Is this disaster being mishandled?

That, at least, was the case for the first three-and-a-half weeks of the foot-and-mouth crisis.

But now, the first cracks in the united front are starting to show.

Political hostilities, which had been suspended, have now been revived. Official policy which had been accepted is now being questioned. And Government instructions which had been obeyed are now being challenged.

Conservative Party leader William Hague yesterday made his first real criticisms of the way the Government has been handling the crisis, calling for greater use of the Army, particularly in disposing of carcasses.

He said the Government was "behind the game" and tackling the outbreak too slowly, with complaints over the length of time it took, firstly to diagnose cases, then to slaughter the animals and burn the bodies.

With 100,000 animals waiting to be slaughtered, and another 60,000 rotting on the ground, the Government has faced accusations that it does not have the resources to tackle the problem.

And there have also been criticisms over the Ministry of Agriculture's insistence on sticking to procedures. Vets are forced to wait for their diagnoses to be confirmed before animals can be slaughtered, leaving them possibly spreading the disease for several days.

A shortage of vets has been blamed for some of the delays, with one farm at Old Stillington, near Stockton, waiting two days from reporting a suspected case of foot-and-mouth to the arrival of a vet.

Proposals to cull 300,000 healthy sheep, to try to stop the disease spreading, have run into opposition, not least on the grounds that officials cannot cope with the number of infected animals, let alone those showing no sign of the disease.

Militant farmers have threatened to barricade their farms against Maff officials to stop their animals being slaughtered, prompting warnings of a rural revolt and fears that the police may have to be called in.

Throughout the outbreak, the Government's line has been that culling is the only way to eradicate foot-and-mouth, and wiping it out altogether is the only way to protect British farming.

But this, too, is coming under attack, with the opening of a new front in the form of calls for a policy of vaccination instead of slaughter.

Publisher and farmer Peter Kindersley has begun a legal challenge to the prevailing orthodoxy, insisting that vaccination would not lead to economic disaster.

The Soil Association has also supported the calls for vaccination, citing the experience of tackling foot-and-mouth in Albania and Macedonia five years ago, when outbreaks were successfully handled and disease-free status restored.

This has, so far, been resisted by the Government and, with so many animals already killed, it may be impossible to reverse direction. But the policy of slaughter may be reconsidered as part of the inevitable inquiry once the outbreak has been controlled.

But, while the Government is coming under fire for its handling of the crisis, as long as the disease is still rampant, defeating it remains the overwhelming objective.

It is only when the embers on the last funeral pyre start to die away that recriminations will really begin in earnest.

FOR farmers, the main concern has been delays in dealing with suspected outbreaks, according to John Rider (left), NFU county chairman for North Riding and County Durham.

"It has got to be appreciated that it is a very difficult job for everybody but there is significant disquiet in farming about the length of time it takes to respond," he says.

"The agriculture industry is feeling there have been no sensible contingency plans in place to cope with an emergency of this sort.

"There has been far too much having to refer decisions to London but the men on the ground often know best and they have got to be given the responsibility."

RUSTY machinery in coping with the scale of the foot-and-mouth crisis may be partly to blame for the difficulties, according to Professor David Harvey, professor of agricultural economics at Newcastle University.

"The principles of what the Government is doing are right, but since it is 34 years since we last had a major outbreak, maybe the implementation has not been reviewed," he says.

"There have been rather worrying delays in terms of identifying the disease and then slaughtering and subsequently disposing of the livestock, and that simply cannot have helped to contain it.

"My guess is the spread, as a result of those delays, has probably not been very great, but it does reduce confidence in the Government.

"Also, it seems we have been following bureaucratic procedures and, when you have an emergency, bureaucratic rules are not the way to do it, you need military procedures."

BRINGING in the Army more quickly could have helped contain the outbreak, according to Claire Lambert, whose farm near Hawes was the first in North Yorkshire to be affected.

"If it got any worse the manpower that is trying to cope with it here would be insufficient," she says.

"They do seem to be taking a long time over it all and the Army should have definitely been brought in earlier.

"But we have no fault with the Maff officials in our case. The vet has been superb, as have the ministry staff.

"The Government could listen more to people in affected areas and to the criticisms that are being made.

"Farmers are being hampered by people driving into the countryside to watch the fires burning."

CONFLICTING Government advice has created a confusing picture for vets, according to Norman Wilson, partner in the Forrest House Vet Group at Bedale in North Yorkshire.

"It has all been done on an ad hoc basis and some things have been introduced but we haven't really been told how they should work," he says.

"We have relied on some of the vets' associations to tell us how it should be done, where we would have expected Maff to do that, and that has led to a lot of conflicting advice.

"Another problem has been the time between suspicion of a case and culling the animal and, from the point of view of spreading the disease, that is a big problem. But I think the ministry still retains enough experienced vets to deal with it and they know what they're doing."

Peter Kindersley (left) says vaccinating animals would not necessarily harm Britain's export markets.

"We now have tests where you can tell the difference between a vaccine and an infection, which means you can separate those animals that have been infected or those animals just carrying antibodies because they have been given immunity," he says.

"There are five tests available in the European zone and that gives you the right to export."

He warns the Government may have to repeat its policy of slaughter every time there is an outbreak.

"Are they going to go through the same burning of animals again and again?" he says. "Because there is no way you can stop someone throwing a ham sandwich over a fence or unscrupulous people bringing in swill."

IN the face of mounting criticisms, Maff has defended the Government's handling of the crisis.

"The slaughtering is done as soon as possible, although farmers are entitled to have their live animals valued by a valuer of their choice and that can cause a delay," says a spokesman.

"Private contractors are the most efficient way to dispose of the carcasses, but now the Army is needed and we have brought them in to help.

"The first day we found out about foot-and-mouth we immediately acted on it.

"There is a contingency plan and the procedures are always being reviewed - we will learn from experience."