'Highly likely' Moscow ordered attack on former Russian spy in UK – Politics live

The Russian foreign ministry had dismissed Theresa May’s comments as a “circus show”, the BBC reports.

This is what the Press Association has filed about Jeremy Corbyn’s response to Theresa May.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: “We need to continue seeking a robust dialogue with Russia on all the issues dividing our countries, both domestic and international - rather than simply cutting off contact and simply letting tensions and divisions get worse, and potentially even more dangerous.”

He faced shouts of “shame” and “disgrace” from Conservative MPs as he told the Commons: “We’re all familiar with the way huge fortunes, often acquired in the most dubious circumstances in Russia, sometimes connected with criminal elements, have ended up sheltering in London and trying to buy political influence in British party politics.

“Meddling in elections, as the prime minister put it, and there has been over £800,000 worth of donations to the Conservative party from Russian oligarchs and their associates.”

Corbyn went on: “If that is the evidence before the government, even before the investigation in Salisbury is complete, the government could be taking action to introduce new financial sanctions powers.

“But instead they’re currently resisting Labour’s amendments to the sanctions and anti-money laundering bill, which could introduce the so-called Magnitsky powers - so will the prime minister agree today to back those amendments to the sanctions and anti-money laundering bill?”

Speaker John Bercow had to intervene to calm MPs, with several on the Conservative benches shouting loudly at Corbyn for his remarks.

Here are the key passages from Theresa May’s statement

Mr Speaker, this morning I chaired a meeting of the National Security Council in which we considered the information so far available.

As is normal, the Council was updated on the assessment and intelligence picture, as well as the state of the investigation.

It is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia.

This is part of a group of nerve agents known as ‘Novichok’.

Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down; our knowledge that Russia has previously produced this agent and would still be capable of doing so; Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations; and our assessment that Russia views some defectors as legitimate targets for assassinations; the Government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for the act against Sergei and Yulia Skripal.

Mr Speaker, there are therefore only two plausible explanations for what happened in Salisbury on the 4 March.

Either this was a direct act by the Russian State against our country.

Or the Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.

This afternoon my Rt Hon Friend the Foreign Secretary has summoned the Russian Ambassador to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and asked him to explain which of these two possibilities it is – and therefore to account for how this Russian-produced nerve agent could have been deployed in Salisbury against Mr Skripal and his daughter.

My Rt Hon Friend has stated to the Ambassador that the Russian Federation must immediately provide full and complete disclosure of the Novichok programme to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

And he has requested the Russian Government’s response by the end of tomorrow.

Mr Speaker, this action has happened against a backdrop of a well-established pattern of Russian State aggression.

Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea was the first time since the Second World War that one sovereign nation has forcibly taken territory from another in Europe.

Russia has fomented conflict in the Donbas, repeatedly violated the national airspace of several European countries, and mounted a sustained campaign of cyber espionage and disruption. This has included meddling in elections, and hacking the Danish Ministry of Defence and the Bundestag, among many others.

During his recent State of the Union address, President Putin showed video graphics of missile launches, flight trajectories and explosions, including the modelling of attacks on the United States with a series of warheads impacting in Florida.

While the extra-judicial killing of terrorists and dissidents outside Russia were given legal sanction by the Russian Parliament in 2006.

And of course Russia used radiological substances in its barbaric assault on Mr Litvenenko. We saw promises to assist the investigation then, but they resulted in denial and obfuscation – and the stifling of due process and the rule of law ...

Mr Speaker, on Wednesday we will consider in detail the response from the Russian State.

Should there be no credible response, we will conclude that this action amounts to an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against the United Kingdom.

And I will come back to this House and set out the full range of measures that we will take in response.

Mr Speaker, this attempted murder using a weapons-grade nerve agent in a British town was not just a crime against the Skripals.It was an indiscriminate and reckless act against the United Kingdom, putting the lives of innocent civilians at risk.

And we will not tolerate such a brazen attempt to murder innocent civilians on our soil.

May says she chaired a national security council meeting today.

• May says it has been concluded that Sergei Skripal and his daughter were poisoned by “military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia.”

• Msy says the government has decided it is “highly likely” that Russia was responsible for the attack. That is because of what was used, and because of Russia’s history of involvement in state-sponsored attacks of this kind, she says.

The government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for the act against Sergie and Yulia Skripol.

May says either Russia was responsible for that happened, or Russia has lost control of this nerve agent.

• May says either Russia ordered the attack, or it has lost control of its stock of the nerve agent involved.

She says Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, summoned the Russian ambassador to the Foreign Office today. He said Russia must explain which of the two possible explanations is the correct one. And it must reply by the end of tomorrow, she says.

• May says Russia has been given an ultimatum requiring it to provide an explanation by the end of tomorrow.

• May says, if Russia does not give a “credible response”, the government will conclude that the attack involved “unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom”.

• May says, if the government does come to that conclusion, she will return to the Commons to outline retaliatory proposals.

Theresa May is now making a Commons statement on the Salisbury nerve agent attack.

It was “reckless and despicable”, she says.

Here is the quote from James Duddridge, the Conservative MP who suggested earlier that it was wrong for John Bercow, the Commons speaker, to remain in his chair. Duddridge asked:

Is it appropriate for Mr Speaker to remain in his place while there are allegations against him which he is trying to suppress using taxpayer-funded money through sending out letters through speaker’s counsel?

Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, is responding to the urgent question about the bullying of Commons staff. John Bercow, the Commons speaker and one of the alleged bullies (although he denies the alllegations against him) is in the chair.

Leadsom says she is committed to stamping out all types of bullying in the Commons.

The working group set up after the sexual harassment scandal has published its report.

She says the working group wanted House of Commons staff to be included in the new procedure. But it was agreed to leave them out, because they were covered by parliament’s Respect policy.

It was thought the Respect policy was working well. But it was established it did not cover sexual harassment.

Leadsom says, following the Newsnight revelations, it is clear the Respect policy does not cover all potential problems. The clerk of the Commons has acknowledged that in a letter sent to staff today, she says.

She says the Respect policy will be reviewed.

• Leadsom says she is proposing an inquiry into the allegations about the bullying of Commons staff by MPs. She says she will propose the inquiry when the House of Commons commission (the body that runs the Commons administratively) next meets. It should be a short, independently-led inquiry, she says. She says it should consider whether the Respect policy is fit for purpose. And she says it should consider whether Commons staff should have access to the new grievance procedure.

(The House of Commons commission is chaired by Bercow. Leadsom does not say if he should be involved in any decision about setting up an inquiry.)

The Russian embassy in London has said that it is “outraged by the anti-Russian media campaign” that it claims is being conducted in the UK, with the government’s approval, following the Salisbury nerve agent attack. It has also accused the government of playing “a very dangerous game”. In a statement it said:

We would like to stress once again that we are outraged by the anti-Russian media campaign, condoned by the government, that influences the investigation and has a psychological effect on British residents. Our compatriots and British nationals of Russian origin are worried about their future in this country. UK-based Russian journalists are receiving threats.

Current policy of the UK government towards Russia is a very dangerous game played with the British public opinion, which not only sends the investigation upon an unhelpful political track but also bears the risk of more serious long-term consequences for our relations.

Theresa May will be in the Commons this afternoon to make a statement about the Salisbury nerve agent attack. But it will start after 4.30pm because there are two urgent questions first (including one relating to John Bercow and the treatment of Commons staff).

MPs will be particularly interested in whether May concludes that Russia was to blame for the attack. This morning Tom Tugendhat, the Tory chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, said he thought she would “point the finger at the Kremlin”. (See 9.46am.)

Here is the full line-up.

Chris Cook, the Newsnight journalist whose report about the bullying of House of Commons staff by MPs has led to calls for an investigation into John Bercow (see 10.50am and 12.29pm), has just posted this on Twitter. It is a copy of a letter sent by David Natzler, the clerk of the Commons (the most senior official in the building) to staff in the House. In it he acknowledges that there are “unresolved issues over bullying and harassment” of Commons staff and that an email sent out on Friday playing down the significance of the Newsnight revelations struck the wrong note.

You can read a full account of the investigation by Cook and Lucinda Day here.

Frances Cairncross, the economist, has been appointed to chair the review of the sustainability of the press announced by the government last month, Matt Hancock, the culture secretary, announced this morning.

Cairncross is a former Guardian journalist, so it must be a good appointment ...

Here are some more lines from the speech that Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, is giving at the South by Southwest conference in Texas later today. Substantial extracts have been released by his office in advance.

• Khan will accuse politicians of a “dereliction of duty” in the way they have allowed social media companies to reshape the world. (See 9.22am.)

• He will say that, although social media companies have brought “huge benefits” to society, they have also deepened divisions.

Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have brought huge benefits to society. They’ve made it easier for us to stay in touch with those we love, meet like-minded people and have easier access to information we want.

But – understandably - there are growing concerns about the way some of the biggest companies on the planet are impacting our lives and the overall wellbeing of our societies. In some cases, these new platforms have been used to exacerbate, fuel and deepen the divisions within our communities.

We’ve already seen: evidence of elections and referendums being influenced; a rise in online abuse, misogyny and religious hatred; fake news spreading misinformation; algorithms blinkering us from different points of view and pushing people to extremes; and terrorists and far-right groups using social media to not only conspire, but to radicalise and brainwash others.

All of this is dividing and polarising us, rather than uniting us.

• He will say government should regulate tech companies more firmly to stop them weakening workers’ rights.

At its best, the sharing economy can make it easier for people to sell their skills, their time, and even their home, in a way that suits them, at a fair price. But at its worst, it can drive down pay, workers’ rights and safety standards.

If the sharing economy is real, it should be as liberating for the worker or supplier as it is for the consumer. Yes - innovative new companies are providing fantastic services to people around the world, and have created tens of thousands of new jobs in the process.

But without prudent regulation and oversight, this new way of doing business risks being used as cover to break-up decades of established and hard-fought rights. We can’t confuse matters by thinking that because a business is smart, disruptive, popular even - and has a really neat app – it somehow has a right to have a different regulatory status to its competitors.

• He will say tech companies should accept more responsibility for the impact they have on society.

Ultimately - there must be greater responsibility taken by some tech companies for the impact they’re having on the world. And, crucially, no business or industry should ever consider itself above the local rules, or laws set by democratic processes.

In London, we’ve been clear with Uber and other companies - that everyone - no matter how big or small - must play by the rules. No exceptions.

• He will say internet companies should do more to tackle hate speech online.

Facebook, Twitter and other platforms are finally starting to react to the criticisms and are developing technology to make sure the reporting process becomes quicker and more effective. I welcome this. But - with the skills and resources these companies have at their disposal - I believe it’s possible to go further and faster.

What we need to see is a stronger duty of care so that social media platforms can live up to their promise to be places that connect, unify and democratise the sharing of information – and be places where everyone feels welcome and valued.

If this doesn’t happen, then more countries will start to follow or go further than what Germany has done. The German government have changed the law so that social media companies face hefty fines if they fail to quickly remove hate speech, fake news and illegal material.

I’m off to the Number 10 lobby briefing.

I will post again after 11.30am.

Andrew Bridgen, the Conservative backbencher who has one of the MPs most critical of John Bercow since bullying allegations against him were reported last week, has given an interview to Sky’s All Out Politics. Bridgen has revealed that his animus against Bercow is partly motivated by Bercow’s views on Brexit. But Bridgen also said that he had dropped the plan he announced yesterday to table a motion of no confidence in the speaker. Here are the key points.

• Bridgen signalled that he has dropped (at least for now) his plan to table a motion of no confidence in Bercow. Yesterday he told journalists that that was what he was planning. But today he said that the motion he would table would just be one calling for an investigation into the allegations. He said:

Well, if no other colleague is willing to do it, I’m going to lay a motion as an EDM, early day motion, for testing the atmosphere in the House for support for an independent investigation into the allegations of bullying against Mr Bercow.

Asked why he was no going ahead with a no confidence motion, Bridgen said:

Well, he is innocent until proven guilty. He has categorically denied it ...

No one deserves to come to work and be bullied or harassed. And, given the speaker’s position, it is absolutely fundamental to the culture of the House of Commons. I think we need to have an independent investigation.

But Bridgen also said MPs would find the claims credible. He said:

However, I think colleagues who see the way that the speaker behaves to backbenchers, to cabinet ministers - it doesn’t take much imagination to work out how he might be dealing with clerks.

Bercow has strongly denied the claims, aired by BBC’s Newnight last week, he bulled Kate Emms, his private secretary, for a period in 2010 and 2011, and that she developed post-traumatic stress disorder after working for him.

• Bridgen said he thought Bercow was biased against Brexit. He said:

I think the speaker has not performed his duties with impartiality. I think’s he overstepped the mark historically, with regard to his open remarks with regard to Brexit, when he is going to be in the chair for a of very sensitive debates around us leaving the European Union, and also his remarks about Donald Trump, saying he would ban Donald Trump from speaking in Westminster Hall.

Mr Speaker, John Bercow, is quite at liberty to hold those views privately. But given his apolitical position as speaker of the House of Commons, he shouldn’t be able to trumpet them from the rooftops as he does. And that’s wrong.

• Bridgen pointed out that Bercow originally promised to serve only nine years as speaker, which would have led to him resigning this summer. Bercow has abandoned that plan. But Bridgen said he should stick with his original intention.

• Bridgen accepted that the evidence against Bercow was second-hand, not first-hand.

Theresa May is chairing a meeting of the national security council this morning to discuss the nerve agent attack on the former Russian double agent in Salisbury. It is likely to be followed by a statement in the Commons, possibly this afternoon, with May under pressure to announce retaliatory measures against Russia. Here is our overnight preview story.

We will also find out today whether those MPs who want to force out John Bercow, the Commons speaker, after bullying allegations (which he denies) were made against him at the end of last week, can get the issue onto the floor of the Commons.

First, though, here are some extracts from a speech that Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, is making at the South by Southwest conference in Texas later today. It is about politicians and the tech industry. There is nothing remotely unusual about political leaders saying (as Khan will) that the social media companies must do more to tackle hate speech online. But Khan will go much further, and accuse politicians of a “dereliction of duty” in allowing tech giants to reshape the world. According to extracts released in advance, he will say:

The onus for change should not just be on tech companies and innovators. One of the biggest problems over the last few years is that politicians and governments have just been passive – sitting on their hands - while the tech revolution has happened around them.

There’s been a failure to ensure that our economies and our regulatory structures are prepared and relevant. It must ultimately fall to government – working with tech businesses and leaders - to ensure that this revolution is not detrimental to our long-term progress.

There’s been a dereliction of duty on the part of politicians and policymakers to ensure that the rapid growth in technology is utilised and steered in a direction that benefits us all.

I will post more from the speech later.

Here is the agenda for the day.

Morning: Theresa May chairs a meeting of the national security council to discuss the nerve agent attack in Salisbury.

11am: Number 10 lobby briefing.

1.30pm: Sir Nick Clegg, the former Lib Dem leader and former deputy prime minister, gives a speech on social mobility at a Resolution Foundation event.

Also today Matt Hancock, the culture secretary, speaks at the Oxford Media conference, and members of the Commons European scrutiny committee meet Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, in Brussels.

As usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.

You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.

Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news from Jack Blanchard. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’ 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.