Tourism cash will benefit 
all regions

IN response to the article “Setback over funding in Yorkshire drive to attract more tourists” (Yorkshire Post, August 15), I would like to set the record straight.

The writer refers to a “Government policy of pouring taxpayers money into VisitEngland”, the national tourist board, instead of regional destination management organisations. The Government has committed an additional £10m to tourism but only £2m of that will be directed to VisitEngland in support of a domestic marketing campaign.

This campaign is a nationwide campaign and will include Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It will follow on from this year’s successful consumer campaign Holidays at Home are Great, which launched the website www.great2012offers.com.

The next phase, using the £2m, will focus on working more closely with travel agents and the travel trade to sell more holidays, and this will include holidays to Yorkshire.

As the national tourist board, VisitEngland is charged with supporting destinations to grow the value of domestic tourism. We are committed to working with all destinations to ensure the industry thrives to stimulate jobs and benefit communities everywhere.

Windfall tax on water land

From: John A Pashley, Westcliffe Avenue, Baildon.

AS one who can remember when Bradford and Leeds owned their own extensive water catchments areas, it is a source of constant regret that they were sold off for a “quick buck” and are now a prized possession of a multi-national consortium.

This consortium realises, and is set to achieve, the additional profit potential from the proliferation of government subsidised turbine electricity generation on land which used to be ours. The additional use and profit potential was not envisaged when the vast tracts of land were sold for a song.

Why should the consortium members, such as the Singapore government, give one jot or tittle as to whether the tourist appeal of our countryside is despoiled by our Government-funded instruments of their financial benefit?

Whether or not one believes in global warming, turbines as proposed bring the principal into disrepute through being manipulated towards profit rather than conservation.

Before the Government says that its hands are tied and it cannot subvert the powerful influence of the multinational financiers, it should consider a windfall tax which would put the whole question into an economic perspective.

Cut social cost of alcohol

From: John G Davies, Alma Terrace, East Morton, Keighley.

THE figures concerning the strain that smokers put on the NHS does not surprise, having recently lost a brother and two in-laws to lung cancer. In parallel, I would like to highlight the social costs of alcohol which in many ways outweighs the expense of tobacco smoking because of its demands on police, courts, social services, ambulances, as well numerous medical requirements.

The anti-smoking lobby is at least gaining some traction, in spite of a powerful industry influence and the support of vocal, if ill-informed smokers, like David Hockney. Where are the calls for significant warnings on bottles, in the manner of cigarette packets?

The labelling, such as this can contains 1.8 UK units and 1.4 ROI units, with daily recommendations for one country and weekly for the other, in small print among the ingredients and nutrients is far from transparent. Where are the calls for “plain packaging” and other measures to reduce the attraction of drink?

Clearly, prohibition of neither is a sensible alternative, but there must be a series of measures to combat our drink culture fuelled by avaricious industries.

These might include “vanilla packaging”, warnings, clear unambiguous labelling regarding strengths and a comprehensive ban on advertising. Increasing the tax might discourage some consumption while providing funds for a hard-pressed NHS.

Changing the culture may be harder, but anti-smoking groups have shown that it can be done in the face of powerful adversaries.

Care change too slow

From: Mike Padgham, chairman, United Kingdom Home Care Association, Eastfield, Scarborough.

A BRONZE medal for the Government for finally moving on reform of how we care for older and vulnerable people.

The widely-reported move to press ahead and implement the Dilnot Commission’s report is excellent news.

We have long advocated that the suggested cap of £35,000 on how much anyone should be expected to pay for their own care and the threshold of £100,000 before they began to pay at all, should be implemented.

It seems the coalition has listened to the calls for this to be adopted. What cheats the coalition of a gold medal is timing. It has taken a long time to get a commitment and reports say it could be 2017 before it is implemented.