MY opposition to the recently introduced "cabinet system" in local government has been spelt out in these columns, along with grave concerns in respect of the effects of such a system, when I believe that transparency is necessary to protect integrity.

I believe that if I describe the current situation in the social services department of Worcestershire County Council as being in a parlous financial situation, then no-one can accuse me of using extravagant language.

My understanding is that in 1999/2000 there was an overspend of £2.1 million when services to the elderly were sacrificed, the euphemism used being "budget variances."

I was led to believe the £1.2 million cuts made known in July were to remedy, in part, the overspend in 1999/2000.

But not so, the £1.2 billion cuts in the 2000/2001 budget were an attempt to stem the haemorrhage apparent in the 2000/2001 expenditure.

Carole Warren, leader of the Labour/Liberal Democrat Partnership, is suggesting that £1 million be taken from ''reserves''.

We have but £3.6 million in reserve - a tiny percentage, only some one per cent of the 2000/2001 budget and far below Audit Commission recommendations.

The projected overspend, unless drastic action is taken now, may well approach £4.6 million in 2000/2001.

But that's not all. The Regional Health Authority has been hopping up and down about old folk occupying acute hospital beds who ought to be in nursing/residential homes - in effect, subsidising the social services budget to some £4 million plus in the past 12 months.

So what should the real deficit, or projected deficit, at the end of the fiscal year be?

The portfolio holder for social services, Councillor Peter Pinfield, should be considering his position.

County Councillor CT Wareing

Jays Close

Winyates Green