Cutting remarks

I AM not surprised that Brian Wilson should attempt to cheapen the debate about the merits of universal public services with reference to my role as an adviser to the Christie Commission (Perspective, 3 October). He notes the commission’s conclusions about the need to avoid a polarised 
debate, and then heads off in 
exactly that direction.

The commission had several debates about the relative merits of various benefits and came to the perfectly rational conclusion that each scheme had to be considered on its merits, including the impact which universal services had on inhibiting demand for more expensive treatments, for example in hospital and social care, or in the prevention of eye disease.

The case for and against prescription charges and free public transport is similarly complex. We should expect governments to make rational rather than 
ideological decisions on such matters.

However, Christie highlighted that any changes in charging will have only a marginal impact on the sustainability of public services. The sums involved are very modest compared with the billions spent on meeting the health and care needs of older people or the £3 billion currently being extracted from our poorest citizens via welfare cuts.

Christie recommended a focus on preventative spend and highlighted the vital role that strong communities can play in helping people help themselves and each other.

While there are some simple ways in which a progressive 
element can be introduced into the provision of universal services, for example through making the winter fuel allowance 
subject to tax, the real challenges are about how to reduce demand through early intervention and prevention.

That requires a rather different kind of debate to the one Mr Wilson seems intent on having.

Martin SimE

Scottish Council for 
Voluntary Organisations

Mansfield Place

Edinburgh