MPs pile on pressure for vote before attack

Tony Blair will this week come under renewed and increasing pressure to allow MPs the right to vote on the impending war on Iraq.

More than 150 MPs have forged a cross-party alliance to insist that they are given the opportunity to air their views and those of their constituents in a formal vote before British troops are sent into action.

They have signed a motion calling on the Speaker, Michael Martin, to give them a vote – a move that would defy the will of the Prime Minister and Geoff Hoon, Secretary of State for Defence. Both Mr Blair and Mr Hoon have made it clear they will not put military action to the vote, saying that to do so would remove the element of surprise.

Mr Hoon's remarks prompted a second motion to be put down by the Labour MP Hilton Dawson last Thursday which has already attracted around 30 signatures with many more MPs determined to support it. The motion states that the Commons "requires the Government arrange for a thorough debate on Iraq and a vote on a substantive motion" before the end of this week when the parliamentary recess begins.

Dissent amongst Labour MPs will continue into the weekend. While anti-war protesters march in London, the Labour Party's women's conference in Glasgow will host a series of seminars on Iraq. Even there, Mr Blair will not be able to escape the rising voices of opposition to his policy on Iraq.

The Independent on Sunday spoke to a third of Labour's female backbenchers. All but one spoke out against Britain and America contemplating unilateral military action against Iraq, urging the Prime Minister to seek a second resolution through the UN.

Joan Ruddock, the former minister for women, said: "I would not support unilateral military action against Iraq by the UK and the US. My position is that Colin Powell's evidence does not justify military action and I believe the evidence of what he says exists in Iraq can be dealt with by the previous policy of inspections.

"I would like to see the terms of the UN resolution before supporting military action and have believed from the outset that decisions need to be based on evidence."

Glenda Jackson, another former minister, has taken a similar stand on Iraq. And a disproportionate number of women MPs feel that military action without explicit UN backing is wrong, some opposing war in all circumstances.

Jane Griffiths, a former GCHQ worker and Reading East MP, said she was not yet persuaded there was compelling evidence to justify military action. A British representative on the Council of Europe, she said: "It would be better for local and international opinion if there was a second resolution. That said, there should not be any rush into war. The weapons inspectors should be given as much time as they need, as much time as possible."

Many women MPs said they had encountered widespread public concern about the prospects of war. One, Helen Jackson, MP for Sheffield Hillsborough, said: "I'm still waiting for a letter from a Labour Party member that fully endorses the way we are going about this. All the letters are putting pressure on not going to war and doing things through the UN."

Such is the strength of opposition in some constituencies that the MPs do not feel they can support military action per se.

Helen Clark, the Peterborough MP, said: "I am totally and utterly opposed to it. It seems to me that there is no real or clear justification for it. They haven't convinced anybody, least of all anybody in my constituency."

Mrs Clark is among those now pressing to make the views of constituents heard in the House of Commons.

It seemed unlikely last night, though, that the Government would concede that MPs had the right to a vote on the issue, prompting some to start plotting a forced vote.