Experts recently determined that in flight they would exceed a 150km (93-mile) range limit set by the UN. If the request is made, Washington will watch closely to see whether Iraq complies. A refusal would be further reason to declare it in violation of UN rules.Regarding a new UN resolution, sources said a text might not be formulated for several days, at the end of this week or during next week. Washington was still mired in trying to compose a draft that had the best chance of adoption in the Security Council against a background of resistance from a majority of members and the risk that three permanent members – France, Russia and China – might veto it.Versions under consideration range from a short declaration that Iraq is in “further material breach” of its obligations to one setting a deadline for Baghdad to respond.In the meantime, Britain is insisting that Council members be given up to two weeks to negotiate the final form of the resolution once it is tabled. In any event, serious negotiations are unlikely to begin until after 28 February, when Mr Blix is expected to submit a new report.. Ministers will face questions in Parliament next week over fears that Saddam Hussein could be evading United Nations inspections by hiding chemical and biological weapons on the high seas. Shipping industry sources said the three vessels set sail three months ago, spending much of their time in the Indian Ocean.John Eldridge, the editor of Jane’s Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defence, said he was not surprised President Saddam might have decided to hide his illicit weapons at sea.

He said: “It seems an extremely elegant scheme with a view to hiding these things until the heat is off.”Mr Eldridge said the Iraqi regime could easily have smuggled out the weapons in sealed containers through neighbouring countries. He said: “There’s no way you could detect what they were without boarding the ship.”Saddam never ceases to surprise the West with some of his off-the-wall actions.”Stuart Syrad, a maritime security consultant and former senior officer with the Special Boat Service, agreed the report was credible. This demonstrates once again the danger of letting our eye go off the ball.”He said Britain’s status as an island nation made it particularly vulnerable to threats from international shipping.Bernard Jenkin, the shadow Defence Secretary, said: “This is completely consistent with Saddam’s defiance of the international inspectors. He is hiding weapons of mass destruction.”The Labour MP Kevan Jones, who sits on the Commons Defence Select Committee, said members would discuss the revelation at their next meeting. It was also likely to be raised next week when they privately met Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence He said: “This is worrying.

It just demonstrates the possibility that the weapons Saddam clearly has are being transported.”David Cockroft, the general secretary of the International Transport Workers’ Federation, said he had no knowledge of any vessels carrying Iraqi weapons. But he warned that smuggling of weapons, drugs and people by sea was rife, with unscrupulous ship owners operating under flags of convenience.Reports from Washington in December indicated that up to 15 ships were being operated by al-Qa’ida.But Mr Cockroft warned that intelligence services did not know where ships were or what were their destinations.He said: “Everybody knows it is normal to be able to buy a qualification certificate for a ship’s officer from the right people.”The three giant cargo ships left port in late November, a few days after UN weapons inspectors began their search for the alleged Iraqi arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.. The leaders of Britain’s two main Christian churches united against Tony Blair this morning, expressing doubts about the moral legitimacy of invading Iraq. “War is always a deeply disturbing prospect; one that can never be contemplated without a sense of failure and regret that other means have not prevailed, and deep disquiet about all that may come in its train,” the statement said.”We are very conscious of the huge burden of responsibility carried by those who must make the ultimate decision … The events of recent days show that doubts still persist about the moral legitimacy, as well as the unpredictable humanitarian and political consequences, of a war with Iraq.”But, in a welcome message to No 10, the men said they recognised that the “moral alternative to military action cannot be inaction, passivity, appeasement or indifference”.They said it was “vital” that all sides engaged through the UN in a process which “could and should render the trauma and tragedy of war unnecessary”. “Their views are their views but look at what they are saying.”.