Sir Julian Lewis: One way in which one can stretch the terms of the debate a little further than its precise wording [Situation in the Red Sea] without infringing any rules is to remark upon the fact that in the Red sea, British naval assets are particularly important. Does the shadow Secretary of State [John Healey] agree that there should be no question, now or in the near or medium future, of our losing our amphibious assault ships, which are so necessary for the combined operations that one must engage in when taking on piratical opponents?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Perfectly done, Sir Julian.

John Healey: One other way of stretching the limits of a tightly drawn debate is experienced interventions of the nature that the right hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated. One advantage of debates such as this is that we hear from the Government not just at the start of the debate, but at the end, so we can look forward to the Minister picking up and responding to the right hon. Gentleman’s question when he winds up.]

* * *

Sir Julian Lewis rose –

[Martin Docherty-Hughes: I will give way to my right hon. Friend.]

Sir Julian Lewis: I am grateful, and I regard him as my hon. Friend too. Before he leaves the issue of percentages spent on defence, would he not agree with me that, crude though they are, these are indicators of a national priority? The trouble is that if we do not spend enough on defence in peacetime, and then a conflict breaks out – we are now beginning to hear talk of having to be prepared for major conflict in the next decade or two – we will be spending vastly more than 3% or 4% on defence. So how much better is it to spend a bit more in peacetime to prevent the conflict, and how much better than that is it that America should realise that investing in Ukraine’s effort is also helping to raise the deterrence threshold?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes: I both agree and disagree. Had the Ministry made sustained investment in capability, we might not have found ourselves in this situation. The right hon. Gentleman is welcome to stay for my Adjournment debate on nuclear infrastructure, in which we might go into the number crunching in far more detail – he may try to pass on that. …]

* * *

Sir Julian Lewis rose –

[James Gray: My right hon. Friend disagrees with me.]

Sir Julian Lewis: I am afraid I do. I agree with my hon. Friend’s main thrust, that there is no doubt that the Prime Minister and the Executive have the right to take initial action and seek support afterwards. Having said that, the case of Syria in particular has become a byword for a wrong and terrible decision, because the ghastly Assad remained in power, but the alternative would have been another Islamist swamp such as we saw in Libya. It was because there was a strong feeling in the House that Syria would have been another Iraq or another Libya that there was such pressure to have a vote. For my part, I think the result was absolutely right.

[James Gray: My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point: he thinks we should not have had strikes against Syria, and therefore he thinks we should have had a vote on the matter, because the vote went against the strikes. However, let us imagine there was some other very important or essential war, in the moment before a general election, with a very small majority on one side or the other. That war would then become political. He might well find under those circumstances that a war that he strongly believed in and wanted to support was voted down by this House, rather than by the generals or the Prime Minister.

The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell): Perhaps both my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) will agree that, while it can be risky and dangerous to intervene, it can also be risky and dangerous not to intervene. Perhaps they would both agree on that point.]

* * *

[Mr Mitchell: … Let me return to the excellent speeches made by so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and Members, and I will turn first to the speech by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee –]

Sir Julian Lewis rose –

[Mr Mitchell: Before I do that, I shall give way to my right hon. Friend.]

Sir Julian Lewis: My right hon. Friend is, as always, the model of courtesy. For the avoidance of any lingering doubt – I am sure this can be avoided as I am getting very positive signals from the Defence Secretary sitting to his left – will he confirm that HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, whose planned out-of-service dates are 2033 and 2034 respectively, not only will not be scrapped ahead of time, but will not be mothballed either?

[Mr Mitchell: My right hon. Friend was absolutely right to detect the supportive view of the Secretary of State for Defence.]