Introduction

The expression ‘welfare state’, which Titmuss disliked, is problematic, not least in implying planned, integrated services. But this has never been the case. To take the example of the NHS, in Titmuss's lifetime this had a tripartite structure whose three components were the hospital service, primary care, and local authority services. All this was troublesome from the outset because of, for instance, the different geographical boundaries used by each part. To focus on local authorities, these had retained responsibility for public health, under the supervision of a Medical Officer of Health (MOH). Among local authorities’ other responsibilities were the personal social services, education (including the school meals and medical services), and housing. They varied, moreover, in their political composition, and potentially in policy implementation. Add to this that Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland had, to varying degrees, their own organisational structures and welfare cultures, and it will be evident that the ‘welfare state’ was far from a centralised, monolithic institution. Against this confusing background, this chapter examines Titmuss's involvement with changes in Scottish social work and, contemporaneously, with the Seebohm Committee, set up in late 1965 to review local authority social work services in England and Wales. Titmuss viewed both these developments as broadly positive, and as having wider implications. As he told the first meeting of the Social Administration Association in 1967, in a speech seeking to clarify further his field's scope, the ‘problems of how to teach social administration in non-specialist as well as specialist ways will receive added force’ when, alongside other policy developments, Seebohm reported, and the impending changes in Scottish social work took effect.

Scottish social work

Titmuss contributed to the Scottish White Paper on Social Work, precursor to the 1968 Social Work (Scotland) Act. This put social work in Scotland on a different path from elsewhere in Great Britain, notably through the creation of Children's Panels. These effectively took offending young people out of the adult justice system, and more directly into social care. The Act also integrated all existing welfare functions for children and young people. The need for an investigation into Scottish social work had been prompted by the findings of the Kilbrandon Committee, published in 1964, which had investigated juvenile delinquency.