Sir, - As the Government prepares to highlight its flagship Sure Start Scheme, Rosemary Phillips, a prominent pre-school leader in London, is pointing out the numerous anomalies in the present system of awarding grants guided by a simplistic points scheme based on a perceived need table.

She has tackled Tony Blair drawing his attention to the fact that her catchment ward whilst not high on the IMD "need table" contains pockets of deep deprivation. In her case, tenants surviving on benefits in grim council blocks live cheek by jowl with Georgian houses owned by MPs who pay to send their own children to her voluntary facility.

Clearly for bureaucratic convenience it is simpler to apply a broadbrush approach to the percentage figures based on income, employment, health and access to pre-school facilities. These figures appear to have been aggregated to provide an overall IMD ranking which when brought down to the local level reveals a picture of need that is divorced from the actuality. No weighting appears to have been applied for relative size of rural communities, which truly reflects the number in need. A worse aspect is that the scheme actively discriminates against rural communities where, as in our own village an established pre-school setting run by qualified staff already operates.

This professional organisation is the only resource in the area and 50pc of the toddlers are from the adjoining allegedly "deprived" areas.

The effect of Sure Start will be to divert support funds from an existing viable facility to other wards where no facilities exist to benefit from the grant. Surely funds should be used to reinforce success rather than frittered away on speculative projects?

I have recalculated the raw IMD data to compensate for population differences and to remove the unjustifiable negative weighting applied to existing voluntary pre-school facilities. The result is to transform the suggested IMD "need table" moving Gainford and Winston ward from sixth position out of seven typical wards to third and second respectively.

We are making no case for the removal of another ward from the list in Gainford's favour and would resist any such proposal. There appears however, to be a fundamental error in the scale of scrutiny, which has been applied by the Government officials to the scheme, which can mask needy cases.

Possibly there are other rural areas which are suffering from this denial of central funds to the support of their pre-school facilities?

Coun JACK DIAMOND

Gainford.

Right to protest

Sir, - I refer to your report "Northallerton mart move provokes residents' protests" (D&S, July 18).

Surely the residents in the St James area have a right to protest: the obvious location is on the Darlington Road industrial estate away from the residential areas of the town.

Access from the north and west is well served for farmers and their livestock vehicles. Sam Turners, a regular stopping-off point for farmers, is adjacent.

The south side of Northallerton is well served by the auction mart at Thirsk, which is also in the process of considering re-location. Finally would it not be more appropriate and a considerable saving in construction costs and annual running costs if Northallerton Market amalgamated with Thirsk Farmers Auction Mart.

J W FURNESS

Kirby Knowle,

Thirsk.

Decidedly off

Sir, - If the Eatons were amused at Yorkshire Water's claim of 100pc purity (D&S, July 18) they might be equally amused to learn that the company has evolved its own language to describe its product.

Just a few years ago all households in this area received a letter warning of imminent improvement works to the local supply and advising that, after works completion, any "discolourated" water should be boiled.

Perhaps the Eatons should complain to OfWat, the water regulator. I believe there's a regional office in Leeds called OfColour.

MIKE MATSON

Wass,

Nr Thirsk.