My Lords, the Minister knows that the House supports, without qualification, the supply of arms to Ukraine, but are we not entitled to credible evidence that the Government are even now replenishing our own stocks of military equipment so as to maintain, now, the credibility and the capability of our own Armed Forces?

If the Minister will tolerate me intervening again for a moment, the terms of reference say under the heading of “Method”:

“As such, the procedure and conduct of the Inquiry are to be directed by the Inquiry Chair. There will be closed hearings and all necessary steps taken to protect sensitive material and the security of witnesses”,

but they do not say that all hearings will be closed. That ambiguity probably ought to be resolved in some way, lest there should be expectations that are not fulfilled.

My Lords, like others, I too hold our armed services in high esteem. As the Minister has just pointed out, this makes it all the more necessary that we should have an inquiry of the kind that we are discussing.

I begin by acknowledging that the appointment of Lord Justice Haddon-Cave is a very good sign, not least because his previous experience involves other elements of the military. He will therefore start with an advantage compared with someone who might, for example, have spent all his time in the Chancery Court, however worthwhile that time might have been.

The procedure and conduct of this inquiry are to be a matter for the judge. I observe in the description a reference to the fact that closed hearings may be held. Since there is no reference otherwise, does that mean that evidence may be heard in public, always within the discretion of the presiding judge?

The third and last point I want to make is this: I have some limited experience of responsibility in my party in relation to defence. The Saville inquiry took 12 years to produce a report—Saville being, of course, an analysis of what took place on what came to be called Bloody Sunday—while the Chilcot inquiry into the second Gulf War lasted six years. One appreciates the finely balanced tension between detail and getting it right but, the longer the issue is dragged out, the more difficult it may be for people to believe that the word “expeditiously”, which was used in the Statement made in the other place, has any real meaning.

I appreciate that the Minister cannot give any undertakings, but it might perhaps be enough for me to suggest that the issue of “expeditiously” is one that the Ministry of Defence should impress as reasonably as it can upon Lord Justice Haddon-Cave when he begins his inquiry in full.

If the Minister will tolerate me intervening again for a moment, the terms of reference say under the heading of “Method”:

“As such, the procedure and conduct of the Inquiry are to be directed by the Inquiry Chair. There will be closed hearings and all necessary steps taken to protect sensitive material and the security of witnesses”,

but they do not say that all hearings will be closed. That ambiguity probably ought to be resolved in some way, lest there should be expectations that are not fulfilled.

My Lords, like others, I too hold our armed services in high esteem. As the Minister has just pointed out, this makes it all the more necessary that we should have an inquiry of the kind that we are discussing.

I begin by acknowledging that the appointment of Lord Justice Haddon-Cave is a very good sign, not least because his previous experience involves other elements of the military. He will therefore start with an advantage compared with someone who might, for example, have spent all his time in the Chancery Court, however worthwhile that time might have been.

The procedure and conduct of this inquiry are to be a matter for the judge. I observe in the description a reference to the fact that closed hearings may be held. Since there is no reference otherwise, does that mean that evidence may be heard in public, always within the discretion of the presiding judge?

The third and last point I want to make is this: I have some limited experience of responsibility in my party in relation to defence. The Saville inquiry took 12 years to produce a report—Saville being, of course, an analysis of what took place on what came to be called Bloody Sunday—while the Chilcot inquiry into the second Gulf War lasted six years. One appreciates the finely balanced tension between detail and getting it right but, the longer the issue is dragged out, the more difficult it may be for people to believe that the word “expeditiously”, which was used in the Statement made in the other place, has any real meaning.

I appreciate that the Minister cannot give any undertakings, but it might perhaps be enough for me to suggest that the issue of “expeditiously” is one that the Ministry of Defence should impress as reasonably as it can upon Lord Justice Haddon-Cave when he begins his inquiry in full.