PARLIAMENT returned this week after the Easter recess.

While I was plunged straight into preparation for Treasury questions, the overriding focus has been firmly on Syria and the joint operation by US, French and UK forces in response to the humanitarian tragedy caused by the deployment of chemical weapons in Douma.

The use of chemical weapons is in clear contravention of international law, and it is imperative that we do not turn a blind eye to it. I fully support the Prime Minister’s decision on Saturday to take military action. As she made very clear, this is not a decision that was taken lightly – nor was there any realistic alternative.

We have explored diplomatic routes extensively in the past, but with no success. The OPCW reported only last month that Syria failed to effectively dismantle their chemical weapon programme as had been agreed following the attack in Damascus in 2013.

As the Prime Minister has stated, the strikes are not about precipitating regime change or becoming involved in a civil war. They were deliberately proportionate and specific - targeting key chemical weapons sites with the sole purpose of degrading the regime’s capability to launch similar attacks on its people in future.

My inbox has been full of correspondence from constituents – unsurprisingly, many backing the action and others strongly opposing it.

Some people have advanced Jeremy Corbyn’s argument that Parliament should have been recalled to make a decision regarding the use of force.

I disagree with this assessment. The convention of consulting Parliament is a very recent one, instituted by Tony Blair and used very selectively, even when Labour were in government.

The crown prerogative gives the Government the right to take military action without a parliamentary vote.

Personally, I have grave doubts about the wisdom of giving MPs who have not had the benefit of high level security briefings an equal say with cabinet members who have.

Those who have called for UN-backed action are, I believe, similarly misguided. Calling for UN agreement is tantamount to guaranteeing inaction, since Russia’s repeated vetoes at the UN have prevented any attempt to hold the perpetrators of chemical weapons attacks to account.

While Russia continues to hold a veto, on the specific question of countering the use of chemical weapons, there can be no question of achieving consensus through the UN.

I am deeply concerned that events here in Salisbury and Syria are showing an erosion of the principle of non-use. Increasing normalisation of the use of such arsenals sets the whole world on a very dangerous trajectory and we are compelled to take a stand.