Bid for £10m council loan
I see Blackpool Council will not loan Victoria Hospital £10m (Gazette, November 27) to save lives, get more staff, and to administer more care for members of our society who fall on unfortunate times.
Yet they will put £14m towards a hotel in a certain area of Blackpool.
Do we really need yet another hotel? Has Blackpool not got enough already to cater for the holiday business?
The council also did nothing to stop the airport being closed down.
They spent £25,000 on a refit of the Enterprise Centre on Lytham Road which only opened a few years ago.
Also, is it really necessary to build a tramway from North Pier up Talbot Road to North Station?
The council has no money to loan to our marvellous cash-strapped Victoria Hospital.
Having just returned from there after a mastectomy reconstruction after breast cancer cells were found, I am under the care of the dedicated and gifted Mr Kiri.
Plus, six years ago my life was saved after I suffered a heart attack and had two stents put in.
Our Victoria Hospital staff do a marvellous job under constant Government cutbacks, short staffing and endless paperwork.
It is a very much needed hospital running on cuts.
Our council always has money to waste with rust bucket ornamental things on the Promenade and to pay top designers for our Illuminations. We have plenty of wonderful art students perfectly capable of designing good Illuminations.
I know our council wants to impress and encourage holidaymakers but our lives are important and Victoria Hospital needs to be supported.
Mrs Jane Taylor
Fly tourists in
I’m all for the new hotels being built and hope that they are successful. Having said that wouldn’t it be a good idea to think about utilising flights to airports in the UK?
This would encourage visitors to travel here and an airport has to work both ways.
Short distance flights might make a quicker turn over and be better for the town, i.e. more income coming in.
If staycation is the thing of the moment, seems to me it makes sense.
Shale gas regulation
The UK system of regulating shale gas falls quite a way short of what is required.
Mark Menzies, the Fylde MP, said in a debate last week ‘I am disappointed with where we are, several years on ‘ and ‘That provides the Minister with an opportunity to look at the current work of the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil, to turn a skeleton organisation into something that is far better resourced, far more robust and able to fulfil its six founding criteria, one of which was to enable development, protect the environment and safeguard the public’.
In choosing to say this, he may have been aware of the sharp contrast in experience and ‘teeth’ between onshore and offshore regulatory bodies.
Or, he may have been aware the Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor was about to warn that the Government must consider the risks.
The report cited the industrial use of mercury, thalidomide, lead in petrol and asbestos, all of which have had severe health or environmental consequences, after being rushed into use.
A few days before this debate he asked one of his constituents, Mike Hill, to go through all his papers with him regarding the regulation and inspection regime applying to shale gas. (Mr Hill has investigated the UK regulatory system for several years).
The concerns Mr Menzies voiced in Westminster Hall are those I heard Mr Hill voice almost three years ago. So I am pleased Mr Menzies has raised these issues to Mr Hancock, the Energy Minister. However what can one back bench MP do at this late stage?
MP Eric Ollerenshaw said in the debate Mr Menzies has been working hard towards creating a sovereign wealth fund for Lancashire.
It seems to me if Mr Menzies had spent the last few years actively pursuing Mr Hill’s concerns, regarding the need for a completely independent office to inspect the industry, we might have been in a very different situation as we face the proposal for eight horizontal wells to be drilled and fractured in our immediate vicinity.