Common Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle on Friday said he was 'happy' to help to recall Parliament to debate the UK and US air strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Following the overnight military action, Sir Lindsay said: 'I was invited to a meeting at the Cabinet Office last night to be briefed about the airstrikes on Houthi rebel bases.
"I made representations to the Deputy Prime Minister about the need for the House to be informed at the earliest possible opportunity and that I would be happy to facilitate a recall at any time."
Downing Street said Rishi Sunak would make a statement to Parliament on Monday, subject to the usual timetabling procedures.
Earlier, Armed forces minister James Heappey defended the decision to launch air strikes against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen without first getting approval from Parliament as a row erupted over MPs not being given their say.
Rishi Sunak is not recalling MPs on Friday to debate the military action involving four RAF jets.
But Mr Heappey said: “The Prime Minister needs to make decisions such as these based on the military, strategic and operational requirements - that led to the timing.
“Obviously Parliament is not scheduled to speak today, but there will be an opportunity when Parliament returns for these things to be fully discussed and debated.”
Mr Heappey described the strikes as a proportionate response to the crisis in the Red Sea where Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen have been attacking commercial vessels, and allied warships, with drones and missiles.
“Our action and the action of the Americans last night was in self defence in order to defend against further attacks on our warships as they go about their legal and reasonable business,” Mr Heappey said.
Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle is understood to have been briefed on the military plans on Thursday evening.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, who was also briefed, has backed the military action but some Leftwing Labour MPs and Liberal Democrats say it should have first been debated in Parliament.
Former shadow Chancellor John McDonnell tweeted: “There should be no military action without Parliamentary approval. If we have learnt anything in recent years it’s that military intervention in the Middle East always has dangerous & often unforeseen consequences. There is a risk of setting the region alight.”
Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesperson Layla Moran MP said: “Parliament should not be bypassed. Rishi Sunak must announce a retrospective vote in the House of Commons on these strikes, and recall Parliament this weekend.
“We remain very concerned about the Houthi’s attacks. But that makes it all the more important to ensure that MPs are not silenced on the important issue of military action.”
But Alicia Kearns, chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, stressed before the military operation: “The situation in the Red Sea is no longer tenable.”
Just days ago the Houthi rebels launched the biggest barrage of missile and drone strikes yet, with HMS Diamond understood to have shot down seven drones.
Ms Kearns added: “Air strikes as a coercive effort to re-establish deterrence and terminate the threat to naval and merchant ships could be proportionate if precise and clearly articulated as limited activity in direct response to the rising threat to freedom of navigation.”
Shadow defence secretary John Healey said the military action was "limited" and that the timing was "not in the hands of the UK government" given that it was US-led.
But he stressed that Mr Sunak should come to the Commons "at the earliest possible opportunity," on Monday, to explain to MPs and take questions on the military action.
Lord Ricketts, who served as the UK’s first national security adviser, said targeted strikes against Houthi rebels are “necessary” and “inevitable”.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, he stressed: “I think it became inevitable when the clear warnings that the US and UK and others had put out over weeks were ignored by the Houthis.
“And I think the final straw was that very complex and dangerous attack on the naval task force itself a couple of nights ago, I think at that point they couldn’t allow this to continue.
“It’s already having a major disruptive effect on this big maritime artery which carries 20 per cent of all the world’s container traffic, as well as a lot of oil and gas exports, and therefore I think this attack was necessary, I think it was inevitable.
“I think they’ve tried to make it large enough to send a very powerful message, but equally being clear it’s targeted against the attacks on shipping, it’s not a declaration of war against the Houthis more generally.”
Prime Ministers have in the past taken different approaches to seeking the approval of Parliament over British military air strikes.
MPs rejected in August 2013 UK military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government to deter the use of chemical weapons.
They voted by 285 to 272 against joining possible US-led strikes and then Prime Minister David Cameron said he would respect the result.
The House was recalled on 26 September 2014 to discuss the UK’s possible involvement in air strikes against Islamic State in Iraq, and MPs voted by 524 to 43 to support the move.
In December 2015, MPs voted by 397 to 223 for UK air strikes against Islamic State in Syria, with Mr Cameron arguing that bombing the “medieval monsters” in their heartland would help to make Britain safer.
UK air strikes were launched against the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons facilities in April 2018 without recourse to Parliament.
Theresa May, who was Prime Minister at the time, argued it was “legally and morally right” for Britain to join air strikes against Assad’s brutal regime to prevent “further human suffering”.
A vote, forced by the Scottish National Party, on whether the Commons had sufficiently debated the matter of Syria, was won by the Government by 314 to 36.
A Commons Library research paper states: “The decision to deploy the Armed Forces in situations of armed conflict is currently a prerogative power.
“In the event of a declaration of war or the commitment of British forces to military action, constitutional convention requires that authorisation is given by the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Crown. Decisions on military action are taken within the Cabinet with advice from, among others, the National Security Council and the Chief of the Defence Staff.”
The briefing adds: “In constitutional terms Parliament has no legally established role and the Government is under no legal obligation with respect to its conduct, including keeping Parliament informed.
“In practice however, successive Governments have consulted and informed the House of Commons about the decision to use force and the progress of military campaigns, although there has been little consistency in how that has been achieved.”
