Tanks will be ready for desert war, says Hoon

Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, spelt out preparations for a war against Iraq last night, promising to get Britain's battle tanks and rifles ready for a strike against Saddam Hussein.

He told the Commons that the Challenger II tank, which has been heavily criticised for its poor performance in sandy conditions, was being modified to cope with the desert.

Mr Hoon's intervention came amid a rebellion by a die-hard group of Labour rebels. Thirty-two Labour MPs, including the former ministers Glenda Jackson and Peter Kilfoyle, voted for a Liberal Democrat amendment opposing the deployment of troops without a UN mandate or a vote in Parliament.

The minister said that military action was not "inevitable" but informed MPs that he had made preparations for calling up reserves. "In due course, it may become necessary on an informal basis to sound out reserves and their employers," he said.

Mr Hoon rejected Tory calls for more details about military preparations, saying it would be a mistake to "set out specific force packages today". He said: "I have no intention of assisting Saddam Hussein's contingency planning."

But the Defence Secretary told MPs that a contract to modify Britain's main battle tank and ensure that its filters did not clog with sand had already been issued.

The minister also assured MPs that Army assault rifles, which were criticised in a recent House of Commons report for jamming in the desert, would be in working order. He said that troops would be provided with boots and other kit suitable for desert warfare.

Mr Hoon said he would not send British troops into battle lightly. "The whole point of our approach is to give Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime one last opportunity," he said. However, he warned MPs that "history should have taught us the danger of not dealing with ruthless dictators".

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, signalled earlier that the Government could send British troops to Iraq without approval from MPs. Opening a five-hour Commons debate on Iraq, Mr Straw sought to reassure Labour critics that Britain was not preparing for an inevitable US-led war against President Saddam.

Mr Straw struck a more conciliatory note than that indicated by the language of the White House by saying that the Government would prefer to seek a fresh UN Security Council resolution before any military strikes. He also promised that only "something significant" would lead to Iraq being deemed guilty of a "material breach" of the UN resolution.

Mr Straw said President Saddam could choose the "pathway to peace" by complying fully with UN weapons inspectors, who began arriving in the country yesterday.

He appealed to MPs to back a government motion supporting the resolution calling for Iraq to allow checks on its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes, insisting it contained no hidden "trip-wires or traps" that would trigger Western attacks. "Nobody wishes to see military action gratuitously taken against Iraq. It is only seen as a last option," he said.

But Mr Straw refused to guarantee that a Commons vote would be held before troops were dispatched.

Alan Simpson, the Labour MP for Nottingham South, claimed that some people in the US government wanted to "bomb the living daylights" out of Iraq. Neil Gerrard, the MP for Walthamstow, said the debate could be the last chance for the Commons to discuss military action. He argued that the UN resolution had followed "enormous pressure by the US with the threat that they would take unilateral action if the UN didn't act".

Diane Abbott, the MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, said: "If we're to go forward with military action, then it should take place within the framework of international law."

Tony Blair used a statement on last week's Nato summit to press his case for the Government's policy towards Iraq, saying that the experience of former Soviet bloc nations highlighted the need for the West not to be complacent.

He said: "There was complete unanimity round the table that the choice for war or peace lies with Saddam, and that if he breached the will of the UN, the UN would have to act. There was strong support for multilateralism and for the decision of President Bush to go through the UN."

Lynne Jones, the MP for Birmingham Selly Oak, said the only ground on which a member state could take military action against Iraq was in self-defence or in taking "humanitarian action". She said: "I cannot see such a situation applies to this country, so on what basis could action be taken without a specific UN Security Council resolution?"

Paul Keetch, Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said he was asked by a constituent why the Government had found time for nine votes on hunting but could not give MPs a vote on military action.