1242GMT Foreign Secretary Jack Straw opens the debate by insisting that no decision to deploy British forces in action has been taken. "We will put any decision on military action to this House," he said.

Outlining the case against Iraq, the foreign secretary stressed that Saddam was in serious and multiple breach of mandatory UN obligations.

It has fired missiles on its own neighbours and used chemical weapons on its people, said Mr Straw.

He said while he understood calls for more time and more inspections, "Saddam does not show he is ready to break with the past".

"In the absence of active and immediate Iraqi cooperation, more time will not achieve anything of substance."

Mr Straw said: "We are now close to the crunch point." Saddam must disarm, or be disarmed by the UN, he said.

Saddam could not be left "as a standing example that defiance pays".

Addressing charges of "double standards" over the application of international law on Israel and the Palestinians, Mr Straw said the government was "working actively" to implement UN policies regarding the Middle East.

"This is a moment of choice for Saddam and the Iraqi regime, but it is also a moment of choice for the UN," he said.

1318 Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram stressed that the "last push for peace depends on Saddam Hussein understanding clearly that there is no way out, other than disarmament".

"The prime minister's last push for peace is, I believe, important.

"It's the language that Saddam Hussein understands ...Saddam Hussein only begins to comply when his feet are held to the flames and the heat begins to take affect."

[1321 Tory MP Edward Leigh intervened to argue that public opinion would be "greatly reassured" if, before troops attack Iraq, the government tabled a specific resolution to the Security Council authorising war and laid a motion before the Commons.]

Mr Ancram said the Conservatives supported the idea that there should be a substantive motion before the Commons and a second resolution before the UN because it would be "desirable" to have it.

[1324 Tory MP Cheryl Gillan intervened to ask for Mr Straw to meet the leader of the Muslim Parliament in Great Britain to listen to the views of Muslims.]

Mr Ancram said Mr Straw would have heard her remarks. He stressed that it was important not to play politics with the situation.

Looking down the benches towards Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, he said it was time the party "decided what their position on resolutions is".

Winding up his remarks, Mr Ancram stressed: "My colleagues and I want peace. We see military action as a last resort and that is why we will be supporting the government in the lobbies tonight."

[1339 Labour MP Bob Marshall-Andrews said: "If the UN inspectors report that Saddam Hussein is complying with their demands, but that compliance reveals that the original Iraqi declaration was false and misleading, is it the position of the Opposition that in those circumstances, that in itself will legitimise war?"]

Mr Ancram stressed that the "test" was whether Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix was able to report that Iraq had undergone a "change of attitude".

[1341 Tory MP John Bercow said the process of eliminating weapons of mass destruction requires "the objective of the removal of Saddam and his hated regime".]

Mr Ancram warned that unless Saddam disarms voluntarily, "the likely outcome will be the removal of Saddam Hussein".

He said Wednesday's debate was one of the "most serious debates" in the Commons.

1346 Former Labour culture secretary Chris Smith said he was tabling an amendment - signed by 115 MPs - to the main government motion which calls for MPs to back the strategy for tackling Iraq via the UN.

He warned that the timetable to war was being decided by the president of the USA and not by logic.

To critics of the MPs' anti-war stance, Mr Smith insisted: "Strength does not lie simply in military might - it lies in the making of the right moral choices."

Hundreds of thousands of lives could be lost in a conflict, with casualties almost certain in Britain's armed forces.

"We have to have the clearest possible reasons for doing it and I don't believe those reasons are there."

Mr Smith argued that the debate might be the last chance for MPs to raise their opinions before forces are committed to military action.

"We must say here, today, in this chamber, that now is not the time; that the case as yet to be fully made and that war, with all its consequences, cannot be the present answer," he said.

1354 Liberal Democrat spokesman on foreign affairs Michael Moore said his party would be supporting the amendment tabled by Mr Smith.

"If we are to proceed through to a point where we are going to war, we will have to be a lot clearer about what the objectives might be," he said.

"At present, there is an enormous lack of clarity. It's not clear whether it's for disarmament purposes only or for regime change.

"These mixed messages do not instil confidence in the international community."

Mr Moore said it was not clear what post-conflict humanitarian preparations the government or international community bodies were making.

[1408 Mr Straw intervenes: "How many Muslims do you think Saddam Hussein has killed?"]

Mr Moore said he knew Saddam's "evil regime has murdered thousands of his fellow citizens - that's not the point".

"The point here is what the consequences of any action on the Middle East that's not supported by international resolutions will have."

1410 Labour MP George Foulkes gave his backing to the government's motion saying that supporting the government in the forthcoming vote did not mean the same as support for war.

He warned against the "consequences of inaction" when it came to Saddam Hussein.

"What credible alternative do [the government's opponents] propose to disarm this dictator?

"We [MPs] have a responsibility to go back to our constituencies and explain the government's position."

1416 Former Tory Chancellor Ken Clarke told MPs that he was not convinced the case for war had been made and would be voting against the government.

But he stressed that he did not start from an "anti-American, leftwing, peacenik position".

He said he could not rid himself of doubts that the course to war was decided "many months ago" in the US.

Mr Clarke said he was not convinced that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda and that it was insulting to people's intelligence to suggest that Iraq had such capability that it represented a threat to New York or London.

"We should not go to war until we have more evidence," he said.

1425 Former Labour minister Peter Kilfoyle echoed Mr Clarke's point that he believed the decision to go to war had been many months ago in the White House.

He said there were no guarantees about the sort of damage Iraq's civilian population would suffer and he asked which countries would be singled out next by the US.

He said: "It is our hope and intention, and very much in the government's interests as well as the House's, that [a substantive vote] should take place before any military action."

1435 Former Tory defence secretary Michael Portillo argued that the West had only reached this point with Iraq because of a "decade of inaction" in which the US and its allies had failed to react adequately to a series of terrorist attacks.

That had sent out a message that the West lacked determination.

"Each inadequate response showed a lack of determination that emboldened our enemies," he argued.

"If there is a criticism of the prime minister it is that he didn't take action in 1998/1999."

1443 Labour MP Gerald Kaufman reminded MPs that he had been an outspoken critic both of Israel's policy toward the Palestinians and towards the current US administration.

He added: "Anybody who believes that Saddam Hussein gives a tuppenny damn for the Palestinians or the Kurds or the marsh Arabs is living in self delusion."

1450 Veteran Tory MP Sir Patrick Cormack argued that Britain and its allies were at a critical stage and letting "this tyrant get away with it" could taint the whole century.

"Like everyone else I hope we will not have a war but action against Saddam Hussein will be wholly justified if he continues to flout international law."

1500 Labour's Bruce George, chairman of the Commons defence select committee, said Iraq "flagrant breaches" led to the "inescapable conclusion that Saddam has hidden, is hiding (weapons) and is not compliant".

Weapons inspections could not go on for many more months, Mr George said, adding that world unity was the best way of putting pressure on Iraq and making "war superfluous".

MPs had to pay attention to public opinion but "owe their constituents their judgement", he said, recalling the mantra of Edmund Burke.

1507 Conservative MP John Wilkinson accused some war critics of being "naive and simplistic" in thinking that Saddam Hussein was open to moral persuasion.

It was noteworthy that central and East European states - who had suffered from dictatorships - were among those showing the greatest unity of purpose against Iraq, he argued.

Pressing other EU states to back American policy, Mr Wilkinson added: "Quite candidly, Saddam Hussein knows that those who are not against us are for us."

1515 Strident Labour war critic George Galloway said Wednesday's vote was a "defining" moment where MPs could shape world events, he said, as he railed against the "distasteful right-wing" US Administration.

However short any war was, it would have a "seismic impact which will disfigure this country and the whole world" for the rest of MPs' lives, said Mr Galloway.

1522 Ex-Tory cabinet minister John Gummer admitted he felt in strange company as he echoed the concerns of left-wing Labour critics.

With the British public and the wider world unconvinced war was necessary, it was hard for the UK to look like the "hand maid" of the UN, enforcing peace because there was no alternative.

Mr Gummer hoped religious leaders' assertions that the conditions for a "just war" were not met would make Mr Blair at least hesitate in his timing.

"This war is war by timetable and the timetable was laid down before the United States had any intention of going to the United Nations," added Mr Gummer.

1529 Frank Dobson, Labour's former Health Secretary, said he shared ministers' concerns about Iraq's "vile and murderous" regime and weapons of mass destruction.

But he found it "less and less convincing" that those problems would be solved by a virtually immediate war.

Mr Dobson listed a string of damaging consequences conflict could bring, saying: "Military action in Iraq will be a principal recruiting sergeant for terrorism."

1536 Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble said the government's motion would be getting his party's full backing.

Mr Trimble said weapons inspections had failed during the 1990s, when the world community had allowed itself to be "bluffed" by Iraq.

"The paradox is that those who want peace .. must support the government in what it is doing, right down to the use of force if that becomes necessary," concluded Mr Trimble.

1546 Labour MP Gavin Strang insisted that the weapons inspections' process was an alternative to war.

If military action was backed by the UN, more Labour MPs would "go along with it", he said.

"A second resolution would unequivocally demonstrate to Iraq and the wider world that any military action was based on international agreement," he said.

"The US and British governments are ... rushing to war too quickly."

1554 Tory former minister Douglas Hogg said he was disturbed by the fact he could not support the American position on this issue.

"But I am bound to say that on this matter, I believe them to be wrong," he said.

Since 11 September, the US has developed a "sense of vulnerability", with a pro-active strike against those who threaten its security.

"I conclude that war is wrong," said Mr Hogg.

1557 Liberal Democrat Simon Hughes intervened to argue that the risk of terrorism was most likely to be precipitated by precipitative action by the US and UK.

Mr Hogg agreed, stressing: "We will be taking this country to war, when the country doesn't support war." That was a very perilous precedent, he said.

1600 Labour MP Ann Clwyd said she had just returned from Iraq, from where she concluded that regime change was the only answer, and she would be supporting the government's stance.

In an impassioned speech, she said it was a great regret that the UK had not led the way to regime change when it had the chance during the Gulf War over 10 years ago.

Admitting that she had cried after hearing from victims of torture, Ms Clwyd insisted there was plenty of evidence of genocide.

"When I hear people calling for more time [for the weapons inspections], I say, 'who's going to speak up for those victims?'"

Ms Clwyd added: "I believe in regime change and I will support the government tonight because I think it is doing a brave thing."

1607 Scottish National Party former leader Alex Salmond warned MPs to take this opportunity "to slow up the march to war" because "it ain't going to come again".

He accused the prime minister of exchanging his position of influence over President Bush to that of a prisoner of policies emanating from the American administration.

"Events are controlling the prime minister," he said.

Mr Salmond praised Mr Blair's religious convictions, but warned that if there were many casualties from a conflict, the person responsible for approving that position "will one day answer to a much higher authority" than the Commons.

1615 Labour MP Roger Godsiff accused America of having "lost the plot".

"We are now seeking to change the government of Iraq on the justification that Saddam Hussein is an evil man and will not comply fully with UN resolutions."

Mr Godsiff said this was not a very convincing argument.

"The American administration does not understand the consequences of a pre-emptive strike on the Islamic world.

"Saddam Hussein will become a hero, a martyr. At the moment he is not a hero because he runs a secular regime."

The MP added: "I am not by nature a rebel and it gives me no pleasure, whatsoever, that tonight I cannot go into the lobbies and support my government."

1623 Liberal Democrat John Barrett said while he had no doubt Saddam must be disarmed and he would not rule out the use of force, not enough time had been given to weapons inspections.

"The war on Iraq is also constantly linked to the war on terrorism. I ask - where's the link? Where's the evidence before we go to war?"

1630 Labour MP Alan Simpson said the government motion marked a "low point in British politics".

"It marks a disconnection between this House and the society we claim to represent."

1637 Conservative MP Tony Baldry Expressed concern over the effect military action could have on Iraq's civilian population.

"Any sustained disruption of sewage systems and lack of clean water will almost certainly speedily result in disease and large numbers of deaths in the civilian population," he said.

He urged strategists to "think through the consequences" of military action on those on the ground.

1645 Former SDLP leader John Hume told MPs that if a similar effort was made towards peace as was being made towards war then a better world could quickly be established.

His experience of Northern Ireland and the experience of a Europe torn by war in the last century showed that respect for diversity and respect for difference were the way forward to peace.

1649 Tory MP Julian Lewis said that history showed that dictators such as Saddam Hussein must be dealt with "sooner rather than later".

Transcripts of Commons debates about how to deal with Hitler in the 1930s showed that appeasers were capable of just as sophisticated arguments as those mounted by opponents of war today and they were just as wrong, he argued.

1658 Labour chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs committee Donald Anderson said the threat of force against Iraq had so far produced results and if Hans Blix asked for more time to conduct weapons inspections then that should be granted.

He added: "This is not a treasure hunt. The test is whether Saddam Hussein is co-operating with the inspectors."

1706 Conservative Patrick Mercer said that no-one in Parliament wanted to go to war but argued that the only way to achieve peace was a credible threat of force.

He argued that even if there was no connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda there was no doubt in his mind that "Baghdad is behind much of the world's terrorism".

1714 Win Griffiths, a former Labour Welsh Office Minister, stressed how Mr Blair had said that if Iraq cooperated with UN resolutions, the weapons inspectors could have as much time as they wanted.

The effects of a war would be "incredibly difficult to judge", suggested Mr Griffiths, as he pledged his backing to the government motion.

He added: "There is a tremendous amount at stake in this particular vote. But from what the prime minister has said I believe the inspectors will have the time to resolve this peacefully."

1722 Liberal Democrat MP Patsy Calton said Mr Blair was failing to recognise the "growing public disquiet about what's effectively a headlong rush towards a strike".

Her constituents were "disgusted by the propagandist manoeuvrings" employed by the government.

Ms Calton said the UK should consider war until it was clear Iraq had produced new weapons of mass destruction, not if it only had "old deteriorated going to war".

1729 Labour MP Mohammed Sarwar pointed to the hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters and asked whether ministers were listening to Britain.

"I have found nobody outside this House, among the real people we seek to represent, who are in favour of war," said Mr Sarwar.

He argued that President Bush would not go to war without Mr Blair, whom he needed to "sell" a conflict in America.

1739 Conservative MP Bob Spink told MPs of how his visit to Kurdistan last week had bolstered his belief in the morality of confronting Iraq.

Dr Spink said anybody who believed Saddam Hussein was "safe in his box" should listen to the troubled tales of the Kurds he had met.

"If to take action would save more lives than doing nothing, as the Iraqi Kurds themselves believe is the case, then we must have the moral courage to take action," he concluded.

1747 Former Foreign Office Minister Tony Lloyd said he understood concerns about the brutality of the Iraqi regime, but those could not be wiped out by saying that war was the obvious solution.

Mr Lloyd pointed to the weapons inspections in the 1990s as evidence that containment could work.

And if the current inspection work was "artificially curtailed", that would bear to fruition the suspicion that the war was pre-ordained or even pre-ordered.

1755 Labour MP George Galloway asked on a point of order why no ministers from the Ministry of Defence or Foreign Office was in the chamber listening.

1756 Tory MP Robert Walter argued that most of Iraq's near neighbours were unconvinced of the need for military action despite alleged threat posed by the country.

But he added: "If the time comes for British troops to go into action then they must do so with our full support."

1804 Labour former minister Tom Clarke said nothing he had heard in the debate had changed his mind that the case for war was as yet unproven.

He had praise, however, for the prime minister whom he said had managed to be a restraining influence on the US president.

1812 Liberal Democrat Alistair Carmichael drew a parallel over UN resolutions over Israel's conduct towards its neighbours and the current stance over Iraq.

He also argued that voters in the UK were not convinced of the government's case.

"The government cannot be allowed to ignore the fact that they have not persuaded the public of the case for war," he said.

1819 Labour MP Oona King said that she wanted regime change in the United States whose Middle East policy she said she deplored.

But she said that did not detract from the case for disarming rogue states in order to prevent future terror attacks.

1827 Conservative Geoffrey Clifton-Brown urged the government to redouble its efforts to persuade the public of the case for action against Saddam.

"This man must be stopped and his weapons of mass destruction removed."

1830 Conservative foreign affairs spokesman Alan Duncan summed up for his party.

Mr Duncan told MPs: "In looking at the prospect of war we have to examine and assess the reasons for it, the authority for it and its repercussions."

He continued: "I used to believe that containment would suffice ... but I've come to believe that there is a genuine, real and serious risk in his possession particularly of biological and chemical weapons...

"Were a capability of this sort ever to get into the wrong hands we would be unleashing danger in the world the likes of which we have never been called upon to contend with before."

Mr Duncan concluded: "In the interests of global security and anything that needs to be done under the authority of the United Nations we give this government our unstinting support."

Winding up for the government Foreign Office Minister Mike O'Brien said the motion was "not an endorsement of military action by UK forces".

He insisted that "no decision" had been taken on deploying British forces into action.

"This motion supports the UN route to disarmament. Let me be clear, the government will put any decision on military action to the House, subject on timing only for the safety of our forces," he said.

Saddam Hussein had failed to take the "final opportunity" offered him by UN Resolution 1441 to disarm.

"He has not taken that opportunity."