Why Sunak doesn’t need to get MPs’ permission to launch strikes on Houthi rebels
The UK and US have conducted a second round of airstrikes on Houthi targets after the Yemen-based rebel group attacked a dozen more ships in the Red Sea.
The operation was also supported by forces from Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands, according to a joint statement signed by the six countries.
Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said the latest round of strikes had been conducted in âself-defenceâ.
He said in a statement: âDangerous Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea have continued to threaten the lives of sailors and disrupt shipping at an intolerable cost to the global economy.
âAlong with our US partners, we have conducted a further round of strikes in self-defence. Aimed at degrading Houthi capabilities, this action will deal another blow to their limited stockpiles and ability to threaten global trade.
âAlongside our ongoing diplomatic efforts, we will continue to support regional stability across the Middle East, working hand in hand with our like-minded partners.â
But there have been reports that the Government did not inform Labour and the Commons Speaker ahead of the latest strikes, despite having done so following previous military action earlier this month.
Does Rishi Sunak need to ask MPs for permission?
The Prime Minister can deploy UK armed forces in conflict situations, acting on behalf of the Monarch, without seeking the approval of MPs.
The King is officially the head of the armed forces, but the Prime Minister can exercise what is known as prerogative executive powers on issues including conflict and foreign affairs.
However, when Lord David Cameron, now the Foreign Secretary, was in No 10 the Government acknowledged that it had become a convention for the House of Commons to be notified of and allowed to debate pending military action overseas.
The 2011 Cabinet Manual, which set out the powers and rules ministers are subject to, states that MPs should be consulted on military action âexcept when there was an emergency and such action would not be appropriateâ.
While this convention is not legally binding, it does suggest that the Government would be normally expected to allow MPs to debate certain military action if such prior publication would not hinder the operation.
Was Labour informed ahead of the latest airstrikes?
Transport minister Huw Merriman told Sky News on Tuesday that both Sir Keir Starmer and the Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle were informed before the strikes against the Yemen-based Houthi rebels took place âin the same way they were the first time aroundâ.
But i understands that the Labour leader did not receive a briefing on Monday evening ahead of the latest round of airstrikes in the Red Sea.
Sir Keir said he âfully supportedâ the first round of strikes earlier this month, but urged the Prime Minister to make a statement to Parliament âat the first opportunityâ which did eventually take place a few days later.
He told BBC Radio 5 Live at the time that the Government had informed âin a Cobra secure briefing last night about the action that was going to be takenâ.
âClearly, the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea have to be dealt with, their attacks on commercial shipping, attacks on important trade routes and putting civilian lives at risk and therefore, we do support this action,â he said.
Liberal Democrat spokesperson for foreign affairs, Layla Moran, has called for an immediate recall of Parliament and a retrospective vote.
What has the Government said?
Following the first joint UK-US airstrikes on Houthi rebels in the Red Sea on 11 January, the Government published a summary of its legal position stating that the action was ânecessary and proportionateâ.
âMilitary intervention to strike carefully identified targets in order to effectively downgrade the Houthiâs capabilities and deter further attacks was lawfully taken,â it continued.
âThe UK is permitted under international law to use force in such circumstances where acting in self-defence is the only feasible means to deal with an actual or imminent armed attack and where the force used is necessary and proportionate.â
Speaking to broadcasters following the most recent strikes, Lord Cameron said that the Houthi rebels had been conducting âcompletely indiscriminateâ attacks on shipping lanes in the Red Sea and were âeffectively threatening the freedom of navigationâ.
âIâm confident that the attacks we carried out 10 days ago had an effect on degrading the Houthi his ability to do that, and using up the limited supplies of sophisticated weapons that they have,â he said.
âIâm sure the attacks last night will have made a further impression in that way while sending the clearest possible message that the action theyâre taking is unacceptable.â
Should it be a law that MPs must vote on military action?
Successive governments have resisted calls for a vote to be required ahead of military action conducted by UK forces, citing security concerns over giving targets advance notice.
In a 2016 statement, then-defence secretary Michael Fallon suggested that the existing convention, under which the Commons is consulted in certain circumstances, would not be codified into law so as not to âconstrain the operational flexibility of the Armed Forces and prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of those forcesâ.
In the past, MPs have often been invited to debate on and approve military action after it has begun, including in 2013 when MPs voted against military action in Syria.
MPs have also voted on approved military action in recent years such as action against the Islamic State in Iraq in 2014 and extending military action against against ISIS in Syria in 2015.
In 2018, however, strikes against chemical weapons facilities operated by the Syrian regime were conducted without prior approval, and the Government said they were legally justified on humanitarian grounds.
Military action in Mali in 2013 and Libya in 2011 also went ahead without prior approval or debate.