Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for his speech. It is always important, particularly when many scares as well as justified fears abound, that the full facts be set out carefully to allow people judge the current and potential difficulties with a proper sense of proportion. I have great confidence in the Department of Agriculture and Food which has dealt successfully with similar threats in the past. I will always remember the chaos across the water during the last outbreak of foot and mouth disease compared with the way it was kept under tight control here.

There is both a human and animal dimension to this latest issue. Our poultry industry is important and we should avoid a situation, if possible, where large numbers of flocks must be destroyed. Pan-European co-operation is essential to keep the situation under tight control. We must take the appropriate emergency measures if any problem emerges in our immediate vicinity.

In terms of the implications for humans, we have been treated to many headlines about pandemics and references to the millions who died in the flu outbreak of 1918. The Minister of State noted in his speech that the number of deaths to date in the highly populous south-east Asia regions is 60. However, a headline proclaiming that millions may die is more interesting that one avowing that there is no cause for alarm. The price of freedom, including the freedom from disease, is eternal vigilance. Both the Government and the EU are to be commended on the measures they are taking. It is far better to nip this problem in the bud rather than wait until it expands to critical proportions.

The correct action has been taking in preventing beef exports from the affected regions in Brazil. It is a vast country. Earlier speakers alluded to the serious difficulty of policing health regulations. The report of the beef tribunal showed we have some difficulty in doing so. How much more difficult it is when one is dealing with a country thousands of miles away. It is important that people know the origin of what they eat.

We have been treated once more to Senator Quinn's hostility to the Common Agricultural Policy, the CAP. It should be noted that the countries pressing most strongly for reform are not poor countries in Africa but competitor countries, including Brazil, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. None of these, with the exception to some degree of Brazil, is part of the developing world. The example of the sugar industry is indicative. When stringent cuts were proposed, the first up in arms against the proposals were the African, Caribbean and Pacific, ACP, countries. We are subjected to much propaganda, principally from our nearest neighbour, which has always hated the CAP, and some of the agencies based there, among which I must number Oxfam. We are made to feel guilty for looking after our interests while they use the Third World to look after their own. I take those arguments with a pinch of salt.

I am sure the Minister for Agriculture and Food is alert to ongoing developments in the negotiations. From my experience of negotiations on Northern Ireland, I have some familiarity with the negotiating style of the Commissioner for Trade, Mr. Peter Mandelson, whose former close colleague, Mr. Tony Blair, has called for the radical reform or dismantling of the Common Agricultural Policy. Mr. Mandelson largely gutted the Patten report recommendations on police reform, even while maintaining that legislation would conform to them. When he claims that he is negotiating within the mandate given by the Council of Ministers, people should verify that this is so.

His arts of spin and media manipulation were partly or mainly responsible for the ascent of the British Labour Party. I remember an unfortunate incident in which a leaked report appeared in The Irish Times purporting to present a scurrilous version by the British Embassy of the remarks from the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen. Vigilance on the media front is required. While I do not want my comments to be regarded as a judgment on the conduct of the negotiations, we have important interests to protect and need to be vigilant and to recognise that the Commissioner is one of the grand masters of the political arts.

Some of the other matters under discussion also fall partly within the area of WTO negotiations, the outcome of which will be important. We cannot adopt an entirely one-sided approach but must protect a range of interests. It is a question of finding the right balance, which will not be done by sacrificing agricultural interests. I challenge the notion that by making such sacrifices we would do service to the Third World rather than to our main developed country competitors.