RECENTLY, you published a letter from the leader of the North Yorkshire County Council congratulating themselves on the prudent and competent way in which the county council arranged its affairs. Its main thrust was that prudence dictated that the people of North Yorkshire should escape a tax burden.

To this end, the county council has, over several years, reduced the county reserves to a dangerously low level, thus attracting the concern of the district auditor.

It has consistently reduced the budget for social service provision, year on year, although the county services have always operated from a low base. It was my information that £5m has already been removed from this service and that, under this year's budget, £2m further will go over the next two years.

This 'prudent and careful' approach has left the council, out of 34 similar councils in its bracket, 34th out of 34 in provision for mental health, 31st in providing for the disabled and quite unable to provide resource for the elderly mentally confused. It is doubtful if the child protection requirements can be covered. The 2001 budget cut further into residential services for the elderly and services in the community which can sustain elderly people in their own homes.

Most people in North Yorkshire are not aware of this. They are falsely reassured that all is well, whilst the county council is, of course, transferring costs of care to the National Health Service or to individuals. In many instances, these are vulnerable people in our community who may well not be in the financial position to cope.

The county council has been in the control of Conservative councillors for many years. Do people in North Yorkshire really want a council that does not make decent provision for its social service needs? The recent council tax increases are more likely to service debt than to provide service. Is this competence or complacency?

Updated: 11:34 Thursday, May 10, 2001