Rebel MPs to force Iraq vote

Rebel Labour MPs will defy the Prime Minister by forcing a Commons vote on Iraq next week in the hope that their public revolt will persuade him to soften his hawkish stance.

Downing Street said last week that there would be no vote when Parliament returns from its summer break for an emergency debate on the Iraq crisis a week tomorrow. Instead of discussing a motion about the Government's policy on Iraq, the Commons will debate a technical motion for the House to adjourn.

MPs do not normally vote at the end of such a debate. But the Labour rebels, angry at being denied a full vote on plans for military action against Saddam Hussein, will call a division and vote against the technical motion.

Alice Mahon, the MP for Halifax, said yesterday that she believed that up to 100 Labour backbenchers could join the rebellion. "There is no doubt that there will be a vote," she said. "It would send a powerful message." She criticised Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, for making "warlike" comments, such as when he said the UN had to give President Saddam "a very clear choice ­ either he deals with those weapons of mass destruction or his regime will have to end".

Malcolm Savidge, the MP for Aberdeen North, accused Mr Straw of adopting the "strident language" of hawks in the US administration. "There is no reason why we should not have a vote on the adjournment of the House. It would be a way of saying we are not happy and we need further discussion."

Mr Savidge said one of the most important votes in the last century was on such a motion. In May 1940, the Government won the vote but its reduced majority forced Chamberlain to resign and let Churchill succeed him.

Some 160 Labour MPs have signed a Commons motion expressing their "deep unease" about military action in Iraq. The scale of next week's rebellion could hinge on the Government's dossier of evidence against the Iraqi President, to be published on the morning of the debate, and the arguments advanced in the Commons by Tony Blair.

Although Robin Cook, the Leader of the Commons, has urged Mr Blair to allow a full-scale vote, the Prime Minister is anxious to avoid a showdown that would expose Labour's divisions and could even force him to rely on Tory support to win.

The Bush administration expressed renewed confidence yesterday that it could muster international support for a military strike against Iraq, saying it wanted to lay down a brisk timetable to push through new United Nations Security Council resolutions and present a final ultimatum to Saddam Hussein.

Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, said: "I'm pleased with the initial reactions from friends and colleagues in Europe and elsewhere." He hoped new UN resolutions could be passed in a matter of "weeks, not months". Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, said the authority of the UN was at stake.

Italy's Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who held talks at the weekend with President George Bush at Camp David, gave the clearest indication yet of when a war might be waged ­ in January or February.

Saudi Arabia and Arab League leaders urged Iraq to comply with the UN demands. But Syria said "blind bias" was behind US threats against Iraq at a time when Israel violated UN resolutions. "Why should the world request Iraq to adhere to Security Council resolutions while Israel is allowed to be above international law?" Farouq al-Shara, the Syrian Foreign Minister, asked the UN General Assembly in New York. However, Saudi Arabia has suggested the US would be allowed to strike Iraq from its bases in the kingdom.