Please draw your remarks to a close, Dr McDonnell.

I like to believe that sterling will still be acceptable along the border, and perhaps in Dublin and at the interface with France, Belgium and Holland. We must get to grips with that situation and make exchange easy for business.

I am not surprised that the motion has been put down by the Women's Coalition and supported vociferously by the Alliance Party. The motion calls for two currencies in Northern Ireland. As we have all witnessed in the last couple of weeks, when it comes to schizophrenia, both parties are very adept at behaving in that way. A couple of weeks ago, they wanted to belong to two communities. They wanted to be Unionist, and they wanted to be Nationalist. Now they want to have pounds, and they want to have euros.

It is the best of both worlds.

It is the worst of all worlds; that is the problem. If it were the best of both worlds, the DUP would support the motion. Let us consider the arguments. Members have been told that Northern Ireland cannot help but be affected by this issue because it shares a land boundary with a country of the euro zone. I am not very touched by that argument. It is not a new phenomenon that two countries that share a land boundary should have to deal with different currencies. That happened in Europe until this year.

There were not 300 million of them.

Three hundred million people use dollars, and more of those people come here on holiday than those from Europe. We are not awash with dollars. Nevertheless, there is an argument that there must be a special arrangement in Northern Ireland because many people will be using euros and because we share a land boundary with the euro zone. If those special arrangements are not required between Canada and the United States or between France and Germany until this year, why should there be a special case for Northern Ireland after 1 January 2002?

It has also been said that treating the euro as the second currency in Northern Ireland will be voluntary. However, Ms Morrice does not regard this as voluntary. In fact, its being voluntary would invalidate all her arguments. On one hand she says that it will be a disaster if businesses do not recognise the euro as a second currency; on the other hand she says that they can pick and choose whether they want it. She must make up her mind, although I know that that is difficult.

Members were also told that it would help farmers. I have taught some economics students in my life; some of them were good, and others were poor. However, if I were marking an essay by Ms Morrice, I would not give it a pass grade. She says that if farmers were paid in euros, all their concerns about the effects of the exchange rate would cease. What does she think the farmers will do with the euros when they get them? They are not going to pay wages, electricity bills or feed bills with them. They will have to change them into sterling. Therefore, the argument that euros will do away with the exchange problems that farmers have been complaining about is false.

That takes me to the logical extension of her argument, which is, as my hon Friend Dr Paisley said, that the euro be introduced into Northern Ireland as the first step towards imposing a common currency on the United Kingdom.

Ms Morrice said that the introduction of the euro would help tourism. An article from 'Ulster Business' quotes a man who should know about tourism because he owns several hotels in Northern Ireland. Howard Hastings has said that we should say "yes" to Europe - as Dr Paisley said earlier - but "no" to the euro. That is the view of someone who works in tourism every day, who knows the effects and who has said that these arguments are not valid.

It was also argued that the euro would make Northern Ireland's trade with Europe easier. Dr Birnie pointed out that 80% of Northern Ireland's international trade is outside the euro zone. Therefore, most businesses will still have to deal with exchange fluctuations. Some businesses have traded almost exclusively in dollars for many years, but they do not argue that Northern Ireland must join the Federal Reserve or introduce the dollar into Northern Ireland. Trading, as the currency exists, can be done; it is done every day. Nevertheless, Members are told that if they do not agree the motion, Northern Ireland will face economic disaster.

Of course, we should not worry about the cost; we can get it from the Treasury. That is the final argument - let us go to the Treasury, hold out our hands, and it will pay.

If the Treasury were to give Northern Ireland another 200 million quid, I would want it to be spent on something more than slot machines and cash registers. Yet, it appears that this is the priority that the Women's Coalition, the Alliance Party and, it seems, the SDLP share in the event of the extra money becoming available. Let me give an example. A newspaper recently published an article about a company which runs a few buses between Donegal and Northern Ireland. It reckoned that the changeover to the euro will cost it £40,000. That is for one small business. That will be multiplied across Northern Ireland, and the figures estimated are £200 million or £700 million - nobody is sure.

I can think of far better things to spend our money on, especially when all of the arguments that have been made are fallacious. The reason behind this is not that it will help the farmers and tourism, that it is realistic or that it will help our trade with the rest of Europe. The real reason is that those euro fanatics who are looking at the political landscape in the United Kingdom know that 80% of the population in the United Kingdom will not voluntarily vote to go into the euro zone. So what do you do? Esmond Birnie has described it; you introduce the currency by stealth, "euro creep", as it is called - or "euro creeps".

What would the Member do if the referendum in Northern Ireland were counted separately and Northern Ireland voted for entry into the single currency?

Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and I hope that it will be treated as such when it comes to a referendum count. I have no doubt that good sense will prevail in Northern Ireland as much as it will prevail in the rest of the United Kingdom and that the people here will oppose it.

The fact of the matter is - and Esmond Birnie has mentioned it - that it is less and less likely that the five economic tests that Gordon Brown has set will be met. It is less and less likely that people in the United Kingdom will be persuaded to voluntarily accept the euro. We have seen the kind of interference that comes from Europe - it is now telling the Irish Republic how much tax it can levy. We are not members of the euro zone, yet it is telling Gordon Brown how much he can spend. Next week we will discuss the Budget. Under the proposals for a common currency, Brussels can determine our level of spending and taxation.

Time is up.

I will finish now. That is why people will reject the introduction of the euro. That is why we have to have it sneaked in by the back door. That is the real motive behind the motion.

On 1 January 1999, the euro was launched to great acclaim and much media frenzy. We were informed of the many benefits associated with the euro; how it would be a strong currency and would one day rival the mighty dollar. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.

For the first three years, the new currency has struggled in the markets, and its value has plummeted month after month. Advocates of a single currency feel that it makes sound business and economic sense, in that it will create lower interest rates and faster growth. However, interest rates are unique to each country. No one interest rate fits all; no one interest rate is right for both Belfast and Brussels.

It is, therefore, obvious that countries that have signed up to the single currency will end up with interest rates that are either too high or too low. How could any country be sure that it is getting a fair deal in line with the needs of that particular country? One currency, one bank, one interest rate will inevitably lead to common taxation, one budget and one economic policy. As I have already mentioned, each country is very different economically, so how can a single budget, which will meet the needs of every country, be created?

There will obviously be winners and losers. If we look at the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, it is blatantly obvious who the winners and losers were. As part of the common fisheries policy, the EU tightened the quota system against the United Kingdom. As a result, thousands of trawlermen have lost their jobs, and hundreds of vessels have been taken out of commission. Under the latest proposals, Britain is expected to cut her fishing fleet under the quota system by another 40%. The decimation of the fishing industry has caused problems of unemployment and recession in the fishing towns and villages across our Province. This is one all-too-obvious example of how community policy can damage not only jobs and employment, but the social and community fabric in affected areas.

Does the Member agree that while the fishing industry in the United Kingdom has suffered because of job and boat losses, other European fleets have done better at the expense of the fish in UK waters?

In agreeing with my Colleague, I would like to thank him for illuminating the point that I was making.

The assertion of governmental or imperial power has always rested upon the assertion of the rights to levy taxes, to spend money and to impose a portrait of the head of the king or queen upon the coin. The European Union is following a well-trodden path in wishing to issue and design its own coinage. The power to tax is fundamental in establishing governmental rights. It is difficult to see why we would even contemplate a common economic policy run by the very people who brought us the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy.

In discussing the single currency, we cannot help but mention the fact that we would be moving towards the centralisation of federal power and, therefore, the creation of a single Government. How would it be possible to govern a single country called Europe, given the different languages, histories, cultures, identities, et cetera? Each and every country should be proud of its heritage and culture. Unfortunately, the introduction of a single currency is only going to further weaken our culture and our identity.

Yes, Northern Ireland is unique in that it shares a land border with the Republic of Ireland, which as we all know has opted to introduce the euro. However, this should not pose any great difficulty, as we have managed for over 20 years with two different currencies, since the Republic of Ireland introduced its own currency by replacing the pound with the punt.

It is an absurd notion to have the two currencies working alongside one another. The cost of implementing this would be phenomenal. The costs of conversion are huge. Every computer, vending machine, slot machine, accounting system and bank telling machine would need to be changed. There are over 20,000 automated teller machines handling the existing type of paper currency note in the UK. All of these would have to be replaced to handle entirely different styles and shapes of notes. Also, 500,000 point-of-sale terminals in shops around the country would require either fundamental overhaul or replacement to handle any new currency. All accounting and cash settlement systems would need to be adjusted in order to deal in the redenominated currency, and in the period of transition these would need to shift from sterling to the euro and back again using the fixed conversion factor.

Around the European Union as a whole, there are 12 billion bank notes in circulation and another eight billion in store. All or most of these would need to be replaced with new ones. The complete coinage would require reminting into the new shapes and specifications of the euro. In the case of a small shopkeeper, the costs would be considerable. They would have to make facilities available for transactions in both sterling and euros. In practice, this would mean doubling up the number of tills in the shop to handle two separate sets of banknotes and coins. The total cost to business is estimated at more than £30 billion in total.

What return could they possibly earn on this? In effect, it would be all cost and no benefit. Who would end up footing this bill? Would the customer end up paying the price in more ways than one? We should be proud of the pound and all that it stands for. John Redwood MP said that if we join the euro, there is no point to general elections, as so many of the important decisions about our prosperity will be taken behind closed doors by unelected officials in some far away bank.

I would like to address several issues. The issue of cost was raised by Dr Birnie and by several Members from the DUP Benches. I would like to tease out that issue in order to understand it better. For example, let us suppose that we will have a referendum. Dr Paisley put this point well. What will happen if the people of the UK say, "Yes"? We will have to convert our currency into euros and have a transitional period. Who will pay for that? Surely the Treasury will not expect the people of Northern Ireland to foot the bill for that currency change? The Treasury will have to pay for the conversion.

Will the Member give way?

I do not know how much time I have.

The Member's time is limited, but she can decide to give way.

How much time do I have?

The Member has approximately eight minutes.

I will not give way, because I must respond to the arguments. If the people of the UK say, "No", we are still going to have euros in Northern Ireland. I make that point in answer to Mr Sammy Wilson's comments. Has his head been buried in the sand? Does he not visit Newry or any other border town? Does he not see that currency is crossing the border, and that the euro will cross the border? I would point out to him that there are several thousand miles of water between the United States of America and us. Perhaps he has not noticed that. Canada and America have the same problem with cross-border currency and trade.

Some Members got out their single, transferable speeches as soon as they saw the motion on the Order Paper. They began to say "No" to the euro; "No" to entering a single currency; "No" to the central bank, and "No" to a common - [Interruption].

Hear, hear.

Order.

I am not calling for our entry into the single currency, common control or the central bank.

Oh yes you are.

Oh no I'm not.

Order. The Member knows that her comments must be directed to the Chair and not to the other side of the Chamber.

I will direct my comments through the Chair.

I am not calling for those things. The difference is stated in the motion. The euro should be sitting "alongside sterling". Did Members read that in the motion?

Mr Beggs made an important point. I would like to take time out, because Mr Beggs is probably on the conversion list as far as political persuasion is concerned. He said that he misunderstood the motion because it does not mention the word "voluntary". However, it does not mention the word "compulsory" either. I hope that I have explained that it is about accommodating, facilitating and, when it is in the interests of business and industry, encouraging the use of the euro. I am not talking about its being enshrined in law, or compulsory. I want it to be voluntary, demand-led and market-driven.

I hope that Mr Beggs will understand, and perhaps be persuaded to change his position on the motion, as a result of my explanation.

I thank Dr McDonnell and Mrs Courtney for their support. It was useful to hear Mrs Courtney's reference to experiences in the border areas. Businesses there are having problems and are having to accommodate for euros without any guidance. However, problems do not occur only in the border areas. I have heard about a small business in north Belfast - [Interruption]

Order.

- that could not obtain a conversion rate for the euro from the bank. Yes, there are forward- thinking businesses in Northern Ireland, although it seems some banks have yet to get there. I appreciate Dr McDonnell's point about "euro tolerance". If we do not have that, we shall damage our credibility. Why not have co-existence?

I was disappointed, although not surprised, with Sinn Féin's position on the motion. That demonstrates how far we still must go to achieve modern political and economic thinking. I thank Mr Ford who pointed out the problems for small business. It is vital that we understand those problems. I also thank him for explaining to those Members who are supposed to be so close to the farming community that he has come across farmers who would appreciate their subsidies being paid in euros. Those Members who think that that is not the case should go to the farmers and ask them. Perhaps they would then respond differently to the motion.

How many farmers are there in north Down?

There is a problem here, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to make that clear.

I am afraid that those who vote against the motion do not realise that it is a pragmatic solution. They simply "do not want a euro about the place". We are correct to wait for a referendum.

I have already referred to Mark Robinson and Sammy Wilson. I mentioned the head-in-the sand approach and the single transferable speech.

There is no question that the referendum on the UK's membership of the single European currency will be the deciding factor on whether the UK enters it. The Women's Coalition believes that the single European currency is important and valuable. However, the criteria and the timing must be right. We in the party are pragmatists. The motion offers a solution in the interim. I remind Members that support for the motion is not necessarily support for the euro, nor is it support for UK membership of the single currency. The motion seeks only to make provision for the unique situation in Northern Ireland.

The euro is a reality. It will make its way north of the border whether we like it or not. Our farmers, our businesses and our industry need to know how to deal with it. By supporting the motion, the Assembly would send out a clear message to the people that it represents - Northern Ireland is open for business in euros and in pounds. Let the people decide.

<< Prev