Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. It is welcome to see that the DUP and the Alliance Party are concerned about an issue that affects the people of Ireland. Perhaps, we will be able to convert them to an all-Ireland agenda.

I view the SDLP's amendment with deep regret. The Assembly should unite on the issue. Instead, for personal reasons, Mr McGrady has chosen to table an amendment that adds nothing to the debate. At the same time, I recognise that he has been at the forefront of those who have raised the issue of Sellafield over the years. I welcome the fact that Ireland can unite on this important issue. However, it would be more effective if all parties could unanimously support the motion.

In the post-11 September climate, when the British Government are rightly working closely with other nations, the danger posed by their reluctance to close down the disaster-in-waiting known as Sellafield is too enormous for most rational people to contemplate. The British Government apparently think that, should a successful attack on Sellafield occur, the loss of possibly one million lives is an acceptable risk to take. Some argue that the number of lives that would be lost is unknown. However, what is known is the high incidence of leukaemia in children living close to Sellafield.

The facts contained in a recent report prepared for the European Parliament on the possible toxic effects of nuclear reprocessing plants at Sellafield and Cap de la Hague are damning. The rate of leukaemia in those children is eight times higher than normal. The report states that

Is that not an attack on the innocent? The report is the most damning ever produced on the operations of Sellafield. It challenges the economic activities of the reprocessing industry, as well as the extremely casual approach of the EU Commission towards its duty to verify activities at Sellafield.

Nuclides released into the air and sea contaminate the food chain, and people may receive radioactive contamination from radioactive aerosols, inhalation of radioactive gases and ground shine from nuclides deposited on land. The linear no-threshold model adopted by the scientific community states that there is no level of radiation exposure below which there is no effect. Even the smallest possible dose, such as a photon passing through a cell nucleus, carries a risk of cancer.

It is outrageous that the European Commission cannot even guarantee that basic safety standards will be met. Britain seems to think that it does not have to worry about such mundane concerns as safety, because it did not request the European Commission's opinion under article 34 of the Euratom Treaty.

There has been a reduction in radioactive emissions. However, other, more harmful, emissions are increasing. The increase of key radionuclides from Sellafield, and expected future discharges, are totally inconsistent with the obligations of the British Government under the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention).

Ireland is not a distant land, although I often suspect that the British would like that to be the case. The fish along our coastline live in extremely polluted waters, but the British dismiss Irish concerns about the dangers of such pollution as if a fish with two heads were something to marvel at.

On a clear day it is possible to see the Sellafield plant from the majestic Mournes - it is not a comforting sight. The Sellafield nuclear plant is closer to Belfast than it is to Glasgow, and it is closer to Dublin than it is to London. It is vitally important that all parties on this island work together to force the British Government to close this death trap at Sellafield immediately. Britain should suspend MOX plant operations until the full hearing of the Irish case in February 2002. No one group, person or political party will have all the answers or can win the battle alone, but if we work together in the Assembly and in the island of Ireland with the campaigners in Britain and Europe, we will all have a stronger mandate and a stronger voice. Go raibh maith agat.

Sellafield is a problem that directly impacts on the people of Northern Ireland. Located on the coast of Cumbria, it is almost directly across the Irish Sea from Belfast. It is known by many environmentalists as "the nuclear dustbin of the world". The survey by the University of Bremen commissioned by Greenpeace states that

Mike Townsley of Greenpeace International said that

Worryingly, more than a third of the plutonium pumped into the Irish Sea from Sellafield over the past 40 years is said to be missing. Plutonium dust washed inshore is thought to be a potential cause of cancer and birth defect clusters.

A study by Dr Patricia Sheehan published in 'The Lancet' showed links between the fire at the Sellafield plant - when it was known as Windscale - and instances of Down's Syndrome, stillbirths, Asian flu and cancer. Another study by a leading scientist, Gardner, showed that contaminated Sellafield workers could pass on genetic damage to their children resulting in leukaemia and stillbirths. Leukaemia clusters have been found near Sellafield and the Dounreay nuclear plant in Scotland.

Sellafield also has a notoriously poor safety record and, according to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, data on fuel given to Japan had been systematically falsified.

The opening of the MOX plant will herald a plethora of new disasters waiting to happen. A MOX plant reprocesses plutonium, one of the most toxic substances known to mankind. Stephen Tindale, the executive director of Greenpeace in the United Kingdom, said that

Using the Irish Sea as a transport route to and from Sellafield puts Northern Ireland at even greater risk. It is clear that the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is more concerned with the loss of jobs than with the health and well-being of the population. The Prime Minister is on record as saying

This is a totally irresponsible policy of the Prime Minister and the Government.

Mention has already been made of the potential for terrorist attacks and the possibility of terrorists obtaining MOX fuel. The fear, heightened by the recent terror attacks in the United States, is that terrorists could extract plutonium from MOX, which could be used in nuclear weapons or in "dirty bombs" - conventional devices containing the substance. They do not explode like a nuclear bomb but can spread radiation over a large area. Charles Secrett, director of Friends of the Earth, said

I therefore support the motion.

It seems as if the British Government are taking a bashing today from so-called adherents. I prefer to say "Her Majesty's Government". Mr Mick Murphy's talk of an attack on the innocent was poignant; there was an attack on the innocent in this country for 30 years, and, in many instances, the silence was deafening.

I am aware of the public concern surrounding Sellafield. For that reason, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this motion. It is extremely important that the Assembly and the Northern Ireland public are given clear information about Sellafield - about its discharges into the Irish Sea and how responsibility for the regulation of Sellafield has been allocated under the law of Her Majesty's Government.

As most Members will be aware, responsibility for regulating the discharges from the Sellafield complex rests with the Environment Agency for England and Wales. Regulation of the wider security aspects is the responsibility of the Office of Civil Nuclear Security, an agency under the United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry. The citizens of Northern Ireland, as of Cumbria and other parts of the United Kingdom, rightly look to these agencies to safeguard their health and environmental interests. Those agencies, and the UK Ministers for Environment and Trade and Industry, bear a heavy responsibility towards the citizens of these islands.

The powers of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly are necessarily more limited. My Department has a vital role in monitoring the impact of discharges from Sellafield into the Irish Sea on the Northern Ireland coastline. We have had a comprehensive monitoring programme to assess these impacts for many years. My Department reviews this monitoring system annually to ensure that it is sufficiently robust, taking into account any changes at the Sellafield complex. I am glad to say that the results of the monitoring are published annually. The availability of objective scientific information is crucial to a clear understanding of the issues surrounding Sellafield. At this point, I should emphasise that the results of this monitoring have consistently shown minimal amounts of radioactivity, at levels that are consistent with normal background levels.

The Department has also undertaken joint studies with the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and with University College Dublin on the impact of discharges from Sellafield. These studies also consistently show low radioactivity levels on the Irish coastline in counties Down, Louth and beyond. It has been calculated that the most exposed members of the public would receive around 0·002 microsieverts per year from the operation of the MOX plant. This equates to around two seconds flying on a transatlantic flight. People in Northern Ireland receive, on average, 2,500 microsieverts of radiation per year from all natural and artificial resources. Fifty per cent of this is due to exposure to radon in the home, and 12% is from medical exposure. Nuclear discharges account for less than 0·1%. While we must never be complacent about the risks, equally we should avoid alarming people unnecessarily. For that reason, it is my duty to repeat the broad thrust of the scientific evidence so that the Northern Ireland public is made aware of it.

It is important to note that in addition to the regular monitoring of discharges on the marine environment, my Department continues to play a part with other Departments in planning for dealing with nuclear accidents. Following the Chernobyl accident, the Northern Ireland technical advice group was set up to oversee and advise on our response to an overseas nuclear accident. This group draws its membership from all relevant Northern Ireland Departments, including those responsible for countermeasures in regard to public health, drinking water and the food chain. My Department also has a radiological emergency response plan, which deals with a range of actions to be taken in the event of such an incident. Of course, the Northern Ireland emergency plan is fully integrated into the UK one.

That said, I want to emphasise to Members that I fully understand that there is widespread public concern about Sellafield. I realise that this concern has been heightened as a result of the recent terrorist incidents in the USA. The recent decision to approve the MOX plant at Sellafield was, of course, taken jointly by the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Both carry important responsibilities to all citizens of the United Kingdom and beyond.

Will the Member give way?

No, I want to continue.

Consent from the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Inspectorate will also be required before plutonium can be introduced into the plant. These are important safeguards.

It is also of some relevance that the UN Tribunal on the Law of the Seas has recently refused the Republic of Ireland Government's case for having the Sellafield MOX project halted. The scrutiny of this important body should provide some further assurance to us. However, I have also noted its injunction that the UK Government should share information on Sellafield and that the UK Government has agreed to do so.

That is to be welcomed.

Will the Member give way?

I do not intend to give way. I will be kept fully informed about consultations between the two Governments following the tribunal's decision, and Sellafield will be a subject of consideration by the British-Irish Council.

After the attacks on 11 September in the United States, my Department contacted the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in order to seek assurances that, amongst other things, the potential impact of a terrorist incident at Sellafield would be taken into account when the decision on the MOX plant is made. That correspondence will be copied to the Environment Committee of the Assembly. Recently, I also wrote to Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. A copy was sent to Stephen Byers, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is responsible for civil nuclear safety matters at Sellafield. My purpose was to seek further information and assurances about the regulation of Sellafield, particularly the security arrangements after 11 September. I look forward to receiving the UK Government's response in due course and will convey as much of it to the Assembly as national security constraints will allow.

I want to be satisfied that Northern Ireland's interests are taken into account and protected by the competent UK authorities. To that end, I will continue to pay close attention to radiological monitoring and to seek information from the relevant UK authorities on the safety and security of operations at Sellafield.

I appreciate the contributions made by everyone, which will join the similar comments made by the proposer of the motion. There have not been many disagreements about the cause that we are pursuing, except that I have been accused of two things: first, bashing the British Government over the issue - and yes, I admit to that and plead guilty, and I will continue to do so; secondly, there was a rather strange alliance between Sinn Féin and the DUP to bash me and my Colleague for daring to table an amendment. I am glad to see that there is some unanimity between the two parties, as Sinn Féin accused the DUP and the Alliance Party of such unanimity. There is a lovely triangle at work in the Chamber today.

Mick Murphy attacked me personally by saying that I had proposed the amendment for personal reasons. That is an insult not only to me but also to my absent Colleague to whom I earlier offered my condolences on the bereavement in his family.

The motion is in respect of nuclear-processing activities. The stoppage of nuclear-processing activities will not give a result. It is necessary to stop nuclear- reprocessing activities, which is a very different scientific concept. The amendment was tabled yesterday after an announcement at 11.00 am from the tribunal of the International Law of the Sea in Hamburg regarding the case that the Irish Government brought against the British Government over the licensing that is pending full implementation. That is not contained in the motion, and it is important that we address the issue.

I like to think that there is no disputation in the Chamber. It might be presumptuous of me, but when the proposer and the seconder are winding up, could they amalgamate the two into a composite motion, so that we will have total unanimity?

The proposer of the motion drew our attention to the enormous potential health risks of cancer clusters. These were also mentioned by Mr Shannon.

It is important that some of the Minister's comments are dealt with in a short winding-up speech. I have already dealt with the accusations of bashing the British Government. I have admitted to that and pleaded guilty, and I will continue the bashing as an unrepentant sinner. However, as a protection for relative inaction, the Minister says that he is happy to depend on the safeguards of the Health and Safety Executive of the United Kingdom.

Perhaps he did not listen to what I said. The Health and Safety Executive in England has not yet given advice to the British Government; neither has it made its conditions appropriate to the issue of the licence. The British Government went ahead of its Health and Safety Executive.

The Minister also quoted the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland as an argument for relative inactivity. Perhaps I spoke too softly, but the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland clearly stated in a recent report that Sellafield is

in the Irish Sea. A further report from the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland stated that along the Irish coastline, the highest activity concentrations of radioactive material are observed in the north-east - the area for which the Minister is responsible.

He should not be able to hide behind these two important protection bodies if those bodies have concerns or have not made a commitment to approving the licensing. Licensing is one of the most important and immediate issues, as it will multiply enormously the reprocessing capacity and, therefore, the generation of high, medium and low-level radioactive material.

The Minister said that there is great public concern. I am glad that that is recognised. The House recognises it, and the Minister must show by his actions that he recognises it too. What more will be done about it?

The Minister also referred to the assurances that he is getting from the British Government - rather he is awaiting a reply from them - that the security risk is containable. Before 11 September, the World Information Service on Energy described the grave security risks attendant on Sellafield, information that has since been published. I am far from convinced that the British Government took the scale of security risks into account when they made their decision. I repeat, the OSPAN committee - as distinct from OSPAR - which was appointed to advise the Government, has yet to report. The British Government even went ahead of it. This was a hasty decision made for particular reasons.

It is especially important today because of the decision taken at Hamburg yesterday morning. This is an important week. It is important that we realise what happened in this one of the two or three pending cases. We now have interim findings from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea with regard to the Irish Government's bid to prevent the commissioning of the mixed oxide plant. The international tribunal refused the Irish Government's request to force the British Government to withdraw the licence.

However, it did other things. The president of the tribunal ordered the British and Irish Governments to co-operate and consult on measures in the coming weeks. The tribunal insisted that both Governments report to it before 17 December. The tribunal further prescribed that both Governments shall exchange the necessary information to enable a reasoned judgement to be made. It also insisted that both Governments establish a mechanism to monitor the operation and the effect that this plant will have on the Irish Sea. It gives latitude to the president of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to ask for further reports. This is not a clean sheet; this is not a blanket refusal from the tribunal. It is saying, "We shall not halt the licensing now; but we want to be assured by your urgent reporting that you are satisfied that the international law is required".

We will be looking for that report before Christmas and for a further report in January 2002. It is not a lost cause, and it is important that we follow it to its conclusion.

This debate has been held many times, and I make no excuse for rehearsing it. If the commissioning of the MOX plant goes ahead, that will affect and perpetuate nuclear reprocessing activities at Sellafield and add dramatically to the level of radioactive discharges to the marine environment. It will also increase the volume of worldwide shipments of nuclear fuels, with the obvious risks to traffic in the Irish Sea.

Other European countries, particularly the Nordic countries and Iceland, have increased their pressure on the British Government through the EU. The International Energy Agency and the WISE group of scientists in Paris have emphasised the need to rethink the issue. The Northern Ireland Executive, and particularly the Minister's Department, must take concerted action and reflect the opinion expressed in the Chamber and that of the people of Northern Ireland, to strongly oppose the licensing of the MOX plant.

I support Mr McCarthy. We must continue the process of decommissioning and eventual closure of the entire plant at Sellafield. That is what our constituents want. It is not just a wish; it is substantiated across all agencies. Britain has flouted the OSPAR agreement made at Sintra as regards the discharge levels that it undertook to reduce. It went ahead of its own environment and health and safety executive report, and it went ahead of the WISE security report.

That has all been driven by dubious financial considerations, because it can now be proved - given the views of one of the main contractors, British Energy - that it is too expensive to reprocess nuclear waste. It is not cost-effective. No one uses the end product of reprocessed uranium and plutonium.

It is important that the Department of the Environment, through the North/South Ministerial Council, the British- Irish Council and the Council of the Isles, gets the message across that we cannot, and will not, accept what is happening to the environment. There are potential health and security risks.

I had no intention of diminishing the main motion. My aim was to exploit the licensing situation that was created yesterday morning; to make our objections known and to correct a couple of words in the motion. The winding-up speech should show that we have a commonality of approach and a common motion to propose and accept.

Mr McGrady's words have fallen on fertile ground. After consulting Mr McCarthy we are mindful, with the will of the House, to accept Mr McGrady's amendment. That proves that we do sometimes listen. I can say that with double certainty because, until this afternoon, I had lost the hearing in my left ear. In the middle of his speech, my hearing came back. - [Interruption].

Not only am I listening but today Mr McGrady has given me the ability to listen fully. We accept that his amendment is clarifying a difficulty that he had with the original motion and adds to it. It is important that, as an Assembly, we go forward united on this crucial issue. There is no unholy alliance between Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party and the DUP. The DUP has consulted the Alliance Party, and we are happy to accept the SDLP amendment.

It is very sad that a Minister can come before the House, read from a prepared text given to him by his officials and refuse to accept the intervention of a Member who wants to ask crucial questions about the welfare and health of the people of this Province. How are we ever going to perform properly as an Assembly if Ministers are not prepared to give way when there is a time limit on an issue as crucial as this? I will ask the three questions that I intended to ask the Minister had he given way. I will give him the opportunity to intervene at any time during my speech, and for as long as he likes, to answer those questions.

Was Mr Foster, as Minister of the Environment, consulted before the decision to go ahead with the MOX plant at Sellafield was announced? The people of Northern Ireland need to know, because we will be directly affected by the implications of the opening of that plant.

If he was consulted, what comments did he make to his counterpart at Westminster on this vital issue? If he was not consulted, did he protest in the strongest possible fashion that the Assembly was being ignored and that its views were not taken into account before the decision was made? The people of Northern Ireland have a right to know the answers to those questions. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to answer them, if he feels that that is appropriate.

Sellafield is closer to Belfast than it is to Sheffield or Birmingham. This is a reserved matter, and the Assembly has no direct control over the licensing of Sellafield. However, the implications of anything going wrong at Sellafield are more important to the people of Belfast than they are to the people of Birmingham, because we are that much closer. Sellafield was opened in 1956 and is literally across the Irish Sea. It has produced the most radioactive, contaminated sea in the world. All the risks associated with Sellafield fall on the people of Northern Ireland, but none of the benefits. Nobody from Northern Ireland is employed at Sellafield. None of the power produced at Sellafield goes onto the Northern Ireland grid. However, it is the folk on the east coast of the Province, in Portavogie and Portaferry, Ardglass, Kilkeel and Newcastle, who will be directly affected by the continuing radioactivity of the Irish Sea, or if something goes drastically wrong.

A recent issue of 'New Scientist' magazine predicted that a terrorist attack on Sellafield would produce a radioactive cloud of dust 44 times bigger than the cloud that escaped from Chernobyl. Chernobyl is many thousands of miles away from Northern Ireland, but as older Members will remember, there were major implications for agriculture, even in Northern Ireland, as a result of the fallout from that accident. Scientists predict an impact 44 times greater.

I suppose that some would have said, before September 11, that this speculation was fanciful, and that it would be incredible that anyone should think that a plane could be crashed into a tall building, killing many thousands of people. Now, unfortunately, we see all too clearly that that is indeed a real threat. If some lunatic terrorist decided to bomb Sellafield, the implications for Northern Ireland would be horrendous. It was my hope that we would have heard an announcement that Sellafield was to be run down as safely as possible.

The reason that the announcement regarding the MOX plant is so important after five years of consultation is that the £470 million that has been spent on developing it, and the decision to continue using it, means that there is little prospect of running Sellafield down. The MOX plant is an entirely new process in which there has been much investment. The Government will feel that they simply have to continue pumping in large amounts of money to keep that plant going.

The MOX plant cost £470 million. It is predicted that even on the most optimistic basis, it will make a net profit of £200 million over its lifespan. No matter what happens, this new plant is a white elephant that will cost British taxpayers, including ourselves, a significant amount of money. Even that estimated profit is based on the assumption that BNFL will secure all the markets that it has predicted will be secured. However, that is far from the reality. As things stand, BNFL has markets for only 11% of the produce that it intends to manufacture. What will happen if it is unsuccessful in obtaining new markets? There will be huge stockpiling of MOX products at Sellafield, which is only a few miles from the east coast of Northern Ireland.

The Japanese market appears to be rapidly drying up. As a result of the falsification, deliberate or otherwise, of some of the information given to the Japanese, it seems that they are getting cold feet about purchasing any further reprocessed material from Sellafield. Sweden is also getting cold feet, and other markets are far from secure. Will that lead to stockpiling of vast amounts of radioactive material? The chances are that it will.

I will reply to Mr Wells's questions. I welcome this debate. It is good to tease out the feelings of the Assembly. I know that Members have many concerns, and I am not taking those lightly.

Mr Wells asked whether I was consulted; I was not. I have raised concerns about security issues. I have written to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to Margaret Beckett and to Stephen Byers, and I await a reply from them.

I thank the Minister for his answers, as far as they go. I wonder if he will ever be able to release that correspondence, because I hope that if he wrote to his counterpart Minister in Westminster, it was to protest in the strongest possible fashion about the lack of consultation. He has now admitted that there was no consultation with the Assembly or its Ministers before the decision was made.

What the Minister has said is very revealing. This part of the United Kingdom has been affected for years. This debate did not start yesterday. In the European committee on which I served, I learnt that Sellafield had been polluting the Irish Sea for years, and that there was danger in that. Now, with Sellafield's new departure to try to keep doing its work under another guise and a different name, we learn that the Minister with responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland on this issue was not even told about it. He was not consulted. That is ridiculous.

The British Government must be called to account. I will be asking a question in Westminster about this, and I am sure that Mr McGrady will do the same. Even though the Assembly does not have powers on this issue, it should not have been ignored. Our Minister should have at least been consulted and informed of what was happening. That is how the British Government act - they do the job and then the people hear about it.

I thank the hon Member for his comment.

I must emphasise that I have nothing to hide. I wrote to my Westminster counterparts because I was concerned that I had not been consulted on the matter, and I knew that the people of Northern Ireland were concerned.

I appreciate the Minister's comments. I am glad that the deafness that left me did not transfer to him. He heard my questions, and he has answered them. However, I am not reassured by the news that a Westminster Department decided to go ahead with a decision that has major implications for the health of the people of Northern Ireland and did not even think it worthwhile to write to the counterpart Northern Ireland Department.

While it is true that the Department of the Environment has no direct control over the licensing of Sellafield, it has direct control over the testing and assessment of the water and air in Northern Ireland for radioactivity. Therefore, if for no other reason but to give him his place, Mr Foster should have been consulted. I hope that the message sent by the Assembly and the Minister to Westminster is that we will not tolerate that sort of treatment in regard to a matter that is so directly linked to our people's welfare and health.

Several Members raised the issue of transportation. As well as the dangers of a terrorist attack on Sellafield, large quantities of nuclear material will be transported to and from Sellafield, mostly by boat, sometimes by air. There could be a natural disaster, with a ship running aground on rocks or sinking while carrying a load of nuclear material. If there were a MOX plant, more ships would be sailing to and from Cumbria. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment should have been consulted about sea traffic.

I do not want to be alarmist and scare people. However, if a heavily laden plane is hijacked at an airport in the north of England and is directed towards Sellafield, almost nothing can be done to stop it. Events in the United States are evidence of that.

What is happening at Sellafield is deeply alarming. As a community we are united on this issue, and those of us who represent communities on the east coast of Northern Ireland are particularly concerned. We receive none of the benefits of Sellafield, but we have all the worries and penalties. I hope that the Assembly sends out a united message that we must be consulted in the future and that the ultimate aim of the UK Government - our Government - is the gradual and safe rundown of nuclear reprocessing at Sellafield.

Finally, if Sellafield is so safe, why is it not located in the Midlands, and if it is so watertight, how many of its executives live within a 30-mile radius of the plant?

Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.

TOP

Dual Currency Status for the Euro/Sterling in Northern Ireland

I beg to move

I draw Members' attention to the fact that despite many attempts on my part, this is the first time that the Assembly has debated the vital issue of the single European currency. The debate is long overdue.

Although Northern Ireland is not part of the euro zone, the impact of its arrival on the local economy will be tremendous, and we must be prepared. Just four weeks from today, the greatest single economic event in the history of the European Union will swing into action. It will affect 300 million people in tens of millions of homes in hundreds of thousands of villages in 12 European countries, and it will affect us. The United Kingdom may have chosen to "wait and see", but in Northern Ireland it must be recognised that we will be touched by the euro phenomenon whether we like it or not.

Northern Ireland is the only area of the United Kingdom that has a land border with a euro zone. Undoubtedly, Northern Ireland will feel the effects more than any other region of the United Kingdom. We are in a unique position, and we need special arrangements to allow us to take advantage of our situation. Our experience with dual currency has been restricted to pound/punt transactions in the border areas. However, we should not forget that there are only three million people using punts in the world. From January 2002, no one will be using punts, Deutschmarks, pesetas, lire or any other of the currencies of the 12 European countries involved. There will be more than 300 million people using euros. Northern Ireland, whether we like it or not, could find itself awash with euros in the months and years to come.

What should our traders, tourist establishments, businesses and bankers do? Should they operate a dual currency system? Can they afford to take on the exchange rate risk? Can they afford not to? Do they simply say "No euros served here"? I believe that those days are gone. Our farmers, businesses, industries and the public need guidance and support. Above all, they need clear political direction. That is why urgent action is needed. By calling on the Government to make the necessary legal and financial arrangements for the euro to be officially recognised as a second currency alongside sterling - I emphasise "alongside" sterling - we are simply asking for arrangements to be made to accommodate, facilitate and, where is it in the interests of business and industry, encourage the use of the euro in financial transactions in Northern Ireland.

We are not calling for laws to be imposed to force people to accept euros against their will. It should be done on a voluntary basis, and it should be demand-led and market-driven. The difference between that situation and what is being called "cross-border currency creep" - which will inevitably take place - is that we would be giving the euro an official welcome and preparing ourselves for what will happen.

The motion, as it currently stands, is calling for the euro to be recognised as a second currency alongside sterling. That would mean that the euro would be legal tender and that any shop in Northern Ireland would have to transact business based upon it. The motion is, therefore, not introducing the euro on a voluntary basis, but rather putting it on a compulsory footing. That would add additional costs to every retail and tourist outlet in Northern Ireland. Does the Member accept that her motion, as it currently stands, is not a means of introducing the euro on a voluntary basis?

The Member's comments give me the opportunity to explain matters. It is important that Members understand the situation.

I asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey, about the euro and the matter of legal tender, and he explained that the euro is legal tender in Northern Ireland already. Foreign currencies are legal tender, so legal recognition does not mean that a currency is imposed upon traders, and I am not calling for it to be made compulsory tender. From the point of view of a party that is pro-European, there is no point in trying to force the euro upon shopkeepers. That would hardly endear them to the currency. The euro is legal tender, and it is treated in the same way as the dollar and the yen. Sterling is the only legal currency of the United Kingdom. I am asking for the euro to be given special status, for its "foreign currency" label to be removed and for it to be treated differently from the dollar and the yen. I say again that it would not be compulsory - it would be on a voluntary basis, demand-led and market-driven.

Is the Member drawing a distinction between legal tender and a double currency? The Member seems to be defining what is legal tender, then saying that she does not want it to be legal tender, although she claims that it is so - she wants it to be a second currency.

Can the Member explain that? It will take a good deal of explaining. Does she think, in the name of all good fortune, that the British Government will listen to a debate attended in this manner in the Assembly, and make a drastic change to the entire financial arrangements of the United Kingdom before the referendum takes place? If she thinks so, she must be living in a country whose name I do not even know.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>