​Martin Sime argues we need a transparent national framework in social care

A key part of the Statement of Ambition for social care, launched last week with the support of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) and many others, was the idea that there should be a national framework with common eligibility criteria.

It brings sharply into focus a shoal of issues about how public services are organised in the future, including some hoary old chestnuts about localism and centralism.

The third sector has little common ground here. For generations local organisations and their cheerleaders have tried to fend off their national counterparts with accusations of parachuting and cherry picking public sector contracts without local endorsement or legitimacy.

On the other hand only a very few local organisations would have been able to bid for large public service commissions anyway.

What is happening in social care well illustrates all that is wrong with public service leadership in Scotland

Martin Sime

This plays out to a backdrop of community development ideology which always felt more apposite in the much larger scale of England with its community and voluntary sectors. Whilst there are obvious and important differences, national and local distinctions are not nearly so sharp north of the border.

The dead hand of local authority is an important actor in all of this. Too often the localism card is played to justify their continued control of budgets and services rather than as a democratic expression of what citizens want. The way schools are run is a classic example.

What is happening in social care well illustrates all that is wrong with public service leadership in Scotland. In the name of reform, 14 health boards have come together with 32 local authorities to create 31 new public bodies each with their own game plans and bureaucracies. Yet the case for having so many different processes and funding regimes is not at all clear, especially if self-directed support is to become the default option which many believe it should.

A glance over at what is happening in the parallel universe of welfare suggests that it doesn’t have to be like this. Where rights and entitlements are established nationally there are still important assessment and regulation roles which local authorities can play. But the payment regime and budgets are set nationally and for everyone to see.

This level of transparency is precisely what is needed to drive change in social care. How otherwise are we going to deal with rising demand and the unwelcome truth that there is little prospect of more resources?

In all of this it is too easy to forget that care isn’t national or local— for the people who receive it, care is personal.

Martin Sime is chief executive of SCVO.