Реферат: United Kingdom of Great Britain

The Centre for Economic and Business Research, a small think-tank, created a splash by predicting that foot-and-mouth would cost the country Ј9bn, about 1 per cent of the UK's annual national income, with Ј6.4bn of this a result of the effect on the tourist trade. This was regarded by many as scaremongering and the overall figure was subsequently revised down to just over Ј6bn.

Fears that the UK was being seen as a disease-ridden hellhole became so bad that Gordon Brown, the chancellor, in New York in May to talk about the global struggle against HIV and other diseases, found time to stop off and plug the UK tourist industry.

However, as far as can be estimated, the negative effect of the outbreak is concentrated in particular parts of the tourism industry rather than being a generalised blow.

Reams of anecdotal and survey evidence suggest that rural tourism, which depends heavily on day and weekend trippers, has undoubtedly been hit hard. Around a fifth of all workers in areas like Cumbria, Devon, Dumfries and Galloway are employed in the tourist-dependent sectors of distribution, hotels and restaurants.

The English Tourism Council says that tourism is losing Ј140m a week, and underlines the meagre amounts of compensation going to tourist businesses compared with that offered to farmers.

But more sober analysis recently by the Bank of England suggests that much of the spending will be switched elsewhere within the tourism sector or indeed elsewhere in the economy.

Retailers have done particularly well in the past few months, for example, as residents - and indeed tourists - locked out of the countryside have gone on shopping sprees in the towns instead. Retail sales in May grew at their fastest annual rate since July 1997.

The analysis and the available evidence also suggests that the impact on overseas visitors is likely to be around the region of a 10 per cent fall for a couple of months - somewhat less than catastrophic.

The latest figures appear to bear this out; the Office for National Statistics estimate that 2m tourists from overseas visited the UK in April - down from 2.2m in April 2000, but not a disastrous fall, and probably to be expected anyway at a time of weakness in the global economy.

In March, the first month in which the outbreak became serious, the numbers of overseas visitors was actually higher than in March last year. They also seemed to be spending about the same as ever, outlaying a seasonally adjusted Ј1.1bn in March 2001 as against Ј1.07bn last year.

The reason for the overall muted effect is fairly clear from a cursory examination of where tourists actually come in the UK. Despite the international image of Britain as a green and pleasant land, most visitors come for the cities.

London and the south east, one of the regions least affected by foot-and-mouth, account for the vast majority of spending by overseas visitors. The south east also makes up 45 per cent of total spending by UK tourists and overseas residents in the UK (exluding day trips), suggesting that the overall effect of the foot-and-mouth disease on tourism will be muted.

Even the English Tourism Council estimates that the English countryside is the destination for only a quarter of British people holidaying in England.

Just as agriculture is nothing like as important a part of the economy as popular belief might hold, so tourism outside London and the south east is also less important than the images of thousands of visitors tramping through the national parks might imply.

Of the 1,918 independently-owned attractions in the UK which charge admission and which feature in the Good Britain Guide, 722 have put their prices up this year, according to the guide's latest edition.

More than half of the 414 places owned by national organisations, including the National Trust, have also raised their prices, usually by a margin of around 10%.

"These price increases are hardly the way to attract more visitors, at a time when the British holiday industry is seriously worried about its future," said the guide's editor, Alisdair Aird.

Mr Aird held up the houses of parliament as an exceptionally bad offender. The increase in the cost of a tour from £3.50 to £7.50 marked Westminster out as the country's "worst price-hike villain", and the rise was particularly unpalatable because parliament was a body which "ought to know better". Mr Aird went on to express his alarm that "this year - against a background of near-zero inflation - so many holiday places have steeply increased their prices."

The guide also went on to bemoan the inconvenient opening times of many attractions, the fact that so many places stay shut for as long as half a year and subsequently have to limit their numbers when they finally open their doors; and the lack of effort to link attractions with places to stay and public transport.

However, all was not entirely doom and gloom. "On the plus side," Mr Aird went on to say, "is the amazing number of establishments that not only stay open for the whole year, but are absolutely free. This year we have been particularly impressed by the friendliness and helpfulness of all the people we dealt with in Scotland."

Mr Aird also praised "the thousands of volunteers helping to staff so many of the country's attractions, from little local museums to great historic buildings".

Britain's top tourist attractions

Family attraction of the year Ironbridge Gorge Museum, Shropshire.

Visitor city of the year York.

Museum of the year Imperial War Museum, London.

Newcomer attraction of the year The Deep, Hull.

Gallery of the year The National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh.

Historic house of the year Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire (Sir Winston Churchill's birthplace).

Living museum of the year Historic Quay, Hartlepool, Northumbria.