Speeches by Lewell.

“Just a quick one from me, and it might seem a bit obvious, but since the Government accepted all 62 of the recommendations in the SDR—which included 12 new F-35As, the 12 SSN-AUKUS nuclear subs, six munitions factories, £6 billion in munitions procurement, 7,000 long-range missiles, and £1 billion for homeland air defe…”

“So will they be in the Defence Investment Plan?”

“Secretary of State, if I can try to simplify it because I tend to speak quite bluntly and straight. The SDR was supposed to identify reprioritisation but it did not; the reviewers were clear with us that that had been removed. Why did the SDR go from its terms of reference saying that it should identify what defence sh…”

“What if things are fast-moving and it is recess or that is just not possible? There is every likelihood that troops could be deployed without a vote in Parliament under royal prerogative, is there not?”

“If that does happen, would you commit to coming back as soon as possible afterwards to give the details?”

“I am looking at the terms of reference from the SDR now and what you are saying does not align with them. What Calvin and I are trying to understand is what changed from the terms of reference to the SDR being produced?”

“Out of the coalition of the willing, why do you think other members have not given the same commitment that the UK and France have given?”

“What I am trying to pin you down on, Secretary of State, is that you accepted those recommendations, so are the things that I have just read out going to happen?”

“Sorry, Secretary of State, I am just checking: have other countries made commitments that are just not public and it is only the UK, France and the US’s commitments that have been made public?”

“I will leave it there, Chairman, in the interest of time.”

“I just want to move on to Ukraine and the coalition of the willing. Secretary of State, do you have a strategy for parliamentary engagement in advance of a vote on the coalition of the willing? As you will know from your statement in the House, there are multiple unanswered questions regarding the actual detail of the …”

“I will call Liz Jarvis to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.”

“I am immediately imposing a four-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches, so not every Member will get to speak. However, if Members keep their speeches shorter, more people will get in.”

“Just to revisit that, you say, “One more turn of the wheel,” and in answer to my earlier question you said that you thought it would happen around the autumn. Why, then, did you apply for an indefinite extension in May, instead of just a temporary extension?”

“You can see how it is confusing to us, though. You are saying that you thought it should have probably been lifted in the autumn and you were constantly reviewing it, yet you applied for an indefinite extension.”

“But they could have been doing that, presumably, on the premise of what you have just said: the 50%.”

“Was it not an option to apply for just a temporary extension?”

“So that would be how you would reconcile—I know you told the “Today” programme in July this year that you do not think the injunction should have carried on as long as it did, but what you are saying is that you were making that judgment, which your successor did as well. I am just trying to pin you down on—”

“I think you get the point that I am making, though: you applied for an indefinite extension, even though you did not want an indefinite extension.”

“Sorry, but I am just trying to get my head around this. Obviously that was July, and you are saying that you think things would have changed by the autumn.”