Can I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Lieutenant Paul Mervis and Private Robert McLaren, who have been killed in Afghanistan in the last few days.
In the course of the Iraq conflict 179 British Servicemen and women lost their lives. They came from all three services - the army, navy and air force and also included one MoD civilian.
Of course the Iraq conflict caused great division in our politics, our Parliament and our country. But things we can all unite over are the professionalism and the bravery of our Armed Forces, the service they gave to our country, and the debt we owe to all of those who lost their lives.
Can I start with some of the things we agree about with this statement.
Yes we agree on the need for a strong relationship between democratic Iraq and Britain. We absolutely agree about the need for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, and welcome what Prime Minister Netanyahu said. Yes we need answers about the conduct of those Iranian elections. But I want to focus my questions on the Inquiry announced by the Prime Minister.
Now we welcome an Inquiry, indeed we've been calling for it for many, many months. But I have to say I'm far from convinced that the Prime Minister has got it right.
The whole point of having an Inquiry is that it has got to be able to make clear recommendations, go wherever the evidence leads, establish the full truth, and to make sure the right lessons are learned. And it's got to do so in a way that builds public confidence. Isn't there a danger that what the Prime Minister has announced today won't achieve those objectives?
The membership looks quite limited.
The Terms of Reference seem restricted.
And the Inquiry isn't specifically tasked to make recommendations.
And none of it will be held in public.
So will the Prime Minister answer questions about the following four areas: the timing, the membership, the coverage and content, and the openness?
First, timing. This Inquiry should have started earlier.
How can anyone argue that an Inquiry starting say six months ago would somehow have undermined British troops?
Indeed the argument that you can't have an Inquiry while troops are still in Iraq has been blown away today by the Prime Minister saying that some troops will indeed be staying there even as the Inquiry gets underway.
In terms of how long the Inquiry takes, the Franks Inquiry reported in just six months. And yet this Inquiry is due to take, surprise surprise, until July or August 2010.
By delaying the start of the Inquiry, and prolonging the publication until after the next election, won't everyone conclude that this Inquiry has been fixed to make sure that the Government avoids having to face up to any inconvenient conclusions?
At the very least, will the Prime Minister look at the possibility of an interim report early next year?
Second, the people conducting the Inquiry.
What is required for an Inquiry like this is a mixture of diplomatic, military and political experience.
Now we welcome the diplomatic experience . There has to be a question mark over the military expertise - no former chiefs of staff or people with that sort of expertise. But also isn't it necessary - as the Franks Inquiry did - to include senior politicians from all sides of the political divide, to look at the political judgements?
The Inquiry needs to be, and needs to be seen to be, truly independent - and not an establishment stitch-up.So will he look at widening the membership in the way that we have suggested?
Third, the coverage and content of the Inquiry.
Yes, it is welcome that it will cover the whole period in the run-up to the War, as well as the conduct of the War.
But isn't it wrong to try to confine the Inquiry to an arbitrary period of time? Shouldn't it be free to pursue any points which it judges to be relevant?
Looking specifically at the issue of Terms of Reference: isn't it extraordinary that the Prime Minister said it should try to avoid apportioning blame. Shouldn't the Inquiry have the ability to apportion blame?
If mistakes were made, we need to know who made them and why they were made.
Specifically on the Inquiry, the Prime Minister was very clear that it would have access to all British documents and all British witnesses.
Does this mean that the Inquiry may not have access to documents from the USA or the Coalition Provisional Authority or the Iraqi Government, even if they are kept in the British Archive - that is I think an important specific question and one we need an answer to.
Will the Inquiry be free to invite foreign witnesses, to give evidence written and oral?
On the issue of the scope of the Inquiry, will he confirm that it will cover: relations with the US; use of intelligence information; the function of the machinery of government; post-conflict planning; and how DFID, the FCO and the armed forces work together.
Turning to the issue of openness and transparency.
Given that this Inquiry is of great concern not just to us politicians, but also to the public and to the families of the Servicemen and women who gave their lives, shouldn't there be some proper public sessions?
Isn't that what many will want and many will expect, and part of the building of public confidence that is absolutely necessary?
Finally, aren't the limitations of this Inquiry reflected in the way the House of Commons is being treated by the Government over this issue?
Before the Franks Inquiry - and we're told this is a Franks-style Inquiry - there was a proper debate on the terms of reference of the Inquiry on a substantive motion in the House of Commons.
This time there's just a statement and no debate. Yet last Wednesday the Prime Minister promised us a new era of Parliamentary accountability and democratic renewal.
What happened to that? It hasn't even lasted a week.
Mr Speaker, a proper Inquiry must include a range of members, including senior politicians. It needs to have the freedom to range widely and to speak frankly. And its Terms of Reference must be debated properly in a democracy like ours. So when he stands up, will the Prime Minister put those failings right?