Tam Dalyell: This MP declines to support a war against Iraq

Shortly after 11.30am this morning I hope to rise on a Point of Order to seek the Speaker's help about the procedure in today's debate. It appears that the Government will begin the proceedings by moving a motion "that this House do now adjourn''. Such a motion should be debatable and should allow a vote so that Members of Parliament who believe that the House should continue to sit can express that view in the lobby. But such a vote does not permit those of us who will be voting to give their reasons, and it is on that point that I am seeking the help of the Speaker of the House, Michael Martin.

Clearly there are many MPs on all sides of the House who are opposed to military action against Iraq, and many others who represent servicemen and servicewomen in their constituencies who may be called upon to fight in such a war, and who have anxieties on behalf of themselves and their families. I am therefore asking the Speaker to consider accepting a manuscript motion worded as follows: "that this house declines to support a war against Iraq, by the use of the Royal Prerogative, unless it has been authorised, both by the UN Security Council and a motion carried in this House of Commons''.

Only in this way can MPs discharge their responsibilities to their constituents. Such a motion would not preclude a motion to adjourn, which would follow at the end of the day's parliamentary business in the usual way.

I do not know, nor do the clerks of the House of the Commons know, of any ruling by previous speakers that would bind Mr Speaker Martin to reject this request. I submit that his responsibility as he has frequently and bravely shown in the last two years is to the House as a whole and that his authority as Speaker on procedure is unchallengeable. Against this background I will appeal to him to allow the motion to be moved, debated, and voted upon in parallel with the motion to adjourn.

Along with Major-General Patrick Cordingley – I was once a tank crew member of the Seventh Armoured Brigade, which he was later to command in the Gulf – I fervently believe that those who are sent to risk their lives are entitled to the knowledge that the country is overwhelmingly behind them in a legitimate, just and sensible cause. Such conviction does not exist in Britain at the present time.

I believe that a very important point was made by Natasha Walter in The Independent of 12 September, when she pointed out that the great threat to the West now comes from tiny minorities in societies that have been damaged and fragmented. So, if Iraqis feel that war will further harm their already damaged society, perhaps we should listen to them.

We should take seriously the Iraqi, who currently works as an academic in Britain, who told Natasha Walter: "It may be unpleasant or uncouth to suggest that in some way the United States asked for 11 September but if there is a war with Iraq they would be asking for a lot more terrorism.'' Bombing Afghanistan has hardly been a success in apprehending Osama bin Laden.

Events in the past few days have driven me to the conclusion that justice and dealing with weapons of mass destruction is not at the top of the agenda of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice: they want an excuse for a military invasion that will leave the US oil companies in control of one of the world's largest reserves of oil.

Having been to Iraq in 1994 and 1998, with Albert Reynolds, the former Irish prime minister and father of the peace process, I observe that once the inspectors were withdrawn in 1998 and the US and Britain launched Operation Desert Fox, it turned out that virtually every one of the bombing targets had been visited by UN inspectors over the previous six months. They jolly well were spies.

If the Iraqis are resigned to an American attack anyway, why should they let in UN personnel who, though they might not know it, would be acting as forward air controllers drawing up an American hit list rather than monitoring compliance with UN resolutions? The invocation of the UN is a fig leaf. Recent events confirm that George Bush is determined to wage war against Iraq, whatever may emerge from the deliberations of the UN or any inspectors.

There is one qualification to this: the US President makes increasing reference to the support that he is getting from Tony Blair. If the support were withdrawn, it is just possible that Bush might stay his hand (and this is the view of Congressman Bernard Sanders of Vermont, who is co-ordinating opposition to war against Iraq in the House of Representatives). This places a heavy responsibility on Parliament.

Let us be clear that what is at issue is a war in which thousands of innocent people may die to prevent a contingency that is entirely hypothetical. International terrorism is awful. Full-scale war is many times more awful. By their invitation for any delegation of politicians, however critical, and experts to go to Iraq and see for themselves I believe, bluntly, that Saddam and Tariq Aziz are doing everything possible to avoid war.

It seems to me that Bush and Blair are doing everything they can to avoid peace. That is why, and I can only speak for myself, I am in favour of regime change – in No 10 Downing Street.