Former Social Justice Minister says that Scotland’s prevention agenda risks being undermined by confusion caused by different definitions of ‘prevention’
Enlighten, the independent public policy institute which works to promote increased economic prosperity, opportunity for all, and more effective public services, today releases a paper on prevention written by former Social Justice Minister and academic Des McNulty.
The appointment of Ivan McKee MSP as Cabinet Secretary for Public Service Reform has put Christie’s vision back at the centre of the Scottish political agenda. In the paper, which can be read in full here, Mr McNulty argues that the Government’s working definition of prevention is not the same as Christie’s definition — and that the difference matters enormously:
Two concepts, one word.
Christie’s prevention (2011) meant structural transformation of how services are organised; redistribution of power toward communities; building people’s capability so they become less dependent on services; and the elimination of the underlying causes of demand. The Scottish Government’s Preventative Spend Guidance uses a tripartite model derived from public health epidemiology — primary, secondary and tertiary prevention — which classifies when in the problem-formation cycle an intervention occurs. This is a legitimate and useful budget instrument. But it does not measure what Christie said needed to change.
Commenting, Des McNulty said:
“There is considerable confusion about what the Scottish Government means when it talks about prevention. Christie’s definition and the Government’s current definition are not the same — and the substitution has not been politically neutral. It potentially benefits those who want to count existing spending as preventative without changing service models, defer difficult reallocations, and protect popular programmes from scrutiny while maintaining the language of reform.”
The paper proposes four recommendations. The most distinctive is a Structural Prevention Test applying to all major spending decisions classified as preventative. Before any commitment above £50 million can be labelled preventative in the Christie sense, it should answer three questions: Does this shift power or control toward communities and individuals? Does it build capability rather than manage dependency? Does it challenge or reinforce existing silo structures? Spending that cannot answer ‘yes’ to at least two of three should not be classified as preventative in the Christie sense, regardless of where in the problem-formation cycle it intervenes.
A second ambitious recommendation calls on the Session 7 Parliament to commission a Christie-Aligned Indicators Framework — tracking partnership quality, community co-design, and progress on building community capability — reporting to Parliament on prevention performance.
Commenting, Des McNulty said:
“The political opportunity created by the 2026 election is real but time-limited. The test is whether the incoming Government uses that window to ask harder questions than its predecessor was willing to ask — or whether the Preventative Spend Tool becomes another mechanism through which difficult structural choices are deferred rather than confronted.”
ENDS
NOTES TO EDITORS
- Des McNulty’s paper can be read here.
- Enlighten isa public policy institute which works to promote increased economic prosperity, opportunity for all, and more effective public services. Enlighten is independent of political parties and any other organisations. It is funded by donations from private individuals, charitable trusts and corporate organisations. Its Director is Chris Deerin and Alison Payne is the Research Director. Both work closely with the Trustee Board, chaired by Lord McConnell, which meets regularly to review the research and policy programme.
For media contact Andy Maciver, [email protected], 07855 261 244