FOLLOWING the Haiti Oxfam scandal, Eric Melvin suggests that the Gift Aid Scheme “be looked at afresh” (Lettersr February 15), by which I presume he means it should be withdrawn or restricted. He is mistaken about how the Gift Aid Scheme works and who can benefit.

Its origins lie in United States practice. There, if you make a donation for public benefit from your taxed income, you can reclaim the tax you have paid as you will not be spending that income on yourself. This has proved an effective device for encouraging people to donate to public causes and projects. When the Gift Aid Scheme was introduced into the UK, the then Chancellor altered the idea significantly.

Instead of reclaiming the tax you have paid for yourself, you ask for it to be given to the charity. This contribution is not the largesse of the taxman; it is the tax you have already paid on the part of your income you are giving away. It is an effective encouragement for people to give to causes they want to support.The notion that Gift Aid is paid to rich landowners, the Queen and so on is incorrect.

The only permitted recipients are recognised charities and community amateur sports associations. You cannot use them for school fees, theatre tickets, buying goods or anything that gives a benefit to you or any private individual or group. There is also a limit on how much tax can be refunded and, if you pay little or no tax, the charity cannot claim anything. As a director of an overseas aid charity in the past, I can comment that aid workers often face practical and moral difficulties in the field but sex problems as in the Haiti scandal are exceptionally rare. This is despite prostitution being all pervasive in poor urban areas and young male aid workers often being pursued.

I recall one colleague who was invited by community leaders to a golfing weekend “to say thank you” only to find that it was a “girlie” weekend. He got out of it by claiming to be religious, which the local leaders thought strange but respected. Most moral issues concerned whether bribes should be paid: “I’m sorry your trucks are delayed but I’m preoccupied with worrying about my daughter’s education. She so needs a laptop.”

The second most common moral issue is how much graft, skimming and theft to tolerate; say “none” and your project to help people often comes to an abrupt halt. A Canadian colleague once told me of a meeting with a Haitian official to complain about theft by officials from a project to help the poor in Port au Prince slums only to receive the candid reply: “Well, it’s not as if we stole it all. At least 10 per cent got through. Besides, you mustn’t give too much to those people. They only spend it on rum and drugs.”

Another colleague working in Haiti faced a different moral dilemma: out for drinks with workers from other charities he found one had dropped his wallet in the loo. Inside was a car-park pass for Langley’ Virginia; that is, the man was not an aid worker – he was with the CIA. My colleague chose to keep quiet; right or wrong moral decision? Who can say?

Running overseas aid projects can be tough and I have criticised some charities for sending out young staff who cannot be expected to have enough maturity to cope well. But categorising aid workers as sexual predators is a calumny on earnest and hard-working people. Stopping giving to support this work in distaste at this rare instance hurts only the people who really do need help: the poor and needy.

Russell Vallance,

4 West Douglas Drive, Helensburgh.

I VOLUNTEERED in an Oxfam shop for 15 years and, as far as I am concerned, the organisation does marvellous work. The actions of evil people cannot be allowed to interfere with the provision of foreign aid to those in need.

Despite their sordid actions there is a majority of people who do good things under the radar. They do not want publicity; they do not want thanks; they simply see a need and try to right a wrong. Remember them when you think the world is a horrible place.

Margaret Forbes,

26 Corlic Way, Kilmacolm.