Raab and Robbins' evidence to Commons European scrutiny committee - Summary
Here are the main points from the evidence given by Dominic Raab, the Brexit secretary, and Olly Robbins, the prime minister’s chief Brexit adviser, to the European scrutiny committee. Much to the visible annoyance of Raab, some MPs on the committee were more interested in hearing from Robbins than from Raab. This committee, which until Brexit used to be one of the most obscure in parliament, has always attracted a disproportion share of hardline Eurosceptics, and amongst Brexiters Robbins is something of a hate figure; they suspect him of fighting a behind-the-scenes campaign to make Brexit as soft as possible. But Robbins managed to dead-bat the hostile questions quite easily, and most of the news came from Raab, although it was an MP on the committee who probably produced the best line.
- Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, told a private meeting that the Chequers plans were “mortes [dead]”, the MPs were told. Barnier met the Commons Brexit committee in Brussels on Monday. Several MPs have already said that Barnier described the Chequers plans as unacceptable, but Stephen Kinnock, a member of the Brexit committee and the European scrutiny committee, this afternoon came out with the exact phrase he says he thought Barnier used: “Les propositions sont mortes.” (See 4.07pm.) Raab said that he would not take Kinnock’s word for it and that he wanted to hear from Barnier himself. He will get a chance tomorrow.
Looking forward to meeting @DominicRaab again tomorrow, continuing our work on the #Brexit Withdrawal Agreement & on finding common ground between #EUCO March guidelines and Chequers w/ a view to creating a new, ambitious partnership, as I said on Monday to @CommonsEUexit
— Michel Barnier (@MichelBarnier) September 5, 2018
- Robbins said that the cabinet did not discuss the plan for a common rulebook on goods with the EU until the Chequers meeting at which the white paper was agreed. “It was the first time that the Cabinet had discussed it, yes,” he said. The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg says this supports Brexiter suspicions that Theresa May was bouncing her ministers into backing her plans.
Olly Robbins just said Chequers was first time full Cabinet had discussed the 'common rule book' - quite something if you think how big a policy decision that was - her critics will see this as evidence of a classic May 'bounce' -
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) September 5, 2018
Stewart Jackson, the Brexiter former Tory MP who served as David Davis’s chief of staff when Davis was Brexit secretary, re-stated that charge this afternoon.
Most Cabinet Ministers received the details of the #Chequers agenda at 2pm on Thursday 5th July with the complex Common Rulebook and FCA details. In no way was there a proper debate and it was certainly not an iterative process. To say it was is untrue. https://t.co/tqALIsyql1
— Stewart Jackson (@BrexitStewart) September 5, 2018
- Raab said the UK could strike “no deal deals” with the EU, covering certain issues, in the event of there being no overall deal. (See 4.40pm.)
- Raab brushed aside claims from Conservatives on the committee that the Chequers planned was doomed. Sir Bill Cash, the Brexiter chairman, said the government should put the Chequers plan “out of its misery”. And David Jones, a former Brexit minister, told Raab he was “flogging a deal horse” by arguing for Chequers. Raab replied to Jones:
This is a negotiation with the EU so you are going to hear noises from various sides that are critical. That is an inherent part of a sensitive, contentious negotiation like this but you should be in no doubt that we are making good progress.
- Raab said that a Canada-style trade deal - the option favoured by hardline Tory Brexiters - would be unacceptable because it would involve the UK having to accept the Northern Ireland backstop, potentially for good. He said:
The suggestion that has been made [that the UK should accept the Canada-style deal being offered by the EU] - I think you need to accept the small print of the offer that is being made in relation to the appendage of the backstop the EU is proposing, which ultimately would involve a limbo period to be determined ... which could proceed indefinitely.
- He said some in the EU were using the Irish border issue to put pressure on the UK. He said:
There are clearly some in some quarters of the EU who appreciate this is a political pressure point on the UK. And this is a negotiation, people apply pressure points and I think you are right about that.
Two Brexiter MPs on the committee, Kate Hoey and Richard Drax, told Raab they thought the difficulties posed by the Irish border were being exaggerated. Drax said the issue had been “blown out of all proportion” and Hoey said the problem was “ridiculously over-hyped”. Raab did not accept their arguments, saying he saw it as a genuine problem.
- Robbins hinted that some aspects of the Chequers plan may have been discussed with the EU before being presented to the cabinet. As the Sun’s Harry Cole says, this is likely to annoy Brexiters.
Robbins pushed hard on whether he had shared contents of Chequers with Brussels before it was presented to Cabinet. Here is his answer.. that is set to enrage Brexiteers... pic.twitter.com/11TIoUt0Am
— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) September 5, 2018
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Updated
Asked about the Bloomberg report suggesting that Britain and Germany are happy to accept a Brexit deal that is vague about the future relationship (see 3.52pm), the prime minister’s spokesman said:
We have always set out that when parliament votes on this, it needs to be a meaningful vote based on proper information.
We have always been clear that parliament needs to be able to make an informed decision, and parliament has also been clear on that. There is no change in that position.
There will be a UN security council meeting on Thursday for the UK to update other nations on the latest Salisbury investigations, Theresa May’s spokesman told the afternoon lobby briefing. May has also discussed the developments with the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, he said.
In other diplomatic moves, the Russian charges d’affaires in London – diplomatic-speak for the deputy ambassador – has been summoned to the Foreign Office to, as the spokesman said, “account for the actions of the GRU”.
It was the charges d’affaires called in as the ambassador is not currently in the UK, we were told.
The Parliament TV live feed from the committee has cut off. But they were about to finish, and there is now a division in the Commons (meaning it would have to suspend anyway), and so it is probably save to assume it’s over.
I will post a summary soon.
Labour’s Geraint Davies asks for an assurance that no diabetics will die because of a shortage of insulin after a no deal Brexit.
Raab says that sort of scaremongering is not worthy of the committee. But he says the government has plans to ensure there are supplies of medicine.
Q: People did not vote for a no deal Brexit. So will you accept that, if we are heading for a no deal Brexit, they should get a vote?
Raab says he will not. If that is what Labour wanted, it should have backed an amendment to that effect when the EU withdrawal bill was in the Commons. He says he agrees with the warnings from Barry Gardiner, the international trade secretary, about how having a second referendum could lead to unrest.
David Jones asks Raab why he is “flogging a dead horse” and pushing Chequers when so many MPs are opposed to it.
Raab says he does not accept that analysis. He says, when MPs are faced with a binary choice, things will look different.
Raab says, when one side in a negotiation complains to the media, that is normally a sign they are under pressure. He says he will not accept Stephen Kinnock’s version of what Michel Barnier.
Raab says there are three types of action that the UK could take with the EU in the event of there being no deal. The two sides could just coordinate what they do, without a legal agreement; there could be MoUs (memorandums of understanding); or there could be more formal agreements, he says.
Raab says there could be 'no deal deals' with the EU in some areas if Brexit negotiations break down
David Jones, the Conservative former Brexit minister, goes next.
Q: David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, said that if there was no over-arching deal, there would still be mini deals on particular issues. Is that still the government’s expectation?
Raab says that is a good question.
He does not want to talk up the prospects of no deal, he says.
But, if there were to be no deal, there would be various mitigating things the government could do. You could have MoUs (memorandums of understanding). Or there could be no deal deals, he says.
He says the government has discussed this with the European commission. Some of these things would require the agreement of the other side.
- Raab says there could be “no deal deals” with the EU in some areas if the Brexit negotiations break down.
Q: Are these talks happening already?
In some areas, such as those involving the Bank of England, yes, they are, says Raab.
Updated
Q: Given the revelations about Vote Leave breaking election spending rules, are you embarrassed to be involved in such disastrous decisions based on illegality?
Raab says there have been allegations about both sides.
Labour’s Darren Jones goes next.
Q: How much of the future partnership is agreed?
Raab says the ‘80% agreed’ figure applies to the withdrawal agreement. He says he could not put a figure on how much of the future partnership is agreed, but he said on the security aspects they are in “a good place”.
And he refers to what Michel Barnier said about this in his statement on Friday. Here is the key quote from Barnier.
On internal security, we are ready to build an ambitious partnership with the United Kingdom, which will become a third country, as was its wish, outside of Schengen.
In keeping with the European council guidelines, this partnership would consist of four pillars: the effective exchange of information; the support for law enforcement cooperation; judicial cooperation in criminal matters; and an ambitious partnership to combat money laundering and terrorism financing.
The UK’s white paper contains, I would like to repeat, positive guarantees on the protection of fundamental rights and the recognition of the European court of justice as the ultimate arbiter of EU law.
But we need to now discuss how to translate these guarantees concretely.
Subject to full reciprocity and guarantees on procedural rights for suspects, we now have the elements to build a close and effective relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom on several subjects which are very important for citizens: a framework for extradition mechanisms; reciprocal cooperation on airplane passenger data to better trace and identify the individuals involved in terrorist acts; the exchange of DNA data, fingerprints and vehicle data.
Kelvin Hopkins, the independent MP (because he is suspended from Labour), goes next.
Q: If the EU does not comply with the agreement, will the UK stop paying the £40bn?
Raab says he is confident the UK will get a good deal. He will not go into a deal-making process “expecting one side to welch”.
Barnier told MPs the Chequers plans 'sont mortes [are dead]', Stephen Kinnock reveals
Kinnock repeats his points about Barnier saying the Chequers deal was “dead in the water”.
Raab asks Kinnock if that is what Barnier said, or if that is Kinnock’s summary.
Kinnock says Barnier was speaking in French. He says the transcript will be published in due course. He says he thinks he heard Barnier say something like: “Les propositions sont mortes.”
Updated
Raab says some of the concern raised by the EU reflects their worry that the UK could have a competitive advantage after Brexit. That should give MPs confidence, he says.
Labour’s Stephen Kinnock goes next. Kinnock also sits on the Commons Brexit committee, and he said that when that committee met Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, in Brussels on Monday, Barnier made it “crystal clear” that the Chequers plan was unacceptable. What is plan B?
Raab says in an negotiation of course one side wants to push back against what it’s offered.
He says MPs should not let themselves be used by the other side.
Robbins says Barnier says the EU is opposed to allowing the UK to collect tariffs on its behalf. Yet it does accept this in its plan for the Northern Irish backstop. He says the UK is trying to tease out why the EU finds this objectionable.
Barnier also claims that you cannot distinguish between goods and services because services make up a large part of the value of goods now.
He says services can be regulated separately. If a vehicle comes with a maintenance package, a buyer could choose not to accept that package.
The other point is that service expertise contributes to the value of new goods. But Robbins says this factor has not stopped the EU reaching trade deals, like the one with Canada, focusing on goods.
According to Bloomberg, the UK and Germany have both dropped their demand that the Brexit withdrawal agreement must contain a detailed plan for the future trade relationship. In other words, they are more included to accept a fudge - or a “blind Brexit”, as some call it. Bloomberg says the pound rose in value when this was reported.
Here is an excerpt from the Bloomberg story.
Germany is ready to accept a less detailed agreement on the U.K.’s future economic and trade ties with the EU in a bid to get a Brexit deal done, according to people speaking on condition of anonymity because the discussions are private. The U.K. side is also willing to settle for a vaguer statement of intent on the future relationship, postponing some decisions until after Brexit day, according to an official who declined to be named ...
Initially, both sides wanted a detailed outline of what the future relationship would look like as part of the first stage. Negotiators in the U.K. and EU were once planning a document of up to 100 pages; now it could be just a 10th of that, officials say.
The pound rose on the news, trading 0.9 percent higher at $1.2970 at 2:18 p.m. in London.
Raab says that, if the UK was not bound by a common rulebook for goods, it would have more flexibility to offer concessions to other countries in trade deals.
Q: Do you expect the full future relationship to be agreed by next March?
Raab says he expects heads of agreement to be agreed by March. But he says he hopes it will look like an instruction to negotiators. It should very clear about the choices being made.
He says MPs would not be happy about signing up to a withdrawal agreement if it is “nebulous and unclear” about the final destination.
He says he wants this in place by the time of the EU summit in October. But there may be a “modicum of leeway”, he says.
The SNP’s Philippa Whitford asks about the amendment passed in the Commons saying the UK cannot collect tariffs on behalf of the EU unless that is reciprocated.
Raab says the government is confident the white paper plans are consistent with the amendment.
He says there is a difference between tariffs being paid up front and remittances being paid at a later stage.
Q: But clause 54 in the customs bill will make it unlawful.
Raab says the government has looked at this carefully and taken legal advice. He says the white paper plans would be lawful under the amendment.
Raab says the implementation period, at 21 months, will be “much shorter” than many people feared.
He says the UK could not agree to remain in a backstop situation for a “limbo period”.
Here is the Economist’s Brexit editor John Peet on the hearing so far.
By focusing on history this afternoon’s scrutiny committee show reveals today’s Brexiteer narrative: all would have been well had HMG not given in so easily and so early to EU demands. So it’s May’s fault not the Brexiteers’
— John Peet (@JohnGPeet) September 5, 2018
Briefing journalists after the Salisbury statement, Jeremy Corbyn’s official spokesman gave a robust defence of the Labour leader’s approach in March, when the PM first attributed the attack to Russia, and some Labour MPs condemned their leader’s response as lacklustre.
“Jeremy took a proportionate, evidence-based approach to what took place, which was the right approach, and it’s been a step-by-step approach ever since,” he said.
Corbyn received a briefing from the security forces on Wednesday morning, and his spokesman said it had now become clear that the Russian state was directly involved in the attack.
“It’s clear now that very strong evidence points to Russian state culpability, and obviously Jeremy condemns the Russian state for that culpability”, he said.
He pointed to Corbyn’s remarks in the House that Labour would support “reasonable and effective action,” against Russia, adding that the most effective approach would be, “financial action against the use of London by the oligarchs linked to the Russian state”.
Asked about remarks six months ago comparing the Salisbury situation to the claims about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) made in the run-up to the Iraq war, the spokesman said Labour’s point then had been “as much about the political use of the intelligence, as the intelligence itself”.
Robbins says he has had very difficult conversations with Irish officials where he has said that what the EU put forward on the Irish border backstop earlier this year took very little account of the realities of British politics.
HOEY trying to put Robbins on the rack, but he is rescued by Raab. pic.twitter.com/qooMARJcw8
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) September 5, 2018
Updated
Raab says some in EU using Irish border issue as 'pressure point' in Brexit negotiations
Q: [To Raab] Do you understand why so many people are surprised the Irish border is such a big issue, given the fact that a border between the Republic and Northern Ireland operates already? Do you agree some people are using this to make Brexit seem as difficult as possible?
Raab says there are different views as to how intractable this issue is. He says he sees it as genuine issue that needs to be resolved. But he says he thinks some in the EU are using this as a “pressure point”.
- Raab some some in the EU are using the Irish border issue as a “pressure point” in the Brexit negotiations.
Labour’s Kate Hoey, a Brexiter, goes next.
She asks Robbins if he has visited Northern Ireland in his capacity as Brexit adviser. He says he has been to Dublin but not to Belfast.
Tory MP Richard Drax tells Dominic Raab and Olly Robbins that Northern Ireland border issue is overblown.
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) September 5, 2018
Drax: "The Northern Ireland issue has been blown out of all proportion. This is being used sadly, in part, to make the withdrawal difficult"
Raab says Canada-style free trade deal favoured by Tory Brexiters would be unacceptable
Raab says he hopes people critical of the Chequers plan will apply the same scrutiny to alternative plans. He says those advocating a Canada-style free trade deal have to explain why that would not lead to the Northern Ireland backstop arrangements staying in place for perpetuity.
- Raab says a Canada-style free trade deal (of the kind favoured by Tory Brexiters) would be unacceptable because of the Irish border problem.
Updated
The Conservative Richard Drax goes next. He addresses Olly Robbins.
Q: Are you firmly behind leaving the EU?
Robbins says he is firmly behind serving the government of the day, as he has been ever since he joined the civil service.
He says his personal views do not affect how he serves the government of the day.
Olly Robbins loyalty to Brexit is questions by Richard Drax, Tory MP on select committee. Thru gritted teeth he tells Drax that "no part" of his personal views on any matter play a role in how he serve any government. pic.twitter.com/79dGm9X9Pt
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) September 5, 2018
Updated
Q: Has the EU made any concessions?
Raab says the EU has agreed the UK can negotiate future trade deals during the transition. And in some of the areas where agreement has been reached, the EU has made concessions.
Q: We seem to have made considerable concessions, but the EU hasn’t.
Raab says, because of the sequencing, the UK had had to make concessions earlier. It it in the talks on the future relationship that the “sunny uplands” beckon. He says, when the final deal is achieved, David Jones will see the “balance” he is looking for.
David Jones, the Conservative former Brexit minister, goes next.
Q: Why did the British government agree to what the EU wanted to terms of the sequencing of the talks?
Robbins says the UK agreed with the EU to start by focusing on the issues the EU wanted to discuss in phase one of the talks.
Q: Wasn’t that a concession?
Robbins says the UK agreed on the basis that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?
Q: Hasn’t the UK made a series of concessions, on the European court of justice and on money?
Robbins says he and Raab agree that, under article 50, the withdrawal agreement and the future partnership will be linked.
Dominic Raab and Olly Robbins questioned by MPs about Brexit
Dominic Raab, the Brexit secretary, and Olly Robbins, the prime minister’s chief Brexit advisers, are now giving evidence to the Commons European scrutiny committee.
Sir Bill Cash, the Tory Brexiter chair, starts by saying that Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, has effectively declared the Chequers agreement dead.
Raab takes issue with that. Referring to the recent remarks from Barnier on the Chequers plan, Raab says the full transcript of what Barnier said showed that he said some positive things about it.
The May statement is now over.
Here are contributions from two senior MPs not mentioned already.
Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster, said the UK should unite against Russia.
There must always be robust response to the use of terror on our streets. Let me reassure the prime minister that the Scottish National party is committed to working constructively with the Government to ensure we do all we can to protect the public.
And Dominic Grieve, the Conservative who chairs the intelligence and security committee, said Russia was a gangster state.
[Theresa May] is absolutely right in her identification of the Russian state. What we are at the moment is the victim of state terrorism by a state which is in fact run as a gangster organisation and which threatens us all and has done it repeatedly on the international stage and is wholly outside the international rules-based system.
Grieve also said it was important to consider how easily Russians could enter the country.
It clearly is going to become a pertinent issue when it becomes so apparent that the system is being abused by the Russian state for the purpose of sending [hoods] and murderers to come into our country to kill our citizens and those who are protected by us.
Theresa May spoke by phone with US President Donald Trump on Tuesday evening to update him on the latest development in the Salisbury investigation, the PM’s official spokesman said.
Updated
In the Commons May is still responding to questions. The SNP’s Chris Law asks if further Russians will be deported.
May says this only happens if the home secretary has the required level of evidence.
This is from Tom Tugendhat, the Conservative chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee.
We now know: Russian GRU agents came to the UK with the intention of using chemical weapons on our streets. There is no doubt it was state ordered and President Putin bears responsibility for a war-like act.
— Tom Tugendhat (@TomTugendhat) September 5, 2018
Russia has brushed aside the allegations against its two nationals. The Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the names of the men and their photos “say nothing to us.”
Zakharova also called on Britain to cooperate with Russian law enforcement agencies on the investigation. And she criticised London for turning down Moscow’s request to see the case files.
The Conservative MP Sir Desmond Swayne asks May to confirm that when she said in her statement that the Salisbury attack was “almost certainly also approved outside the GRU at a senior level of the Russian state”, she meant that President Putin ordered it.
May says what she meant was that it was approved outside the GRU at a senior level of the Russian state.
The Labour MP Chris Leslie asks May if she will condemn the “cranks and ideological extremists” who do not accept that Russia was to blame and who are sowing mistrust of the security services. May says she agrees.
May says review of 14 allegedly suspicious deaths linked to Russia has concluded there is no case for further investigation
The Conservative MP John Whittingdale asks May if the cases of Russians who died on British soil are being re-investigated to see if they are suspicious. (A BuzzFeed investigation earlier this year said there were 14 deaths where murder was ruled out despite there being suspicious circumstances.)
May says the home secretary will soon be writing to the Commons home affairs committee, which raised this issue. The cases were reviewed., But she says she understands the review concluded there was “no cause for further consideration of those cases”.
- May says review of 14 allegedly suspicious deaths linked to Russia has concluded there is no case for further investigation.
Highlights from Theresa May's statement to MPs about Russia and the novichok investigation
Here are edited extracts from Theresa May’s statement.
Much of the first half of the statement mirrored what the Met said about its investigation in the statement issued earlier. (See 11.53pm.) The most interesting material came in the second half.
On the two Russian suspects being Russian military intelligence officers
We were right to say in March that the Russian State was responsible.
And now we have identified the individuals involved, we can go even further.
Mr Speaker, just as the police investigation has enabled the CPS to bring charges against the two suspects, so the Security and Intelligence Agencies have carried out their own investigations into the organisation behind this attack.
Based on this work, I can today tell the House that, based on a body of intelligence, the Government has concluded that the two individuals named by the police and CPS are officers from the Russian military intelligence service, also known as the GRU.
The GRU is a highly disciplined organisation with a well-established chain of command.So this was not a rogue operation. It was almost certainly also approved outside the GRU at a senior level of the Russian state.
On steps being taken to bring the suspects to justice
Let me turn to our response to this appalling attack and the further knowledge we now have about those responsible.
First, with respect to the two individuals, as the Crown Prosecution Service and Police announced earlier today, we have obtained a European Arrest Warrant and will shortly issue an Interpol red notice.
Of course, Russia has repeatedly refused to allow its nationals to stand trial overseas, citing a bar on extradition in its constitution.
So, as we found following the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, any formal extradition request in this case would be futile.But should either of these individuals ever again travel outside Russia, we will take every possible step to detain them, to extradite them and to bring them to face justice here in the United Kingdom.
On Russia’s conduct generally
Mr Speaker, this chemical weapons attack on our soil was part of a wider pattern of Russian behaviour that persistently seeks to undermine our security and that of our allies around the world.
They have fomented conflict in the Donbas, illegally annexed Crimea, repeatedly violated the national airspace of several European countries and mounted a sustained campaign of cyber espionage and election interference.
They were behind a violent attempted coup in Montenegro. And a Russian-made missile, launched from territory held by Russian-backed separatists, brought down MH17.
On further action being taken against Russia
Mr Speaker, our allies acted in good faith - and the painstaking work of our police and intelligence agencies over the last six months further reinforces that they were right to do so.
Together, we will continue to show that those who attempt to undermine the international rules based system cannot act with impunity.
We will continue to press for all of the measures agreed so far to be fully implemented, including the creation of a new EU Chemical Weapons sanctions regime.
But we will not stop there.
We will also push for new EU sanctions regimes against those responsible for cyber-attacks and gross human rights violations - and for new listings under the existing regime against Russia.
And we will work with our partners to empower the OPCW to attribute chemical weapons attacks to other states beyond Syria.
Most significantly, Mr Speaker, what we have learnt from today’s announcement is the specific nature of the threat from the Russian GRU.
We know that the GRU has played a key part in malign Russian activity in recent years.
And today we have exposed their role behind the despicable chemical weapons attack on the streets of Salisbury.
The actions of the GRU are a threat to all our allies and to all our citizens.
And on the basis of what we have learnt in the Salisbury investigation - and what we know about this organisation more broadly - we must now step up our collective efforts, specifically against the GRU.We are increasing our understanding of what the GRU is doing in our countries, shining a light on their activities, exposing their methods and sharing them with our allies, just as we have done with Salisbury.
And, Mr Speaker, while the House will appreciate that I cannot go into details, together with our allies we will deploy the full range of tools from across our National Security apparatus in order to counter the threat posed by the GRU.
The Labour MP Pat McFadden says the first duty of any PM is to protect the public and to be clear-eyed about the threat the country faces.
That sounded like a clear jibe at Corbyn.
McFadden goes on to ask why the government thinks Russia launched this attack.
May thanks McFadden for his comment. It is not for her to comment on Russian motives, she says. But she says she suspects that they wanted to send a message to other Russians living abroad.
May criticises Corbyn for refusing to accept Russia to blame for novichok poisoning
Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster, clearly condemned Russia in his response to May’s statement.
In her response, May picked up on this and used it as a springboard to make a more pointed attack on Corbyn. She said she welcomed what Blackford said, and wished that every party leader in the Commons was able to clearly condemn Russia in the same way.
In his response to May, Corbyn did condemn Russia, but he condemned it for not cooperating with the investigation. And he condemned the attack. But he did not say that he accepted that the Russian state was behind the attack (although he did not say he thought it wasn’t to blame either.)
- May criticises Corbyn for refusing to accept that the Russian state was to blame for the novichok poisoning.
Boris Johnson, the former foreign secretary, says MPs will have noticed the “somewhat weaselly” language used by Jeremy Corbyn in relation to Russia.
I think the whole House will have noted what I’m afraid was the somewhat weaselly language of the leader of the opposition in failing to condemn what is now, I think, incontrovertible, in the eyes of all right-thinking people, involvement of the Russian state at the highest level in the Salisbury poisonings.
May says if the two individuals leave Russia, the UK will do everything possible to ensure they are brought to justice.
Updated
May is replying to Corbyn.
She says the UK has issued an interpol red notice and a European arrest warrant for the two suspects. But Russia does not allow extradition, she says.
She says the UK has repeatedly asked Russia to account for what happened. Yet Russia repeatedly responded “with obfuscation and lies”.
She says this decision would have been taken at a high level in the Russian state.
They must rein in the activities of the GRU, she says.
She says she hopes that those who were cautious about blaming Russia in March (she is referring to Corbyn) will now accept it was to blame.
She says Corbyn asked for the OPCW to be able to attribute blame. But Russia vetoes this, she says.
Jeremy Corbyn starts by thanking May for advance sight of the statement, and for security briefings.
The use of a nerve agent in Salisbury is an outrage, he says. He says he visited the city.
He says he commends the police for their superhuman efforts in the investigation.
Given the two Russians have been charged, what is May doing to get Russia to cooperate in bringing them to trial.
He says the OPCW findings in this case are a sharp reminder of how the international community must act against chemical weapons.
He says the use of this nerve agent is a breach of international law.
Russia must explain how it came to be used in the UK, he says. He urges May to use OPCW procedures to press for this.
He asks what May has done to hold this to account.
He asks if the government will take any more effective actions against Russia as a state, or against the GRU.
Corbyn says there is no international mechanism for attributing chemical weapons attacks to particular perpetrators. What is May doing to change this?
What lessons have been learned from this?
Corbyn says he condemns the appalling attacks. He says he commends the police and security services for their work.
He says he will support any reasonable efforts to bring those responsible to account. And he condemns Russia for not cooperating with the investigation.
Updated
May says in March Russia tried to sow doubt about the UK’s claims. Some were minded to believe them. But the government has been proved right, she says.
May says today’s announcement shows the specific nature of the threat from the Russian GRU.
She says the actions of the GRU are “a threat to all our allies and all our citizens”.
She says we must step up our collective efforts against it.
She says the UK is sharing intelligence with allies about it.
She says the UK will “deploy the full range of tools from across our national security apparatus” to counter the GRU.
The UK has no disagreement with the Russian people, she says.
But there can be no place for the kind of “barbaric activity” seen in Salisbury.
May ends by paying tribute to the people of Salisbury, and how they responded, as well as to the police and those in the intelligence community.
May says the UK’s allies were right to retaliate against Russia after the Salisbury attack.
May says, if the two Russian suspects ever leave Russia, the UK will try to have them arrested.
May says two Russians suspects accused of novichok poisoning worked for Russian military intelligence
May says the government was right to say in March the Russian state was responsible.
Now she can go further, she says.
She can tell MPs that, based on a body of intelligence, the two Russians are officers from the Russian military intelligence service, also known as the GRU.
She says the operation would “almost certainly” have been approved not just within the GRU, but by senior figures in the Russian state. It was not a “rogue operation”, she says.
Updated
May says the two Russians facing charges over the poisoning of the Skripals are now also the prime suspects for the poisoning of Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley.
She says if the two suspects were in a UK jurisdiction, there would be a clear case for charging them with murder.
Updated
This is from my colleague Owen Gibson.
Latest take on novichok charges from @VikramDodd here including this line:
— Owen Gibson (@owen_g) September 5, 2018
Sources said the two men were believed to have worked for Russia’s GRU secret service.https://t.co/TacHj6yCI2
Theresa May's statement on the Salisbury poisonings
Theresa May is now making her statement about Salisbury.
This was a sickening attack, that left four people fighting for their lives and one person dead. She says in March she told MPs why the government thought the Russian state was culpable.
She says 250 detectives have looked at more than 11,000 hours of CCTV, and taken statements. They have undertaken painstaking work to find out who was responsible.
This has now produced enough evidence for the CPS to bring charges.
She says the police have set out how the two Russians arrived in the country and travelled to Salisbury. (See 11.53pm.)
May is now summarising what was in the Met statement released earlier.
Updated
Labour’s Geoffrey Robinson asks May if the government will continue to support his private member’s bill bringing in presumed consent for organ donation.
May says the government backs the bill and will continue to back it.
Labour’s Chris Ruane says Tory Brexiters said Wales would not lose out on funding if the UK left the EU. Since 2000 Wales has had £5.3bn in structural funding. Will this continue?
May says the government is working to ensure that future funds are in place to replace EU structural funds that work for the whole of the UK.
Labour’s Helen Hayes says it has been reported today that No 10 is blocking plans for guaranteed three-year tenancies for renters.
May says the government does want more secure tenancies. The government has been consulting on its proposals. It is now considering the responses.
Andrea Jenkyns, a Conservative, asks about a local Tory councillor who she says is being intimidated by Labour opponents.
May says she is sorry the councillor is being subject to these appalling attacks. She says people should be able to represent constituents free of hatred and abuse.
Alberto Costa, a Conservative, says his daughter is starting at a grammar school. What message does May have for her and people like her?
May says this is a country where, how far you get on in life depends on how hard you work. Education is the key that will unlock the door to your future, she says.
Steve Baker, the Tory former Brexit minister, asks May if she will order government to prepare for a no deal Brexit as a first priority.
May commends Baker for the work he did on this when he was a minister. The Brexit department is working on this, she says. She says 6,400 civil servants are working on this, and another 1,850 are being taken on.
UPDATE: I’ve corrected this post. Originally it said May said 6,400 civil servants were working on plans for a no deal Brexit. In fact she said 6,400 civil servants were working on Brexit. She also said 1,850 more staff were being taken on, not 850 as it said in the original post. In response to Baker’s question, which was specifically about no deal planning, she replied:
I commend [Baker] for the work he did on this issue when he was a minister. I assure him that the Department for Exiting the European Union has indeed stepped up the work on preparations. We have 6,400 civil servants working on EU exit. There are an additional 1,850 recruits in the pipeline so that we can accelerate preparations as necessary.
Updated
Mohammad Yasin, the Labour MP, asks May to reinstate bursaries for nurses. Their removal has had a terrible impact, he says.
May says NHS spending in Yasin’s Bedford constituency is going up.
Bob Neill, a Conserative, asks if Gibraltar will be fully included in the Brexit withdrawal agreement.
May says she can give that assurance.
Tonia Antoniazzi, the Labour MP, says NHS trusts are not backing applications for the use of medicinal cannabis. She asks May to show leadership on this issue.
May says she offers her sympathy to people with conditions where other treatments don’t help. That is why the government has changed the rules to allow cannabis products to be used for medicinal purposes.
This is from Sky’s Faisal Islam.
Struck that PM not using the PMQs pulpit to give a full throttle defence of why she backs Chequers - citing car industry, Airbus, manufacturing need for frictionless trade, consequences of No Deal.
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) September 5, 2018
PMQs - Snap verdict
PMQs - Snap verdict: It’s hard to recall now that there was a time when Jeremy Corbyn avoided the topic of Brexit at PMQs at all costs. Today he devoted all six questions to it, he made it look easy and he won quite comfortably. It is not hard to see why; you could probably use the number of Brexit questions Corbyn asks each month as a reliable index for the success of the Brexit talks, and Corbyn was good today because he neatly highlighted the very real concerns that Theresa May’s strategy, and her decision to bet her administration on a plan rejected by much of her party and the EU, is driving the UK towards a no deal Brexit. His questions weren’t flashy or profound, but they were effective. He used contrasting quotes to highlight cabinet divisions on this issue, he gently mocked Dominic Raab’s claim that a no deal Brexit would have certain advantages (so does death, I suppose, or the bubonic plague) and, quoting people as diverse as the NFU and Mervyn King, he articulated the genuine concerns about what would happen if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. On another day May’s counter-thrust on antisemitism might have resonated, but today it just felt irrelevant. And, with the chances of a no deal Brexit increasing, her attempt to weaponise the second referendum argument did not work either. Corbyn is still officially sceptical about a second referendum, but the questions he asked went some way to justify his decision not to indulge May by ruling one out.
Corbyn says the NFU says a no deal Brexit would be armageddon, the TUC says it would be devastating for working people, and EU leaders have ruled it out. Does May think there will be a deal by October?
May says she is working for a deal in October. She says what would be bad for the UK would be signing up to a deal in any circumstances.
Corbyn says Mervyn King today condemned the government’s incompetence. May says no deal is better than a bad deal. But no deal is a bad deal. Everyone is telling her that. Chequers is dead. When will May publish a plan that survives contact with her cabinet and reality - two different concepts, he says.
May say she wants a deal that will work for the UK. She wants an economy that works for everyone. What is Corbyn doing - trying to change his party so that antisemites can call the creation of Israel racist. He should be ashamed of himself.
Corbyn says Dominic Raab, the Brexit secretary, said yesterday there were “countervailing opportunities” to a no deal Brexit. What are they?
May says she wants a deal. She again challenges Corbyn to rule out a second referendum.
Corbyn says a majority of people voted to leave. But they expected the negotiations to be handled competently. They are not being, he says. He says May could not name any of the no deal opportunites. She cannot keep dancing around all the issues, he says (to laughter - a joke about her African dance moves.) How many firms have said they will relocated if there is no Brexit deal?
May says businesses have shown confidence in the UK. She lists various investment announcements. What we are doing is negotiating a Brexit deal that will deliver for this country, she says. She says Corbyn wanted a Brexit that would allow new trade deals; now he wants to be in the customs union. And she says his view on free movement is not clear.
Jeremy Corbyn says there is no place for racism in our society, and that includes in the Conservative party.
He says Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, says the odds on a no deal Brexit are 60/40. Is he right?
May says the government is preparing for a no deal Brexit. It is publishing technical notices. There will be around 70. She says the government is working for a good deal, but preparing for every eventuality.
Corbyn says Fox said he was unphased by the prospect of a no deal Brexit. But Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, said it would be a hugh geopolitical mistake, and Philip Hammond, the chancellor, said it would slash growth by 8%. Who is right?
May says she agrees with the WTO boss who said a no deal Brexit would not be a walk in the park, but that it would not be the end of the world. She says she won’t accept a second referendum. Corbyn should rule one out, she says.
Maggie Throup, a Conservative, asks May for an assurance that she will always challenge antisemitism.
May says there is no place for racial hatred in this country. The UK was the first country to accept the definition of antisemitism set out by the International Holocaust Memorial Alliance. She says Jeremy Corbyn, when he stands up, should apologise for saying British Jewish people do not understand English irony.
Labour’s Tulip Siddiq asks about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and asks if she will raise her case with the Iranian president when they meet in New York later this month.
May says her thoughts are with Zaghari-Ratcliffe. She says one issue is the fact that Iran does not recognise dual nationality. She says she has regularly raised this with the Iranian president
Theresa May starts by congratulating the English and Scottish women football teams for qualifying for the World Cup.
This is from the Times’ Patrick Kidd.
Boris Johnson has come for PMQs, sitting four rows back. Wonder if he’s going to try to catch the Speaker’s eye and ask May something or speak during the urgent statement on Russia.
— Patrick Kidd (@patrick_kidd) September 5, 2018
PMQs
PMQs is about to start.
#PMQs about to kick off pic.twitter.com/BRWlDqd4qT
— John Rentoul (@JohnRentoul) September 5, 2018
According to RT, the state-controlled Russian broadcaster, the Russian foreign ministry has said the two names released by the Met and the CPS do not mean anything to them.
JUST IN: Names of ‘Russian suspects’ in Skripal poisoning published by UK don’t mean anything to us – Moscow https://t.co/yAGXQ7rXdb pic.twitter.com/xbxh16yqwG
— RT (@RT_com) September 5, 2018
Highlights from the Met statement about how the Salisbury novichok poisoning happened
Here are some of the highlights from the statement from the Met’s Neil Basu about the evidence against the two Russian suspects in the novichok poisoning case.
- Basu sets out in detail the movements of the two Russians while they were in the UK. They arrived at Gatwick from Moscow on Friday 2 March and stayed at the City Stay Hotel in Bow Road, East London on Friday night and Saturday night. On Saturday they conducted what the police describe as a “reconnaissance” trip to Salisbury. He goes on:
On Sunday, 4 March, they made the same journey from the hotel, again using the underground from Bow to Waterloo station at approximately 8.05am, before continuing their journey by train to Salisbury.
CCTV shows them in the vicinity of Mr Skripal’s house and we believe that they contaminated the front door with novichok.
They left Salisbury and returned to Waterloo Station, arriving at approximately 4.45pm and boarded the London Underground at approximately 6.30pm to London Heathrow Airport.
From Heathrow Airport, they returned to Moscow on Aeroflot flight SU2585, departing at 10.30pm on Sunday, 4 March.
We have no evidence that they re-entered the UK after that date.
Having taken advice from Public Health England, we are confident that there was no risk to members of the public who were on the same flight, trains or public transport used by the suspects.
On 4 May 2018, tests were carried out in the hotel room where the suspects had stayed. A number of samples were tested at DSTL at Porton Down. Two swabs showed contamination of novichok at levels below that which would cause concern for public health. A decision was made to take further samples from the room as a precautionary measure, including in the same areas originally tested, and all results came back negative. We believe the first process of taking swabs removed the contamination, so low were the traces of novichok in the room.
Following these tests, experts deemed the room was safe and that it posed no risk to the public.
- He says the police are releasing various images of the two Russians, travelling under the names. Alexander Petrov and Rusian Boshirov. He asks members of the public who saw them to get in touch.
- He urges anyone who stayed at the City Stay Hotel between 4 March and 4 May to get in touch, although he says their health does not seem to be at risk.
The levels of novichok we found in the room at the time of police sampling in May were such that they were not enough to cause short or long-term health effects to anyone exposed to it, at that point or thereafter. We will continue to work closely with Public Health England as new information comes to light.
- He says the poisoning of Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley is linked to the attack on the Skripals and he explains why.
Our rationale for linking the two investigations is primarily based on the following four facts:
Firstly, our own analysis, and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in the Hague, has confirmed that the same type of novichok was used in both cases.
Secondly, the nerve agent is one of the rarest chemical warfare agents in the world and its discovery, twice, in such close proximity is beyond a coincidence.
Third, the manner in which the bottle and packaging has been adapted makes it a perfect cover for smuggling the weapon into the country, and a perfect delivery method for the attack against the Skripal’s front door.
Fourthly, the lack of crossover between the known movements of the suspects and Dawn and Charlie’s known movements around Salisbury, and the fact that there is no evidence to suggest they have been targeted mean it is much more likely Dawn and Charlie found.
- He explains how Sturgess and Rowley came to be poisoned.
Charlie told police he found a box he thought contained perfume in a charity bin on Wednesday, 27 June. Inside the box was a bottle and applicator. He tried to put the two parts together at his home address on Saturday, 30 June, and in doing so got some of the contents on himself. He said Dawn had applied some of the substance to her wrists before feeling unwell.
After Charlie told police where he found the box, cordons were put in place and two bins behind shops in Catherine Street, Salisbury, were removed.
Previously, during a search of Charlie’s home address in Muggleton Road on 10 July a small box labelled as Nina Ricci Premier Jour was recovered from a rubbish bag in the kitchen. On 11 July a small glass bottle with a modified nozzle was found on a kitchen worktop. Tests undertaken at DSTL established the bottle contained a significant amount of novichok.
We have carried out numerous inquiries in relation to the bottle and are now able to release an image of it with the nozzle attached. We are also releasing an image of the box that the bottle and nozzle were in.
We have spoken to Nina Ricci and undertaken further inquiries. Nina Ricci and our inquiries have confirmed that it is not a genuine Nina Ricci perfume bottle, box or nozzle. It is in fact a counterfeit box, bottle and nozzle that have been especially adapted. I’d like to reassure anyone who has bought Nina Ricci perfume from a legitimate source that they should not be concerned. It is safe.
The Metropolitan police has now published the full text of a lengthy statement by Neil Basu, its national lead on counter terrorism, about the evidence against the two Russians accused of being responsible for the novichok attack in Salisbury in March.
I will publish highlights shortly.
Here is the statement from Sue Hemming, CPS director of legal services, about the decision to identify two Russian suspects in the novichok case. She said:
Prosecutors from CPS counter terrorism division have considered the evidence and have concluded there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and it is clearly in the public interest to charge Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, who are Russian nationals.
Those offences include conspiracy to murder Sergei Skripal; the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal, Yulia Skripal and Nick Bailey; the use and possession of novichok contrary to the Chemical Weapons Act; and causing grievous bodily harm with intent to Yulia Skripal and Nick Bailey.
Hemming went on:
A realistic prospect of conviction means the CPS is satisfied on an objective assessment that the evidence can be used in court and that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury hearing the case, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict these two individuals of the charges.
It is of course for a jury to decide whether the evidence is enough for them to be sure of the suspects guilt.
We will not be applying to Russia for the extradition of these men as the Russian constitution does not permit extradition of its own nationals.
Russia has made this clear following requests for extradition in other cases. Should this position change then an extradition request would be made.
We have, however, obtained a European Arrest Warrant which means that if either man travels to a country where an EAW is valid, they will be arrested and face extradition on these charges for which there is no statute of limitations.
Here is my colleague Vikram Dodd’s story about the Scotland Yard/CPS Salisbury announcement.
And here is how it starts.
Two suspected Russian nationals have been named over the novichok poisoning of Sergei and Julia Skripal in March in Salisbury, Wiltshire. British police and prosecutors made the announcement on Wednesday.
They were travelling on authentic Russian passports under the names of Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov. Police said there was enough evidence to charge them.
The news comes after two separate poisonings involving novichok that left three people seriously ill and killed one woman.
The use of the Russian military grade poison on British soil strained already tense relations between London and Moscow. The first use of novichok came in March and targeted the former Russian spy Sergei Skripaland his daughter, Yulia, in their Salisbury home.
More snaps from the Press Association.
The CPS said it will not be applying to Russia for the extradition of the two men, but a European Arrest Warrant has been obtained.
Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Neil Basu said it is likely the suspects were travelling under aliases and Petrov and Boshirov are not their real names. They are believed to be aged around 40.
This from the BBC’s Daniel Sandford.
These are the two suspected Salisbury Novichok poisoners and their aliases pic.twitter.com/GiTc0bRRZu
— Daniel Sandford (@BBCDanielS) September 5, 2018
CPS says it has enough evidence to charge two Russians over Salisbury novichok attack
The Press Association has just snapped this.
There is sufficient evidence to charge two Russian nationals named as Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov with offences including conspiracy to murder over the Salisbury nerve agent attack, Scotland Yard and the Crown Prosecution Service have announced.
Theresa May’s Commons statement this afternoon will be about the Salisbury novichok attack, the BBC reports.
Govts confirmed statement after #pmqs is update on Salisbury
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) September 5, 2018
What UK Thinks, the website publishing polling research on what people think of Brexit, has published a paper today by the leading psephologist Sir John Curtice looking at how attitudes to Brexit have changed since the EU referendum. The full paper is here (pdf) and Curtice has written a blog summarising its arguments here.
He says that in some respects views have changed more than people think.
Our survey shows that, in some respects at least, voters have changed their minds quite considerably about various aspects of the Brexit process over the course of the last two years. Voters seem, for example, to have become somewhat less concerned about controlling EU migration, less convinced that British companies will be able to trade freely in the EU after Brexit, and much less inclined to believe that the UK will secure a good deal from the negotiations. Moreover, while they might, perhaps, have reached these conclusions for different reasons, these patterns are just as much in evidence among leave voters as their remain-supporting counterparts.
Curtice says, on the overall question of whether Britain should stay or leave, there has been little change. But he says people who now think Brexit won’t have the economic advantages or disadvantages claimed in 2016 are shifting their views.
Over 90% of those voters who voted Remain in June 2016 and who think that Britain’s economy will get worse as a result of Brexit say that they would vote the same way again in a second referendum. Equally, over 90% of those who backed Leave two years ago and who think the economy will be better off in the wake of Brexit state that they would vote Leave again. In short, hardly anyone who endorses ‘their’ side’s economic argument has changed their mind.
However, these figures fall off quite markedly among those who take a different view of the economics of Brexit. Only around three-quarters of those Remain voters who think that leaving the EU will not make much difference to the economy say they would vote Remain again, while the equivalent figure among Leave voters is much the same. Meanwhile, less than half of those Remain voters who are now of the view that Britain’s economy will be better off as a result of Brexit would vote the same way, while the same is true of Leave supporters who believe the economy will be worse off.
This could have consequences later, Curtice argues.
In the midst of the doubtless sometimes fierce arguments in the coming weeks about what should and should not form part of the Brexit agreement and how well or badly the government (and the EU) are handling the negotiations, we should bear in mind that it is what voters make of the economics of whatever deal is reached that is most likely to determine whether, at the conclusion of the negotiations, a majority of them still want to leave the EU or whether the balance of opinion has swung in the opposite direction.
Food shortages in UK 'not inconceivable' under no deal Brexit, says food company boss
The chief executive of Britain’s third biggest food company has thrown its weight behind Theresa May’s Chequers proposal saying it is a “pretty satisfactory” way to solve the Brexit challenges.
Patrick Coveney, who is also brother of Ireland’s deputy prime minister Simon Coveney, said it would be tough to get through because it was under attack from all sides, but said there were no other plans on the table. He said:
I think Britain is at a pretty fragile place on the topic right now, and probably the sort of best working compromise which the Chequers proposal is probably a pretty satisfactory way through this in some form or another if it can be delivered.
Coveney, CEO of Greencore, told British Irish Chambers of Commerce seminar on agrifood in Dublin on Wednesday that the “worrying thing” for business was that there was no alternative on the table and the country was staring at an unimaginable political “abyss” if Chequers was chucked.
“It is very difficult to see the prime minister survive a roll back from Chequers,” said Coveney whose firm supplies two thirds of Britain’s sandwiches every day.
He said the company was not so much concerned about tariffs but delays at Dover and Calais. If food rotted in the containers in 50m queues, it would not matter if tomatoes or lettuces from Spain or Holland attracted a 15% or 20% tariff.
Coveney also said British supermarkets were “pushing hard” on the government to see the dark consequences of food shortages after Brexit.
“The one thing for sure would create dramatic and immediate political instability in March would be 1/2/3/4 weeks or months of real food shortages in the UK which is not inconceivable with the direction of travel with no deal,” he said.
Patrick Coveney: A no deal would be "catastrophic" for our business, Greencore, the third largest food company in the UK and one of Britain's largest supplier of sandwiches and supermarket convenience food pic.twitter.com/Hwg6aEg4k2
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) September 5, 2018
Updated
Here is the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on the May statement coming later.
Morning - more from Robbins and Raab today, and first #pmqs of the season on #politicslive - but biggest news of day might be likely statement after 1230, sources suggest its related to Salisbury attack - no official confirmation
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) September 5, 2018
Corbyn must rebuild trust with Jewish community, says Hodge
The decision by Labour’s national executive committee yesterday to adopt all the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s examples of antisemitism, as well as the precise definition (which it already accepted), has not quelled the row about the party’s stance on this issue. On the Today programme this morning Dame Margaret Hodge, one of the MPs most critical of Jeremy Corbyn over this, said he had to rebuild trust with the Jewish community. She told the programme:
[Corbyn] now has to own the problem, he has to act and he has to start rebuilding trust. He is the leader of the Labour party, the onus is really on him ...
I would love it if he proved me wrong, but we have to see both in his actions and in the way he consults and engages with the Jewish community over the coming period whether or not we are on the right road back to rebuilding trust.
She also said that the decision to accept all the IHRA examples was “sullied” by the fact that Corbyn tried to get the party to agree to a lengthy addendum to the IHRA text.
I campaigned for the full IHRA definition to be adopted. I’m delighted by that. I’m saddened it was sullied by this argument over an additional statement. I’m saddened that the leader of the Labour party chose to try to amend it.
But Shami Chakrabarti, the shadow attorney general, told the programme that the short proviso that was agreed alongside the IHRA wording did not amount to “sullying”. She said:
There was no sullying. The words were not a caveat, were not a dilution; the words are true, which is that accepting these examples, in my view, in no way negates reasonable free speech around these difficult issues around Israel and Palestine.
Good morning. It’s will be a particularly busy day at Westminster today. We have got the first PMQs of the autumn, a potentially interesting committee hearing with the Brexit secretary Dominic Raab (following important Brexit interventions from Mervyn King and Andy Burnham), and this morning we have learned Theresa May will be making a surprise statement to MPs. My colleague Dan Sabbagh has filed this.
Theresa May is expected to make a statement to the Commons after Prime Minister’s Questions today, according to Whitehall and Westminster sources.
Downing Street would not confirm the subject matter, although the secrecy at this stage is likely to suggest a security related matter.
The statement could be an update relating to the Novichok poisoning incidents in Salsibury and Amesbury, although again this could not be confirmed.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9am: Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, speaks at the launch of the IPPR thinktank’s report on economic justice.
9.30am: George Eustice, the agriculture minister, gives evidence to the Commons agriculture committee on fishing.
10am: Andy Burnham, the Labour mayor of Greater Manchester, gives a speech on Brexit. As Matthew Weaver reports, Burnham is now giving qualified backing to a second referendum on Brexit while warning it risks sparking unrest on the streets of the city.
10am: The Association of Jewish Women’s Organisations and other organisations give evidence to the Commons women and equalities commission on antisemitism.
12pm: Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.
After 12.30pm: May is expected to make a statement to MPs on a subject not disclosed.
2.30pm: Dominic Raab, the Brexit secretary, and Olly Robbins, May’s chief Brexit adviser, give evidence to the Commons Europeaan scrutiny committee.
There were reports saying the parliamentary Labour party (PLP) would meet tonight to discuss antisemitism, but Labour say the next PLP meeting will not take place until Monday.
As usual, I will also be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I will post a summary at the end of the day. I plan to wrap up at around 5.30pm.
You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.
Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’s top 10 must-reads.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.
Updated
