In a Seanad debate on 3 April 2001, I said:

We were right to react in the way we did when the first threat of foot and mouth disease occurred some time ago. The experience in Britain, where the reaction was always behind the crisis, demonstrates the vital importance of getting ahead of the disease if it is to be conquered and controlled effectively.

We were right to react in the way we did when the first threat of foot and mouth disease occurred some time ago. The experience in Britain, where the reaction was always behind the crisis, demonstrates the vital importance of getting ahead of the disease if it is to be conquered and controlled effectively.

The first move in closing the country down was the correct thing to do. It was not an overreaction as some suggest now. Had we not acted decisively in the beginning, we would now face a much worse situation.

That said, it is unrealistic to expect to keep a country locked down for an indefinite period. Apart from its impact on tourism, which is the focus of the debate, a country cannot be expected to give up its normal way of doing business for six months.

That is why the appointment by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development of the expert group referred to was a step in the right direction. However, it is important we recognise the group for what it is - a group of agricultural experts appointed by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to advise on technical matters related to agriculture. That group cannot be expected to give advice other than on agricultural grounds or to balance agricultural interests against others, such as those of the wider economy, especially those of the tourism industry.

I suspect we are treating this outbreak not dissimilarly from the way we treated the previous one in 1967. However, in the intervening years dramatic changes have taken place in our economy. In 1967, agriculture was more important to the economy than tourism. Now the reverse is the case or close to it, and I wonder whether our handling of this crisis reflects that change.

Agriculture is still centrally important to the economy. It is even more so when one considers agriculture and food as a single sector. No matter how much things shift, it will still remain very important. I cannot envisage a future in which agriculture here would decline to the essentially minor role it plays in the British economy.

What is different is that today agriculture is not the only or even the main motor of our economy. It is one of several players, all of which are important and all of which deserve our support at a time of threat or crisis.

Tourism shares two characteristics with agriculture.

The first is that it has a high multiplier effect within the economy. As an industry it uses almost no imported goods and spending on tourism ripples quickly out to affect the whole economy. Because of this multiplier effect, it is as important as agriculture. It is even bigger than the statistics relating to it suggest.

The second characteristic is that much tourism depends on the countryside. Many people come to Ireland for sightseeing. Others come to engage in activity holidays in the countryside. Despite the growth of many urban attractions in recent years, our tourism product is essentially a rural one. As such it has to share space with agriculture. This is why it is so affected by the foot and mouth epidemic. Note that I say tourism has to share space in the countryside with agriculture. Tourism does not invade space that belongs to agriculture by right. Present day reality is that both agriculture and tourism are major economic forces that need the countryside to survive. Neither has rights over the other. Both forces need to be considered as interests which must be given consideration and the implications of this are obvious.

In the interests of the total economy we must be ready to take some risks, risks that we would not take if we were to consider the interests of agriculture alone. At the beginning we sacrificed everything by closing down the economy, by closing down the country, so as to keep the disease out and reduce its impact if it got in, as it did in County Louth.

Now that that has been achieved, we need a more flexible approach to the future. Let me put it this way. If the price of controlling foot and mouth is to be the loss of £1 billion in tourism, the loss of perhaps 20,000 jobs in tourism related activities and the collapse of hundreds of small businesses that are dependent on tourism in all parts of the country, that price is too high.

However, we can manage this crisis in a way such that the price will not be anything like that. It is vital that we shift the focus of our policy so as to express the same concern and the same solidarity for the tourism industry as we have, rightly, in regard to agriculture.

With this in mind, I have three practical suggestions.

The first is that the management of the crisis should be seen to be carried out from a national rather than just an agricultural perspective. This is not just a matter of cosmetics. Many people in the tourism industry believe that agriculture is calling all the shots and that their interests are not considered when decisions are taken. I know there is a Cabinet committee dealing with the issue, but it does not convey the impression of taking the wider national interest that is called for in this case.

My second suggestion builds on something I said when we discussed this issue prior to St. Patrick's Day. I am concerned about the impression being given to the outside world about the nature of this crisis. Many people, especially in America, believe we are suffering from a food and food safety crisis. I spoke to somebody from America on the telephone who asked me whether everything was okay over here. They do not understand the situation.

My third suggestion is that we should refine the official message that goes outside the country so that people are not led, in good faith, to make this situation worse. The Minister has touched on this and I recognise what he is doing. At the beginning of the crisis the message was simple. People were asked to stop whatever they were doing, to put off whatever they were planning. This was a necessary and useful approach at the time, but it has become counterproductive.

I read a statement from the IMI, which the Minister has criticised, to the effect that it cancelled early because doing so would cost only £35,000 whereas cancelling at the last minute would have cost £350,000. That is an illustration of the need for flexible thinking. I am sure the people in Killarney would have been prepared to take the higher risk rather than completely forego high-profile business which was so important to the town at the start of the tourism season.

There is much that can be done. A number of bands came here for the St. Patrick's Day parade, which was postponed. The bands came and paraded, unpublicised. The Minister and the Taoiseach went to Leopardstown racecourse to see them. There was no threat to agriculture. The bands enjoyed it, particularly the high school bands. I met them too. This is a reminder that we can still run the tourism business without threatening agriculture. The message that goes out should be that for the sake of the country we should try to carry on business as normal except where the risks of doing so are clearly too high.