said:

“There is overwhelming evidence that NHS funding and the number of doctors and nurses are inadequate, and it is getting worse”.

Does the Prime Minister agree with Professor Hawking?

[The Prime Minister]

Once again, I am very happy to point out some facts to the right hon. Gentleman. We have 14,900 more doctors working in the national health service. We have almost 13,900 more nurses working on our wards. Why did we put an emphasis on nurses working on our wards? It was because of what we saw under the Labour Government in Mid Staffordshire. What we need to do to ensure that we can provide the funding for the NHS—we are providing record levels of funding for the NHS—is to take a balanced approach to our economy. That is an approach that deals with our debts, keeps taxes low on working families and puts more money into our public services, such as hospitals and schools. Labour’s approach would increase the debt, and that would mean less money for our schools and hospitals and higher taxes for ordinary working people, because what we know about the Labour party is that it is always ordinary people who pay the price of Labour.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Q8. Last week’s launch of a consultation on all aspects of domestic violence will be widely welcomed in Gloucester and across the country. Will the Prime Minister, who has done so much on such issues, confirm today that the Government intend to increase spending, bed provision and, where necessary, the number of women’s refuges, so that those who have survived get the help and safe haven that they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. It is one that I have obviously given considerable attention to, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary continues to follow that work. We are entirely committed to developing a sustainable funding model for refuges, and I can guarantee that funding for refuges will continue at the same level as today, because I know how critical the support is to vulnerable people at a time of crisis. We will ring-fence the funding for short-term supported housing overall, including for refuges, for the long term indefinitely. That means that no refuge should worry about closing or have any doubts about our commitment to ensuring that we provide a sustainable funding model for them.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Labour party about hate crime and Islamophobia, and my thoughts are with the family and friends of Dr Stephen Hawking.

For months, the devolved Administrations have been waiting for the UK Government to table amendments to clause 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. On Monday, the long-awaited amendments were published but without the agreement of the devolved Governments. Will the Prime Minister tell the House why the amendments have been forced on the devolved Administrations?

[The Prime Minister]

In one sentence the right hon. Gentleman says that he is waiting for the amendment—the reason why we took time is that we were talking with the Scottish and Welsh Governments—and then when we do publish it he complains that we have published it. He really needs to get his story straight.

[Ian Blackford]

I encourage the Prime Minister to listen to the question, because it was about agreement. I am afraid that that answer simply was not good enough.

The Prime Minister famously claimed that the UK was made up of “equal partners”. What an irony that is given that she is overseeing the demolition of the devolution settlement. In 1997, the Tories were happy to oppose the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament, and the clothes have not changed. In 2018, they are happy to systematically destroy the settlement that the Parliament thrives on. I call upon the Prime Minister once again: stop this attack on devolution and redouble your efforts in working with the devolved Administrations to find agreement.

[The Prime Minister]

This Government have actually given more powers to the Scottish Government and will be giving more powers to the Scottish Government. Significant extra powers will be devolved to the Scottish and Welsh Governments as a result of the decisions that we are taking around Brexit. We have given more powers, including the tax-raising powers, but it is just a pity that the Scottish Nationalists have chosen to use those powers to increase taxes on people earning £26,000 or more.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

Q9. Last week, Horsham held an apprenticeship fair, building on the success that has seen a 70% reduction in youth unemployment since 2010. Nationally, we see increasing exports, increasing productivity and increasing real wages. Will my right hon. Friend again remind the House that it is that sustained economic performance that underpins our investment in our valued public services?

[The Prime Minister]

I commend Horsham for holding an apprenticeship fair; it is important that we give young people the opportunity of an apprenticeship. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we can fund public services only if we have strength in our economy providing the income for us to do so. In the past few weeks, we have seen that manufacturing output has grown for nine consecutive months for the first time since records began in 1968. We have seen the best two quarters of productivity growth since the financial crisis and the lowest year to-date net borrowing since 2008, and employment is near a record high. The Conservatives are delivering a strong economy, new jobs, healthier finances and an economy that really is fit for the future.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Q2. Last week, GKN workers came to Parliament—typically 25 and 30 years’ service, their mums and dads before them working for a British engineering icon that is 259 years old. Sat opposite were the three fabulously wealthy owners of Melrose, determined to stage a hostile takeover of the company, break it up and sell it off. I ask the Prime Minister this. She told Parliament that she would act in the national interest; the next 10 days will decide the future. Will she use the powers that she has to intervene and block this hostile takeover in the British national interest?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Business Secretary has been speaking to both companies on an impartial basis. We will always act in the UK’s national interest; actually, it is under this Government that we have seen the changes introduced to the takeover code to provide greater transparency and give target firms more time to respond. There is a narrow range of scenarios where Ministers can intervene on mergers on public interest grounds, but we will always ensure that we act in the national interest.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Q10. Some 3,157 medical students are going into general practice this year, which is excellent news, but we are still losing too many experienced GPs in their mid-50s due to the tax penalties on their old pension scheme. Would the Government look at a targeted, time-limited exemption on this dedicated group of clinicians, who do so much for the health of us all?

[The Prime Minister]

That is an important point. As my hon. Friend will know, experienced senior hospital doctors and GPs who become members of the national health service pension scheme benefit from one of the best available defined-benefit occupational pension schemes. We provide generous tax reliefs to allow everyone to build up a pension pot worth just over £1 million tax-free. The issue that my hon. Friend is raising is that although GPs are not penalised if they work after age 55, many may have exhausted the generous allowance for tax relief available by that time. I can say to my hon. Friend that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, of course, listening to the question that he raised.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

Q3. This year, 13 April represents the 99th anniversary of what happened at the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar, India, known as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, in which more than 1,000 peaceful protesters were murdered by soldiers under the command of General Dyer. Will the Prime Minister join me in commemorating the massacre and meet me and others who are campaigning for this shameful episode to be remembered across the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a very specific issue and a very specific point. I will be happy to look at the question he has raised and respond to him in writing.

[Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)]

Q12. In my constituency, Farnborough, in the borough of Rushmoor, is the birthplace of British aviation and is now home to a thriving range of aviation, aerospace and defence businesses—including Airbus, with its Zephyr. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in extending our best wishes to the Zephyr team as they look forward to making a world-record-breaking attempt for high altitude unmanned aviation?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in wishing all the very best to the Zephyr team in the attempt that they are making. He is right that his constituency plays a crucial role in the aerospace industry. I am pleased to say that we are continuing to work with that industry through the aerospace growth partnership to ensure that we can further enhance the industry. We wish the Zephyr team well.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Q5. The UK has the lowest growth in the G7. Why is the Government’s answer to that to give handouts to some of the wealthiest bankers, to fund an already lavish lifestyle, paid for by taking the crumbs off the table of those on universal credit, whose children depend on free school meals?

[The Prime Minister]

First, the hon. Gentleman might not have noticed but the wealthiest 1% of people in this country are now paying a bigger share of tax—28%—than they ever did under a Labour Government. If he is referring to the bank levy, may I also say to him that the Conservative party introduced the bank levy, which has raised £15 billion and is predicted to raise a further £11 billion that we can spend on public services. It is the Conservative Government who are changing the way we do it, so that we do it in a better way. We will be raising nearly £19 billion extra from the banks over the next five years—that is £3 billion more from the banks to be spent on public services.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Q14. Great British food is produced by hard-working farming families in this country. As we produce a new British agricultural policy, does my right hon. Friend agree that supporting food production in this country is a public good?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of food production in this country. I am also happy to commend the work of hard-working farmers up and down the country, and all those who work in our food production industry. As he will know, we now have an historic opportunity as we leave the EU to deliver a farming policy that will work for the whole industry.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

Q6. Just minutes ago, Facebook announced that it would be taking down several pages associated with the extremist group Britain First. Does the Prime Minister join me in welcoming that? Does she not also accept that there needs to be a clear role provided by Government to give guidance to social media companies on how they operate in our democracy?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly welcome that announcement by Facebook, and I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been working with these companies to ensure that they do more and act more clearly in taking down material of an extremist nature. I am very pleased to welcome the announcement that Facebook has made and I hope other companies will follow.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

First, may I congratulate the Prime Minister on her pioneering work in fighting modern-day slavery? However, has she been advised that a central plank of her law enforcement policy is not working, with 65 prosecutions of traffickers abandoned last year because victims feared for their safety and no reparations orders made against convicted traffickers to compensate victims for their ordeals?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. At the meeting of the modern slavery taskforce that I chaired recently—two weeks ago, I think it was—in which I have brought together people not only from across government, but from law enforcement, criminal justice more generally and other areas to look at how we are working on this issue, we were addressing exactly how we can ensure that more prosecutions go ahead in future and perpetrators are brought to justice.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Q11. Shockingly, in 2017 in this country, 2,120 children were identified as potential victims of child slavery. I know of the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to tackling this issue, but surely we ought to have more data. We have no idea how many of those children go missing. We have no idea how many are deported. We have no idea how many are re-trafficked. In 2018, in this country, a modern democracy, that is simply not good enough. Will the Prime Minister tell us what she is going to do about it?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important issue. It has been a concern for a long time that we sometimes see children who have been identified as the victims of slavery and of human trafficking in a position, sadly, of being taken out by traffickers and resubmitted to the horrible circumstances that that brings to them. On the point he is making about asylum and deportation, we do not return unaccompanied children who do not qualify for asylum or humanitarian protection unless we can confirm that safe and adequate reception programmes and arrangements are in place in their home country. If we cannot confirm such arrangements, we grant temporary leave until the child is 17 and a half. Last October, we confirmed our commitment to rolling out independent child trafficking advocates across the country. This is a system we piloted previously, which will give support to those child victims to ensure that they are given the support they need and that they do not fall back into the hands of traffickers.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

Like many towns and cities throughout the country, Telford has experienced some distressing cases of child sexual exploitation. The authorities in Telford have now agreed to conduct an independent inquiry to find out what happened and to give victims answers. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating two brave women—campaigner Holly Archer and Sunday Mirror journalist Geraldine McKelvie —on their work in bringing that about? Will she agree to do everything possible to ensure that the inquiry starts without delay and leaves no stone unturned?

[The Prime Minister]

We have all been shocked by the horrific case in Telford of some of the most vulnerable in our country being preyed upon by ruthless criminals. Of course, it is sadly not the first example that we have seen in our country. I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Holly and Geraldine on their work. It is not easy, but it is right that they have brought this case to light and that action can be taken. I am pleased that the authorities are now going to conduct an inquiry. As my hon. Friend says, it is important that that inquiry begins its work in order to get to the truth and does so as quickly as possible. I understand that my hon. Friend will meet the Under-Secretary of State for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), to discuss this issue.

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q13. Shortly after the Prime Minister took office, she said that she wanted to put the Government on the side of the poorest in society. She even stood in front of a crumbling sign that said that she wanted “a country that works for everyone”. However, a recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report stated that 37% of children are set to live in poverty by 2022, so what went wrong, Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

We have seen 200,000 fewer children living in absolute poverty under this Government. We continue to take action to ensure that we are helping families to get a regular income by helping people into work. We are ensuring that the lowest paid in our society get a pay increase through increasing the national living wage and we are helping people with their standard of living by cutting taxes for 31 million people.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the inspirational Music Man Project in Southend, which works with people who have learning difficulties, has now set a world record for tinkling the highest number of triangles ever? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is yet another reason why Southend should be made a city? Will she and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), please organise a contest so that Southend-on-Sea can become the first post-Brexit city?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to congratulate the Music Man Project in Southend on that record in tinkling triangles. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office has heard my hon. Friend’s bid for Southend to become a city. I must say to him that a number of Members will of course put forward their own towns for that accolade in due course. I knew a city had to have a cathedral; I did not know that it had to have tinkling triangles.

[Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)]

The Prime Minister will be aware that this week the notorious rapist John Worboys was released from high-security prison. One of my constituents, who gave evidence at his trial as a victim, wants to know why Worboys was not tested first in open prison conditions and why the Parole Board is not required to publish the reasoning behind its release decisions, including evidence of contrition.

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, a case is currently before the courts, and I understand that as part of that case the Parole Board will be required to explain the reasons why it took the decision it did. In terms of the overall issue of Parole Board decisions and their transparency, when this decision became clear, the then Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, called for work to be done to look into the whole question of Parole Board decisions and the transparency around them, and that work is continuing under the current Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice.

[Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I am immensely proud to have the world-leading research and teaching hospital of Addenbrooke’s in my constituency. Its scale and excellence means that it relies heavily on doctors from overseas, but of late it has struggled to bring some of those doctors in because of restrictions on the tier 2 visa numbers. With applications from the EU also falling, it is becoming a real problem. Can the Prime Minister reassure me and my hospital that she is aware of the challenge and that she has a plan to address it?

[The Prime Minister]

I am aware of that particular issue. In the longer term, one of the things that we are doing is ensuring that we can train more doctors here in the United Kingdom, but I am aware of the issue that my hon. Friend has raised and I will look into it.

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

Last year, the Prime Minister acknowledged that our social care system is broken and promised to fix it. Since then, two care providers in Crewe and Nantwich have been placed into special measures and another is worried that it may have to close due to a lack of funding. What does the Prime Minister say to providers who say that the local government settlement does not go far enough and that they cannot afford to wait for the Government’s Green Paper?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady will know, I have always said that there were some short-term, medium-term and long-term measures that needed to be taken in relation to pressure on social care. In the short term, we have provided more funding for local authorities— £2 billion extra was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and we are seeing more money going into social care in local authorities. In the medium term, we need to ensure that best practice is spread across the whole country and—she mentioned the Green Paper—we also need to ensure that we can develop a long-term, sustainable funding model for social care. That is what we continue to work on.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is sadly a matter of public record that RBS and HBOS deliberately asset-stripped thousands of potentially viable businesses to benefit their own banks or individual bankers. Evidence before the High Court indicates that Lloyds may also be guilty of the same. Will the Prime Minister consider the calls of the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking—endorsed by the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, Andrew Bailey—for a full public inquiry into this disgraceful scandal?

[The Prime Minister]

This issue is of concern to many. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and we need to ensure that we learn the lessons from what happened at RBS and HBOS. As my hon. Friend will know, the FCA has reported areas of widespread inappropriate treatment of firms by RBS, which has apologised and set up a scheme for compensation for victims. There is an ongoing investigation being conducted by the FCA into RBS, and it is also undertaking two separate investigations into HBOS. We will continue to work with the independent regulator and the industry to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses get the support they need.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Just since Christmas, there have been five high-profile gun crimes in Haringey, including one last Thursday when a 19-year-old man, Kelvin Udunie, was shot in the head, the marksman being a pillion rider on the back of a moped, at the entrance to a cinema in Wood Green. We know that our streets are plagued by knife crime. The intent to kill with a gun takes the epidemic to a whole new level. This cannot go on and it must stop. Will the Prime Minister please meet me and community leaders to put an end to this epidemic of gun crime?

[The Prime Minister]

I suggest that the hon. Lady meets the Home Secretary, who will shortly publish a strategy in relation to the issue of serious violence. The use of mopeds for mugging has been known for some time, and my right hon. Friend is already looking at and working on that with the police. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be happy to meet the hon. Lady on the issue of gun crime.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I agree entirely with the question from the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). The Prime Minister has done more than anyone in the House to end the terrible issue of modern-day slavery, but we have a problem with the treatment of child victims. They are put in the care of local authorities and, as the hon. Gentleman said, they are then re-trafficked. Can we look at having a system, as we do for adults, in which safe homes are provided centrally, not by local government, so re-trafficking cannot occur?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend follows up the question from the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) with an important point about the child victims of trafficking. I will certainly look at this issue. Having independent child advocates, to whom I referred in my response to the hon. Member for Gedling, is one way in which we can give greater support to child victims in order to ensure that they are not lost to the local authorities and re-trafficked. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is a scandal when a victim goes into the care of a local authority, and somebody is then able to come along, remove them from that care and take them back into slavery.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Salisbury Incident

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the response of the Russian Government to the incident in Salisbury.

First, on behalf of the whole House, let me pay tribute once again to the bravery and professionalism of all the emergency services, doctors, nurses and investigation teams who have led the response to this appalling incident, and also to the fortitude of the people of Salisbury. I reassure them that, as Public Health England has made clear, the ongoing risk to public health is low, and the Government will continue to do everything possible to support this historic city to recover fully.

On Monday, I set out that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with Novichok—a military-grade nerve agent developed by Russia. Based on this capability, combined with Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations—including against former intelligence officers whom it regards as legitimate targets—the UK Government concluded it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for this reckless and despicable act. There are only two plausible explanations: either this was a direct act by the Russian state against our country; or, conceivably, the Russian Government could have lost control of a military-grade nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.

It was right to offer Russia the opportunity to provide an explanation, but its response has demonstrated complete disdain for the gravity of these events. The Russian Government have provided no credible explanation that could suggest that they lost control of their nerve agent, no explanation as to how this agent came to be used in the United Kingdom, and no explanation as to why Russia has an undeclared chemical weapons programme in contravention of international law. Instead it has treated the use of a military-grade nerve agent in Europe with sarcasm, contempt and defiance.

There is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and his daughter, and for threatening the lives of other British citizens in Salisbury, including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. This represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom. As I set out on Monday, it has taken place against the backdrop of a well-established pattern of Russian state aggression across Europe and beyond. It must therefore be met with a full and robust response beyond the actions we have already taken since the murder of Mr Litvinenko and to counter this pattern of Russian aggression elsewhere.

As the discussion in this House on Monday made clear, it is essential that we now come together with our allies to defend our security, to stand up for our values and to send a clear message to those who would seek to undermine them. This morning, I chaired a further meeting of the National Security Council, where we agreed immediate actions to dismantle the Russian espionage network in the UK, urgent work to develop new powers to tackle all forms of hostile state activity and to ensure that those seeking to carry out such activity cannot enter the UK, and additional steps to suspend all planned high-level contacts between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation.

Let me start with the immediate actions. The House will recall that, following the murder of Mr Litvinenko, the UK expelled four diplomats. Under the Vienna convention, the United Kingdom will now expel 23 Russian diplomats who have been identified as undeclared intelligence officers. They have just one week to leave. This will be the single biggest expulsion for over 30 years and it reflects the fact that this is not the first time that the Russian state has acted against our country. Through these expulsions, we will fundamentally degrade Russian intelligence capability in the UK for years to come, and if Russia seeks to rebuild it, we will prevent it from doing so.

We will also urgently develop proposals for new legislative powers to harden our defences against all forms of hostile state activity. This will include the addition of a targeted power to detain those suspected of hostile state activity at the UK border. This power is currently only permitted in relation to those suspected of terrorism. And I have asked the Home Secretary to consider whether there is a need for new counter-espionage powers to clamp down on the full spectrum of hostile activities of foreign agents in our country.

As I set out on Monday, we will also table a Government amendment to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill to strengthen our powers to impose sanctions in response to the violation of human rights. In doing so, we will play our part in an international effort to punish those responsible for the sorts of abuses suffered by Sergei Magnitsky. I hope, as with all the measures I am setting out today, that this will command cross-party support.

We will also make full use of existing powers to enhance our efforts to monitor and track the intentions of those travelling to the UK who could be engaged in activity that threatens the security of the UK and of our allies. So we will increase checks on private flights, customs and freight. We will freeze Russian state assets wherever we have the evidence that they may be used to threaten the life or property of UK nationals or residents. Led by the National Crime Agency, we will continue to bring all the capabilities of UK law enforcement to bear against serious criminals and corrupt elites. There is no place for these people, or their money, in our country.

Let me be clear. While our response must be robust, it must also remain true to our values as a liberal democracy that believes in the rule of law. Many Russians have made this country their home, abide by our laws and make an important contribution to our country which we must continue to welcome. But to those who seek to do us harm, my message is simple: you are not welcome here.

Let me turn to our bilateral relationship. As I said on Monday, we have had a very simple approach to Russia: engage but beware. I continue to believe that it is not in our national interest to break off all dialogue between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation. But in the aftermath of this appalling act against our country, this relationship cannot be the same. So we will suspend all planned high-level bilateral contacts between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation. This includes revoking the invitation to Foreign Minister Lavrov to pay a reciprocal visit to the UK and confirming that there will be no attendance by Ministers, or indeed members of the royal family, at this summer’s World cup in Russia.

Finally, we will deploy a range of tools from across the full breadth of our national security apparatus in order to counter the threats of hostile state activity. While I have set out some of these measures today, Members on all sides will understand that there are some that cannot be shared publicly for reasons of national security. And of course there are other measures we stand ready to deploy at any time should we face further Russian provocation.

None of the actions we take is intended to damage legitimate activity or prevent contacts between our populations. We have no disagreement with the people of Russia, who have been responsible for so many great achievements throughout their history. Many of us looked at a post-Soviet Russia with hope. We wanted a better relationship, and it is tragic that President Putin has chosen to act in this way. But we will not tolerate the threat to the life of British people and others on British soil from the Russian Government. Nor will we tolerate such a flagrant breach of Russia’s international obligations.

As I set out on Monday, the United Kingdom does not stand alone in confronting Russian aggression. In the last 24 hours, I have spoken to President Trump, Chancellor Merkel and President Macron. We have agreed to co-operate closely in responding to this barbaric act and to co-ordinate our efforts to stand up for the rules-based international order, which Russia seeks to undermine. I will also speak to other allies and partners in the coming days. I welcome the strong expressions of support from NATO and from partners across the European Union and beyond. Later today in New York, the UN Security Council will hold open consultations where we will be pushing for a robust international response. We have also notified the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons about Russia’s use of this nerve agent, and we are working with the police to enable the OPCW to independently verify our analysis.

This was not just an act of attempted murder in Salisbury, nor just an act against the UK. It is an affront to the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, and it is an affront to the rules-based system on which we and our international partners depend. We will work with our allies and partners to confront such actions wherever they threaten our security, at home and abroad. I commend this statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I could not understand a word of what the Foreign Secretary just said, but his behaviour demeans his office.

It is in moments such as these that Governments realise how vital strong diplomacy and political pressure are for our security and national interest. The measures we take have to be effective, not just for the long-term security of our citizens but to secure a world free of chemical weapons. Can the Prime Minister outline what discussions she has had with our partners in the European Union, NATO and the UN and what willingness there was to take multilateral action? While the poisonings of Sergei and Yulia Skripal are confronting us today, what efforts are being made by the Government to reassess the death of Mr Skripal’s wife, Liudmila, who died in 2012, and the deaths of his elder brother and son in the past two years?

We have a duty to speak out against the abuse of human rights by the Putin Government and their supporters, both at home and abroad, and I join many others in this House in paying tribute to the many campaigners in Russia for human rights, justice and democracy in that country. We must do more to address the dangers posed by the state’s relationship with unofficial mafia-like groups and corrupt oligarchs. We must also expose the flows of ill-gotten cash between the Russian state and billionaires who become stupendously rich by looting their country and subsequently use London to protect their wealth. We welcome the Prime Minister today clearly committing to support the Magnitsky amendments and implementing them as soon as possible, as Labour has long pushed for.

Yesterday, Nikolai Glushkov, a Russian exile who was close friends with the late oligarch Boris Berezovsky, was found dead in his London home. What reassurances can the Prime Minister give to citizens of Russian origin living in Britain that they are safe here?

The events in Salisbury earlier this month are abominable and have been rightly condemned across the House. Britain has to build a consensus with our allies, and we support the Prime Minister in taking multilateral and firm action to ensure that we strengthen the chemical weapons convention and that this dreadful, appalling act, which we totally condemn, never happens again in our country.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions about the nerve agent that had been used. He asked whether we were putting together an international coalition to call on Russia to reveal the details of its chemical weapons programme to the OPCW. That is indeed what we did. We gave the Russian Government the opportunity, through the démarche that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary delivered to the Russian ambassador in London earlier this week, to do just that. They have not done so.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the corrupt elites and money going through London. As I said in my statement, led by the National Crime Agency, we will continue to bring all the capabilities of UK law enforcement to bear against serious criminals and corrupt elites. There is no place for these people or their money in our country, and that work is ongoing.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about getting an international consensus together. As I said, I have spoken to Chancellor Merkel, President Trump and President Macron. Others have also expressed their support. Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary-General, said:

“We stand in solidarity with our Allies in the United Kingdom”

and

“Those responsible—both those who committed the crime and those who ordered it—must face appropriately serious consequences.”

The NATO Council has expressed deep concern at the first offensive use of a nerve agent on alliance territory since NATO’s foundation, and allies agreed the attack was a clear breach of international norms and agreements. Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, said:

“I express my full solidarity with PM @theresa_may in the face of the brutal attack inspired, most likely, by Moscow. I’m ready to put the issue on next week’s #EUCO agenda.”

We will be doing that.

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a question of our diplomacy or of what diplomatic support we have around the world. This is a question of the culpability of the Russian state for an act on our soil. He said that we should be trying to build a consensus. It is clear from the conversations that I have had with allies that we have a consensus with our allies. It was clear from the remarks made by Back Benchers across the whole House on Monday that there is a consensus across the Back Benches of this House. I am only sorry that the consensus does not go as far as the right hon. Gentleman, who could have taken the opportunity, as the UK Government have done, to condemn the culpability of the Russian state.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

It seems to me, without any access to closed information, that the use of this particularly bizarre and dreadful way of killing an individual is a deliberate choice by the Russian Government to put their signature on a particular killing so that other defectors are left in no doubt that it is the Russian Government who will act if they are disappointed in any way by those people’s actions. In the light of that, the only sensible question the Leader of the Opposition asked was what consultation we propose to have with NATO, other European countries and the American Government about positive action that could be taken to prevent this continuing defiance of international law and the defiance of all rules on the testing and possession of chemical weapons. This is not just a question of expressing our anger about Salisbury. This is actually a serious threat to the safety of the western world unless and until we all do something together to get the Russians to do something, as opposed to simply ignoring us.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. That is why not only are we talking to allies bilaterally, but there will, as I understand it, be a meeting of the NATO Council tomorrow at which this issue will be considered. The President of the EU Council has said that he will be putting this on the agenda of the European Union Council meeting at the end of next week.

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right: while we rightly focus initially on the use of this nerve agent here in the UK and its impact on us here in the UK, this is about the illegal use of chemical weapons by the Russian state and an illegal programme of developing those chemical weapons by the Russian state. We will leave no stone unturned in working with our allies to ensure that we respond appropriately to that.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Let me thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement.

As the Prime Minister has said, the attack on Mr Skripal and his daughter was an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom. There has to be a robust response to the use of terror on our streets. We must act in a measured way to show that we will simply not tolerate this behaviour. In that regard, I welcome, and associate those of us on the Scottish National party Benches with, the measures contained in the statement. On this matter, I commit my party to working constructively with the Government.

I am sure that the House will join me in extending thanks to the members of the police and security services who are working around the clock on the recent case in Salisbury. It has been warming to see our closest friends and allies across Europe expressing solidarity and support. Our friends globally must join with us by standing up to this abuse of state power by Russia. I look forward to the discussions in the United Nations, which must speak with a clear and unambiguous voice.

The fact that we are expelling the largest number of undeclared intelligence officers in over 30 years is welcome, as is the desire to examine what can be done from a legislative perspective to defend against hostile state activity. As someone who has previously supported so-called Magnitsky measures, I am pleased that the Government are signalling action in this area. Let me commend the actions of Bill Browder—I have had the opportunity to meet him—who has personally been at massive risk, but has stood up to the effects of Russian state power.

Financial sanctions are welcome, and we must redouble our efforts against any money laundering by those responsible. It must be made clear to the Russian authorities that we will not tolerate activities that infringe international law. While we support the PM’s actions, we will continue to scrutinise them carefully, and we must ensure that any proposed legislation is properly scrutinised.

Our thoughts are with those in Russia who have suffered due to the abuse of state power. There is no doubt that that is what we are seeing. In doing so, we look forward to a time when we can engage positively and to a time of peace and co-operation, but the only response today must be a robust one towards the Kremlin and Russia.

[The Prime Minister]

May I, once again, thank the right hon. Gentleman not just for the tone of his response, but for the comments that he has made? I reassure him that, of course, any legislative proposals we bring forward will have due scrutiny in this House. May I thank him for his constructive offer to work with the Government on this issue, because it is a matter that should concern us across the whole House? I reassure him that, although I made reference to a number of allies who have spoken in support of the United Kingdom on this, others have done so, too? Canada and Australia, for example, have also been very clear that a robust response is appropriate. Once again, I welcome the comments made by the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

May I commend my right hon. Friend for her strong leadership and for rising to this challenge? Some in positions of leadership have also risen to the challenge, and I am only sorry that others in such positions have fallen well short.

In the conversations my right hon. Friend is due to have with her allies, which she is quite right to have, will she raise with the German Government the issue of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline on which they are engaged with the Russians? It will cut revenues for Ukraine and eastern Europe and give Russia an unparalleled ability to bully those countries in the future. If Russia is, as we now believe, a rogue state, will she try to persuade our allies in Europe and elsewhere not to treat with it or help to make it better off?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend. One of the things we will be discussing with our allies is how we ensure that the robust message about the act that has taken place on UK soil is consistently given, and continues to be given, by all our allies. Nord Stream 2 is regularly discussed at the European Union Council, as my right hon. Friend would, I suspect, imagine.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Her conclusion about the culpability of the Russian state is immensely serious. In addition to its breaches of international law, its use of chemical weapons and its continued disregard for the rule of law and human rights, that must be met with unequivocal condemnation. May I welcome the measures she has taken to downgrade the intelligence capability of the Russian state, and particularly the work that I understand has started with the United Nations? Within the United Nations, it is important to expose what the Russians are doing and to build the broadest possible support against them. Will she say a bit more about what she is doing on that front?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Lady for the strength of the statement she has just made, which I know is representative of the views of many of her right hon. and hon. Friends on the Labour Back Benches. We are taking this matter to the United Nations. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already spoken to the UN Secretary-General about this issue. The open discussion that is taking place tomorrow is the start of the process of looking at this issue. As I said in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), this is not just about the incident that has taken place here in the United Kingdom; it is about the use of chemical weapons—this illegal use of chemical weapons—that has taken place and about the role of the Russian state in the development of chemical weapons, contrary to international law.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

No reasonable person can possibly doubt that the Russian Government have behaved with arrogance, inhumanity and contempt, not least in failing to respond to the Prime Minister’s deadline, which they surely would have done if they had known that they were innocent of this charge. In welcoming the Prime Minister’s expulsion of 23 diplomats who are really intelligence agents, may I ask her to make it clear that any retaliation in kind by the Russian Government will be met by further expulsions, perhaps including even of the ambassador, who spends so much time coming to talk to us in this place, bemoaning the poor state of Anglo-Russian relations? Does she accept that Russia traditionally respects strength and despises weakness and that the time has come to recognise that 2% of GDP is not enough to spend on defence when we are reverting to the sort of adversarial relationship that we had when we spent a much higher proportion of GDP on ensuring that this country was well defended?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. In response to his first point, as I said in my statement, there are other measures that we stand ready to deploy at any time, should we face further Russian provocation. On his other point, as we review our national security capability and our modernising defence programme, we are ensuring that we have the resources and capabilities available to deal with the variety and diversity of threats that this country faces. However, as those threats diversify, not all of them will be responded to by what is conventionally considered to be defence.

[Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)]

I and my party fully support the Prime Minister’s statement and position. What is her response to the brave leader of the opposition in Russia, Alexei Navalny, who is not allowed to stand in the presidential election and has said that the most effective action the British Government can take is to use their legal powers, such as unexplained wealth orders, against named individuals who are critical to the Putin operation? He names in particular Mr Alisher Usmanov, who has substantial property and sporting interests, and the First Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Igor Shuvalov, who owns, among other things, a £14 million flat overlooking the Ministry of Defence. Will the Prime Minister act?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the Government’s actions. As I said in my statement, we do, of course, look at issues regarding corrupt elites and criminal finances and at using the tools and capabilities at our disposal. The National Crime Agency is continuing that work.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for her impressive leadership. I associate myself—unusually—with the leader of the Liberal Democrats in calling for greater use of unexplained wealth orders. Will the Prime Minister also use the tools at her disposal to expose the wealth of the Putin family, given that $300 billion or more has been stolen from the Russian people by that man? We should expose him for what he is, and not be a useful idiot hiding behind the legalism of his crimes.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. Unexplained wealth orders are, of course, tools that we use, but we have to use them properly, in accordance with the rule of law, following due process.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, agree with her analysis and fully support the Government’s actions. I understand that the Foreign Office has called for an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council. What does the Prime Minister think will be the likely result, given that one permanent member is engaging in unlawful attacks on another? Does she share my concern that Russia’s actions in this country, in Ukraine and in backing Assad’s murderous regime in Syria mean that the current Security Council mechanism is broken?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. As I said earlier, the Foreign Secretary spoke to the UN Secretary-General yesterday. Later today in New York, the UN Security Council will hold initial consultations. Obviously, Russia is a member of that Security Council, but it is important that we continue to use the international organisations that are available to us. The United Nations is a protector of the international rules-based order. That is what it should be, and we will continue to press for a robust international response.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

It is clear that there is almost unanimous support in the House for my right hon. Friend’s proportionate and right response to this crisis. In particular, she is absolutely right to use the mechanisms of the United Nations to make it clear to everyone what has happened in this case. Will she also bear in mind that Russia has, either indirectly or directly, authorised and used chemical weapons in Syria? I thank her for what she has said about the Magnitsky amendment, which many of us across the House have been working on for some time. I hope that she will consider implementing it in full, as has happened in America and in Canada.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend picks up on a point made in the previous question: this is not simply one act by Russia, but part of a pattern of various actions, including those in Syria, the illegal annexation of Crimea and its activities in the Donbass. They also include the Russian state’s use of propaganda and its attempts to interfere in elections across the continent of Europe. In response to my right hon. Friend’s second point, we will bring forward a Government amendment to reflect the Magnitsky considerations to ensure that we have the strongest possible means to deal with the issues.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

We welcome the decisive action taken by the Prime Minister today, which sits in contrast to the policy of appeasement that we have heard from the Labour party Front Bench. I am sure that the people of the United Kingdom are pleased that it is the Prime Minister who is standing behind the Dispatch Box, defending the rule of law and the citizens of this country. She says that she has spoken to our allies over the past couple of days. Apart from words of support, what are the actions to which they have committed to ensure that a message is sent out about this and future actions?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for the Democratic Unionist party’s support for the Government’s action. On actions to be taken by international allies, they were, of course, waiting for us to announce the various actions that we will take following the decision taken by the National Security Council this morning. We will hold further discussions with our allies about how they can support what we are doing through taking actions themselves.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I entirely agree with the approach adopted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in her response to this outrageous attack. Does she agree that the difficulty we face lies not so much in getting the concurrence of our allies in agreeing the nature of the outrage, but in how we craft a sustained strategy, so that those of us who believe in the rules-based international system can apply the necessary leverage and persuasion on Russia to conform to it? The very serious risk that we run is that if we do not succeed in doing that, the level of violence that Russia will exercise with impunity against other states and us will simply increase. Our allies in particular must have regard to that if we are to make any progress.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct that we need to address this issue in that wider sense, because it is about the way in which the Russian state is acting—it believes, with impunity—in a whole variety of ways, and the way in which it is flouting the international rules-based order. We must come together as allies to ensure that we support that international rules-based order and that we have not just a collective agreement, but a collective approach that ensures that we can challenge what Russia is doing. He is also right that one of the points we should be making to our allies is that while this may have happened in the United Kingdom, it could be happening in any of those states.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I join others in welcoming the measures that the Prime Minister has announced today. As Russia has chosen to act against us in such an outrageous way, we have to demonstrate our determination to defend ourselves. Given that Russia’s usual response is to deny all responsibility for such actions, does she intend, as well as seeking the assistance of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in identifying the sample, to ask for that organisation to carry out an investigation, as any member state is entitled to do, including an inspection of any facilities or locations in Russia, where this nerve agent in all probability was produced?

[The Prime Minister]

We will be talking to the OPCW about not just the ways in which the sample of the nerve agent used here in the United Kingdom can be independently verified, but other actions the OPCW might be able to take.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

I welcome the decision of the Government to refer the patiently and carefully acquired evidence of this grotesque attack to the OPCW. Is it the Prime Minister’s intention that its findings should be referred to the Russians, the United Nations and ourselves? Will she consider, in the light of those findings, going further on unexplained wealth orders and other financial sanctions against Russia if necessary?

[The Prime Minister]

We are asking the OPCW to independently verify this, so the nature of this nerve agent can be clear to everyone. As I said earlier, we introduced, operate and use unexplained wealth orders, but we will always ensure that they are done on evidence. We operate according to the rule of law.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s clear statement, her condemnation of the Russians and the action she has taken. In particular, I welcome the fact that the Government are adopting the Magnitsky amendment. Too much money laundered out of Russia is finding its way into the British system. There are two things she could do pretty quickly which would help to tackle that. First, she could bring forward the public register of ownership of properties, which was promised by her predecessor in 2015 and has been delayed by this Government. Secondly, she could increase transparency in our corporate structures, so that we know who forms companies here and where the money comes from and deal with it if it is illicit money brought in by unsavoury people.

[The Prime Minister]

On transparency in relation to property ownership, I have discussed that with the Business Secretary. We have not been delaying. We need to ensure that we get it right when we introduce it—we have been discussing the timing for introducing it—because we want to ensure we have all the tools in our locker that we can use and that can help us in the endeavour we are engaged in.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

I absolutely 100% support the Prime Minister’s statement and the actions she is taking. Following on from the previous question, I want to pick up on the Prime Minister’s statement that there is no place for serious criminals and corrupt elites, or their money, in our country. There are amendments, which I am sure Parliament will support, but will the Prime Minister also bear it in mind that the Select Committees could have a real role in teasing out information about what is going on to tackle dirty money in this country, whether in the City of London or elsewhere, to bring evidence to the House that could shape amendments and actions the Government could then take?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her suggestion. I recognise the role that Select Committees can play. I suspect that my right hon. Friend has just set up a stream of work for her own Treasury Committee to undertake.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I assure the Prime Minister that most of us on the Labour Benches fully support the measures she has announced today. Indeed, some of us think they could have come a bit sooner. On the wider issue of Putin’s hybrid warfare against our country, will she task the intelligence and security services to investigate Putin’s influencing operations in our universities, our think-tanks, our financial institutions and our political parties?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the propaganda activities being undertaken by the Russian state. I will certainly look at the suggestions he makes.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

We should all be thanking God today that it is my right hon. Friend in her place and not the so-called alternative. I am not expecting my right hon. Friend to comment on the detail, but this morning residents in Hyde road in Gillingham in my constituency saw the Metropolitan police and the Army in place, the street in lockdown, and vehicles and items linked to the Salisbury incident removed. I do not expect my hon. Friend to give a running commentary on current operations, but can she confirm two things: first, that she, the Government and the security services are doing all they can to keep my constituents safe; and, secondly, that she can arrange for somebody to provide a briefing to me, as the Member of Parliament, as to precisely what is happening?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to do that. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the police investigation continues. We cannot say where that investigation will take the police in terms of their further inquiries, but I will ensure that he is provided with a briefing as the Member of Parliament.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I completely support everything the Prime Minister has said today. The truth is that under Putin the Russian Federation has managed to combine all the worst facets of communism and all the worst facets of rampant capitalism, all wrapped up inside a national security state that keeps its people poor and kills his political opponents. May I ask about the Russian ambassador? Since Alexander Yakovenko arrived, he has repeatedly lied to parliamentarians. He has tried to get Mr Speaker to stop debates on Russia happening in this House and he has tried to interfere in the internal elections of this House. Surely to God, it is time we now told him that we will order our affairs in this country, not him, and he can go home?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we will order our affairs in this country and we will not be told what to do by the Russian ambassador. I fully expect the House authorities to ensure that it is not possible for an external party to interfere in elections in this House. I would also say that it is a brave man who tries to tell the Speaker of the House of Commons what to do and to stand anything down.

[Mr Speaker]

I must say, for the avoidance of doubt, that he got absolutely nowhere with me. The House can be sure about that.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

It is noticeable that the length and breadth of this place has completely supported not just the wise words and leadership of the Prime Minister but her firm actions, with the notable exception of those on the Opposition Front Bench. That was a shameful moment. Further to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), democracy is a fundamental British value and there are long-held concerns that Russia has been seeking to undermine it and interfere in it. If those concerns now turn to evidence, will she take equally robust action against Russia to ensure that our great British democracy continues to be protected?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to give the assurance to my right hon. Friend of the action we take. We recognise that the first duty of the Government is to safeguard the nation. We treat the security and integrity of our democratic processes, as of everything else in this country, very seriously. In terms of disinformation used by the Kremlin, we know that it persistently uses it to destabilise perceived enemies. Managing that is a long-term priority for the UK. We will continue to work not just as the United Kingdom but with our international partners on efforts to counter that.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr. Alongside many colleagues in the House, I speak on behalf of my party in calling for a robust and immediate response. Sources inform us that Russia is the UK’s biggest weapons-grade nuclear substances export market, despite several attempts at a moratorium on depleted uranium by the European Parliament and the United Nations. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether the UK is still exporting nuclear substances to Russia? If so, surely this should be among the very first sanctions imposed?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks and for the support that she has given from her party for the actions that the Government are taking. What we have been talking about today is the use of a nerve agent—of a chemical weapon—on UK soil and the blatant flouting of the international rules-based order and legal structure around that use of chemical weapons by the Russian state.

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

When I served as Security Minister and my right hon. Friend was Home Secretary, I became aware both of her outstanding determination and dedication and of the commitment and expertise of our security services and the police who deal with counter-terrorism. She knows, as the House knows, that that is led by the Metropolitan police, but this event happened in Salisbury and could have happened in Berkshire or Lincolnshire. Will she ask the Home Secretary to look at whether our local police forces, given the dynamic nature of these threats, are equipped and informed adequately to deal with them in the first instance?

[The Prime Minister]

As a former Security Minister, my right hon. Friend has a particular understanding of these issues. The ability to bring in the capabilities of the counter-terrorism police, who do not just operate in the Metropolitan police, as he knows, but have regional bases around the country, is part of the layered structure that we have in relation to police forces. I am sure that he will be making sure that the police look at the immediate response that they had to this incident. We certainly do not want to see an incident of this type happening again on United Kingdom soil and that is why we are giving a very clear message to the Russian state, but we do want to ensure that all our police forces are aware of the threats that they may face.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister’s words were appropriate, measured and correct, and she has my full support. She mentioned dirty money from Russia. Can she look again at the role of tax havens internationally, including those in British overseas territories and Crown dependencies?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. As he knows, we have been taking a number of measures in relation to financial activities in the British overseas territories and dependencies, and we continue to press on those. Of course, we have enhanced our ability to deal with these issues here in relation to economic crime through the formation of the national economic crime centre. I am pleased to say, having formed the National Crime Agency, that we have now set up that national economic crime centre as part of the NCA, which brings a number of capabilities together to deal with these issues.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

My constituents of Harlow will be strongly reassured by the way in which my right hon. Friend is guarding the nation’s security. Can I ask her to condemn the remarks of President Putin, who attacked Jews and other nations for meddling in the United States elections? Given that she has also talked about the possible rogue use of these chemical weapons, can I ask her what the prospect is of such chemical weapons ending up in the hands of extreme Islamists?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, I also condemn the remarks that my right hon. Friend referred to that were made in relation to certain communities in the United States. In relation to the second part of his question, what we are talking about here is a nerve agent that was developed as part of a chemical weapons programme by the Russian state, and I think that will give him a clear message in relation to this.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I fully support what the Prime Minister said in her statement and the actions that she outlined today. I have some concerns about whether we have a proper strategy in place to combat chemical weapons attacks against this country and in particular, these small-scale attacks—it is joined up with the security services, the Government and the armed forces. Will she give me some reassurance or tell me whether work is continuing to improve that?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. Obviously, this is an issue that we do look at and we have a strategy in place, but we will ensure, given what has happened, that we review that. We will look again to make sure that we have the best possible opportunity to ensure that this cannot happen again.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

While welcoming the Prime Minister’s statement, as almost everyone else has, I join my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) in mentioning the importance of the international rule of law and say that this is a very important moment of decision for China—to decide which side she is going to sit on in this arrangement. I urge my right hon. Friend to make sure that we take the most energetic steps to ensure that China stands with the rest of the civilised world on the side of law and responsibility

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue in this way. We want to see the maximum possible adherence to the international rules-based order across the whole world. In different contexts, this is a matter that I raised when I was in China recently.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is an extremely important parliamentary occasion and it is understandable that very large numbers of Members should want to question the Prime Minister. Can I politely suggest that colleagues should seek to ensure that their questions are as succinct as the Prime Minister’s replies have been? That way, we might get through a very great many more quickly than we otherwise would.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I add my support to the measures that the Prime Minister has announced and the condemnation of what is increasingly looking like a rogue state. On the question of the integrity of the United Nations Security Council, we must now begin to talk about reform. Russia cannot be allowed to simply sit pretty, thumbing its nose at the rest of the world community and feeling that it is immune from the rule of law internationally. Will she initiate that sort of reform discussion with the Secretary-General?

[The Prime Minister]

Once again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the remarks he has made today and the support that he has given to the Government, as he did on Monday. We talk to the United Nations about reform of the United Nations in a whole variety of ways. The Catch-22 is that any decision that might be taken in the Security Council to reform it could be subject to a veto by Russia, which is sitting there, but the point has been raised not just by the hon. Gentleman but by others, and this is something that we will look at.

[James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has underlined to the House that the Russian state has either been utterly reckless at best, or at worst, directly complicit in the deployment of a harmful substance on our soil. She said in the statement that she would be taking new measures to harden our defences against hostile state activity. With that in mind, will she ensure that the appropriate balance is provided between counter-terrorism and counter-espionage to ensure that our excellent security and intelligence agencies are appropriately focused to combat and directly disrupt those who would cause harm in our country?

[The Prime Minister]

I say to my right hon. Friend, who also, as a former Security Minister, has a particular knowledge and understanding of these issues, that I entirely take the point that he has made. We constantly ensure that the balance is right between counter-terrorism and counter-espionage, and we will of course continue to ensure that that balance is maintained properly.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Responding with strength and resolve when your country is under threat is an essential component of political leadership. There is a Labour tradition that understands that, and it has been understood by Prime Ministers of all parties who have stood at that Dispatch Box. That means when chemical weapons are used, we need more than words, but deeds. May I ask the Prime Minister what more she can do to enhance our solidarity with our allies, particularly at a time when nationalist forces are trying to drive wedges between democratic countries, with some of those forces backed and supported by the Russians themselves?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there is a strong tradition in the Labour party of recognising the importance of acting in the national interest and acting when our national security is under threat. We have seen that from Governments of all complexions over the years. In relation to the point about international activity and the deeds that we need to take, it is right—we will be continuing to talk. We have been speaking to our allies, even before this event took place, about the ways in which we could deal with and address some of the activities and actions that Russia is taking across the continent of Europe and elsewhere, but we will of course redouble those efforts now.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of our best assets against Russian disinformation and propaganda is the BBC World Service, and will she consider ways of extending its reach, perhaps by incorporating world television? Does she also agree that we need to be very careful not to give any pretext, however unjustified, for the Russians to take action against the BBC and other free media outlets?

[The Prime Minister]

I would hope that the Russian state would be prepared to accept the importance of the free media, but sadly, from one or two things we heard last night, it seems that that might not be the case. My right hon. Friend is right, however, that the broadcasting of the BBC World Service is an important element of the UK’s reach and an important outlet for those who believe in democracy, the rule of law and free speech and expression.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I was glad to hear the Prime Minister mention the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, and I welcome the commitment to the Magnitsky amendment, but she will understand that many opaque Scottish limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships are engaged in money laundering from Russia, via Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine, through this country. Will she speak to Cabinet colleagues and consider introducing amendments to the Bill to tackle these corrupt elites, as she put it—because money laundering is happening via Companies House at the moment?

[The Prime Minister]

We take money laundering very seriously and have been working for some time with law enforcement and the financial sector on ways to improve the action we take against it. This is one of the things I expect the national economic crime centre to be looking at very closely.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the action that my right hon. Friend has announced today. One way Russia seeks to extend its influence in Europe is by building relationships of energy dependence. Is she aware that Britain has recently started to receive shipments of liquefied natural gas, and does she agree that Britain should not provide a market for Russian gas? If we need to bring in extra LNG imports, we have allies such as Qatar, Malaysia and Australia who are more than willing to sell it to us.

[The Prime Minister]

I can reassure my right hon. Friend that in looking at our gas supplies we are indeed looking to other countries.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

As a strong advocate for the defence and security of our country, I am another one who supports the Prime Minister’s statement today. I would like to draw her attention to something she said in her statement that I would not want to get lost, which is that although our response must be robust, it must also remain true to our values. As such, will she say, as I think she has already, not that we will ban Russia Today, which is a strong point to make, but that this country believes in a free media, that we are not frightened of it, even though we hear opinions that are against us, and that we also believe in the rule of law and democracy?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right. We do believe in the rule of law and democracy and in a free media, although of course the question of the status of Russia Today in broadcasting in the UK is not a matter for the Government but for Ofcom, which is independent, to consider.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that our argument is not with the Russian people but with the Russian state, which has sponsored murder on our streets. Today we have heard absolute solidarity from across the western world and most political parties, but what statement of support has she received from the one political party that gives unequivocal, 100% backing to the Leader of the Opposition, the Communist party of Great Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not believe I have received any such statement from the Communist party of Great Britain, although I noticed just one or two weeks ago it said it would not stand candidates against the Labour party and that it now felt more comfortable working with it.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement but urge her to go further and, as others have said, use energy policy as a new way of tackling this Russian threat. We all acknowledge the significant British energy interests in Russia, but will she confirm that Putin’s military and intelligence assets are primarily funded by the sale of Russian fossil fuels, and can I commend to her the EU’s energy security strategy, which was largely written in London and is reducing Europe’s dependence on Russian fossil fuels?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point—one that others across the House have made—about the extent to which Russia uses its energy and the finance it provides to influence and have an impact on countries in receipt of it. I assure him that we will continue to discuss with the EU not just our energy security but the wider energy security issue.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

Many Members of this House and the other House are members of multilateral parliamentary organisations, such as the Council of Europe and the NATO parliamentary assembly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way we can get behind her leadership and the Government’s position is by getting the message across when we attend events and explaining the Government’s policies, what has happened and why our allies should support us?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend has raised an extremely valuable point. I welcome his suggestion and would encourage him and other Members who are members of those multilateral organisations to do just that.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister will know that I do not shy away from criticising the Government’s international policies when they get it wrong, but she should know that she has my full and unequivocal support for the measures she has set out today. Particularly in the light of the revelations coming out of the Mueller inquiry and some of the other questions today, will she assure us that she will leave no stone unturned when examining the Russian state’s attempts to subvert our parliamentary democracy, whether with human assets or financial, cyber, propaganda or other means, however uncomfortable some of those findings might be for us?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to give that commitment to the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for his comments. He is not backwards in coming forwards when he wishes to criticise the Government, but he has given support to the Government—not just today but on Monday—and I welcome that and thank him.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend’s clear and decisive actions. Can she reassure British citizens looking to travel to Russia over the coming weeks and months that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will provide regular updates and that their safety will be paramount?

[The Prime Minister]

I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend. I suggest to those who wish to travel to Russia that they check the Foreign Office advice. My understanding is that the travel advice has not changed, but of course people should check that before they leave.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a day for the House to speak as one for the nation. The Prime Minister will be reassured to hear that a clear majority of Labour MPs, alongside the leaders of every other party, support her firm stance. Does she realise that this situation will probably get more difficult before it gets better, and is she prepared to stay the course and face down this international bully and wrecker of liberty and the rule of law across the world?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks—he made a strong statement on Monday in the House as well—and assure him that I and the Government will stay the course. As I said in my statement, we recognise that there might be further Russian provocation. If there is, we have further measures we can deploy, but it is important—and we will encourage our international allies to do this too—that we recognise that this is an important moment to stand up and say to Russia, “No, you cannot do this!”

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

The Russian economy is a fraction but its expenditure on offensive capability a multiple of ours. Is there a lesson there?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we constantly look at the resources we put in to ensure our national security, which is assured across a number of Departments, and we continue to do so.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s robust response today. Further to the confirmation that no Minister or member of the royal family will attend the world cup this summer, does she believe that this should also extend to senior FA officials, and will she ask our NATO and EU allies to join us in this endeavour?

[The Prime Minister]

The question of attendance at sporting events is a matter for the sporting authorities. They will be aware of my statement today and that we are saying no Ministers or members of the royal family will attend the world cup, and I am sure they will want to consider their position.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

As chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, last year I led a delegation to St Petersburg and was met with great warmth and hospitality by many Russian people. Will the Prime Minister stress that our opposition is not to them but to their appalling leadership? The Russian ambassador has made it clear that we can now expect retaliation. Will she send a clear signal to him and Moscow that the UK will not be threatened?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I think that last night I saw the Russian ambassador quoted as saying that Russia was not a country that accepted ultimatums. Well, I can say to my hon. Friend and others that the United Kingdom is not a country that accepts threats, and we will stand up against them.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s reminder that we have no argument whatsoever with the people of the Russian Federation, who, after all, are living under Putin’s dictatorship all the time. Inevitably, the action that must be taken against Putin will make it more difficult for organisations that seek to maintain good relations with the ordinary people of the Russian Federation. Is there anything more that the Government can do to help those organisations to continue their good work, even while we are invoking more strict and robust sanctions against their dictator leader?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said in my statement, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) said in his question, we are very clear about the fact that we have no argument with the Russian people. It is with the Russian state—with the Russian Government and their actions—that we are concerned. I think that in the response that we make, it is important for us to make that clear not just in our words but in our actions. What I have talked about today is a response that affects the Russian state and the Russian Government, but not the Russian people.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

When it comes to the longer term, given the actions of the Russian state under President Putin, has the time not come for a fundamental reassessment of our defence spending—preferably in collaboration with our allies, but alone if that is not possible?

[The Prime Minister]

As my hon. Friend will know, we are one of the limited number of countries in NATO that maintain the commitment to spending 2% of GDP on defence. As I am sure he also knows, the modernising defence programme is currently being undertaken alongside the national security capability review. It is important for us to be able to deal with the variety of threats that we face. However, I must say to my hon. Friend, as I have said to other Members, that as we look at how we deal with those threats, not all of them will be dealt with in a way that would conventionally be considered a matter for the Ministry of Defence.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has rightly said that the attacks in Britain have been part of an ongoing contempt for Britain, contempt for the rule of law and contempt for our values. There has also been a contempt for our alliances, both political and military. Will the Prime Minister work with those political and military alliances, so that together we can bring about a root-and-branch removal of Russian interference in our political, educational and financial institutions? Let this be a marker: no more. Now they will fear what we will do to hit back at the interference that they have shown us.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for the commitment that she has shown, as a parliamentarian, to the alliance that we have through NATO, which is very important to us It is the bedrock of European defence. I can certainly say that we will continue to work through those alliances to ensure that we are sending a very clear message that this is not acceptable.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I commend the Prime Minister for her decisive and vigorous action in response to what was, after all, an attack on the United Kingdom. In some ways it had flashes of the Iron Lady about it. But it was also in stark contrast to the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, who simply could not bring himself to condemn Russia for this outrageous act.

[Mr Francois]

He simply could not do it. Is that not because he remains at heart what he has always been—a CND badge-wearing apologist for the Russian state? [Interruption.]

[The Prime Minister]

I think that people will draw their own conclusions from what they have heard today, but let me also say to my hon. Friend that I am sure that he, like me, takes great reassurance from the positive messages of support that have come from the Labour Back Benches.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Our way of life in this country and in the west is based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law—

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Wilson]

Our way of life in this country and in the west is based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and should be defended. That is why the Prime Minister is right to impose sanctions against a state that does not believe in those principles. Will the Prime Minister give a commitment to come back to the House if she feels that there is a need for further consideration of sanctions?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. I said in my statement that there were further measures that we might wish to deploy if we were subject to further Russian provocation, and if we choose to do so, I will of course come back to the House.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the actions of the Russian Federation are totally incompatible with membership of the Council of Europe, which believes in democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and will she ensure that we can expel Russia from the Council of Europe as a reprisal? Its continuing membership seems to fly in the face of our commitment to those important values.

[The Prime Minister]

That, too, is an important point. I do not think that it is within the hands only of the United Kingdom to expel Russia from the Council of Europe, but my hon. Friend will have heard our right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) suggest that Members of Parliament who are members of such multilateral groups should be making every effort to make the point about the illegitimate activity that has been undertaken by Russia.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and the measures that she has announced, which will only be strengthened if our allies take similar action. Will she say more about NATO, and tell us whether she will be bringing together NATO Heads of State and Government to discuss a co-ordinated response?

[The Prime Minister]

As I think I said earlier, I believe that the North Atlantic Council will be meeting tomorrow to discuss this issue, and I shall be talking to a number of allies within NATO about the co-ordination of the response. As I also said earlier, they have been waiting to hear the details of our response, which I brought first to Parliament.

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

The Prime Minister is clearly aware that the Kremlin is using a full spectrum of tools in what it considers to be its “new generation” warfare against the west—and assassination is one element of that. Is she also aware of the important work done in the 1970s and 1980s by the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in the United States to methodically expose Kremlin subversion, espionage and disinformation, which in that era were called “active measures”—aktivnoye miropviyatnoe? Will she consider the possibility of similar work in this country now? Shining the light of truth on Russian subversion today, whatever one calls it, is a critical part of defending democracy and undermining that Russian subversion.

[The Prime Minister]

I was not aware of the details of the work of the Senate Committee to which my hon. Friend has referred, but it is the case that this Government are not afraid to call out Russian actions in public when we see them taking place. I take his point about a more detailed and forensic look at the activities of the Russian state, and I will certainly consider it.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I support the Prime Minister’s strategy, but may I remind her that during the Putin years he has become emboldened, sometimes because our allies, in Europe and internationally, have not always been prepared to face down aggression of this kind in view of their commercial interests? If we are going to stay the course, will the Prime Minister remind our allies that they are as much under threat as we have been with this act of state terror?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has made a very important point. This may have happened on UK soil today, but it could have happened in any one of a number of countries. Other countries are themselves seeing other actions being taken by Russia, such as attempts to interfere in elections and propaganda and disinformation campaigns. It is important that we work together as far as possible.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

May I add my support for the cool, calm, collected and correct way in which the Prime Minister has responded to a very serious threat to this country? Would she be pleased to know that the First Ministers of both Wales and Scotland have tweeted their support for her and for the action that she has taken, and will she undertake always to keep the devolved Administrations fully informed of what is happening?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for letting me know about the tweets put out by the First Ministers in Scotland and Wales. I am pleased to say I will be meeting both of them later this afternoon in both the bilaterals and the Joint Ministerial Committee plenary meeting. We have been keeping the devolved Administrations aware of what we have been doing, and I certainly undertake to continue to do that.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has made the right call on the facts before her today, and her judgment in this matter is correct. Will she also look at the transport of materials and assets from other countries, because material will often not go direct from Moscow to London? Will she ensure that our European and NATO partners take the same action if evidence leads to that conclusion?

[The Prime Minister]

That is an important point and it has been raised. We will be looking at the movement of materials and indeed, as I indicated in my statement, at any further action we can take on the movement not only of materials, but of people. We will of course be discussing that with our allies.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has such widespread support because she has learned the lesson of history that tyrants must be stood up to. May I encourage her to impose a freeze on assets, so that people do not have the opportunity of taking them out of the country in the short term, and to boost the military resources in Estonia, where we already have 800 troops, to show very tangibly that we will support our friends and allies who might also be at risk from Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. As I said in my statement, we will freeze Russian state assets wherever we have the evidence that they might be used to threaten the life or property of UK nationals or residents. I was pleased to be able to visit our troops in Estonia last September. We are of course there with other allies, and I was pleased that at the Anglo-French summit in January President Macron committed to a continuing contingent of French troops joining our troops in Estonia. That is an important collective symbol of our determination to protect the west against Russia.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Given the inevitable focus over recent years on ISIS and the terrorism we have seen at home, is the Prime Minister content that across the Government, the Home Office, the security services and other agencies we have enough specific Russian expertise as well as enough resource, or do we need to increase that expertise given this event and many others which show that the Russian Government are intent on undermining our democracy?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is right that in recent years there has been an appropriate and correct focus on counter-terrorism, but that does not mean we have not been looking at hostile state activity and at counter-espionage measures, because we have. We keep these in balance as we go forward and assess the threats we are facing, and we will continue to do so.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Ever since Russian troops first entered Ukraine, friends from many different countries have told me how false news stories emanating from Russian sources have been used aggressively to influence public opinion and undermine legitimate democracies. They use social media platforms and traditional media; hybrid warfare is a key part of this. Will the Prime Minister call for an international strategy to deal with hybrid warfare? Can it be on the EU agenda next week and be discussed at the NATO summit in July?

[The Prime Minister]

I have already raised at previous meetings of the European Union Council the issue of the Russian use of disinformation and propaganda and would expect to raise it again. We recognise the importance of the disinformation campaign work being done by the Kremlin; managing it is a long-term priority for the UK, but in doing that we will of course work with our international allies.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I listened very carefully on the subject of travel advice and advice for Football Association officials. The Prime Minister will remember the pitched battles in Paris that English supporters faced; will she reappraise the protection and security afforded to them if they travel?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, we will of course look at the security and protection of any UK football fans who are travelling.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

I, too, strongly support the Prime Minister’s robust position. Does she recall the enormous efforts made during John Major’s Government to build good relations with Russia? Indeed, John Major went to see President Yeltsin, and I was lucky enough to go with him. Will the Prime Minister stress that our beef is not with the people of Russia, with whom we share cultural links, but just with the leadership, and if we can persuade Russia to return to the rule of law we can rebuild those relations?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said before, our argument is not with the Russian people and we continue to recognise that this is about the actions of the Russian state and Government. As I said earlier in my statement, many of us looked at a post-Soviet Russia with hope when that was first developed, but, sadly, because of the way in which President Putin has been dealing with these matters, the picture is very different today.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

In welcoming the Prime Minister’s actions and statement, may I point out that one notable ally who has not yet spoken out against Russia’s actions in Salisbury is President Trump? Will she urge him to condemn vociferously Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government’s actions, and to do so without delay?

[The Prime Minister]

I spoke to President Trump yesterday and he has spoken out against this incident. We will be continuing to speak with the American Administration because they are among the allies we would encourage to work with us in a collective response to this issue.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I also commend my right hon. Friend on the package of measures she has taken today against this outrageous and illegal act on British soil. May I ask that all suspicious deaths be thoroughly investigated by the police, and that if the Russian Government are implicated in any of them, she stands by to take further tough measures against that state?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and this question has been raised before. Of course the reinvestigation of any deaths is a matter for the police; it is for them to consider what action to take. At present, their focus is clearly on this investigation, but I am sure they will look at that matter in due course.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Council of Europe has already been mentioned as one of the platforms on which we engage with Russia, although Russia has been withholding its payments to it for some time now. There is a motion on Magnitsky before the 46 other countries, and there is also an inquiry into the death of Boris Nemtsov. Would it be helpful if the Minister for Europe and the Americas came to our next session in Strasbourg to help spread the word that we need a Magnitsky law across Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

I am certainly willing to look at the hon. Lady’s proposal.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

We have recently seen a marked increase in Russian activity in the Balkans, very often using the Serbs as a proxy to try to dissuade some of the western Balkan states from joining NATO. Will my right hon. Friend urgently commit to discussing with NATO how to make sure those countries can accede to it as quickly as possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. We are happy to look at the accession of certain of those countries to NATO, and I am pleased that we will be hosting a western Balkans summit here in the UK in July.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I endorse the actions that the Prime Minister has taken and the unavoidable conclusion she has come to. Was she as disappointed as I was that shortly after the powerful and excellent statement from Secretary of State Tillerson he lost his job in the Trump Administration? Will she pass on to President Trump the message of how much we supported the words of Tillerson and encourage President Trump to ensure that the person he appoints as his replacement is equally robust about the dangers from Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

Who forms part of the American Administration is not a matter for me; it is for the President. However, we are leaving our American colleagues in no doubt about the seriousness of this issue. Mr Tillerson did indeed make robust comments after this incident, and I am sure we will be working with his replacement to ensure that America is one of those allies who stand alongside us.

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

This attack on our soil is part of a long and aggressive strategy by Russia not just to undermine the west, but to divide and rule. With that in mind, does the Prime Minister agree that we need to do more to call out the Putin regime, including by recognising their occupation of Georgia? That is what it is: an occupation.

[The Prime Minister]

We of course stand ready to call out the Putin Administration and Russian Government; we do that across a number of fronts and will continue to do so.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for her statement and the concern she expressed to me yesterday regarding the surprise substances some of us received in our parliamentary post this week—not on a Salisbury scale, but frightening none the less. Will she commit to those who operate within and outside feeling the full force of the law, and go a bit faster on the long-promised public registers of property, many of which are Russian-owned? This has been Government policy since David Cameron, and if they were in place by now, we would know where the assets are to freeze.

[The Prime Minister]

I reiterate the comment that I made at Prime Minister’s questions that these were appalling acts against Muslim Members of this House, and of course a full investigation is taking place. I have discussed the public register of ownership with the Business Secretary and it is the Government’s intention to bring that forward, so that we can ensure that we shine a light on the issue.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

While we have been sitting here, the political journalist Tom Newton Dunn has tweeted:

“Corbyn’s spokesman clarifies he does not believe there is proof yet that Russia is responsible for #Salisbury—and MI5/MI6 may be wrong: ‘There is a history between WMDs and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly’.”

Will my right hon. Friend reiterate the faith that she has in the intelligence services to be absolutely certain about the evidence that she receives? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is not so much about the views of a journalist. The hon. Gentleman is in order to ask for the views of the Prime Minister on the intelligence services, and that he has done. That is perfectly orderly.

[The Prime Minister]

I am surprised and shocked by the statement that has been put out by the spokesman for the Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption.] As I was going to say, it is clear from the remarks that have been made by Back Benchers from the Labour party that they will be equally concerned about that remark. They stand four-square behind the Government in the analysis that we have shown and the action that we have taken.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

In 2010, Gareth Williams, a British security employee, was found naked and decomposing in a padlocked holdall. The coroner ruled that it was an unlawful killing and that a professional contortionist would not have been able to get out of the bag. In the light of the events with Russia, will the Prime Minister now reopen that case to find out whether Mr Williams was indeed another victim of Vladimir Putin?

[The Prime Minister]

I recall the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised. As I said in response to an earlier question, investigations into criminal activity will be a matter for the police, and it is for them to determine whether they reopen the case.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

On behalf of the people of South Leicestershire, may I welcome the Prime Minister’s robust but measured statement? On Monday, I met members of the senior management of the BBC World Service at BBC Broadcasting House. The Prime Minister is correct to have told the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) that broadcasting is a matter for Ofcom, but funding is not. I understand that the BBC World Service is in communication with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Will the Prime Minister assure the House today that if the BBC World Service needs additional funding to combat Russia Today, particularly in the Balkans and the Baltic, she will speak to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about that?

[The Prime Minister]

My understanding is that discussions are indeed taking place on the funding of the World Service and that we expect a resolution in due course.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I should like to add my full support to the Prime Minister’s robust response today. As director of the British Council in St Petersburg from 2005 to 2008, I have first-hand experience of the utterly ruthless way in which the Russian state can operate. Does she share my concern that holding the World Cup in Russia this summer could be perceived as a global vindication of Mr Putin’s regime? If so, will she be making representations to FIFA to explore the possibility of postponing the World Cup until 2019 and holding it in a more appropriate host country or countries?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, which is particularly valuable given his experience with the British Council. The holding of sporting events and the choice of venues are matters for the sporting authorities. The sporting authorities here in the United Kingdom will have heard what I have said today about the actions of the Russian state.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

This attack could have been so much worse. What if a group of schoolchildren playing in the park had been the first to approach the victims after they collapsed? Does the Prime Minister share my disgust that the perpetrators of this crime must have known that?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, one other individual, Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, was affected as a first responder, but it could have been so different. It is thanks to the prompt action of the emergency services that this matter has been contained in the way that it has, but those who undertook this brazen and despicable act must have known the potential implications.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Facts are chiels that winna ding, which is why there can be no feigning of impotence anywhere on these Benches. What is the Prime Minister’s assessment of the example advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) on Monday regarding asking the Spanish Government to halt the use of their ports for refuelling by the Russian fleet?

[The Prime Minister]

At least one other member state of the European Union has indeed refused the Russian state the possibility of refuelling its ships. This matter is raised from time to time, and I recognise its significance and the passion with which the hon. Gentleman and his colleague have raised it.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Nobody should be surprised that Russia has denied responsibility for the attacks in Salisbury. It is a country that has denied taking part in the Olympics doping scandal and in the rigging of elections. Worst of all, it has denied any involvement in the killing of Alexander Litvinenko. Given that, will the Prime Minister please assure the House that Russia will be treated according to its actions and not its words?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We should all be clear that the attitude of the Russian state is shown by what it does, not by what it says.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and the actions that she has outlined. She said that there was a need for a new targeted power to detain at the UK border those suspected of hostile state action. Many of us will be surprised that we do not already have that power. Is there a plan to bring forward emergency legislation, so that such a power could be put in place quickly?

[The Prime Minister]

The power currently exists in relation to those who are suspected of terrorism, but not of hostile state activity. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be looking urgently at the most appropriate legislative vehicle to bring that power forward.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

The Prime Minister was right to point out that this is simply the latest act by a criminal rogue state. We remember the Malaysia Airlines jet that was shot down, the invasion of Crimea and the support for the murderous regime in Syria. I fully support her position, and I am horrified by the statement that has been read out on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition’s spokesman. I should like to add my voice to those who have asked the Prime Minister to look quickly and seriously at financial sanctions for individuals closely associated with the Putin regime, as well as for the wider Russian economy.

[The Prime Minister]

We look at all the tools available across the board, but we operate within the rule of law, and there are certain criteria that need to be met if sanctions are to be applied.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and I look forward to her aggressively chasing down that dirty Russian money. There have now been 15 suspicious deaths, and I should like to ask about the prevalence of these deaths in the UK. Are there more in the UK than in similar western countries? If so, why? Is it because we have more Russians here, or because Russia is deliberately targeting the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

I would just caution the hon. Gentleman when he describes all those deaths as suspicious. I believe that one of the families involved have made it very clear that they do not consider there to have been any suspicion around the death of their loved one. If the police believe that it is right to reopen cases, they will do so. It is up to them to make that operational decision.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for her calibrated, proportionate and robust response. Will she join me in paying tribute to the brave British intelligence agents who serve our country? In the light of the increasingly violent and erratic approach of the Russian state, does she agree that if there needs to be a reassessment of their personal security here in the UK, that should take place without delay?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in welcoming, congratulating and thanking all those who work for our security and intelligence agencies for the valuable work that they do for us on a day-to-day basis. Each of those agencies will consistently ensure that they are considering the safety of their staff. They recognise the important work that those people do and how important it is to ensure that they are safe.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Russia has consistently behaved in this manner over a long period, but that has not stopped the elite of our major sporting organisations, such as the IOC and the proven-to-be-corrupt FIFA regime under Sepp Blatter, from allocating major sports tournaments to Russia. Does the Prime Minister agree that the elite in our sport need to look at themselves and not isolate themselves from human rights issues and criminal law when they allocate major tournaments?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the elite in certain sporting organisations have found themselves under scrutiny in a variety of ways over recent years, but it is important that we all have a care towards human rights issues and other matters when such things are being considered.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s robust and proportionate statement. Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), the Leader of the Opposition’s spokesperson seems to have suggested that there is some parallel between Salisbury and Iraq. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, while no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq, three people are in hospital because chemical weapons were used in Salisbury? Will she also give us an update on their condition?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. We are talking about the use of a chemical weapon—a military-grade nerve agent—against people here in the United Kingdom. That is very clear. It is wrong and outrageous that the Leader of the Opposition’s spokesman has made those comments.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The horrendous incident in Salisbury has placed a huge unforeseen burden on local police. We know that the police service has faced unprecedented cuts, so I wonder whether the Prime Minister can give an assurance that the additional burden will be met from central resources and that it will not fall to the local police to pick up the bill.

[The Prime Minister]

The initial response to the incident was of course taken by Wiltshire police. When the nature of the incident became clear, the force was able to draw on support from neighbouring forces and, crucially, the counter-terrorism capability came into place. Counter-terrorism police have taken on and are running the investigation. This is about not just the resources, but the capabilities that police officers and the counter-terrorism force have brought to bear in this instance.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

Is the Prime Minister able to give any update on the treatment and health of the brave policeman who was harmed after going to help, and will she pay tribute to him?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to pay tribute to Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. As I think I mentioned the other day, I believe he said that he was merely doing his job. That is the attitude that is taken by all our police officers on a daily basis no matter what danger they find themselves in. My understanding is that he remains seriously ill, but he is conscious and has been engaging with people.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister’s reaction to the terrible incident in Salisbury is proportionate, appropriate and robust, but does she agree that we need to go further and set an example in this House? All right hon. and hon. Members should immediately and permanently desist from appearing on any Russian propagandist channels, including RT and Sputnik.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have spoken about the actions that the Government can take, but there are actions that individual Members can also take to send a clear message.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s steadfastness and statesmanship in standing up to this Russian aggression. Does she agree that this attempted murder on our soil by the Russian state will not enrich the lives of a single Russian citizen at home in Russia, and that this is the autocrat’s classic con trick down the years, externalising internal discontent with aggression abroad because the leader in question knows that he cannot and will never deliver the prosperity, freedom and democracy that the Russian people are so long overdue?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not one person living in Russia will benefit or see their prosperity or life chances increase as a result of this action. This is about the Russian state; it is not about its care for the Russian people.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I condemn Russia for this attack. The Prime Minister will know that a strong Royal Navy is a strong deterrent against Russian aggression, so will she ensure that sufficient new money is provided, so that there are no cuts to the Royal Navy or the Royal Marines?

[The Prime Minister]

We have of course been providing extra funding to the Royal Navy and have been enhancing its fleet. Last summer, I was pleased to go on the new aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth, which is a fine example not just of our Royal Navy’s capability, but of this Government’s commitment to defence.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and her robust defence of a rules-based international order. Too many people died in the 20th century to establish that order just to throw it away in the 21st century. Will she confirm what discussions we are having with the Republic of Ireland? Given that we share a common travel area—she has rightly referred to the border and the need for security there—what discussions does she plan to have to ensure that the whole border area is secure?

[The Prime Minister]

The common travel area and its operation are things that we discuss on a regular basis with the Irish Government. We have recently been looking at enhancing the security arrangements that we have put in place and we will continue to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Prime Minister and all colleagues who have questioned her this afternoon.

Salisbury Incident

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the incident in Salisbury and the steps we are taking to investigate what happened and to respond to this reckless and despicable act.

Last week, my right hon. Friends the Foreign and Home Secretaries set out the details of events as they unfolded on Sunday 4 March. I am sure that the whole House will want to pay tribute again to the bravery and professionalism of our emergency services and armed forces in responding to this incident, as well as the doctors and nurses who are now treating those affected. In particular, our thoughts are with Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, who remains in a serious but stable condition. In responding to this incident, he exemplified the duty and courage that define our emergency services and in which our whole nation takes the greatest pride.

I want to pay tribute to the fortitude and calmness with which people in Salisbury have responded to these events and to thank all those who have come forward to assist the police with their investigation. The incident has, of course, caused considerable concern across the community. Following the discovery of traces of nerve agent in a Zizzi restaurant and the Mill pub, the chief medical officer issued further precautionary advice, but, as Public Health England has made clear, the risk to public health is low.

I share the impatience of the House and the country at large to bring those responsible to justice and to take the full range of appropriate responses against those who would act against our country in this way. But as a nation that believes in justice and the rule of law, it is essential that we proceed in the right way, led not by speculation but by the evidence. That is why we have given the police the space and time to carry out their investigation properly. Hundreds of officers have been working around the clock, together with experts from our armed forces, to sift and assess all the available evidence, to identify crime scenes and decontamination sites and to follow every possible lead to find those responsible. That investigation continues and we must allow the police to continue with their work.

This morning, I chaired a meeting of the National Security Council in which we considered the information available so far. As is normal, the council was updated on the assessment and intelligence picture, as well as on the state of the investigation. It is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia. It is part of a group of nerve agents known as Novichok.

Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down, our knowledge that Russia has previously produced this agent and would still be capable of doing so, Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations and our assessment that Russia views some defectors as legitimate targets for assassinations, the Government have concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for the act against Sergei and Yulia Skripal. There are, therefore, only two plausible explanations for what happened in Salisbury on 4 March: either this was a direct act by the Russian state against our country; or the Russian Government lost control of their potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.

This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has summoned the Russian ambassador to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and asked him to explain which of the two possibilities it is and to account for how this Russian-produced nerve agent could have been deployed in Salisbury against Mr Skripal and his daughter. My right hon. Friend has stated to the ambassador that the Russian Federation must immediately provide full and complete disclosure of the Novichok programme to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and he has requested the Russian Government’s response by the end of tomorrow.

This action has happened against a backdrop of a well-established pattern of Russian state aggression. Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea was the first time since the second world war that one sovereign nation has forcibly taken territory from another in Europe. Russia has fomented conflict in the Donbass, repeatedly violated the national airspace of several European countries and mounted a sustained campaign of cyber-espionage and disruption, which has included meddling in elections and hacking the Danish Ministry of Defence and the Bundestag, among many others.

During his recent state of the union address, President Putin showed video graphics of missile launches, flight trajectories and explosions, including the modelling of attacks on the United States with a series of warheads impacting in Florida. The extra-judicial killing of terrorists and dissidents outside Russia was given legal sanction by the Russian Parliament in 2006, and, of course, Russia used radiological substances in its barbaric assault on Mr Litvinenko. We saw promises to assist the investigation then, but they resulted in denial and obfuscation and the stifling of due process and the rule of law.

Following Mr Litvinenko’s death, we expelled Russian diplomats, suspended security co-operation, broke off bilateral plans on visas, froze the assets of the suspects and put them on international extradition lists, and those measures remain in place. Furthermore, our commitment to collective defence and security through NATO remains as strong as ever in the face of Russian behaviour. Indeed, our armed forces have a leading role in NATO’s enhanced forward presence, with British troops leading a multinational battlegroup in Estonia. We have led the way in securing tough sanctions against the Russian economy, and we have at all stages worked closely with our allies and will continue to do so. We must now stand ready to take much more extensive measures.

On Wednesday, we will consider in detail the response from the Russian state. Should there be no credible response, we will conclude that this action amounts to an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom, and I will come back to this House to set out the full range of measures that we will take in response.

This attempted murder using a weapons-grade nerve agent in a British town was not just a crime against the Skripals, but an indiscriminate and reckless act against the United Kingdom, putting the lives of innocent civilians at risk. We will not tolerate such a brazen attempt to murder innocent civilians on our soil. I commend this statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

More specifically, when it comes to the Salisbury attack, what actions are the local police taking to identify fellow diners at the Zizzi restaurant and the Mill pub in Salisbury on the day in question and to ensure that they come forward and are checked? What extra resources are being provided to the local police force, which quite understandably has never had to deal with such an incident before?

We know that the national health service is under incredible pressures across the country, but what extra resources have been provided to the NHS hospitals in and around Salisbury, and what training has been given to NHS staff and GPs in identifying the symptoms of a nerve agent attack?

The events in Salisbury on 4 March have appalled the country and need thorough investigation. The local community and public services involved need reassurance and the necessary resources. The action that the Government take once the facts are clear needs to be both decisive and proportionate, and focused on reducing conflict and tensions, rather than increasing them.

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the magnificent work of our public services responding to this attack: the NHS staff, the police and security services, the armed forces and the analysts at Porton Down. Let us do everything we can to ensure that this never ever happens again.

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that everybody in the whole House sends their best wishes to all those who have suffered as a result of this incident and wish for their recovery. In the case of Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, I read a quote that I was not surprised by because I have heard it from so many police officers who have been in dangerous situations before; he said that he was merely doing his job. We are grateful to him and all our police officers and emergency services for doing that. We do not comment on the threats in relation to individual cases, but of course the police and others always look to ensure that we are taking these matters fully into account and taking them very seriously.

In relation to Russia, we have a very simple approach, which is, “Engage but beware.” This shows how right it is that this Government have been cautious in relation to its arrangements with Russia. In my Mansion House speech last November, I set out very clearly the concerns that we have about the activities of Russia. It is a matter that I have discussed with fellow leaders at the European Union Council. We must all be very well aware of the various ways in which Russia is affecting activity across the continent and elsewhere. There can be no question of business as usual with Russia.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of party donations. I will say two things to him. First, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the weekend, you should not tar everybody who lives in this country of Russian extraction with the same brush. Secondly, there are rules on party political donations, and I can assure him that my party and, I hope, all parties follow those rules.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about Magnitsky powers. I have been challenged previously on this question. We do already have some of the powers that are being proposed in relation to the Magnitsky law. However, we have already been talking with all parties about the amendment that has been put down, and we will work with others to ensure that we have the maximum possible consensus before the Report stage.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of police capabilities and resources. Not only are Wiltshire police involved in this, but they have support from neighbouring forces, as would normally happen when an incident takes place which requires that extra capability. But crucially, at a very early stage, it was decided that counter-terrorism police should take over the responsibility for this because the counter-terrorism police network has capabilities that are not available to regional forces, and they are indeed in charge in relation to this.

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that Wiltshire County Council and Salisbury City Council are working with Public Health England, with the NHS locally and with the police to ensure that there is maximum information available to members of the public—the chief medical officer has herself reassured members of the public that the public health risk is low—and to ensure that the proper arrangements are being put in place to help the police to get on with their inquiries. That is important. The police are still working on investigating this, and we should ensure that they have the time and space to be able to conduct those investigations.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

May I commend my right hon. Friend for rising to this occasion as she should? Many in this House would wish that the Leader of the Opposition had abandoned party politics and done just the same.

My right hon. Friend is quite right: if the response from the Russian ambassador is simply not credible, she is right to expect the House to back her in taking the most severe action as is required and commensurate. She is also right to remind the House, and the country, that this country—Russia—is now as close to being a rogue state as any. It occupies Crimea; it has helped to occupy eastern Ukraine; and it has created a hell on earth in Syria, and is even now overseeing worse action. This is a country locking up its members of the opposition. Frankly—we have learned this lesson before—if we appease a country like this, we can expect even worse.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. He is absolutely right. Nobody should be in any doubt about the various activities that the Russian state is involved in across the continent of Europe and elsewhere and the damage that that is doing in so many different places. He is absolutely right that that is why it is important that this Government—this country—stand up very clearly and not only call out actions by Russia but also ensure that we have a robust response to them.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for giving me an advance copy of her statement. I share her concerns about the recent attack on Salisbury. It is important that we all work together to get to the bottom of what has happened there. There can be no denying that this assassination attempt on Mr Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia is not only a step too far by those responsible; it also calls into question every aspect of our current and future relationship with Russia. This ruthless action not only put at risk the lives of our emergency services but threatened the safety of the wider public who were enjoying a Sunday afternoon in the cathedral city of Salisbury. Everyone has the right to live in the UK in security and safety, and any challenge to that right needs to be responded to in an appropriate manner. The police have so far identified more than 200 witnesses and 240 pieces of evidence in the attempted killing.

All our thoughts are with Nick Bailey and his family, and we wish him a speedy recovery. We commend the emergency services for putting their lives on the line in order to defend all of us. However, there are legitimate concerns around the delay in time between the events on Sunday 4 March and yesterday, when the chief medical officer advised the public who had been at the restaurant and at the pub to wash their clothing and personal items. Can the Prime Minister give reassurances today to those members of the public who have real concerns that they might have been exposed to the effects of the nerve agent used?

I welcome the actions detailed in the Prime Minister’s statement. May I ask her when she intends to return to the House to update us on the measures that we can all take? Firm and strong action must be taken to send a clear message to the Kremlin that we will not accept Russian interference in our democracy or in our way of life. I hope that she will take the time to raise this matter with colleagues across the EU, our closest allies, to help to give us a strong voice when we all say, as one, that this kind of international outrage must never be seen again on our streets.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone that he has adopted in his response to the statement. This is indeed a matter that should concern us all; it is a matter of national interest. An attack has taken place, and we must respond to it appropriately, as he has said. He asked about the chief medical officer’s most recent advice to those who had been in the Zizzi restaurant or in the pub. The answer to that is that, over the course of time last week, as work was being done on this issue, more information became available about the nature of the agent that had been used. That led to that precautionary advice being given yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman also asked when I would be returning to the House. As I said in my statement, we will consider in detail the response from the Russian state on Wednesday, and I will return to the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

This, if not an act of war, was certainly a warlike act by the Russian Federation, and it is not the first that we have seen. Some in this House have stayed silent or decided to join the information warfare that that state is conducting against us and our allies, but we have seen it invade countries in the east, attack allies and attempt to kill Prime Ministers. Even now, it is backing the murderous Assad regime which thinks nothing of gassing its own people, yet the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition stays silent. Does my right hon. Friend agree that now is the time for us to call on our allies—the European Union, which has worked with us so well on sanctions, NATO and particularly the United States—and ask what they will do to assist us in this moment when we are in need?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we should be giving a robust response from the whole of this House to this incident—this act that has taken place. There have already been a number of engagements with our allies on this particular matter, and we will continue to talk to them to ensure that they are aware of what has happened on British soil and that we can talk with them about the response that we will be giving.

[Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the most effective ways of punishing Russia for these appalling activities would be to seize the private property assets of members of the Putin regime and its associates? As a first step, could she arrange to publish a list of who they are and what they own?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, we are aware of the need in the United Kingdom to ensure that our financial system cannot be used for illicit money flows, that appropriate action is taken by law enforcement and other bodies to ensure that we identify such flows and that we make the appropriate response to them. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we are already putting in place a number of measures to improve the information that is available in a transparent way in relation to the holding of certain assets here by those from overseas, and that is something we will continue to work on.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I entirely agree with the Prime Minister’s approach to this murderous attack. She will be aware, as she has stated, that it is part of a pattern of behaviour by which a state uses covert means in breach of both international law and the rule of law to attack with impunity whoever it wishes. In those circumstances, does she agree that we face a very particular challenge that is not likely to go away any time soon? In that context, in trying to inform the public of the risks and of the appropriate way of responding for a parliamentary democracy, can I encourage her to make use of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which chose to carry out an inquiry into Russia’s threat last autumn, so that we can take that forward and provide as much information as we can publicly about the nature of the threat and the best means of responding to it?

[The Prime Minister]

It was very good that the ISC had already announced that it would be considering issues around Russian activity against the UK that requires investigation. I look forward to the work that my right hon. and learned Friend’s Committee will be doing on that, and the Government will work with the ISC to share relevant information that is within its remit.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for her statement. It is hard to see any alternative to her grave conclusion that either this was a direct act by the Russian state against our country or the Russian Government have lost control of a dangerous nerve agent. In that context, I hope the whole House will be able to come together behind a firm response from the Government in the interests of our national security and public safety. Can I therefore ask her whether the National Security Council has asked for a review of the 14 other cases that I wrote to the Home Secretary about to see whether any of those should be investigated? Can I also press her on what further action she has taken in preparation for potential UN Security Council resolutions that should be drafted in order to get the widest possible international support?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about the need for a clear response from the whole House, and everybody in the House should be in no doubt of the nature of what has happened and that we should respond robustly to it. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has responded to her letter in relation to those 14 other cases. I think the focus at the moment should be on ensuring that resources are put into this criminal investigation, so that the police are able to do their work with the maximum time and space.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister recall that when Edward Heath expelled more than 100 Russian so-called diplomats in the early 1970s, it gave a blow to Russian intelligence operations against this country from which it did not recover until the end of the cold war? Does she also recall that when it was clear that a member of the Libyan embassy staff—which one was unknown—had killed WPC Yvonne Fletcher, a wholesale expulsion of staff occurred then? As it would be impossible for an operation to have been mounted by the Russian state without someone in the London Russian embassy knowing about it, does she therefore conclude that similar measures may well be necessary?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend. As I said in my statement, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has called the Russian ambassador into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office today and presented the two possibilities of the origin of this action to him. We wait for the Russian state’s response. I am very clear that, should that response not be credible, we will conclude that this action is an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom, and as I said earlier, I will come back to the House and set out the full range of measures that we will take in response.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that, in the face of yet further aggression from the Russian mafia state, the policy of the Leader of the Opposition of engaging in robust dialogue will only encourage Putin to engage in further acts of state-sponsored terror? Does she agree that in the national interest, and regardless of the cost to this country, the only effective answer is to take robust action against those who are using the UK as a battleground in which to carry out their own acts of assassination?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need to ensure that we do in fact respond robustly to this matter, but we need to do so having given careful consideration to the assessments that have been made and the information that is available to us, and that is exactly what the Government are doing. Nobody in this House should be in any doubt that there can be no suggestion of business as usual in relation to our interaction with Russia.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

The whole country will welcome the precise and clear statement that the Prime Minister has delivered to the House this afternoon. In particular, she has set out precisely what she will do in terms of laying out the evidence for the international community and the United Nations about the act that has been perpetrated on British soil. May I also welcome the comments she made about the so-called Magnitsky amendment? Many of us on both sides of the House of Commons believe that this could make a big contribution, and I hope that she will continue to consider following America, Canada and three European countries in introducing such an amendment.

[The Prime Minister]

I recognise that my right hon. Friend is supporting the amendment and has been working on this issue. I say to him, as I have previously, that we want to ensure that we get the maximum possible consensus across the House on this particular issue. [Interruption.] We will talk to the parties involved to ensure that the approach taken is one that—[Interruption.] The shadow Foreign Secretary keeps saying, “There is an amendment down.” There is an amendment down, and discussions are taking place with parties about the impact of the amendment as currently drafted. We will ensure that any action taken will be action that we can be sure will work.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

May I commend the Prime Minister for today making the sort of resolute and realistic statement about the Kremlin that many of us have been looking for in this House for some time? Will she invite the heroic and brave Bill Browder, who has done more than any other single individual to uncover the Kremlin’s methods, to give her a full briefing about what he knows of Putin’s cronies’ money-laundering exploits in London and the British political figures who have been corrupted by Kremlin money? Will she also make sure that the whole of the Government machinery is now giving full co-operation to Robert Mueller’s inquiry in the United States, because of what he has already uncovered about what the Russians have been doing here?

[The Prime Minister]

We have already been clear, in relation to the Mueller inquiry, that we will of course respond to appropriate requests. I am told that the other individual to which the right hon. Gentleman referred has actually already met the Security Minister, and has therefore been able to brief him on what he knows.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Friends from especially Scandinavia, the Baltics and across eastern Europe have often told me how much they feel increasingly at risk from the rise in Russian aggression. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on how we will work with our allies in response to this incident?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am very conscious that those who are, particularly geographically, close to Russia on the European continent very much feel the immediacy of many of the activities that Russia gets involved in, particularly, for example, matters of propaganda use. I will certainly be speaking to a number of our allies. It is important that people recognise not only what has taken place here in the United Kingdom, but, if it is a Russian state activity, the implications it has for Russia’s activities elsewhere on the continent of Europe.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can I also commend the Prime Minister for her remarks? The last time we had a clear, defined, state-sponsored act of terrorism was in 2006, and she has referred to that. Can she have conversations with her predecessor, Tony Blair, who was Prime Minister at that time, about some of the issues that arose subsequent to the actions we took, because it is clear that the Russians will retaliate and we will then be in a tit-for-tat process? They think we will back down. We have to say, resolutely and strongly, that we are not backing down. This is an act of terrorism and all Members of Parliament should stand together.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When we take action, we must ensure that it is action that we will continue to follow through. As I said in my statement, many of the actions taken in response to the Litvinenko murder are actually still in place in relation to our relations with the Russian state. Nobody should be in any doubt, however, of the likelihood of an impact from the Russian state in attempting to suggest, as it did in that case, that the information we put out is incorrect. The inquiry, which followed significantly later, very firmly put the responsibility for Litvinenko’s murder at the door of the Russian state and, indeed, of President Putin.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

May I commend the Prime Minister for the robust tone of her statement, which is entirely appropriate? Does she accept that, while we may not be in a period of cold war with Russia, as we were in the 1980s, it could be said that, because of its actions, we are at least now entering a period of cool war? If that be so, would she be prepared, at the appropriate time, to look again at our ability to deter Russia and at the resources we may require to do so?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said previously, there is no question of business as usual with Russia. We must be very clear about the actions it has taken. This incident proves that the actions we have taken over the past decade have been entirely justified. What we see is a Kremlin that seems to be intent on dismantling the international rules-based order, and we should stand up resolutely in defence of that international order.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

The evidence that the Prime Minister has provided today makes it absolutely clear that the onus is on the Russian state to explain how this nerve agent entered our country. I thank her for her answer to my colleague, the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is absolutely essential that we can, where possible, ensure that the public are aware of the Russian threat. Does she also agree that our inquiry should be able to understand the pressures on our intelligence and security services, and how best they are supported to do the job they have to do?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, it is for the ISC itself to determine the breadth of the inquiries it undertakes within the remit that it has been set by this House and by Government. Extra resources are being put into the security and intelligence agencies because we have recognised the increasing challenges and threats that we need to address. That is why significant resources are going into the single intelligence account.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Given the grisly fate of so many of President Putin’s opponents, both at home and abroad, including even those with a high profile such as Boris Nemtsov, no one in this House, least of all the Leader of the Opposition, should have any doubt of the nature of the Government with whom we are dealing. Having said that, and while I support all the measures the Prime Minister will take against the Government of Russia if the situation turns out to be as we all anticipate, will she try, as far as is possible, to ensure that British society, in its widest sense, can continue to be open with the people of Russia so that the virus of truth and openness can do its work on that regime?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. We are talking about the dealings the UK Government and this country have with the Russian state. It is important that people in Russia understand the exact nature of the regime in government there at the moment.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I do not suppose there is a single Member who is surprised that President Putin would resort to violence, because he has done it so many times before: 334 killed in the Beslan massacre; 170 killed unnecessarily in the Moscow theatre siege; 299 killed on flight MH17, the aeroplane brought down by the Russians; countless journalists and countless people who stood up to him as political opponents in other countries around the world murdered by him; and, yes, Sergei Magnitsky. I hear what the Prime Minister says, but may I just ask—this is the 29th time I have asked this question—whether we can ensure that, at the end of this process, nobody involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky, or in the corruption that he unveiled, will be allowed into this country? For that matter, can we just stop Russia Today broadcasting its propaganda in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has asked me the question about the Magnitsky issue on many occasions in this House, both when I was Home Secretary and subsequently. We already have a number of powers that enable us to take action against individuals to prevent them from coming into this country, but we are looking seriously at the amendments. As I said, we want to ensure we have maximum consensus on this issue. On further action the Government might take, I will return to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, once we have a response from the Russian state, to update the House on the further measures we will take.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

If one permanent member of the UN Security Council carries out a targeted assassination in the country of another, surely it is time for the UN Secretary-General to launch an immediate inquiry.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his suggestion. The United Nations is one of the bodies, along with other allies and other organisations such as NATO, we will be speaking to about the nature of the incident that has taken place here in the United Kingdom. We will certainly be raising this matter with the UN.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

While the investigations are ongoing, we are waiting for a response from the Russian Government. May I ask the Prime Minister what her Government are doing to protect other people who might be targeted here in the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

We do not talk about the measures that are taken in relation to individuals. That is a matter for the police and for law enforcement generally, but I can assure the hon. Lady that it is being considered.

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

I think I have just seen—I am looking at the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) as I say this—the most shameful moment in the House of Commons in my time to date. It is clear that our sovereign United Kingdom has come under attack from another state. Does the Prime Minister agree that the character of conflict is changing, that we must be relentless in trying to keep pace with it and that nothing will stop those who are doing this work receiving the resources they need?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the character of the threats we face is changing. They are diversifying and we need to ensure that we are able to deal with them across the range of actions that need to be taken. Indeed, some will not always fall into what might conventionally be considered to be defence.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Will the Prime Minister confirm that we bear the Russian people nothing but good will? It is President Putin who we have in our sights and we will not allow him to use this in the presidential elections to burnish his image as a strong man.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is the Russian state we are challenging in relation to this particular act that has taken place on UK soil, not the Russian people.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Is it not increasingly clear that we are engaged in hybrid warfare with Russia that includes disinformation, political interference, cyber-attacks and now very possibly this act of attempted murder? In considering how to respond, will my right hon. Friend also look at what additional help we might give to the people of Ukraine, who are the frontline in resisting Russian aggression and expansionism?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right: we need to look across the diverse nature of the threat that we face and the actions that we are taking. We have already been taking a number of actions in support of Ukraine. That is also an important part of our deliberations and of our response.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

The Schleswig-Holstein question was understood by only three people. Everybody understands what is happening here today and there can be no criticism of the tone that the Prime Minister has adopted. She will know that, under article 4 of NATO, she can raise this as a concern with our NATO allies. Does she intend to do so?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said in response to a number of other questions, we will be raising this with allies in a number of forms. As I said earlier, we will consider the response from the Russian state on Wednesday, and I will return at the earliest possible opportunity to the House to set out further measures.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in commending Wiltshire’s police and health services, who have done a superb job in responding to this difficult case, and in highlighting the level of dedication and public service that is evident not just in Wiltshire, but up and down the country in our emergency services?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in commending the valuable work that has been done by emergency services in Wiltshire. They are a fine example of the dedication and commitment of our public services and emergency services across the whole country.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have absolutely no doubt that the only way to deal with Putin’s regime in Russia is robustly, decisively and together as a Parliament and a country. I also add my voice to those talking about the repression of the Russian people, not least in Chechnya, where Putin continues to back the brutal regime of Ramzan Kadyrov and his attacks on the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. May I urge the Prime Minister to speak with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to look at reviewing Russia Today’s broadcasting licence and to speak to the House authorities about blocking its broadcasts in this building? Why should we be watching its propaganda in this Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said in response to a number of questions, we will look at the response from the Russian state but I will come back to the House at the earliest opportunity to look at the range of measures that could be necessary. In relation to the House authorities, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, that would be a matter not for me, but for the House authorities.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that we have heard the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) loudly and clearly.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on her powerful statement and on her leadership in this incredibly grave matter. Is Russia a fit and proper state to be hosting or engaging in international sporting fixtures in 2018?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said in response in Prime Minister’s questions last week, we will be considering the attendance at the particular event that is coming up in Russia—the World cup—of dignitaries and Ministers from the United Kingdom.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I say to the Prime Minister that there should be unity across the House on what I feel is the proportionate and sensible approach that she has taken to analysing what has been happening and to coming back to report to the House. I also say that there are certain circumstances, as she knows, where we take party political differences of opinion, but when our country is potentially under attack, that is just not appropriate.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone that he has adopted. He is absolutely right: this is a question of the national interest. It is a question of the interest of our country and what another state may have done on British soil to people living here in the United Kingdom. That matter should concern all of us and be above party politics.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I know, having served with my right hon. Friend in the Home Office, that she will do what is right to keep our country safe. Will she confirm that, if Her Majesty’s Government conclude that there was unlawful use of force by the Russian state, we possess a considerable range of offensive cyber-capabilities that we will not hesitate to deploy against that state, if it is necessary to keep our country safe?

[The Prime Minister]

We, of course, will look at responses across a number of areas of activity, should it be—as my right hon. Friend said and as I said in my statement—that we conclude that this action does amount to an unlawful use of force by the Russian state here in the UK.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

It is good that the Prime Minister has come here today to spell out what actions have already been taken and has promised to return again to inform us of what happens next. Will she also make sure that the lessons learned in the Salisbury community about this threat and how to prevent it in local communities is shared in an appropriate way with other communities across the country?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to say that I am sure lessons will be coming out of this for local communities, the NHS and the police as they look into this matter. We will ensure that those are available to all across the country.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

In considering Russia, we should never forget that, for all its geographical size, Russia’s economy is little more than half that of the UK. In those circumstances, does my right hon. Friend agree that British economic levers are far more potent than some might realise and that we should not hesitate, if the circumstances demand it, to pull them hard?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, we will be looking at the full range of measures once we have considered the response that comes from the Russian state. The United Kingdom has in fact been one of the leaders in ensuring that, within the European Union, sanctions against Russia are in place as a result of the action that they took in Crimea and Ukraine.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

This horrific attempted murder on British soil demands a strong and united response from this House. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether the nerve agent in question is banned under the chemical weapons convention and that Russia is a signatory to that convention?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, it is illegal to use a nerve agent of this sort. I understand that it is one that is banned under the convention.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Would the Prime Minister agree that this attack probably involved a professional, Russian-trained operative in order for such an individually targeted assault to be carried out with what must have been a minute amount of something like sarin, VX, or tabun, which could so easily have had catastrophic, wide-scale, indiscriminate and deadly consequences?

[The Prime Minister]

I will not speculate about the nature of the individual or individuals who are responsible for this attack. That is of course a matter for the police investigation.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Now we have all agreed that Russia is a clear and present danger, will the Prime Minister agree that we have to be fully organised to meet that danger? If we walk out into London tonight, we see Russian mafia and Russian security people swaggering about our capital city—all over Europe we see them. What they do not like is sanctions that bite. Will she come back to this House on an early occasion with a firm list of new sanctions that we can take against Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is asking me to refer to a particular measure. As I said in my statement and in answer to a number of questions, we will consider the response from the Russian state. Should there be no credible response, we will determine and conclude that the action amounts to unlawful use of force by the Russian state in the United Kingdom, and I will return with further measures.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Would my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite the difficulties that the American presidency may have on these issues, we are fully engaged with the American Government and our allies on this very important matter?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to give my right hon. Friend the confirmation that we have engaged with our allies and will continue to engage with them on this important issue.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for coming to the House with this very important, but sadly not surprising conclusion today. She is going to make a further statement on Wednesday, but can I ask her to say a bit more about the possible responses and to ensure, at a time when voices and forces are trying to erode confidence in open democratic societies, that those responses will place us firmly and foursquare behind the solidarity and security of the west?

[The Prime Minister]

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not set out today what the response will be. We obviously need to consider the response from the Russian state and then put together the appropriate further measures to ensure the robust response that I and other Members have called for. He can rest assured, however, as can other Members, that we see a Russia that is flouting the international rules-based order—we have been very clear about that—that we will stand up for democracy, the rule of law and the international rules-based order and the values that underpin it, and that we remain committed to the security and defence of Europe and to defending the values that underpin the west.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I understand that the nerve agent Novichok was developed by Russia specifically to avoid being covered by the chemical weapons treaty and to avoid detection by standard equipment. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Novichok is a totally illegal substance under a treaty to which Russia is a signatory and that any knowledge of detection and treatment that we gain from this ghastly attack will be shared with authorities, including health authorities, in this country and with our allies abroad?

[The Prime Minister]

It is very clear that the use of such a nerve agent goes against the spirit of the chemical weapons treaty. As my hon. Friend would expect, we will be talking to the responsible chemical weapons body and raising this issue.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

In the light of her comments, which I commend, does the Prime Minister agree that there is no place for hon. Members on either side of the House appearing on Russia Today? It is a propaganda mouthpiece for the Russian state with which no democratic politician should engage, and they should think twice before doing so. We should not be engaging with and giving credibility to such a media outlet.

[The Prime Minister]

We should all be wary and careful in looking at media outlets that any Member chooses to appear on. As I said, the issue of Russia Today is of concern to Members across the House, and I will make a further statement in the House after we have had the Russian state response.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

In the early 1980s, the planning assumption was that the road to war with the Soviet Union would be preceded by six months of increasing tension, sabotage and assassination. What are the current assumptions?

[The Prime Minister]

There was a time when the threats posed by Russia and others were clear and limited in their type; today, we see a diversity of threats. The previous question referenced Russia’s use of propaganda, and we see it using a variety of means by which to attempt to interfere, intervene and affect countries in the west. We must be able to respond across the range of threats posed.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I thank the Prime Minister for her remarks about this growing crisis. I appreciate that she will not want to discuss individual circumstances, but can she reassure the House that not only former Russian and eastern European nationals who might have offended Mr Putin, but high-profile British figures and, indeed, British public buildings are being reviewed to determine their security status in the light of the recent situation?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

As I said earlier, we do not comment on individual cases—the hon. Lady is absolutely right about that. On national security, we regularly monitor and update the actions taken to protect people and premises here in the UK based on the threat as we perceive it at the time.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

As someone who has campaigned for a Magnitsky law and who was a member of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Public Bill Committee, may I say that the Opposition amendments, though well intentioned, were flawed and can be improved on? I am extremely grateful for the co-operation of Ministers and hope that the discussions will be fruitful. Will my right hon. Friend reflect the need for our allies abroad to understand that this could easily have happened in a provincial town in France, Germany or any other country, and that we are looking for action as well as warm words of support?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, a supporter of the Magnitsky law, for highlighting the point I was trying to make earlier, which is that if amendments are to be added to legislation, we need to ensure they are workable. We need to get the amendments right. On his point about our allies, he is absolutely right: we should point out to people that this could have happened anywhere, in any provincial town or city like Salisbury.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

The level of resilience voiced by the Prime Minister today has been many years in coming, but it is hugely welcome—indeed, it would put our national security at significant risk if we were led by anyone who did not understand the gravity of the threat that Russia poses to this nation. She mentioned our NATO allies and that she will come forward with measures on Wednesday. Will she confirm that our NATO allies and the potential for a collective response is in her thinking?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is absolutely right: it is imperative that in this country we recognise the nature of the threat and actions Russia has taken through a wide range of means. I am also clear that, as we consider what further actions need to be taken, we must ensure they are robust, clearly defend our values here in the UK and send a clear message to those who would seek to undermine them.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on her robust stance against Russian aggression. She will be aware that the most effective sanctions are those taken multilaterally. The concern of some is that when we leave the EU, we will lose our seat at the table on the body that sets those sanctions. Will she therefore reassure us that a lot of effort will go into building up a new relationship to ensure continuity in our approach towards Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) raised this issue of collective action. Obviously, as my hon. Friend says, the position in relation to the UK Government’s actions on sanctions will change when we leave the EU, and we are putting in place measures to ensure that the UK can act independently, but I also made it clear in my Mansion House speech that we would want to work with our allies on such issues. As he and the hon. Gentleman have said, sanctions are more effective when undertaken collectively.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I commend the Prime Minister for the stance she has adopted today. When she returns to the House, will she take the opportunity to assuage the cross-party concerns on the Select Committee on Defence about the de-escalation of our presence in the high north, the reduction in maritime surveillance and patrols, and the cancellation of this year’s cold weather training? There is a need for investment in defence, and I hope she will take this opportunity to deliver it.

[The Prime Minister]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we consider very carefully the actions we take, including the training exercises that our military forces undertake. As I indicated in my statement, I am pleased that our forces are leading part of NATO’s enhanced forward presence in Estonia. I visited those forces in Estonia last autumn, and I can say that it is not only valuable for our forces but hugely welcomed by the people of Estonia, who obviously are right against the border with Russia and feel the threat very particularly.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for her statement, and I pay tribute to a group of individuals who have, I think, been unmentioned so far this afternoon: the armed forces personnel who attended with the professionalism and selfless devotion to duty that we expect of them.

What is the Prime Minister doing with our allies in NATO, the United Nations and, of course, the European Union to ensure the maintenance of the international rules-based system, which is under systemic threat from the Russian Federation?

[The Prime Minister]

I reiterate my hon. Friend’s comments about the armed forces. In fact, I did mention them in my statement, but let me again praise the work that they did, alongside our emergency services, in relation to this incident, as well as what they do for us day in, day out. I assure my hon. Friend that we will look very carefully at any further measures that we should be taking in response to the incident.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister should know that if by Wednesday she concludes that we are indeed embattled, she will find both unity and resolve across the House as we face down a common threat.

Twelve years ago, in the aftermath of a wave of al-Qaeda-inspired attacks, we transformed the capacity of Governments to co-ordinate and fight back against extremism. May I urge the Prime Minister, in respect of the measures that she will introduce on Wednesday, to think radically about how she will create Government capacity to co-ordinate our response to this new level of threat, including new safeguards against the abuse of social media, which we know is part of the Russians’ active measures playbook?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and for the tone in which he made them. He is right: after the attacks by al-Qaeda, it was very clear that the then Government were putting in place a whole new structure of response in terms of counter-terrorism. UK Governments have been consistently looking at hostile state activity for many years, but in our national security capability review, as we look at our ability to react to the threats that we now face, we will of course ensure that the structures within Government are such that it is possible to co-ordinate properly the actions that we need to take.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I welcome the statesmanlike tone of the Prime Minister’s comments. They were in stark contrast to those of the Leader of the Opposition, whose Soviet ramblings would have done no benefit to Russia Today. May I urge her to be uncompromising in signalling that British and European liberal democratic values are not negotiable, and that this Government will not allow this country to be a playground for Kremlin kleptocrats? Will she consider aggressive cultural sanctions to hit Mr Putin and his team where it hurts, and, in particular, will she consider boycotting sporting events?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I assure him that, as I have said to others, we will consider a range of activities—a range of responses—and I will update the House further at the earliest opportunity. Let me also confirm that we will continue to defend the democratic values that underpin us as a country, but wish to do so alongside our allies. It was remarked earlier that the international rules-based order is under threat from Russia. I have to say that it is also under threat from others, and it is important that we stand up and robustly defend it.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Three people are gravely ill in hospital following this horrific chain of events. I welcome the Prime Minister’s resolve that business cannot go on as usual. Will she take this opportunity to tighten up the loopholes in the system in respect of money laundering, so that the “From Russia With Cash” situation that has occurred all too often does not turn into “From Russia With Blood”?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady will know, the Government recently took extra powers to enable us to deal with criminal finances through the Criminal Finances Act 2017, and I think it important that we did that. We are well aware that the very attractiveness of normal financial activity here in London can mean that there are those who see an opportunity for illicit flows of money, and we will take every possible action against them.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I welcome the strength of the Prime Minister’s statement. I am sure that she, like me, will be concerned by the parallels with a previous time when autocratic leaders decided to challenge the international rules-based system to prove that might would be right. Can she reassure me that she will work with allies to make it very clear to Mr Putin that, like them, he could easily go down the path to disaster and defeat?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly be working with allies to make very clear our defence of the international rules-based order, and that those who attack it will not win.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Today the focus has inevitably been on the Russians who are crooks and cronies of Putin. There are many decent Russians who have bravely spoken out against the regime, but those whom I have met over the years, both here and in Russia, sometimes feel very alone. Can we do more than just send a signal that we are absolutely appalled by what Putin has done? We need to send a signal of solidarity with those who are trying to resist his regime.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady speaks well about this matter. There are those who have bravely spoken out. We should be very clear that we support them in doing so. We want to ensure that they are able and free to do so, and able to feel confident about doing so, without fearing action that might be taken against them as a result.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I, too, commend my right hon. Friend for the statesmanlike way in which she is handling this appalling case. If it is indeed proved that it was state-sponsored, will she ensure that the response is not just from the United Kingdom, but from NATO and all our European allies? Together we stand, and divided we provide an opening for this man.

[The Prime Minister]

We have already been talking to allies about the nature of the act that has taken place, and we will continue to do so. We will encourage our allies to recognise the despicable nature of what has happened in the United Kingdom.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The main security challenges are state-sponsored terrorism, Daesh-sponsored terrorism and threats to cyber-security. Should not the UK defence portfolio be redesigned to meet those challenges, rather than concentrating on a new generation of nuclear weapons?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman refers to a number of threats. We ensure that we have the capabilities to address the terrorist threat and the threat of hostile state activity through a variety of actions that the Government take. As I said earlier, not every response sits within what would conventionally be called defence. The work of the security and intelligence agencies and the work of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, which sits in the Home Office, are also involved. That is why our national security capability review is important in bringing together all parts of our response and ensuring that we have the capabilities we need.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

The Prime Minister is clearly right to suggest that, from hacking infrastructure to spreading disinformation, Russia has been waging a cyber-war against the west for a number of years. As Home Secretary, she took the Bill that became the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 through the House with cross-party support. Can she now reassure the House that if more such powers are needed, she will not hesitate to ask for them?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to confirm that. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is already considering what further counter-terrorism powers may be needed.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

Since my election I have spent a great deal of time campaigning for more protections for emergency services workers, and it is particularly disappointing that we are now having to reflect on how we can keep them safe from nerve agents. I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, which made it clear that what was particularly reckless about this attack was the decision to use a nerve agent that would inevitably put at risk members of the public, as well as our emergency services and NHS workers who would have to respond. I welcome the news that she will put that at the forefront of the meeting that she is due to have this week, and will put the seriousness of the risk presented to police and NHS workers in particular at the forefront of the robust measures that are now needed.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady has raised a very important point about our emergency services. We have already, in recent years, had a further look at the framework within which they operate and the sort of incidents to which they might need to respond, but we will of course continue to keep this under review.

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

The attacks on Mr Litvinenko and Colonel Skripal had one thing in common: they were designed not just to kill, but to kill in a particularly terrifying and horrible way. With that dreadful threat in mind, will the Prime Minister ensure that our national defence is in sufficient shape to meet that Russian threat in terms of composition, location and funding?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. As I have said in response to a number of questions, this is a matter of the capabilities that we have across our national security and defence. It is important that we have been conducting, and are continuing to conduct, a number of reviews that go straight to the heart of this matter, to ensure that we have the capabilities that we need across the board.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I commend the Prime Minister for their statement and the robustness with which they addressed the House. Will they assure the House that in the coming days, when they discuss next actions with our allies, they will act robustly with some of our more recalcitrant NATO allies—notably Spain—who give port to the Russian fleet to allow them to refuel? Enough is enough.

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, I will of course be raising this issue with allies, and we will be talking with them about the nature of the response that we feel is appropriate to such an action having taken place.