No for now
9th June 2003
Monday is normally a fairly quiet day in Westminster. But the last two have been extremely busy. Last week it was the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Coronation and this week it was Euro-Decision Day. I can understand people getting a bit excited about the first, but the not latter. But, this Monday, despite the fact that everyone seemed to know weeks before exactly what the big decision would be, there was a real air of anticipation.
First thing that morning a convoy of large vans rolled through the wrought iron gates of New Palace Yard. They were delivering the largest-ever amount of paperwork to come out of the Treasury in a single day. Six hundred and fifty-nine copies of three huge documents to be given to MPs as soon as the Chancellor sat down. The Technical Studies document alone is 1,738 pages long. Then there is the 250-page assessment document and the national changeover plan. A Euro-doc mountain. Mine are sitting, unopened, on the windowsill behind me as I write. Several weeks worth of bedtime reading.
However, by the time Gordon Brown got to his feet, we all knew what the huge documents contained. After two years of number-crunching by 50 independent economists and shoals of his Treasury officials, the Chancellor was going to say 'no' for now to Britain's membership of the European Single Currency. Only one of his five crucial tests for membership had been passed. Membership of the euro is not yet economically right for Britain.
I agree. But, like him, I am keen to see us join when the economics are right. It will be enormously beneficial to business and will guarantee lower and more stable interest rates for us all. However, I believe that it is wise to wait. How long that wait should or will be is open to question. None of the answers will please either the Europhobes or the Europhiles. But that does not matter. This decision is not about pleasing people. It is about doing the best for Britain. Now and long into the future.
Not yet
Though the Euro was the main topic of conversation at Westminster this week, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction came a close second. There are three issues here. The first is did these weapons ever exist? The second is did they exist on March 18th when the United States and Britain went to war to prevent their proliferation? The third is does their existence on that date matter?
The short answer to the first is 'yes, of course they did'. Without them Saddam Hussein could not have attacked the Kurdish town of Halabjah with chemical weapons in 1988. Five thousand people were killed in this attack and another 10,000 injured. Without them he would not have made such a song and dance about having the UN weapon's inspectors in the country.
The second issue is more difficult. Any question whose short answer is 'maybe' is bound to be. However, we have not found any weapons of mass destruction in post-conflict Iraq yet. Certainly not in their final, 45-minutes-to-launch, form. This does not mean that they do not exist. But it does mean that we cannot say, with any certainty, that they do. What we do know is that Saddam had taken delivery of large stocks of the precursor chemicals needed to manufacture some of these weapons. In addition we have found supplies of uranium, two ready-to-use mobile laboratories, piles of empty rocket nose cones and a lot of protective clothing. This suggests that Iraq was, at the very least, ready and able to manufacture more of the weapons their ruler had shown himself so ready to use a decade or so earlier. Meanwhile, I think that we should give the new Iraq Survey group a little longer to come up with the evidence. Some of its members were part of the UN inspection team and I believe that they are doing all they can to establish the truth.
Finally, of course it matters whether or not these weapons existed. After all, we went to war to limit their use and proliferation. But does the fact that we have not found them yet, or even the possibility that we may never find them, make the Prime Minister a liar? I do not think so. I think that he believed, and still believes, that Iraq had such weapons and that they will be found.
If they are not found both Britain and the United States have some very serious work to do on their intelligence gathering or on the way they used this intelligence to justify their actions. That is why I welcome the announcement of the Intelligence Select Committee's investigation into the events leading up to the Iraq conflict. We need to take a long, hard look at the facts and then decide whether a public enquiry is necessary. The Prime Minister promised in the Commons last week to co-operate fully with this investigation. I, and other MP s will be holding him to this promise in the weeks to come.
Barbara Follett MP
