Letter: Should we be spending on overseas aid?

Letter: One of the easiest ways to achieve heretic status is to comment negatively on aid projects involving children.

The Page 17 report in the Shropshire Star on August 6 said more than £400,000 is to be spent on a three-year project in Malawi to identify deaf children and provide support to their parents, teachers and community.

That sounds like a lot of money, but how many foundation representatives will be going to Malawi and what will be the cost of their air fares? When they arrive they will need accommodation - where, and at what cost?

Presumably they will take equipment - what will be the freight cost?

Where will it be stored, and at what cost? They'll need transport. Who will provide it, and at what cost? Medical and dental provision; annual leave travel; salaries. It adds up.

Seems to me that £400,000 isn't going to go far and the numbers of Malawi parents of deaf children who will benefit is at best unclear. And, will the government of Malawi take over the project in three years' time, or will the effort be as nothing?

Not for one moment am I suggesting that supporting the parents, teachers and the community of deaf children in Malawi is not a most laudable exercise, it's jolly good for someone. But is it a cost-effective use of publicly donated money?

We read of Baby P and similar situations. And the Shropshire Star tells me that, but for the grace of God, a similar situation could arise in Shropshire.

We read of the lack of facilities for kids such as playgrounds, the provision of which would support the parents, teachers and communities in our back yard.

We read of cash-strapped families and wonder why there are so many so-called yobs on our streets.

Would it be heretical for me to suggest that we should be looking closer to home before spending taxpayers' and publicly donated Comic Relief money on the parents of deaf children in Malawi? Perhaps my comments will fall on deaf ears.

Peter Sharman

Powys