Ian Welsh argues RNIB Group's restructuring plans are disempowering service users and underestimating the substance of post-referendum Scotland
After raising concerns about the restructuring activity of RNIB and Asthma UK, I have since had a helpful, comprehensive response from Action for Blind People (part of RNIB Group) seeking to clarify that the reforms affecting RNIB Scotland are an “internal structural change”.
But this response only throws up further issues. Action for Blind People fails to appreciate that far from the proposals being seen in terms of structural change, they are seen as a significant strategic move away from both devolution and service user participation. And that is what is causing so much concern.
They believe there to have been a misrepresentation of facts with the Scottish media. I believe that a better and more accurate interpretation of the position is that the Scottish media have been reflecting wider Scottish opinion.
Before and following the referendum last September there is no doubt that there has been a fast-changing ground-shift in Scotland around its assets, its organisations and its approach to citizen engagement.
Particularly in service areas where there is full devolution of services, there is renewed focus on Edinburgh as the seat of government.
As a consequence, the organising principles around more local decision making have been enhanced hugely. These principles then drive perpsectives about assets, organsiations, citizen engagement.
To be frank, across all sectors in Scotland, a move of the kind RNIB Group is contemplating is easily revealed as a London-based organisation seeking to absorb a Scottish charity of long-standing, with an excellent reputation, with durable local links, with cutting-edge services and a well-developed relationship to policy and practise.
A move of the kind RNIB Group is contemplating is easily revealed as a London-based organisation seeking to absorb a Scottish charity
A more worrying facet of all this is my understanding that blind and partially sighted members of RNIB Scotland have not been consulted in any way on this matter.
In Scotland, great stores is placed in the involvement of service users in shaping policies, services and being directly involved in governance. Indeed, RNIB Scotland has secured a desirable reputation for this, at a time when coproduction is a paramount policy objective.
It is a missed opportunity, in this context, for RNIB Group to be seen to disempower service users when considering such a major strategic shift.
Many UK charities have recognised that the most effective model is to give maximum autonomy to those operating in other jurisdictions allowing them to make local decisions and effect the best outcome for service users. Moreover, the ability, in devolved contexts, to influence policy, stakeholder engagement, budget allocations or service development offers best value for the organisation as a whole.
RNIB Scotland already has an excellent reputation for service delivery and is a trusted organisations particularly by the Scottish Government, and it would be disappointing if RNIB Group proposals adversely impacted on its good work to the detriment of the confidence of blind and partially sighted Scots.
RNIB Group should, in my view, take the opportunity to develop an alternative mode for structural change that more properly reflects the current context in Scotlan,d and they should have that endorsed by Scottish members of RNIB.
Given the proposed tranche of Smith Commission powers heading our way, that would also be a worthwhile approach for any UK charity working in a devolved context.
Ian Welsh is chief executive of the Health & Social Care Alliance Scotland
