14/03/2018 Daily Politics

Last night's deadline came and went

without any Russian response to the

British ultimatum over the Salisbury

nerve gas attack. In an hour the

Prime Minister will reveal the

extent of British retaliation in one

of the toughest tests of Theresa

May's premiership.

Good morning - welcome

to this special edition

of the Daily Politics,

live from Westminister,

extended to bring you not only

Prime Minister's Questions,

but Mrs May's promised list

of sanctions against the Kremlin

and the response of the Leader

of the Opposition.

We expect to be on air

until at least 1.30.

This morning the Prime Minister met

with her National Security Council

to discuss the British response -

she'll make her statement just

after Prime Minister's Questions

and we'll bring it to you live.

Russia, which continues to deny any

involvement in the Salisbury attack,

has warned that any punitive action

on Britain's part will be met

with a tough response,

one Kremlin figure even reminding us

that Russia is a nuclear power.

As if we hadn't noticed.

But what are the Prime Minister's

options and how much international

support can she count

on for a robust British response?

We'll speak to a senior

former diplomat.

And of course, on top

of all this we'll be live

for Prime Minister's

Questions at noon.

All that coming up, and with me

for the duration Conservative Vice

Chair Chris Skidmore

and Shadow Treasury

Minister Jonathan Reynolds.

Welcome.

Well, as expected, Theresa May's

midnight deadline for a Russian

explanation for the poisioning

of former spy Sergei Skripal

in Salisbury passed with no response

from Moscow and now we wait to learn

what the Prime Minister's

next move will be.

Russia still denies any involvement

in the attack and has warned any

sanctions from us

will have consquences.

Lets get the latest from

Richard Galpin, who's in Moscow.

Is there any other credible

explanation doing the rounds in

Moscow, if this was not Russia in

Salisbury, who was at?

They are

saying they got rid of chemical

weapons stockpile some time ago and

so it could not possibly be Russia

and they are insisting on that, they

are not giving other theories. I

have not heard anything in terms of

saying another country might have

done this. They are saying, the

Foreign Minister, that Russia had no

motive but obviously the British

Government will look at that with a

wry smile, given what happened in

London in 2006 with the

assassination of another man who

betrayed his country, Alexander

Litvinenko. The Russians have passed

form for assassinating people who

have betrayed them, intelligence

agents who have gone to the other

side, in this case working for MI6.

My understanding is Mrs May will

reveal the nerve agent used has been

produced only by the Russian

government and the Russian

government has stockpiles of that,

perhaps not large, but had an

element of it, and that will be the

reason she will say the British are

in no doubt the Russians did it and

she will outline sanctions including

expulsions. Are the Russians drawing

up a list of Riyadh -- a list of

retaliation?

I am sure they are

prepared and I expect they will act

quickly. The Kremlin spokesman said

clearly, we will retaliate. If the

Russian ambassador for example is

expelled and the intelligence

officers working in the Russian

Embassy in London, many of those

will be expelled, possibly more.

There are hints there will be a

larger number than expulsions that

happened following the death of

Alexander Litvinenko. The Russians

are ready and they say they will

retaliate to everything Britain

does. One interesting quote that

stands out to me, coming from the

Kremlin spokesperson, he has

effectively fired a warning shot to

other countries, such as the

European Union, presumably the

United States, saying we hope other

countries will think about whether

there is evidence provided so far by

the UK. We know Theresa May, Boris

Johnson will be working hard to try

to get solidarity and unity in

Europe and other countries and get

these countries behind the UK on

this and Russia is now trying to

fragment that.

It sounds like it is

escalating into a major

international story. Thank you.

It was on Monday that

the Prime Minister gave

her ultimatum to President Putin.

Here's a reminder of

what she said.

On Wednesday, we will consider in

detail the response from the Russian

state. Should there be no credible

response we will conclude 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 and set out the

range of measures 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 two. It was an

indiscriminate and reckless act

against the UK, putting lives of

innocent civilians at risk and we

will not tolerate a brazen attempt

to murder innocent civilians on our

soil.

That was the Prime Minister on

Monday. She is now coming back to

the Commons and will follow Prime

Minister's Questions with a more

detailed statement on what the

British response will be.

After the murder of former Russian

secret service operative

Alexander Litvinenko in 2006,

Britain expelled some Russian

diplomats and enforced tighter visa

restrictions on Russia officials.

But many argue that these measures

didn't go far enough.

So, what are Theresa May's options

now for retaliation?

She could...

Expel more Russia diplomats

from the UK, maybe including

the Russian ambassador.

The numbers will be important. Ted

Heath in 71 kicked out a large

number of diplomats.

Introduce asset freezes

and travel bans on Russians

involved in corruption

and human rights abuses.

Or at least toughen up the existing

powers.

Bar wealthy Russian oligarchs from

accessing their property in London

by seizing their assets.

Take RT - or Russia

Today - off the air.

The British believe it is a Kremlin

financed propaganda channel.

Or boycott the football World Cup

in Russia later this year.

And talk the British could launch

a cyber-attack on Russia.

This morning I was told that option

was downplayed.

They could convince

the EU to strengthen

sanctions against Putin.

The European Union put the sanctions

with British support in place after

Crimea and Ukraine. That is the sort

of thing that could be done.

Wth me now is Larissa Brown,

the defence and security editor

at the Daily Mail.

And Adam Thompson,

who was until recently Britain's

Permanent Representative to Nato.

Larissa Brown, Theresa May was

criticised when she was Home

Secretary for arguing for a weak

response to the Litvinenko business.

Issued under pressure to show she is

tougher than that?

She is under

pressure and the worst thing she can

do is give a feeble response to the

poisoning of the double agent. I

think she will have to come out this

afternoon and give a strong

statement and outline various

measures which could cross the

diplomatic circles, which could be a

unilateral response. She could go to

Nato, the EU, UN, and call for a

unified, common international

response which would make Britain

look more powerful in response to

Putin.

Do we have evidence there is

appetite in the European Union, in

Nato, or even in the Trump

administration in America to get

involved in this and to follow a

robust response, to back that

response, two -- to participate in

that response?

We have seen warm

statements towards the UK from both

Nato Secretary General, apparently

Donald Trump, certain EU officials.

There will be at least verbal

support for what Theresa May decides

to do. But whether that is followed

through by action is going to be

dependent I think on how credible

Britain's diplomacy over this crisis

is.

Does it help this happens as we

are leaving the EU, and that a man

in Washington who stood up most for

us, Rex Tillerson, Secretary of

State, was fired within 24 hours of

standing up for us.

None of that

mood music is helpful. It probably

does not help but I'm not sure it

will get in the way, either. I think

serious Americans and Europeans,

seeing the first use of nerve agents

since the Second World War on

European territory will understand

it is a serious issue for them and

not just the UK.

The law based on

this man who was trying to help

people get out of Russia. He was

imprisoned. It freezes assets of

those involved in corruption, there

are travel restrictions on these

people. My understanding is the

British Government says we can do a

lot of that in this country but it

will probably accept a version of

this law to show they can toughen it

up.

It has gone through the Lords

and we expect it to come back to the

Commons and there have been

amendments to the UK version of

these laws that will basically

enable the UK to have the same

equivalent of what the US have.

Toughening up sanctions, freezing

assets, and potentially having a

list of Vladimir Putin's cronies,

oligarchs, that are linked to the

regime and they would be banned from

the UK. This is a measure the Prime

Minister could do which would not

necessarily have huge political

ramifications in Russia in the same

way as expelling our diplomats would

because Russia said they will

retaliate and Russia Today, there is

talk about the licence being revoked

but if the UK does that, in

response, Russia has said they could

end up banning our media

organisations from operating. That

would be a huge loss if BBC Russia

were expelled from Moscow.

What does

Russia want out of all this? My

understanding is that what happened

was called by the Prime Minister in

the National Security Council a

Kremlin calling card, that the nerve

agent was chosen intentionally

because we would find out and know

that only they had it and the world

would know the Kremlin had done this

for all their denials. Why? What is

the message, what are they telling

us by doing this?

It is hard to read

Russia. It always has been. I

hesitate, but there is a pattern of

Russian behaviour in terms of going

after opponents of the regime, and

throwing Russia's weight around in

Europe and its region a little bit.

The question is whether Putin is

asking for attention in order to get

the west re-engaged with Russia on a

great power to great power kind of

negotiation, or whether he has

decided destabilising activities are

a useful thing for Russia in their

own right.

We have just learned that

Britain is calling for an urgent

meeting of the UN Security Council.

We are one off the permanent

representatives, I assume this is an

attempt to internationalise this and

bring to attention to the other

members, that it is a potential

threat to all of them.

Absolutely.

That is a basic first step is to be

taking to raise this in the security

council and potentially in the UN

General Assembly, the wider forum of

the UN. It is not the only thing it

should do internationally, in

addition to Boris Johnson's efforts

with allies, I am sure the UK will

go to the organisation for the

Prohibition of chemical weapons

which runs the 1997 Chemical Weapons

Convention to take that treaty

through its paces on a country

suspected of noncompliance, and of

still holding nerve agents.

We see the huge nuclear arsenal, we

see what was done in Crimea, those

motorised forces, and the claim of

undercover forces, and so we think

it is strong. But, actually, is this

a result of weakness? The Russian

GDP, the Russian economy, is smaller

than Italy's, it is a lot smaller

than Britain's, there is widespread

rampant poverty in Russia, the

moment you leave Moscow and the

other big cities. Its capital

structure of investment, partly

because of sanctions, is collapsing,

it's machine-tool industry is going

into dust, its oil industry is

desperately in need of new capital

investment and not getting it. Is

this partly to cover the fact that

the Russian economy, in many ways,

is a basket case?

The Russians are

obviously very good at what has been

coined the information war and they

are very good at looking like...

They are brilliant at reacting on

the international stage and standing

up for Russian values, and obviously

we have got Putin's election coming

up and there have been a lot of

people who have suggested that by

looking like they're Tov, by coming

out with these statements, by

fighting back against Theresa May,

it will only help him in Russia and

make the Russian people think that

he's actually being strong. But

there are things that Britain can

do, of course, and there are many

things that we could do secretly to

hit back at Russia, such as

offensive cyber attacks.

How robust

should the response be?

Of Russia

are responsible and, let's be

honest, it is hard to see a credible

defence that they are not

responsible, there has to be a

response because this is one of the

most serious incidents I can recall

as a parliamentarian, but it has to

be effective. You talk of boycott of

the World Cup. I don't think that is

the quantum of activity we are in

but we also can't seek to normalise

this. We don't want this to be

continued for years to come. I do

think some of the things you've just

mentioned, the measures put into the

anti-money laundering bill last

week, which we almost got put

through, I think that is where we

can take some real action because,

frankly, where we are right now, in

terms of what we know and what the

Prime Minister will say, we've got

to respond to this robustly.

Should

we? The amendments will now become

part of British law, I assume?

British government has already

looked as an anti-corruption

strategy. I think it is right that

we look what needs to take place

legislatively and non-legislative we

move forward.

Why would you resist

the? These are laws

the? These are laws that allow you

to target those accused of human

rights abuses or I was a result of

corrupt practices.

When you transfer

UK law to US law it is not as easy

as saying you can transfer it

across.

Why would you not strengthen

it?

We have bills going through the

House of Commons where in the past

we have looked at the strength of

anti-corruption practices so I can't

see why we wouldn't want to do that

in the future.

Would it make sense

to close down Russia Today or would

that be a gift to the Russians? We

pride ourselves as this being a city

and country which is the home of

free speech. The Russians know that

what happens in Moscow is

increasingly controlled by the

state, whether it is a state

operated media or private. If we

close their outlets here, they will

retaliate and probably close the BBC

and others too. But, more

importantly, the British are meant

to be in favour of free speech but

at the moment they have a station

they don't like and they close it

down.

I think that every action

there will be a reaction but that

shouldn't stop us looking at Russia

Today. Obviously, we want to work

with Ofcom over what sort of actions

may be taken but we have to stop

directly elected politicians going

on this programme. Alex Salmond, for

instance, should give up that

programme.

He has his own show on

it. Would not be a better way,

rather than closing it down, to make

it well-nigh impossible for

mainstream politicians to appear on

it because they would be attacked

for doing so?

I have never appeared

on it and I don't consider it to be

a news source in the way I would

consider the BBC or Sky to be a

legitimate impartial news

broadcaster. But I think if it was

unilaterally shut down by the

Government there is a massive danger

of propaganda problem and if it is

not with due process they will

appeal that and will enjoy taking us

through the courts over at. I think

the Labour Party will be reviewing

the advice given to all MPs as to

whether they should appear on it.

Are Labour MPs going to be allowed

or encouraged to appear on it or

not?

It is being reviewed.

Independent -- individual MPs have

their own views on it.

Thank you.

The Prime Minister's statement will

be in under an hour.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn came

under fire on Monday

for his reponse to Theresa May's

speech on Monday, with

the Conservative MP Johnny Mercer

describing it as "the most shameful

moment in the House of Commons

in my time to date".

Here's a flavour of what he said.

Mr Speaker, the events in Salisbury

on the 4th of March have

appalled the country,

and need thorough investigation.

The local community and public

services involved need reassurance

and the resources necessary.

The action the Government takes,

once the facts are clear,

needs to be both decisive

and proportionate, and focused

on reducing conflicts and tensions,

rather than increasing them.

We can speak to senior Labour back

bencher Chris Leslie,

who's in Central Lobby.

When Mr Corbyn called for a robust

dialogue with Russia, what do you

think he meant?

Well, I think we're

having a robust dialogue. It

finished at midnight last night. I

think we waiting to see what the

Prime Minister's report is of the

Russian response. That is the sort

of approach that I think the vast

majority of MPs wanted to support

when they heard about the impact

that this chemical attack had on the

people of Salisbury. It was not

just, of course, the people directly

targeted but there were 38 people

taken to hospital, 500 people who

have been warned about their clothes

being affected and so forth, so this

is a big issue, and I think the

Prime Minister's proposals for

saying to Russia, "You have to

answer if you were directly

responsible or if you lost control

of this nerve agent - tell us by

midnight last night," so we are all

waiting to hear the response. I

think, actually, this is a time for

people to come together behind the

Government and say, let's get them

and from Roger.

One of your

colleagues, John Woodcock, said that

they could not be read by anyone who

did not understand the threat Russia

poses to this nation. One of your

fellow Labour backbenchers. Does Mr

Corbyn understand the gravity of the

threat which Russia opposes to this

nation?

I think he does. I want to

make sure that if we are led by

people that they do understand what

is actually happening. I think it is

pretty clear that when you have this

sort of absolutely exceptional and

quite atrocious activity within the

UK, we need a very firm response.

And, just as in the other conflicts

in times gone past, people of

different political parties, who

might have normally had

disagreements on day today issues

have managed to put those aside,

risen above it and come together.

Clement Attlee and Bevan came

together with Churchill in the

Second World War. The public want to

see their leaders come together to

stand up on behalf of the British

public if they are potentially under

attack.

You thought Mr Corbyn's

response to the Prime Minister's

statement on Monday wasn't

appropriate. Why?

I felt that part

of a single point scoring at a time

when our country was potentially

under attack was not appropriate. I

don't actually regard that as a

massively unusual statement to make.

There have been some people on

social media and elsewhere who have

said, if our country is under attack

that is appropriate still give

partisan attacks. I just disagree

with that. But, to be honest, I

think we need to move on from what

happened on Monday. Let's see what

the Prime Minister's course of

action is going to be and let's see

if Parliament can respond in an

appropriate way, because the public

are watching and those people who

have been affected by this attack

are watching. Detectives are in

Bailey and others, and Skripal is

still in hospital. This is a really

serious issue and I think the public

want to seriousness from all of

their elected representatives today.

Thank you for all that. We will let

you get from central lobby into the

wall for Prime Minister's Questions.

In Mr Corbyn's response to the Prime

Minister on Monday, there wasn't a

word of criticism of the Kremlin.

Why?

He condemned the attack...

He

condemned the attack but he didn't

involve the Kremlin.

He condemned

the attack and called for action.

You could hardly not condemn a nerve

gas attack on somebody in this

country with the collateral damage.

He did, but he why did he not have a

word to say about the Kremlin?

He

condemned it.

I'm sorry. He didn't

condemn the Kremlin for the attack.

He didn't even say that if the

Kremlin is involved, we condemn it.

He obviously condemned the attack -

everybody condemns the attack - but

he had nothing to say, no words of

criticism, no words of indication

that the Kremlin was probably

involved and dog attacking them. Why

not?

He demanded a response, he

proposed to gain what we had already

tried to get through the week before

in the anti-money-laundering bill,

the Magnitsky amendments, he propose

one way forward and an angry about

whether the NHS have the resources

to do it. That strikes me as a

proportionate response for the

Leader of the Opposition.

Is there

not a suspicion in your party that

actually Mr Corbyn, John McDonnell

and those around them and their

private offices are rather

sympathetic to Russia, rather too

cosy with Russia?

That is not fair

at all. If you look at things, not

just specific amendments around

replicating the Magnitsky law, the

things we have been trying to do in

that committee around registers of

foreign ownership of property in

London...

That covers everybody, it

is not specific to Russia.

We all

know London is the favoured

playground of very, very wealthy

Russian people, many of whom have

links to the Putin regime.

Many of

those are enemies of Putin.

That is

true and that is part of the process

but there is clearly a lack of

transparency and a lack of the law

being applied where we think it

could be. I know there are no talks

between the two frontbenchers...

To

move on a common basis.

I welcome

that and that is the right way

forward and I think we will see more

of that in a statement.

That is not

far away. It is coming at dated

let's have a look at Big Ben. I'm

afraid Big Ben's basis rather than

scaffolding. It may be hiding its

face because of what is about

happen, it doesn't want to look!

Prime Minister's Questions is only a

couple of minutes away and Laura

Kuenssberg has just joined us. A

busy day for the political editor of

the BBC. My understanding is that we

will be getting some outline of what

the Prime Minister is going to say

and it will involve substantial

expulsions. I was told that you have

heard it could be on the scale of

close to what Ted Heath did in 1971.

Indeed, and there is a long history

of diplomatic expulsions of Russian

diplomats from the UK, and the Prime

Minister's strength of language on

Monday suggested that she would

really have to come back with

something that sounded quite

dramatic. She didn't say, we will

respond in due course with some sort

of detail. She has clearly said that

we must take stronger measures than

we have on previous occasions. She

really set the bar very high for

herself today, so while I don't

expect her to come to the Commons

with anything that will surprise us

in terms of the actual measure - I

don't mix is going to say anything

where we will say, "My goodness, I

didn't see that coming," - but I

think it will be very significant

and I think there will be some

promise of tightening up some of the

financial regimes around some

Russians here in London but not a

complete green light for the

Magnitsky Act because that doesn't

necessarily apply. If you don't know

who is behind a particular act,

because that is all about targeting

individuals.

You need to know that

they had been responsible for humans

right abuse and the money was the

product of corruption. You have to

have specific information for this

law to click in. To stop and while

the Government at this point does

believe that Russia was either

directly or indirectly responsible

for this attack, I don't think it is

anywhere near the stage of being

able to point figures that

individuals.

However, as John

Reynolds was just saying, there is

dialogue about how to move forward

with that act but not in terms of

the specific response to this

incident.

This is a huge foreign

policy crisis for the Prime Minister

and the Prime Minister has got very

little previous experience of

foreign policy. She was Home

Secretary for six years. It is not

her field. Has she been active in

trying to bolster support in Europe

from the United States, difficult as

that is in Washington at the moment,

given that you don't know who the

secretary of state is from Monday to

the next, and, of course, we are

done trying to this for the UN

Security Council? Has it been a

broad campaign, almost, to get

international opinion on site?

I

think there has been a very

considerable effort in government to

try to get her allies on board, not

just because they believe it is time

for the international community to

come together in terms of

condemnation but also the

realpolitik of it is that Britain is

an important country but not the

kind of power that it once was and

so therefore for a response to seem

meaningful, it must be done in

conjunction with support, not just

warm words, from other countries.

That is why it will be very

interesting to see whether or not

the UK is granted its wish in having

a place of the Security Council in

New York at benighted nations. We

know that the response from the

United States was, in the end,

pretty much along the lines of what

the UK was looking for. We know that

the Prime Minister has spoken to

Angela Merkel. President macron was

the first world leader that she

spoke to about this. There has

definitely been an effort.

We will

see how Prime Minister's Questions

goes. Let's go to the comment about.

Members will also have seen reports

of a number of suspicious packages

targeting Muslim members. I am sure

the whole house will join in

condemning this app horror and

behaviour that has no place in our

society. I can tell the House an

investigation is under way and steps

are being taken to bring the

perpetrators to justice. I will make

a statement following PMQs updating

the house on the Salisbury incident.

This morning I had meetings, in

addition to my duties in this House

I will have further meetings today.

I want to thank the Prime Minister

for agreeing to meet with me to

discuss the work of the cross-party

use violence commission. Youth

violence is complex and needs

long-term solutions but some things

can be done now, such as legislating

to ensure all knives and sharp

instruments in shops are knocked

away or stored behind counters,

ensuring no one can steal them and

use them.

Will she do this? The honourable

lady raises an important issue. This

is a complex problem and we need to

ensure we have long-term solutions.

The Home Secretary will publish a

strategy that will put emphasis on

interventions early with young

people. It is important we have

tough legislation, but we need to

work in partnership with retailers.

We have consulted on measures

including restrictions on knives

sold online and in 2016 we reached a

voluntary agreement with major

retailers about how knives were

displayed and training given to

staff to support action to tackle

knife crime. She is right to raise

this as a concern.

On the subject of Northern Ireland,

does the Prime Minister stand-by

commitments made in the joint report

of December and will she confirm we

will accept nothing that will

undermine the integrity of the

United Kingdom.

Can I confirm that we stand by all

commitments we made in December. We

have been clear our preferred option

is to deliver them through the new

partnership with the EU with

solutions to address the unique

circumstances in Northern Ireland if

needed. The work we are undertaking

will include that on the final

so-called backdrop that will form

part of the agreement. I cannot

approve the text the commission

proposes. We stand ready to work

with commission and Irish

governments to ensure all

commitments are included in the

withdrawal agreement.

I along with the Prime Minister

absolutely condemn the vile messages

and threatening packages that have

been sent to Muslim members of the

house. Also the rise in Islamophobia

and abusive messages sent to Muslim

families all over the country. It

has to be condemned by all, as we

condemn anybody who attempts to

divide our country by racism or

extremism. We have to stand united

with any community under threat at

any time. I am sure the house will

join me in supporting what the Prime

Minister said about Stephen Hawking,

one of the most acclaimed scientists

of his generation who helped us to

understand about the world and

universe and was also concerned

about peace and the survival of the

world, and also a passionate

campaigner for the NHS. 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 health care, how can it be

possible someone lives and works in

this country, pays taxes, but is

denied access to the NHS for

life-saving cancer treatment?

Can the Prime Minister explain? I

join with him in saying there is no

place in society for hate crime or

racism. We should stand united

against such behaviour and

activities. Can I say to him that we

do ensure, and I am pleased we have

a good record on cancer provision we

make. We see more people surviving

cancer as a result of changes and

developments in the NHS, than ever

before. We works to ensure the

situation we are... The treatments

we are making available of the best

we can. I am not aware of the case

the right honourable gentleman

raises.

raises. But we do want to ensure all

those who are entitled to service

and treatment through the NHS are

able to achieve it. There are

questions around particular drug is

made available to individuals, which

we continue to look at.

I will be

writing to the Prime Minister about

the case. It is a man who has lived

in this country for 44 years, worked

and paid his taxes. He is an older

gentleman and is now denied cancer

treatment. I suspect he is not alone

and I urge her to discuss this with

the Home Office and others. I

received a letter from Hillary, a

British pensioner, and it goes to

the point the Prime Minister just

said, and she says, 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 it is essential we

get back to the 95% target for

accident and emergency waiting times

and he said it should happen, I

quote, in the course of the next

calendar year. The calendar year is

up, can she explain why this is no

longer possible?

On the individual

case I look forward to receiving

details from the right honourable

gentleman. May I take the

opportunity of reminding him I think

he raised a case about Georgina with

me last October and has not written

to me about that.

So... As I say, I look forward to

receiving the details of the case he

has just set out. What we have done

in relation to cancer treatment is

ensure there are more tests taking

place. We see more people being seen

by specialists for suspected cancer

and more people starting treatment

for cancer which is why I say we

have seen an improvement in cancer

treatment available in this country,

and in relation to accident and

emergency, we have more doctors

working in accident and emergency

and we have put more money in, for

winter pressures and to ensure

accident and emergency departments

can provide treatment right for the

patient before them, because for

some, they do not need to be

admitted to hospital, they need to

see a GP. We are working with the

NHS to ensure the treatment patients

receive is right for them.

My

understanding is Georgina's case was

resolved before. Following my

raising it here.

raising it here. If nothing else, Mr

Speaker, it proves the power of

Parliament. Key A&E waiting targets

have not been met since 2015. NHS

managers say they will not be met

until 2019, and February was the

worst ever month for accident and

emergency performances. The NHS

providers director said, this is the

first time we have had to accept 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 the NHS in yesterday's

statement by the Chancellor?

We did

not wait until yesterday's Spring

statement to announce more money, 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 and more

to fund the nurses' pay settlement

when resolved.

when resolved.

Under Labour, the 18

week target for nonurgent operations

was in place. The target has been

abandoned by the Prime Minister.

When will it be reinstated? The

right honourable gentleman talks

under Labour things were being

delivered, perhaps he might look to

see what Labour are doing in Wales.

The latest annual data shows when

looking at 12 hour waiting times in

A&E that 3.4% of patients waited

over 12 hours in Wales, compared to

1.3% in England. If he wants to talk

about meeting targets he should talk

to a Labour government in Wales.

NHS

England abandoned the A&E targets

until April 20 19. It is a bit rich

for the Prime Minister to be

scaremongering about Wales when she

has abandoned targets in England. A

recent...

Order. Lots of questions

to get through.

A recent report

states NHS funding will fall by 0.3%

in 2019. People'slives are at stake.

Is the Prime Minister really saying

A&E doctors are wrong, NHS managers

are wrong, Royal colleges are wrong,

health unions are wrong, and

actually it is only she who knows

best about the NHS?

Can I point out

to the right honourable gentleman,

he talks about scaremongering in

Wales, I was pointing out the facts

about what is happening in the NHS

in Wales. That is why we do see

people in Wales often trying to get

treatment in England, rather than in

Wales. Can I also say, we are

putting more money into the NHS, but

what you need in order to be able to

do that is to ensure you have a

strong economy to provide the money

for the National Health Service.

What we know about Labour's

policies, it would cause a run on

the pound, cause a crash on the

economy and there would be less

money for the NHS.

When people are

dying because of overcrowding and

long waiting in hospitals I think

the Prime Minister should get a grip

on it and ensure the NHS now has the

money it needs to deal with the

patient demands. In a recent

interview the Health Secretary said

of NHS staff, when they signed up to

go into medicine, they knew there

would be pressurised moments. What

they also expected was a

recognition, annual pay rise,

without cuts in paid leave, proper

funding for the NHS. When there are

100,000 unfilled posts, clearly not

enough staff around them to share

the burden. We started with

Professor Stephen Hawking who said a

few months ago, there is

overwhelming evidence that NHS

funding and the number of doctors

and nurses are inadequate, and it is

getting worse.

Does she agree with

Professor Hawking? I am very happy

to point out facts. We have 14,900

more doctors in the NHS, we have

almost 13,900 more nurses working on

our wards, why did we put an

emphasis on nurses working in our

awards? Because of what we saw under

the Labour government in Mid

Staffordshire. And I say this, what

we need to do to ensure we can

provide the funding for the NHS, and

we are providing record levels of

funding for the NHS, is to ensure we

take a balanced approach to the

economy, an approach that deals with

debts, keeps taxes low on working

families, and puts more money into

public services like hospitals and

schools. Labour's approach would

increase debt and mean less money

for schools and hospitals, and it

would mean higher taxes for ordinary

working people because what we know

about the Labour Party, it is always

ordinary people who paid the price

of Labour.

Last week's launch of a consultation

on all aspects of domestic violence

will be widely welcomed in

Gloucester and across the country,

so will the Prime Minister, who has

done so much on these issues,

confirmed today that the Government

intends to increase spending, bed

provision and, when Cesare, women's

refuges so that those who have

survived get the help and save haven

they deserve?

My honourable friend

has raised a very important issue,

which I have not only given

considerable attention to but my

right honourable friend the Home

Secretary continues to follow. It is

a very important point. We are

entirely committed to developing a

sustainable funding model for

refugees. -- refugees. I can

guarantee that funding will continue

to refuges at a similar level to

today because I know how important

it is to people at a time of crisis.

We will increase the funding for

short-term supported housing overall

including Refuges indefinitely,

which means no refuge should worry

about closing or have any doubts

about our commitment to ensuring we

find a sustainable model for them.

Thank you, Mr spigot it can I

associate myself with the remarks of

the Prime Minister and the Labour

Party leader about Islam phobia and

our thoughts are with the family and

friends of doctor Steven Holker in.

Mr Speaker, four months the devolved

administrations have been waiting

for the devolved straight to table

amendments to close 11. On Monday

bees long awaited amendments were

published but without the agreement

of the devolved governments. Can the

Prime Minister Talbot House why

these amendments have been forced on

the devolved administrations?

Can I

say to him, in one sentence he says

he was waiting for this amendment,

and the reason we were taking time

is because we were talking with the

Scottish Government and the Welsh

Government, and when we do publish,

we -- he complains that we have

published it. You need to get his

sorry state it

I would encourage the

Prime Minister to listen to the

question because it was a about

agreement. The Prime Minister

famously claimed that the UK was

made up of equal partners. What an

irony, now that she is overseeing

the demolition of the demolition

settlement. In 1997, the Tories were

happy to oppose the re-establishment

of the Scottish

of the Scottish Parliament. Things

haven't changed. Now in 2018 they

are happy to systematically

destroyed the settlement that the

parliament provides for. Can I call

upon the Prime Minister once again -

stop this attack on devolution and

redouble your efforts in working

with the devolved administrations

and finding agreement.

and finding agreement.

This is a

government that has given more

powers to the Scottish Government,

this is a government that will be

giving more powers to the Scottish

Government, significant extra powers

will be devolved to the Scottish and

Welsh Government as a result of the

decisions we are taking around

Brexit. But we have given more

powers, including, of course, the

tax-raising powers. It is just a

pity that the Scottish Nationalists

have chosen to use their tax-raising

powers on people earning £26,000 or

more.

more.

Horsham last week held an

apprenticeship there, hailed as a

success. Since 2010 there has been a

70% reduction in youth unemployment.

Nationally we see increasing

exports, increasing productivity,

increasing real wages. Were right

honourable friend remind the House

that it is that sustained economic

performance that underpins our

investment in our value public

services?

Can I commend Horsham for

holding an apprenticeship there. It

is important we give young people an

opportunity for those

apprenticeships but he is right, we

can only fund those public services

if we have the strength and our

economy providing the income to

enable us to do that. In the last

few weeks we have seen money factory

output which has grown for several

months for the first time since

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 near a

record high. That is what

Conservatives are doing, delivering

a strong economy, new jobs,

healthier finances, an economy that

is really fit for the future. Mr

Speaker, last week GKN workers came

to Parliament, typically 2530 years'

service, their mums and dads before

them working for a British

engineering icon 259 years old. Sat

opposite were the three fabulously

wealthy owners of Melrose,

determined to stage a hostile

takeover of their company, break it

up and sell it off. Can I ask the

Prime Minister this - she told

parliament she would at a national

interest. The next ten days will

decide the future. Wushu use the

powers she has two intervened to

block this hostile takeover in the

British national interest?

I say to

the honourable gentleman, as he

knows, the Business Secretary has

been speaking to both of these

companies on an impartial basis. We

will always act in the UK national

interest. Actually, it is under this

government that we've seen the

changes introduced to the takeover

code to provide greater transparency

to give target firms more time to

respond. There are a narrow range of

scenarios where ministers can

intervene on mergers on public

interest grounds but we will always

act in the national interest.

act in the national interest.

3157

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 be Government look at

a targeted, time-limited exemption

on this dedicated group of

commissions who do so much for the

health of us all?

This is an

important point. As he will know,

experienced senior hospital doctors

and GPs who become a member of the

National Health Service pensions

scheme benefit from one of the best

defined benefit occupational health

schemes and we provide generous tax

relief stoop allow everyone to build

up a pension pot worth just over £1

million tax-free but the issue he is

raising is that GPs are not

penalised if they work after age 55

but many may have exhausted the

generous allowance for tax relief

that is available by that time. But

I can say to the honourable friend

that the Chancellor of the Exchequer

was listening to a question that he

raised.

The 13th of April this year

represents the 99th

represents the 99th anniversary of a

massacre in India, in which more

than 1000 peaceful protesters were

murdered by soldiers under the

command of general Dire. Will the

Prime Minister join me in

commemorating the massacre and meet

with me and others campaigning for

this shameful episode to be

remembered across the UK?

The

honourable gentleman has raised a

very specific issue and a very

specific point and I will be happy

to look at the question he has

raised with me and respond in

writing.

In my constituency,

Farnborough in the borough of

Rushmore, is the birthplace of

British aviation and now home to a

thriving range of aviation,

aerospace and other businesses. Will

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?

I'm very happy to join

with my honourable friend in wishing

all the very best to the Zephyr team

in the attempt they are making but

he is right that his constituency

plays a very crucial role in the

aerospace industry and 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

that industry and we wish the Zephyr

team well.

UK has the lowest growth

in the G7, so why is the Government

's answer to this to give hand-outs

to 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?

meals?

First of all, the honourable

gentleman might not have noticed

that the wealthiest 1% people in

this country are now paying the

biggest share of tax, 28%, than they

ever did under a Labour government.

If he is referring to the bank levy,

can I also say to him, it was the

Conservative Party that introduced

the bank levy that 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 that is

changing the way we do it so we do

it in a better way, so in future we

will be raising nearly £19 billion

extra from the banks over the next

five years. That is £3 billion more

money from the banks to be spent on

public services.

public services.

Great British food

is produced by hard-working farming

families in this country. As we

produce the new British agricultural

policy, does my right honourable

friend agree with me that supporting

food production in this country is a

public good?

I'm very happy to agree

with my honourable friend. 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, but

also all those who work in our food

production industry and we now have,

as he will know, a historic

opportunity as we leave the EU to

deliver a farming policy that is

going to work for the whole

industry.

Just minutes ago, Facebook

announced that they will be taking

down several pages associated with

the extremist group Britain First.

Does the primaries to join me in

welcoming that, but does she not

also accept that Benny is to be a

clear rule provided by government to

give guidance to social media

companies on how they operate in our

democracy

I certainly welcome at

announcement by Facebook and I'm

pleased to say that my right

honourable friend the Home Secretary

has been working with these

companies to ensure that they do do

more, act more clearly in taking

down material of an extremist

nature, but I'm very pleased to

welcome the announcement that

Facebook has made and I hope other

companies will follow.

May I first

congratulate the Prime Minister on

her pioneering work in fighting

modern day slavery. However, has she

been advised that the central plank

of her law enforcement policy is not

working? With 65 prosecutions of

traffickers abandoned last year

because of victim fear as to their

safety and no reparations orders to

compensate victims for the ordeal is

made against convicted traffickers?

I thank the raising what is a very

important issue. In fact, at the

meeting that I chaired recently in a

matter of two weeks ago, I think it

was, of the Modern Slavery Bill task

force that I have brought together

to bring people from across

government but also from law

enforcement, from the judiciary...

Sorry, from criminal justice more

generally, and from others to look

at how we are working on this, we

are looking at prosecutions and how

we can ensure that more prosecutions

go ahead in future and perpetrators

are brought to justice.

Shockingly

in this country, in 2017, there were

2120 children who were identified as

being a potential victims of child

slavery. I know 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

and we have no idea how many are

trafficked again. In this country in

2018, a modern democracy, that isn't

to not good enough. Can the Prime

Minister tell us what she will do

about that?

He has raised a very

important issue and it has for a

long time where children identified

as the victims of slavery and human

trafficking, and when sometimes we

do see them, sadly, being in a

position where they are then able to

be taken out by traffickers and

resubmitted to the horrible

circumstances that that brings to

them. Just on the point that he is

making about asylum and deportation,

we don't return unaccompanied

children who don't qualify for

asylum or humanitarian protection

unless we can confirm that there are

safe and adequate reception

programmes and arrangements in place

in their home country, and if we

can't confirm such arrangements we

grant temporary leave up until the

child is 17.5. We confirmed our

commitment to roll 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 they are given the support

they need and they don't fall back

into the hands of traffickers.

Like

many towns and cities across the

country, Telford has had some

experiences of 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 honourable friend join me in

congratulating two brave women,

campaigner Holly archer and Sunday

Mirror journalist Geraldine McKelvey

for their working bringing this

about and will she do everything

possible to ensure this inquiry

starts without delay and leaves no

stone unturned?

I think we have all been shocked by

the horrific case we have seen in

Telford or some of the most

vulnerable being preyed upon by

ruthless criminals.

Sadly this is

not the first example we have seen

taking place across our country. I

am happy to join my honourable

friend in congratulating Holly and

Geraldine for their work. It is not

easy but it is right they have

brought this to light and action can

be taken and I am pleased the

authorities will conduct an enquiry.

It is important it begins its work

in order to get to the truth does it

as quickly as possible. I understand

my honourable friend will meet

Parliamentary Under Secretary for

crime, safeguarding and

vulnerability to discuss this.

Shortly after the Prime Minister

took office she said 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 she wanted a country that

works for everyone, but with the

recent IFS report stating 37% of

children are set to live in poverty

by 2022, what went wrong, Prime

Minister?

Minister?

We have seen 200,000 fewer

children living in absolute poverty

under this government. We continue

to take action to ensure we are

helping families get a regular

income by helping people into work,

we are ensuring the lowest paid get

that pay increase, through

increasing the national living wage,

and ensuring we help people with the

standard of living by cutting taxes

for 31 million people.

Is she aware

the inspirational music man project

in Southend that works with people

who have learning difficulties has

now set a world record for tinkling

of the most number of triangles

ever? Does my right honourable

friend agree that is yet another

reason why Southend should be made a

city, and will she please now

organise a contest with her

honourable friends so that Southend

becomes the first post Brexit city?

I am very happy to congratulate the

music man project in Southend for

the record achieved in tinkling

triangles. I am sure he has heard

his bid for Southend to become a

city. I have to say that of course

there will be a number of members of

the house who will put forward their

own towns for that accolade. I knew

a city had to have a cathedral, I

did not know it had to have tinkling

triangles and!

The Prime Minister

will be

will be aware 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 he 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?

There is a

case before the courts at the moment

and I understand as part of the case

the parole board will be required to

explain the reasons why they took

the decision but in terms of the

overall issue of parole board

decisions, when this decision became

clear, my right honourable friend

the then Justice Secretary called

for work to be done which is being

continued under the current Justice

Secretary to look at the question of

decisions and transparency around

them.

Thank you. I am immensely

proud to have the world's leading

teaching hospital of Adam Brookes in

my constituency. Their excellence

means they rely heavily on doctors

from overseas but of late have

struggled to bring doctors in

because of restrictions on visa

numbers and with applications

reducing, it is a problem. Can you

reassure me and Adam

reassure me and Adam -- the

hospital?

I am aware of that

particular issue. In the longer

term, one of the things we are doing

is to ensure we can train more

doctors in the UK but I am aware of

the issue she has raised.

I will

look into it. Last year the Prime

Minister acknowledged our social

care system is broken and promised

to fix it. Since then two care

providers in Crewe and Nantwich have

been placed in special measures and

another is worried it may close

because of a lack of funding. What

do she say to providers whose state

the local government settlement does

not go far enough and they cannot

afford to wait for the government

green paper?

I would say that as she

will know, I have always said there

were short-term measures that needed

to be taken in terms of pressure on

social care and medium and long-term

measures. In the short-term we have

provided more funding, 2 billion

extra was announced by the

Chancellor. We are seeing more money

going into social care in local

authorities. In the medium term we

need to assure best practice is

spread across the country and we

also need to ensure we can develop a

long-term sustainable funding model

and that is what we continue to work

on.

It is sadly a matter of public

record that RBS and HBOS

deliberately asset stripped

thousands of potentially viable

businesses to benefit their own bank

or bankers. Evidence before the High

Court indicates Lloyds might also

beat guilty of the same. Would she

considered the cause of the

all-party group for their business

banking, which has been endorsed by

the chief executive Andrew Bailey

for a public inquiry into this

disgraceful scandal?

This is an

issue of concern to many. Small

businesses the backbone of the

economy and we need to ensure we

learn lessons from what happened at

RBS and HBOS. The SCA has reported

areas of widespread inappropriate

treatment of firms by RBS, who

apologised and set up a compensation

scheme for victims. There an

investigation conducted by the SCA

into RBS and also they are

undertaking separate investigations

into HBOS but we will continue to

work with the regulator and industry

to ensure small and medium

businesses get the support they

need.

Since Christmas there have

been five high-profile gun crimes in

Haringey, including last Thursday

when a 19-year-old young man was

shot in the head with the Marx man

on the back of the mopeds, to the

entrance of the cinema inward green.

We know our streets are plagued by

knife crime, now the intent to kill

with a gun takes the epidemic to a

new level. It cannot go one. Will

the Prime Minister meet with me and

community leaders to put an end to

this epidemic of gun crime?

this epidemic of gun crime?

I

suggest she meets with the Home

Secretary who will publish a

strategy in relation to this issue

of serious violence that takes

place. We are concerned about... The

use of mopeds has been used for

snatching amasses what we have been

looking at and working on with the

police but on the issue of gun

crime, I am sure my right honourable

friend will meet her.

friend will meet her.

Could I agree

entirely with what the member said,

the Prime Minister has done more

than anyone to end the terrible

modern day slavery but we have one

problem and that is the treatment of

child victims. They are put in the

care of local authorities. They are

then trafficked again. Could we have

a system like we do for adults when

safe homes all provided Sentry, not

by local government, so that

trafficking again can not occur? He

follows up on an important point

about child victims of trafficking.

I will look at the issue he has

raised. The Independent child

advocates I referred to was one way

where we can give greater support to

child victims to ensure we do not

see them being lost to the local

authorities and trafficked again

because it is a scandal when a

victim goes into the care of the

local authority and somebody comes

along and removes them from care and

takes them back into slavery.

Order.

Statement.

Do everything

I set out that Sergei Skripal and

his daughter were poisoned with

Novichok, a military grade nerve

agent developed by Russia.

The UK Government concluded it was

highly likely it was Russia who was

responsible for this reckless and

despicable act. There were only two

plausible explanations, either a

direct act by the Russian state

against our country or the Russian

government could have lost control

of the military grade nerve agent

and allowed it to get into the hands

of others. Mr Speaker it was right

to offer Russia the opportunity to

provide an explanation. Their

response has demonstrated complete

disdain for the gravity of these

events. They have provided no

credible explanation that could

suggest they lost control of their

nerve agent. No explanation as to

how this agent came to be used in

the United Kingdom, no explanation

as to why Russia has a chemical

weapons programme not declared in

contravention of international law.

Instead, they have treated the use

of the military grade nerve agent in

Europe with sarcasm, contempt and

defiance. Mr Speaker, there is no

alternative conclusion other than

the Russian state was culpable for

the attempted murder of Sergei

Skripal and his daughter and for

threatening the lives of other

British citizens in Salisbury,

including Detective Sergeant Nick

Bailey. It is an unlawful use of

force by the Russian state against

the UK. 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 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 on

Monday May clear, it is essential we

come together with 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

meeting of the National Security

Council where we agreed immediate

action 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 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 immediate actions. The house

will recall that following the

murder of Mr Litvinenko, the UK

expelled four diplomats. Under the

Vienna Convention on the United

Kingdom will now expelled 23 Russian

diplomats, who have been identified

as undeclared intelligence officers.

They have just one week to leave. It

will be the single biggest expulsion

for over 30 years and reflects the

fact it is not the first time 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 they seek

to rebuild it, we will prevent them

from doing so. We will urgently

develop proposals for new powers to

harden defences against all forms of

hostile state activity. It will

include the addition of the targeted

power to detain those suspected of

hostile state activity at the UK

border. This power is only permitted

currently in relation to those

suspected of terrorism. I have asked

the Home Secretary to consider

whether there is a need for new

counter espionage powers to clamp

down on the

As I set out on Monday we will table

a government amendment to... In

doing so, we will play our part in

an international effort to punish

those responsible for the sorts of

abuses suffered by surrogate

Magnitsky and I hope, as with all

the measures I'm setting out today,

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 of the UK and bye

allies, so we will increase checksum

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 and, led by

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. Mr Speaker,

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 - engaged but

beware - and I continue to believe

it is not in our national interest

to break off all dialogue between

the UK and the Russian Federation.

But in the aftermath of this

appalling attack against our

country, this relationship cannot be

the same so we will suspend all

planned high level bilateral

contacts between the UK and the

Russian Federation. This includes

revoking the invitation to Foreign

Minister Lovegrove to pay a

reciprocal visit to the UK and

confirming there will be no

attendance by ministers or bumpers

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. We will set out some

of these measures today. Members on

all sides will understand that there

are some that cannot...

are some that cannot... Should we

face further Russian provocation.

None of the actions we take are

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 life or 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've spoken to

President Trump, Chancellor Merkel

and President Macron. We have agreed

to cooperate closely in responding

to this barbaric act and coordinate

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 and 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. Mr Speaker, 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 of 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 and I commend

this statement to the house.

Jeremy

Corbyn.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I

would like to thank the Prime

Minister Brad Barnes side of her

statement and echo absolutely her

words about the service of our

emergency services. -- for advanced

site. The attack in Salisbury was an

appalling act of violence. Nerve

agents are abominable if used in any

walk. It is utterly reckless to use

them in a civilian environment. This

attack on Britain has concerned our

allies in the European Union, Nato

and the UN and their words of

solidarity has strengthened our

position diplomatically. Our