The Government is always careful to exclude unidentifiable public expenditure from its statistics, which invariably favours England. The statistics which Michael Forsyth and the Government use (and abuse) conceal as much as they reveal.LINDA MACNISHForres, Moray. Wedded bliss

Sir: Petronella Wyatt (“Marriage? No, I’d rather live”, 28 March) lists among her reasons for wishing to remain single the belief that “sexual attraction runs its course in two or three years”.
Whilst I would not in any way attempt to dissuade her from the single life, if that is what she chooses, she should not be so dogmatic nor pessimistic. I have been married now for 16 years (to the same person).One of the main reasons I chose my husband was sexual attraction, and I feel no differently about him today.KATHARINE MOURBYCardiff. Letter: Yes, sleaze is the real election issue

Sir: Even your leading article “For democracy’s sake, sack him” (31 March) follows the line that sleaze is a distraction from the main election issues. I find that a bizarre reading of a bizarre campaign.
The issue in this election is accountability, in a great range of forms. Is Westminster government free to refuse the constraint of full partnership in Europe, and to emasculate local government? Can individual ministers preside over preventable disasters and stay in office? Is it acceptable for one party to hold power for a quarter of a century? And, of course, can members of a government exempt themselves from public morality?What is bizarre is that nobody seems willing to say this is the core of the election.

The real issues used to be economic, but the electorate knows there is as near consensus there as does not matter. But the divine right of Westminster governments – that is not only a real issue, but a gigantic one.Although we seem to be too shy to say we care about such things, sleaze is a proxy that we dare to name So – let us talk about it.Dr RODDY COWIEBelfast. Letter: Goalposts move as Iraqis starve

Sir: The US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, makes it clear that the ever-moving goalposts relating to the lifting of the embargo on Iraq have again shifted (“US committed to hard line against Saddam’s Iraq”, 27 March). Compliance with UN resolutions concerning Iraq’s weapons is no longer sufficient for the lifting of sanctions. Given the Security Council’s dexterity since the end of the Gulf War, even if total compliance is achieved, another goal post will appear.
One condition to be complied with by Iraq is human rights. Yet according to the US-based International Humanitarian Law Commission report, compiled from UN agencies’ own figures, 47,500 people died in one year alone as a direct result of UN sanctions By 1994, 500,000 children were dead.

Deaths from malnutrition have increased eightfold since 1989.A project undertaken in Baghdad found 28 per cent of children stunted. There was severe vitamin D deficiency amongst the population. Diarrhoea, dehydration, typhoid, diabetes, hepatitis, marasmus and kwashiorkor (the last eradicated prior to the embargo) were soaring. Medication is almost non-existent, and surgery has been cut by 70 per cent and is often performed without anaesthesia because of shortage, the report states.Chlorine and spare parts for water treatment plants are banned under the sanctions, so the water is severely contaminated and water-borne diseases also endemic.Yet in spite of this silent holocaust in the name of democracy, when Ms Albright was asked on the US television programme Sixty Minutes (12 May 1996) if the deaths of half a million children “was worth it” in order to overthrow Saddam Hussein, she replied ” … it is a hard choice, but yes, the price, we think the price is worth it.”FELICITY ARBUTHNOTLondon E9. Benefit change hits disabled

Sir: It would appear that in the proposed changes to housing benefit little thought has been given to the impact on disabled people.