KEY QUESTIONS OVER SYRIA ACTION

PRIME Minister Theresa May has been in talks with the US and French presidents over how to respond to the suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria. Here we look at whether she can order military action without going to MPs.

■ Does the Prime Minister need to put the decision to a vote in Parliament?

No. Deploying the armed forces is a prerogative power, which means the Prime Minister can act without backing from MPs.

■ Doesn’t Parliament expect to have a say in practice?

Yes. A year after taking power, the coalition government suggested that since the Iraq vote in 2003 a convention had emerged that MPs should have a say before troops were committed to military operations. It said the administration would observe that practice except in an emergency.

Critics pointed out that between 2003 and the announcement in 2011 there had been no Government-tabled debate or vote on any military deployment, including on sending troops to Afghanistan in 2006.

■ Haven’t there been votes on action in Syria before?

Yes. In 2013 David Cameron went to the House to ask for support to join US-led air strikes in Syria after Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. He was defeated by 13 votes and said he would respect the result. Mr Cameron went back to MPs in December 2015 to ask for support for UK involvement in air strikes against IS in Syria and won by 397 votes to 223.

■ What are the implications of those votes for Mrs May?

It makes it more difficult for the PM to act without the Commons’ backing. Many believe the 2013 vote made future military action without a vote hugely difficult politically.

■ So the Prime Minister’s hands are tied then?

It depends who you ask. Conservative Tom Tugendhat, who chairs the foreign affairs select committee, insists joining the strikes would not require a vote.

Fellow Tory Julian Lewis, the defence select committee chairman, says Parliament should be consulted.

Ultimately, the PM still retains the prerogative power but will have to weigh up the political consequences of pushing ahead without parliamentary approval.