it will also send a clear signal to anyone else who believes they can use chemical weapons with impunity. jeremy corbyn says the prime minister was wrong not to consult parliament before the air strikes, which he suggests are illegal. she could have come to parliament on monday to discuss the whole situation. instead, they've launched these strikes. she claims there is a legal basis for it. i've asked her in a letter i sent this morning to publish in full the legal basis and justification for it. when cabinet ministers met on thursday to discuss taking action against the syrian regime, they were given legal advice, and the government is expected to publish a summary of that later. opposition parties have other questions for theresa may. it doesn't do anything to bring syria to a more peaceful resolution, and i'm not convinced it does what it seeks to achieve, which is to undermine the syrian government's the syrian government's ability to deploy chemical weapons in the future. there are big issues to explore

here. the public expects parliament to do itsjob in holding the government accountable. we understand it is a weighty decision, it is difficult, and there are legitimate reasons for wanting to respond to the use of chemical weapons, which has undoubtedly occurred. but there are major questions, major doubts. is this a one—off, or is it a continuing operation? how much control do we have over what the americans are doing? we have a very erratic american president, who changes his position from one day to the next. theresa may will have to answer all these questions on monday, when mps return to westminster. she is adamant, though, that military action was the right thing to do. vicki young, bbc news, westminster. downing street has published a document setting out why it says military action against the syrian regime was legal. stating it has met three conditions permitted under international law. they are that it has to have convincing evidence

generally accepted by the international community of extreme humanitarian distress on a large—scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief. number two, large—scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief. numbertwo, it large—scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief. number two, it must be objectively clear that there is ina be objectively clear that there is in a practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved, a phrase used by the prime minister. number three, the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian suffering and must be strictly limited in time and in scope to the same. so the three main conditions released as part of the government's legal position. that legal advice just published within the last couple of minutes. we can discuss the implications now with brandon lewis mp, the chairman of the conservative party. thank you very much forjoining us here on bbc news. can wejust thank you very much forjoining us here on bbc news. can we just go through that legal evidence, that legal justification we through that legal evidence, that legaljustification we have had that

these air strikes are designed to alleviate human suffering, in what way will they do that? well, these air strikes themselves are about degrading and deterring the use of chemical weapons and that itself is a humanitarian requirement, especially when we see what has been happening not least with the recent strike of chemical weapons in syria by the regime on its own people. but we heard from the pentagon just half an hourago, we heard from the pentagon just half an hour ago, they made it clear that not all of president assad's chemical capability had been taken out. the prime minister herself said... is the prime minister herself said this morning, this is about degrading and deterring the use of chemical weapons. we're not shying away from that, it has been important to see that international support for that position, something that for over 100 years has been internationally accepted as being

com pletely internationally accepted as being completely unacceptable, the use of dutch chemical weapons and it is right to restore normality and not allow the use of chemical weapons to become a normality in war or at any time as we have seen over recent periods. how would you characterise this, as one of deterrence strike? well, as was said this morning, the conversation at cabinet this morning and the prime minister outlined this morning, this is a targeted and very specific limited attack to make sure that we do what we can to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons in future. in the syrian regime and also making a clear statement international —— internationally that the use of chemical weapons in any way is com pletely chemical weapons in any way is completely unacceptable. but is this, was the strike intended by the uk government to send just a single message, 01’ uk government to send just a single message, or is it part of a wider strategy? well, this is part of a tripartite piece of work with france and the united states and has been

supported by allies around the world. as we have seen this afternoon. to make it clear that the use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world is an unacceptable situation and it is right that we make that point very clearly. we have also been very clear that this has to be part of the wider piecework and we continue that work to see what we all want to see, which is a political and peaceful solution to the problems in syria.|j suppose that leads the second leg in that legal justification suppose that leads the second leg in that legaljustification of there being no practicable alternative. labour leaderjeremy corbyn would disagree with you and he would say air strikes like this will only increase the danger and the volatility of the area. i would disagree with something to labour leader himself has said earlier today, i think i saw, he talks about what has happened since the previous attack. we understand and we have seen several attacks outlined by the

opcw that seen several attacks outlined by the 0pcw that chemical weapons had been used in syria several times since syria its self agreed not to use them any more and it is absolutely right to the international community sends a very clear message to the regime in syria and internationally that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable and we do what we can to degrade and deter the use of them. it can send a message, but will it really deter? you will be as aware as everybody that the united states one year ago launched a missile attack which failed to prevent the chemical weapons attack a week ago in douma. this is a larger scale piece of action by ourselves with the allies in france and the united states specifically targeted to deter and degrade the use of chemical weapons. but as we said, we have got to see ultimately a political solution to the wider situation in syria. this is not about anything other than degrading and deterring the use of chemical weapons. the prime minister is right

to say that this is the only cause of action to take and it was the right thing to do, and it was also right thing to do, and it was also right that the prime minister made that decision taking into account the security situation and the safety of both our armed forces and those of our allies and the operation requirements of the mission itself. can i ask you about the political situation at home? the prime minister has been criticised by some for not bringing this issue to the house of commons and putting this to vote, why did she not do that? the prime minister will be in the house of commons on monday making a statement and outlining the situation. the reality was looking at the operational requirements as has been outlined this morning. it is making sure we are always focused on the safety and security of the mission and within that, our armed —— our armed forces are putting themselves at risk and their allies and it was right to take the decision as has happened in the past to ta ke decision as has happened in the past to take forward an operation the right way, with proper planning and

at the right time. but her making a statement after the effect is not the same as going for a vote on it. it is absolutely right her government is held to account by parliament, that is the process that has been in place for very long time. but when you have operational situations like this where security and of our armed forces and the mission itself and the operational requirements are paramount, it is right the premise and the government had the ability to make that decision and do what is the right thing by four national security and the humanitarian requirement in that particular operation. where do you see the government's strategy when it comes to syria going from here, from now? working with our allies around the world and continuing to work with the un, we have got to continue to work to put that pressure on to find a political six duration —— solution. we have seen in the last week russia continuing to use the veto to prevent

investigations, independent investigations, independent investigations, we have to keep that pressure up as well. this particular operation was very targeted and very specific and the wider issue in syria has to have a continued political presence and worked on with it. but this action is not going to bring russia on site, it will have quite the opposite effect. well, this operation in itself is very specific, very targeted, it is about deterring and degrading the use of chemical weapons. the wider situation in syria is one we have to continue that diplomatic and political work with our allies around the world to bring a resolution to. we will have to leave it there, brandon lewis, many thanks for your time. the labour leaderjeremy corbyn has called the allied military action in syria "legally questionable" and he said it made real accountability for war crimes less likely.

i had ihada i had a late—night conversation with the prime minister and my whole point is that parliament should be consulted, parliament should be allowed to take a view on this, but instead, the strikes were launched last night. parliament is in session on monday. she could have come to parliament on monday to discuss the whole situation. instead, they have launched the strikes. she claims there is a legal basis for it. i have asked her in a letter i have just sent to her this morning to publish in full the legal basis and justification for it. and also, why she has not heeded the words of antonio guterres, the general secretary of the united nations, who wa nted secretary of the united nations, who wanted the strikes to be stopped, who wanted the un charter to be observed, and give time for the 0pcw to do its inspection of the chemical weapons in syria. and also, to work again to get a ceasefire in syria that no more people are killed in this gasly civil war in syria. what

will labour be pushing for when parliament resumes? we will be pushing for publication on the legal advice that the government has given. we will be demanding that the government goes back to the united nations with the support of the swedish government, or in support of the swedish government, in order to get a new un resolution and bring russia and the united states together, along with iran, saudi arabia, israel, turkey, all the neighbouring states there. this civil war is terrible, it has killed hundreds and thousands and has driven millions to refuge in other countries and the chemical weapons are obviously appalling and disgusting and completely illegal within international law. can i ask you to explain it you're concerned about the legality and what you think the consequences will be? well, the consequences of any country taking unilateral action that has no legal basis that it is an encouragement for others to do

exactly the same and reduces our ability to complain when others do that. surely the united nations exists for the purpose. if the security council was unable to come to agreement this week, as it obviously was not because the united states and russia could not agree on anything, then surely the role of another country, is for example, is to be an honest broker and try and bring them together. this war cannot go on. would you back theresa may's humanitarian argument for the air strikes being legal because of what is happening in that area? she has used the ordinance that by bombing those sites, it would prevent any other chemical weapons being used. —— used the argument. i would simply say to her that the weapons inspectors were on their way there to verify it. in 2013, sergey lavrov and kerry on behalf of the united states reached an agreement, did destroy a large amount of the chemical weapons. that is precedent that this process can work and

surely it would be better to do that than start bombing. and goodness knows what the consequences of that bombing could be. i'm glad that no service personnel were killed or injured during this. we don't know if there were any civilian casualties as yet. why do you think the bombing... you could only do it under the basis of self defence, if there was a direct threat to others and there was not? 0ur correspondent at the ministry of defence today is daniel sandford. just talk us through the specifics of britain's involvement in these air strikes. it is now pretty clear exactly what the british involvement was. four tornado gr jets took off from akrotiri airbase in cyprus and they were launched eight storm shadow cruise missiles which once launched by the plane rocked down to

a very low level, hopefully going underneath any missile defences, and then rise up just before they come to the target, get themselves accurately positioned over the target and then they have a double warhead. 0ne target and then they have a double warhead. one is to break through concrete and a second warhead explodes inside any bunker or command control facility. those eight storm shadow cruise missiles all targeted what is known as the chemical weapons storage facility and command and control centre about 15 miles west of homs and command and control centre about 15 miles west of horns and it is believed by the british and americans that is where precursor chemicals, that, mixed together to make chemical weapons, were being stored. and the americans in their press c0 nfe re nce stored. and the americans in their press conference earlier this afternoon at the department of defence released photographs which seemed to show some damage to three locations at that chemical weapons storage facility. so it appears as

though that attack has been successful, that was the line the americans were taking. and there was discussion at the american press conference about what the syrian air defences had done, and they said a0 anti—aircraft missiles had been fired by the syrian air defences and almost all of those had been fired after the missiles had hit their targets and therefore it does look as if there was not any great risk in the end to the pilots flying those tornadoes and the missiles all seem to have got through and hit their target. there was some discussion at that pentagon briefing of how the allied forces could be clear that by hitting these chemical weapons sites, they would not then be releasing some of these agents into the air. i wonder if you have had a sense from the ministry of defence about how confident they are back that risk might have been contained? in the statement they put out after

the attacks, they did address that point and they said scientific analysis, as they put it, had been applied in planning these attacks to maximise the destruction of the chemicals and minimise the risk of contamination of the surrounding area. and the facility was some distance from any concentration of civilians. but of course, that is all very easy to say, but when explosive start to go off, it is never that predictable. and we don't know exactly how much intelligence they had on the ground. sol know exactly how much intelligence they had on the ground. so i think that will take some further assessment before anyone can be sure, but certainly in the planning of this attack, that was something that the ministry of defence say a thought about and had done their best to deal with. daniel, i'm sure we will be back to you later in the afternoon but for the time being, many thanks. we are

taking you straight to britain's envoy, karen pearce. we cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised, whether that is in syria or on the streets of salisbury, thank you. what is the estimate of the chemical weapons infrastructure that syria has that was destroyed last night? well, i think there will be separate military briefings later from three capitals involved, so i will allow that to take place. but i will tell you that it was a limited strike with a targeted objective and i think that is a very important factor. i'm going to take this person first. you have touched upon this in your remarks, but could you spell out the legal basis for these strikes?” will set that out in the council in full, we have published it on our website here in new york and it has been published by the government in london on the government website. at

ina london on the government website. at in a nutshell, it was to alleviate the humanitarian suffering of the people of syria, which has been exacerbated by the use of chemical weapons in the british government's view, in chile exceptional circumstances, it is right to have a humanitarian exemption. —— in exceptional. if it is to alleviate humanitarian distress, particularly on the scale we have seen in syria. should we await any new strikes?” don't have comments to make on further strikes. president trump said he was considering a sustained response to strike again if chemical weapons we re response to strike again if chemical weapons were used again, is britain on board with that as well? we stand. i with president trump and president macron. this is a p3 action and we will stay in close touch with our allies about the next steps. labour leaderjeremy corbyn has questioned the legality of the

strike, you are certain about the legality? yes, we are certain, thank you for asking but the comment is very certain. and you very much. that is the british ambassador to the united nations, karen pearce. effectively reiterating the legal basis on which britain joined effectively reiterating the legal basis on which britainjoined in that shared action in syria. saying that shared action in syria. saying that britain stands. where with the us and france. and this was a limited strike with a targeted objective. clearly going on to a session of the un security council. a lot of diplomatic activity going on today and we are expressing, expecting a press conference from nato also later in the afternoon and we will bring you everything as soon as we get it. the syrian president bashar al—assad has said missile

strikes carried will only increase his government's resolve to continue what he described as his "war against terrorism." president trump said the bombing raids would be sustained unless syria stopped using chemical weapons. he announced the mission moments before the first missiles landed in syria. my my fellow americans, short time ago, i ordered the united states armed forces to launch precision strikes on targets associated with the chemical weapons capabilities of syrian dictator bashar al—assad. a combined operation with the armed forces of france and the uk is now under way. we thank them both. tonight, i want to speak with you about why we have taken this action. one year ago, assad launched a savage chemical weapons attack against his own innocent people. the united states responded with 58 missile strikes that destroyed 20%

of the syrian air force. last saturday, the assad regime again deployed chemical weapons to slaughter innocent civilians. this time, in the town of douma, near the syrian capital of damascus. this massacre was a significant escalation in a pattern of chemical weapons use by that very terrible regime. the evil and despicable attack left mothers and fathers, infants and children, thrashing in pain and gasping for air. these are not the actions of a man, they are crimes of a monster instead. following the horrors of world war i, a century ago, civilised nations joined together to ban chemical warfare. chemical weapons are uniquely dangerous.

not only because they inflict gruesome suffering, but because even small amounts can unleash widespread devastation. the purpose of our actions tonight is to establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread and use of chemical weapons. establishing this deterrent is a vital national security interest of the united states. the combined american, british and french response to these atrocities will integrate all instruments of our national power, military, economic and diplomatic. we are prepared to sustain this response until the syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents. i also have a message tonight for the two governments most responsible for supporting, equipping and financing

the criminal assad regime. to iran and to russia, i ask — what kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women and children? the nations of the world can be judged by the friends they keep. no nation can succeed in the long run by promoting a rogue states, brutal tyrants and murderous dictators. in 2013, president putin and his government promised the world that they would guarantee the elimination of syria's chemical weapons. assad's recent attack, and today's response, are the direct result of russia's failure to keep that promise. russia must decide if it

will continue down this dark past, or if it willjoin with civilised nations as a force for stability and peace. earlier, my colleague lyse doucet spoke to andrey korobkov — from the university of tennessee and an expert on the russian council on international affairs. she asked whether from the west's perspective the action was successful. russia's perception is that there we re russia's perception is that there were targeted strikes. and everything was done to avoid a direct clash with the russian military over there. so everything went from their point of view as it was planned. and the perception is

that to a large extent, it was done by trump for the internal regions. whether it is related to the campaign in congress. president macron and prime minister theresa may and president trump have made it clear this is about respecting and safeguarding international norms regarding the prevention of the use of chemical weapons. yes. but i regarding the prevention of the use of chemicalweapons. yes. but i am talking here about the russian reaction. and there was a lot of very angry talk before the strikes. coming from members of parliament, and talk shows, promising an angry response in case any russian objects, military objects or

personnel would be hit. so all this follows the salisbury story and especially the sanctions that have follows the salisbury story and especially the sanctions that i not saying that this act would be, not be without consequences. what do you think will happen next, will there bea think will happen next, will there be a response of some kind from russia, or will they just let this stand and try to move on to improve relations and address other issues? there will be some cosmetic response in order to... basically, they would prefer in order to... basically, they would p refer to in order to... basically, they would prefer to forget about it. if the west would be willing to kind of stop, russia would also, well, it would make some very symbolic steps, but would not engage in any large—scale action. russian ships we re large—scale action. russian ships were withdrawn from the ports right before this strike, so it looks like the military did expect this strike. but at the same time, they expected

that it would go exactly the way it went. ltd in scale, very targeted, and avoiding a clash with russian interests. it looks like there was some kind of information exchange between the russians and the western military, whether they would recognise it or not, but it seems there was some degree of cooperation. and what would you see as the next stage? the other strong message from this pentagon briefing is that the united states would like this to move towards an acceleration of a negotiated settlement to the war in syria. in other words, negotiated settlement to the war in syria. in otherwords, political talks. would that also be russia's aim? yes, it would be russia's aim, but in russian perception, to a large extent, they have won the

civil war whereas russia has won the civil operations so negotiations have to take place, but on the basis of this new reality. time for the latest weather now. most of us enjoyed a fine day with lots of sunshine. the best of it across england and wales but northern scotland did well as well. through this evening and overnight, what little cloud has built up across northern ireland, southern and central is and north east scotland, tends to melt away, leaving clear skies for the most part. leaving clear skies for the most pa rt. towards leaving clear skies for the most part. towards the south—west later in the night, we will see cloud and rain and roache from the south and west, but for most of us, cold night, 5—8d and turning colderfor a time in the north east of scotland. tomorrow is a different kind of day. we will see this area of cloud with bands of rain working in from the south and west and it is one of those days where most of us will see

several downpours across england and wales interspersed with sunny spells. the rain eventually reaches into northern ireland, central and southern scotland and probably later in the afternoon, northern scotland the one place it stays dry. 11—1ad for most, a day. this is bbc news. i'm lyse doucet live in beirut. president trump has hailed the overnight missile strikes against syria as a success, declaring "mission accomplished!" the us, britain and france say they targeted three chemical weapons sites with more than 100 missiles. i'd use three words to describe this operation — precise, overwhelming and effective. four british tornado jets were involved in the operation. theresa may said there was "no

practicable alternative to the use of force". we cannot allow the use of chemical wepaons to become normalised, either within syria, on the streets of the uk or elsewhere. russia's foreign minister says the actions of western countries in