'We have not done this because Trump asked us to': Theresa May denies being led by US president as she delivers passionate defence of Syria air strikes, telling MPs she is 'haunted' by victims of Assad's poison attack

Theresa May is delivering a passionate defence of UK military action in Syria

Insisted the strikes on Bashar Assad's forces were carried out in national interest

Said use of chemical weapons cannot be allowed to become normal anywhere 

Jeremy Corbyn has branded the strikes against Assad's chemical capacity illegal

Theresa May told MPs today she is 'haunted' by victims of Assad's poison attack as she delivered a passionate defence of the Syria strikes.

The Prime Minister insisted action to degrade Bashar Assad's chemical weapons capability was in the 'national interest' and justified on humanitarian grounds. 

In a performance welcomed by MPs on both sides of the Commons,Mrs also flatly denied that she was dancing to the tune of Donald Trump, and dismissed criticism for failing to recall parliament to vote on the action.

Pointing to the nerve agent attack in Salisbury last month, she said it was vital that the use of such banned substances did not become 'normalised' around the world and the US, UK and France 'could not wait' while further atrocities took place.

Mrs May told the Commons it was obvious that diplomacy alone would not protect civilians - and lashed out at Jeremy Corbyn for saying military action should never be considered without UN security council approval. 

'Lets be clear, that would mean giving Russia a veto,' she said.

The government appears determined to avoid calling a meaningful division in the House on the issue - even though it would likely win with Tories and the DUP rallying behind Mrs May and support from significant number of Labour MPs.  

Making a statement to the Commons, the PM insisted action to degrade Assad's chemical weapons capability was in the 'national interest' and justified on humanitarian grounds

Pointing to the nerve agent attack in Salisbury last month, Theresa May told MPs it was vital that the use of chemical weapons does not become 'normalised' around the world

In her statement to parliament, the PM said chemical weapons use could not become normalised 'either within Syria, on the streets of the UK or elsewhere'. 

Mrs May told MPs: 'Let me be absolutely clear. We have acted because it is in our national interest to do so.

'It is in our national interest to prevent the further use of chemical weapons in Syria – and to uphold and defend the global consensus that these weapons should not be used. 

'For we cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised – either within Syria, on the streets of the UK or elsewhere.'

She added: 'The images of this suffering are utterly haunting.

'Innocent families – seeking shelter in underground bunkers – found dead with foam in their mouths, burns to their eyes and their bodies surrounded by a chlorine-like odour.

'Children gasping for life as chemicals choked their lungs. The fact that such an atrocity can take place in our world today is a stain on our humanity.

'And we are clear about who is responsible.' 

Mrs May said Russia and Syria were preventing Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OCPW) inspectors from travelling to Douma. 

'We support strongly the work of the OPCW fact-finding mission that is currently in Damascus,' she said. 

'But that mission is only able to make an assessment of whether chemical weapons were used. 

'Even if the OPCW team is able to visit Douma to gather information to make that assessment - and they are currently being prevented from doing so by the regime and the Russians - it cannot attribute responsibility. 

'This is because Russia vetoed in November 2017 an extension of the joint investigatory mechanism set up to do this.' 

Mrs May added: 'We have not done this because President Trump asked us to do so.

'We have done it because we believed it was the right thing to do.' 

Mrs May received support from Tories and a number of Labour MPs for the strikes - although there was clear frustration that she had chosen not to hold a vote before giving the go-ahead.

Mr Corbyn described the chemical attack in Douma as 'horrific' but faced shouts of 'shame' from Tory MPs as he told the Commons: 'This statement serves as a reminder that the Prime Minister is accountable to this Parliament, not to the whims of the US President.

'We clearly need a War Powers Act in this country to transform a now broken convention into a legal obligation.

'Her predecessor came to this House to seek authority for military action in Libya and in Syria in 2015, and the House had a vote over Iraq in 2003.

'There is no more serious issue than the life and death matters of military action. It is right that Parliament has the power to support or stop the Government from taking planned military action.' 

Mr Corbyn went on: 'The BBC reports that the Prime Minister argued for the bombing to be brought forward to avoid parliamentary scrutiny - will she today confirm or deny those reports?

'I believe the action was legally questionable.' 

As she listened to Mr Corbyn condemning the West's behaviour, Mrs May was at one stage unable to conceal her disdain, rolling her eyes and shaking her head at the veteran left-winger.

In quotes: MPs debate striking Syria 

Mike Gapes, Labour, Illford South: 'Can I remind the PM and Mr Corbyn it was a Labour Government with Robin Cook as Foreign Secretary that carried out airstrikes in Iraq under Operation Desert Fox in 1998, without a UN resolution.

'It was a Labour Government that restored President Kabbah in Sierra Leone without a UN resolution.

'It was a Labour Government that stopped ethnic cleansing in Kosovo without a UN resolution.

'There is a long standing and noble tradition on these benches supporting humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect.' 

Dominic Grieve, Conservative, Beaconsfield: 'If the leader of the opposition persists on behalf of the Labour Party in changing its previous adherence to the previous rule of international law justifying taking unilateral action in the event of there being a humanitarian necessity, does (Mrs May) agree with me that the consequence of that is going to be that any tyrant, megalomaniac, person intent on carrying out genocide, if they have the support of an amoral state within the Security Council would be able to conduct that genocide with total impunity even if it was within our power to act to prevent it?

'And does she agree with me that in those circumstances, far from upholding the international rules-based system, the reality is that it would be dead?'

Chris Leslie, Labour, Nottingham East: 'Pinpointing and degrading Assad's chemical weapons was necessary and appropriate, and that intervening to save civilians from future gas attacks - while not without risk - was absolutely the right thing to do.' 

Sir Michael Fallon, Conservative, Sevenoaks: 'Would the Prime Minister accept that the public well understand that when our forces need to act quickly and decisively and safely in concert with our allies, it must be right to authorise strikes without giving notice.' 

Liz Kendall, Leicester West, Labour:  'Repeated use of chemical weapons against his own people in violation of international law cannot go unanswered.'

Ken Clarke, Conservative, Rushcliffe: 'Once President Trump had announced to the world what he was proposing, a widespread debate was taking place everywhere, including many MPs in the media, but no debate in Parliament.

'So would she consider, once the immediate issues are over, a cross-party commission of some kind to set out precisely what the role of Parliament is in modern times in the use of military power against another state.'

Mark Harper, Conservative, Forest of Dean: 'A PM that is never willing to take [military] action isn't fit to hold that office.'

Mr Corbyn condemned the West's behaviour, branding the strikes on Syria illegal and saying action should never be taken without approval from the UN - including Russia

+11

Mrs May was at one stage unable to conceal her disdain for Mr Corbyn's comments, rolling her eyes and shaking her head at the veteran left-winger

During today's debate, there were heated exchanges on both sides as MPs wrestled with the ramifications of the vote.

In an intervention which won cheers on both sides, Mike Gapes, Labour, Illford South, recalled successful interventions by the Blair Government.

He said: 'Can I remind the PM and Mr Corbyn it was a Labour Government with Robin Cook as Foreign Secretary that carried out airstrikes in Iraq under Operation Desert Fox in 1998, without a UN resolution.

Does May need to call a Commons vote on striking Syria?

Theresa May was constitutionally entitled to order British forces into action in Syria without a Commons vote.

The Prime Minister has the power to deploy troops under the Royal Prerogative.

There are no hard and fast rules obliging the government to involve rank-and-file MPs in the decision.

But a vote on prolonged deployment of UK forces would be almost impossible to avoid. 

Commons divisions have been held on almost all military action by British forces since the Iraq War in 2003, establishing what many see as a firm convention.'It was a Labour Government that restored President Kabbah in Sierra Leone without a UN resolution.

'It was a Labour Government that stopped ethnic cleansing in Kosovo without a UN resolution.

'There is a long standing and noble tradition on these benches supporting humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect.' 

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, Conservative, Beaconsfield, said: 'If the leader of the opposition persists on behalf of the Labour Party in changing its previous adherence to the previous rule of international law justifying taking unilateral action in the event of there being a humanitarian necessity, does (Mrs May) agree with me that the consequence of that is going to be that any tyrant, megalomaniac, person intent on carrying out genocide, if they have the support of an amoral state within the Security Council would be able to conduct that genocide with total impunity even if it was within our power to act to prevent it?

'And does she agree with me that in those circumstances, far from upholding the international rules-based system, the reality is that it would be dead?'

Chris Leslie, Labour, Nottingham East, said: 'Pinpointing and degrading Assad's chemical weapons was necessary and appropriate, and that intervening to save civilians from future gas attacks - while not without risk - was absolutely the right thing to do.' 

In an intervention which won cheers on both sides, Mike Gapes, Labour, Illford South recalled successful interventions by the Blair Government.

Tory Dominic Grieve (left) and Labour's Jess Phillips (right) both spoke out in favour of strikes but warned of the need for Parliament's intervention 

Father of the House Ken Clarke told the Commons MPs must in future have a role in planned operations= 

Former Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon, Conservative, Sevenoaks said: 'Would the Prime Minister accept that the public well understand that when our forces need to act quickly and decisively and safely in concert with our allies, it must be right to authorise strikes without giving notice.'

Ken Clarke, Conservative, Rushcliffe pleaded: 'So would she consider, once the immediate issues are over, a cross-party commission of some kind to set out precisely what the role of Parliament is in modern times in the use of military power against another state.' 

Labour's Jess Phillips, Birmingham Yardley, said she would have voted the strikes if asked by the PM.

She warned there was 'too much politicking on both sides' and reminds MPs 'this is about children being gassed'. 

Mrs May has faced considerable criticism for not recalling Parliament to gain approval before joining the US-led action against Bashar al-Assad's despotic regime.

Tony Blair established a convention in the run-up to the Iraq War that a Commons vote is held on significant military action.

However, the PM retains the ability to deploy UK forces when needed. Mrs May has said it was not practical to seek parliamentary approval for the limited strikes on Syria early on Saturday morning. 

Critics say she was nervous about the possibility of losing a vote - although after the action passed apparently without escalation many believe she would win one.

Tory MPs have been told they must be in the Commons today and tomorrow in case there is a vote on her handling of the Syria crisis.

Arriving for an EU summit in Luxembourg today (pictured), Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson stressed the strikes were 'not an attempt to change the tide of the war in Syria or to have regime change'

Theresa May, pictured leaving Downing Street for the Commons today, is making a statement to MPs on the Syria strikes

International Development Secretary Penny Mordaunt said this morning that it would have been 'crazy' to 'outsource' the decision to MPs who could not be given the full intelligence picture. 

She suggested that a vote should only be called if there were plans for a sustained military campaign, rather than limited airstrikes. 

Ms Mordaunt told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'To take a decision on whether something is legally justified, and whether what we are actually intending on doing in terms of targets is appropriate, you would need to know information that could not be shared with every MP.

'And so, outsourcing that decision to people who do not have the full picture is, I think, quite wrong. And, the convention that was established, I think is very wrong.

'I support governments being able to take those decisions, Parliament should hold government to account for that decision.'

She added: 'You can't, for example, share targets with members of parliament. It would be a crazy thing to do.' 

Commons Speaker John Bercow refused an application for an emergency debate this evening, instead selecting a bid from a Labour backbencher.

In a highly unusual public letter to the PM, he said she could have recalled the House earlier if she wanted a proper debate on Syria.

Some 75 people are said to have died in the chemical attack on the rebel-held town of Douma just over a week ago 

A fighter jet landing at Akrotiri military British Royal Air Force Base, Cyprus following strikes on Syrian chemical weapons bases in the early hours of Saturday morning

Explaining why he was accepting Alison McGovern's request for an urgent debate rather than the Prime Minister's, he said: 'I am glad that you and your colleagues in government share the prevailing view that the House will also want an emergency debate on the Syrian situation today.

'The issue is as to how best to facilitate such a debate.

'I would of course have been happy to accede to a request for an earlier sitting of the House if you had made one. In that event you would have been able to put to the House whatever motion you thought appropriate, and it could have been voted on.

'And by the same token ministers are free to bring forward a debate on a general or substantive motion tomorrow or a future day.'

Mr Corbyn yesterday again questioned the legality of the UK's role in the 105-missile strike – and called for legislation to stop military action without MPs' support. 

He also caused fury among his own MPs by stating that he would never take military action in Syria without a UN security council resolution.

The blanket vow effectively gives Vladimir Putin the ability to block UK foreign policy, as Russia has a veto in the security council and has repeatedly deployed it.

Shadow attorney general Baroness Chakrabarti also dismissed the legal basis as 'contentious', telling BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'You can't use force under international law just to punish Syria for bad behaviour.

'You have to actually be using urgent, necessary and proportionate force. And you have to do it with the will of the world behind you.'

She added: 'I think that Parliament should have been recalled before the strike. Some people will suspect that that didn't happen because of governmental concerns that they couldn't get the vote in Parliament. And that to me is not a good enough reason.' 

Boris Johnson, arriving for a summit of European Union foreign ministers in Luxembourg, said: 'The action that was taken by France, by the UK, by the United States in launching calibrated and proportionate strikes against Assad's chemical weapons capabilities, was entirely right, entirely the right thing to do - right for the UK and right for the world.

'I'm very grateful for the strong international support that there has been for what the P3 - UK, France and America - have done.'

The Foreign Secretary stressed it was 'not an attempt to change the tide of the war in Syria or to have regime change' and 'the Syrian war in many ways will go on in its horrible, miserable way'.

'But it was the world saying that we have had enough of the use of chemical weapons, the erosion of that taboo that has been in place for 100 years has gone too far under Bashar Assad,' he said.

'It was time that we said no and it was totally, therefore, the right thing to do.'

Mrs May will hail strong international backing from world leaders including Germany's Angela Merkel, Canadian PM Justin Trudeau and European Council president Donald Tusk since the strike.

'UN Security Council-mandated inspectors have investigated previous attacks and on four occasions decided that the regime was indeed responsible,' she will say. 

'We are confident in our own assessment that the Syrian regime was highly likely responsible for this attack and that its persistent pattern of behaviour meant that it was highly likely to continue using chemical weapons.

Jeremy Corbyn again questioned the legality of the UK's role in the 105-missile strike – and called for legislation to stop military action without MPs' support

'Furthermore, there were clearly attempts to block any proper investigation, as we saw with the Russian veto at the UN earlier in the week. And we cannot wait to alleviate further humanitarian suffering caused by chemical weapons attacks.

'We have done it because we believed it was the right thing to do. And we are not alone. There is broad based international support for the action we have taken.'

Mr Corbyn told BBC1's Andrew Marr Show that legislation was needed.

The Labour leader said: 'There is precedent over previous interventions when Parliament has had a vote.

'I think what we need in this country is something more robust like a War Powers Act so governments do get held to account by Parliament for what they do in our name.'

Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry said any such law would not apply to urgent cases such as 'when we are under attack or the prime minister has been kidnapped'.

But Cabinet Office minister David Lidington, the Prime Minister's deputy, said there were 'no plans' for legislation. The decision on whether there will be a vote – on a motion saying 'the House has considered this' – is technically a matter for the Speaker.

On Saturday, Government Whips asked Tory MPs if they backed the action – with some asked if they would back Mrs May in a vote. One MP said: 'The feeling is nobody will vote against her now it's done and it's punitive and there's been no consequences to our troops.'

Yesterday it emerged Chief Whip Julian Smith had emailed MPs putting them on a three-line whip for tomorrow afternoon. Government sources said they were confident the PM had MPs' backing.

A senior Whitehall source said they did not want a vote before military action to become a precedent, adding: 'The creeping convention of Parliament votes needs to be halted.'