THE disastrous news that foot and mouth disease has re-emerged in Northumber-land is a terrible blow, not only to farming, but to all those who are running businesses in rural areas.

Northumberland, a county whose superb countryside has made it into a major tourist area, had not had an outbreak of foot and mouth disease since May 22. To all outward appearances, the area was clear. Once more, this particularly virulent organism has caught out those trying to eradicate it.

We have all seen the effect on tourism, both foreign and domestic. People are staying away in droves.

In rural East Yorkshire, friends with bed and breakfast businesses report that their bookings are much reduced, along, therefore, with their ability to spend money in their communities.

East Yorkshire has not had any outbreaks within 30 miles. Yet the English countryside is seen as a place largely closed, with footpaths which are out of bounds, despite ministerial pronouncements. Tourists, especially those from abroad, cannot be blamed for being confused.

In Northumberland, much grouse shooting has been cancelled. Whatever one's views on game shooting, there are a lot of people ready to spend significant sums on that activity. The money they spend amounts to more income for the areas than the sheep provide. They certainly produce more employment for gamekeepers and more income for hotels and guest houses than agriculture in the same areas. This sort of diversification is at the very heart of the Government's proposals for the way the British countryside should be managed.

Any tax payer must be wondering when the apparently unlimited amount of money this disease is costing is going to come to an end.

The Scots remind us they have been much more successful than the English in stopping the disease. They adopted a different tactic. Instead of slaughtering the neighbouring herds and flocks, they drew a three-kilometre ring around any outbreak and slaughtered everything within that circle. This frequently did not make any difference to the number of animals culled. It did mean that where a number of smaller holdings were close together, the stock was removed as part of a single action, rather than being dealt with on a piecemeal basis. The number of outbreaks in Scotland seems to support this as a more successful approach.

However, the main difference between the two countries lies in the resolve of the Scots to eradicate the disease. All those involved in Scottish agriculture united, determined to stop the problem in its tracks. They acted quickly and decisively. Too often, in England, there was debate and prevarication and during the delays the disease took further hold, especially in sheep.

Then there was the endless transporting of carcasses and the dreadful pyres, monuments in themselves to the inefficiency of the English industry in dealing with the crisis. The fact that the recommendations of the public inquiry at the end of the last major outbreak in 1967-68 have been largely ignored does lead one to wonder whether there is any point in having such an inquiry. The one thing that we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.

We have suffered from a lack of resolve to sort out the problem. We seem to have a belief that it is bound to go away and a Government which felt that it needed to be able to go to the country having told everyone that they had beaten the disease.

Those running rural businesses are here to tell them that they had not.