Agrees with the right hon. Member that the Iraq war was a significant miscalculation and emphasises the long-term negative consequences of the war, including ongoing Islamic extremism and violence.

Responds to the hon. Member's concerns by acknowledging that Islamic extremism is a persistent issue with an increasing arrival rate of jihadists in Europe. Reiterates the importance of understanding complex international issues before making decisions.

Mitchell supported Davis's argument, highlighting the importance of understanding how the mechanism of government worked leading up to the decision to go to war.

Wishart focused on the personal responsibility of Tony Blair, suggesting that he should be held accountable for his role in leading the country into war.

Allen pointed out that a majority within Labour rebelled against their own Government's decision to go to war and emphasised the disastrous impact of the war, both domestically and internationally.

Saville-Roberts stressed that families affected by the war deserve answers, advocating for minimal redactions in the report to avoid any suggestion of a cover-up.

Mr Flynn agreed with every word from Mr Davis and congratulated him on obtaining the debate. He highlighted how the decision to go to war in Iraq was a mistake, leading to significant suffering for soldiers and their families. He also mentioned the need for another inquiry into the 2006 Helmand invasion decision.

Mr Allen supported publication as necessary to purge Labour of its fault line around the Iraq war and clear the reputation of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is often seen as responsible for taking the UK into war with America against many colleagues' wishes.

Mr Howarth agreed that publication was necessary and highlighted the delay in establishing an inquiry, which prevented proper discussion of post-conflict reconstruction. He outlined three reasons why an independent committee established by the Government should have conducted a comprehensive inquiry.

Mr Cunningham argued that no lessons were learned from previous interventions, citing Libya and Egypt as examples of poor post-war reconstruction planning. He emphasised that such interventions often result in chaos without proper preparation for aftermath.

Mr. Stewart questioned what killed Kurds and marsh Arabs if there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, raising concerns about unanswered questions regarding chemical weapons.

Reiterating his position, Mr. Howarth highlighted the need for a timely inquiry and criticised the current report's expected length of 2.5 million words in 12 volumes as potentially counterproductive.

Mr. MacNeil argued for immediate publication of the Chilcot report, emphasising the delay's impact on families and the failure to learn lessons from the Iraq War. He also stressed the importance of parliamentary accountability in addressing military actions.

Mr. Davis noted that troops want their democratic system to work properly, dismissing arguments against debating or investigating during troop deployment.

Mr MacNeil discusses the need for a timely release of the Chilcot report, highlighting that over 179 UK lives were lost due to the Iraq war and noting that this figure does not include those injured or psychologically affected. He also mentions the creation of Daesh and emphasises the importance of learning from past mistakes.

Mr Allen agrees with Mr MacNeil, emphasising the ongoing casualties since 2015 due to sectarian violence and internecine warfare that escalated following the US invasion of Iraq. He highlights a death toll possibly in the millions.

Mr O'Hara questions if the EU referendum is causing delays to the Chilcot report's publication. He warns about reputational damage the UK risks due to these delays.

Mr Durkan expresses doubt about John Chilcot’s ability to be independent, citing previous work that he believes has been more favorable towards security services than expected. He suggests the idea of needing national security checks is preposterous.

The publication delay is detrimental to national security and undermines the inquiry's credibility. The report should address how Britain got embroiled in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, highlighting leadership failures and dysfunctional governance. There has been a lack of understanding among politicians regarding complex realities on the ground, coupled with an overly optimistic approach by civil servants and military officials.

Agrees with Adam Holloway's assertion that there was deception about the nature of the Afghan conflict. Questions whether soldiers were misled about the purpose of their deployment and whether the Taliban were only interested in fighting due to NATO presence.

The MP agrees with the speaker's criticisms, noting that questions were raised before the Iraq war but went unanswered. He shares an anecdote about a regimental colleague who expressed dissatisfaction with pre-war planning.

The MP acknowledges the historical lessons from military interventions and suggests that the allies should have understood these lessons during the Iraq war. He also agrees to speak anecdotally about his experiences, hinting at a personal story of taking decisive action in Bosnia despite potential career risks.

The MP supports the speaker's points on military commanders needing to speak truthfully and defends the decision to intervene in Libya, arguing it was necessary to prevent a genocide in Benghazi. He also acknowledges the mistake of proceeding with regime change.

The MP criticises the delay in publishing the Chilcot report and its potential redaction, expressing frustration on behalf of constituents. He argues for a strategic re-evaluation of foreign policy to avoid future 'rabbit hole' situations.

Mr. Bob Stewart shared his personal experience during the Iraq War, highlighting the supportive reaction from the public and politicians after a controversial press conference where he ordered his men to open fire in self-defence.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington recalled that when Charles Kennedy was leader of the Liberal Democrats, they unanimously voted against the Iraq war. He cited various statistics about casualties from the conflict and emphasised the importance of the Chilcot inquiry report in identifying lessons to be learned.

Mr. Roger Mullin questioned the process of Maxwellisation, suggesting that it may not be appropriate for future inquiries as it allows individuals to challenge interpretations rather than simply commenting on facts.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden on securing the debate, as well as those who signed the motion. I signal my wholehearted support for the aspirations of the motion; namely that security checking of the Iraq inquiry report should be completed as soon as possible and that no later than two weeks after the report is submitted to the Government next Monday, 18 April, it should be published. This week, I attempted to table a question for Defence questions next Monday on the timing of the Chilcot inquiry, but was told by the Table Office that it was not appropriate—as the inquiry was independent of Government, that was not an acceptable question to ask the Government. The publication of this report is clearly to be delayed beyond the time necessary for appropriate security checking, if it is going to be delayed, for entirely political reasons. This delay is wholly unacceptable, and the Government need fundamentally to rethink it. If the inquiry was essential in June 2009 for strengthening our democracy, diplomacy and military, then these lessons have still not been learned as the report has not yet been published. The inquiry cannot be fully independent of Government if the timing of its release is controlled by the Government, especially if the delay until after the referendum is intended to give the Government an electoral advantage. Security checks are necessary to ensure that the report does not disclose information detrimental to our national security, but it should not take nine weeks and one day as was suggested last October. The war caused at least 134,000 Iraqi civilian deaths and claimed the lives of 179 British soldiers, leaving a fertile breeding ground for terrorist fanatics. It is an insult to families who have waited almost seven years for this report and it is high time they were given answers.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so far, including the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden who led the debate. Since I was elected last May, I have raised the issue of delays to the publication of the Chilcot inquiry. In my maiden speech, I said that I am here to give a voice to the voiceless, especially military families like Mrs Rose Gentle whose son Gordon died in Iraq in 2004 at age 19. They want answers on whether they were provided with proper equipment and why our forces were there in the first place. In response to last year’s request to publish by the end of 2015, Sir John Chilcot threatened them with legal costs if they took him to court. This is a disgraceful and insensitive thing to say to military families who have lost loved ones. Rose Gentle feels disgust at the delays caused by national security and Maxwellisation. Delays now cause a total loss of faith in what the inquiry produces, putting undue pressure on military families who want the truth.

What military families feel could be summed up by saying that the longer the process takes, the more jiggery-pokery they think is going on with the results of the inquiry. If we continue like this, there will be a total loss of faith in what it produces.

Indeed, and I am sure the military families watching these proceedings will agree with the hon. Gentleman. The length of time this inquiry has taken has put undue pressure on military families who want the truth. They are proud of their loved ones who served but are disgusted with the Government and the Government process. Rose Gentle’s family feel that the military covenant has been not just broken, but shattered. Their loved ones have been buried twice—once after their death, and twice by bureaucracy and evasion. The Prime Minister wrote to Chilcot asking for clear deadlines and publication. Further delays are not acceptable. Rose Gentle is an inspiration to many and she requests justice for the military families who lost their loved ones serving in Iraq. The Chilcot report must be published in the first week of May 2016.

Emphasises that the invasion was immoral and illegal, citing public protests and questioning the war’s legality. He discusses the impact on diplomatic capabilities and military leadership due to delays in publishing the Chilcot report. Martin Docherty also mentions the importance of obtaining accurate intelligence and criticises over-reliance on local information.

Welcomes the debate, acknowledging its significance and thanking members who proposed it. He notes that Labour established the inquiry in 2009, deciding to begin only after British combat troops left Iraq.

Questions Wayne David on his party's stance, highlighting inconsistencies between different Labour MPs' votes and current views regarding the war.

Acknowledged the report's delay, citing national security concerns but stressed urgency; highlighted the need to learn lessons from the Iraq War and provide closure for families of soldiers.

Provided assurances about the timeline for publication after national security checks, promising that government’s contribution will be completed within two weeks. Emphasised that Sir John Chilcot retains control over final report preparation.

Asked the Minister to assure implementation of any recommendations from the Chilcot inquiry aimed at improving transparency in decision-making for future military commitments.

Davis stated that every speech in the debate was well-informed and passionate. He argued that publication of the Chilcot Report should happen as soon as possible, no later than two weeks after 18 April 2016, to honour the families who have lost loved ones due to the Iraq War.