Letters: Concert concern

It revealed the Government's intention to legislate requiring all churches and places of worship to have an entertainment licence for concerts. Fees for the licenses have not been published, but at present entertainment licenses vary from £424 for a medium-sized event in Newcastle upon Tyne to £102 for a licence for an event attended by 100 people in London.

So much for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. I seem to recall it has been urging us all to use our rural churches for "community purposes". Does it not see that singing in a choir and playing in a band enriches rural life - and attending such concerts provides a community activity, as well as helping raise money to keep our churches and chapels alive.

To take just one example, over the past two or three years the Swale Singers have performed from the head to the foot of the dale - singing in Keld United Reformed Church, Muker Church, Gunnerside Methodist, Low Row United Reformed Church, Reeth Methodist, Grinton Church, Arkengarthdale Church, and Richmond Methodist - to say nothing of ventures into Cotherstone and Romaldkirk.

If those small places of worship had to go to the trouble and expense of obtaining a licence, would they do it? I doubt it, So we would all lose the joy of singing or the pleasure of listening; and church funds would suffer too.

I urge every band of singers or players to write to our MP, either individually or as a group, before this appalling plan slides through Parliament. It's better to make a fuss now than try to change things later.

SYLVIA CROOKES

Bainside,

Bainbridge.

Hotch potch

Sir, - You make an interesting point in your leading article (D&S, Nov 22), on the matter of a City of Teesside. As you say, "if it ain't broke".

But Teesside is "broke", like a plate shattered into three. The Teesside Survey carried out in 1965-66 was financed equally by the district councils and the Government. The Plan, (Teesplan) was to be implemented by a unitary authority. This set-up was wholeheartedly welcomed by the public and the politicians.

The unitary authority, Teesside County Borough, worked remarkably well until 1974 when it was dismembered. The plan was broken into pieces and distributed between the district councils and the newly formed county council.

Plans do not work that way. To confuse matters a fifth agency was created by Government, the Teesside Development Corporation, to recover derelict land in the areas of all the district councils.

So Teesside became a hotch-potch of unrelated schemes arising from the five agencies then involved. The consequences were lost cultural potentials, a loss of open space, missed employment and shopping opportunities through a scatter of uncoordinated efforts. A few developments were good but most were disastrous. The result is that Teesside is not the place it might have been and Teessiders are disadvantaged.

Teesside in 1968 was the seventh largest metropolitan area in England. There are plenty of smaller places which have city status. After 28 years of broken management why is it that Teesside is being held back?

It's a case of unfinished business.

FRANKLIN MEDHURST

Greystone,

Carlton,

Stockton-on-Tees.

Not our fault

Sir, - Further to your report "Health chiefs asked to take a second look at death statistics" (D&S, Aug 9), the chief executive of South Durham Health Care NHS Trust has now accepted that the unusual mortality rates identified in our report were a result of miscoding by the trust, and not due to incorrect calculations by the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI).

The trust has re-analysed its orthopaedic death rates and Mr Saxby has conceded that CHI' s figures were "spot on". In a recent letter to CHI he explains that the trust made errors in the way it classified patients. A number of patients, who should have been classified as emergency patients, were incorrectly recorded as having routine surgery. This meant that death rates for non emergency orthopaedic surgery appeared much higher than average.

Dr PETER HOMA

Chief Executive, Commission for Health Improvement,

Bunhill Row,

London.

Common courtesy

Sir, - I consider myself a passionate supporter of the countryside and country pursuits, hunting included.

It is with a amount of annoyance and anger I write to you. On a recent afternoon I was going about my business driving from Osmotherley to Northallerton.

Shortly before Brompton I noticed a huntsman running out of a field. The next thing a hound ran into the road causing me to brake sharply. The huntsman made no attempt to restrain the hound or get it off the road.

The roads were wet and the national speed limit applies in that area. I once hit a dog under similar circumstances and it was a horrible experience. On that occasion I was horrified that someone bothered so little about their dog to let it roam onto the main road.

While I realise that incidents beyond people's control can happen, surely the huntsman could have tried to warn me or indeed catch the hound and if he couldn't do that perhaps some recognition when I braked etc would of being courteous.

Further up the road, I came across a pack of hounds with two horsemen. I slowed down again and ran behind them until they went into a field. Again no thanks or anything.

In these difficult days for hunting an ounce of common courtesy would go a long way to helping its cause.

SIMON MARTIN

Farndale Avenue,

Romanby.

Euro scrutiny

Sir, - Last Friday Baroness Angela Harris of Richmond spoke in Darlington to members of the Tees Area branch of the European Movement and the general public.

She spoke about Britain and the European Union - How we Deal with Social Policy. As chairman of a House of Lords Sub-committee dealing with these matters she was able to give an comprehensive overview of their work. Nobody listening would doubt that the utmost scrutiny is given EU proposals on social issues.

Dr DAVID J WHITTAKER

Mile Planting,

Richmond.