Children Webmag - Editorial

In an interview with David Brindle in the Guardian, (19 May 2004, Supplement, p.2) Margaret Hodge, the Minister for Children, said that she was now viewing her task as a ten-year programme in achieving real change in services for children. The main reason given was not that she would be facing a political struggle in getting the Children Bill through Parliament but the unwillingness of statutory bodies to change and co-operate in the better interests of children.

We offer her our whole-hearted support in taking this approach. The British parliamentary system means that politicians generally think in terms of what can demonstrably be achieved in the following four years, so that they can go back to the electorate and say, “Look what we’ve done.” Real change takes much longer. If legislation is to have a real impact, its implementation takes two or three parliamentary terms to become embedded in everyone’s thinking.

The Cycle of Change

There is the drafting and consultation in drawing up the legislation, to make sure it is viable and acceptable to the services and other stakeholders in the first place. After the legislation, there are the regulations to draw up, the piloting of new ideas, the evaluation of pilots, the dissemination of the ideas in the legislation (tempered by the experience of the pilots), the funding to be built up - perhaps over several years, the general implementation throughout the country - even in the areas where the ideas are not well received, the review of progress and the chivvying of recalcitrant agencies, and the inclusion of teaching about the Act in qualifying training courses.

Indeed, you can say that the Act is well established only when the lecturers on qualifying courses are former practitioners who have worked under the Act. And by then there is probably new legislation on the way. The big Acts concerning children - 1948, 1963, 1969, 1989 - seem typically to come every twenty years or so, as it takes that amount of time to implement the legislation and then identify the next major changes required.

Changing Professional Thinking

We take her point that professionals and agencies can be obstructive. A piece of research into interprofessional co-operation showed that professionals actually invested a lot of their time in forming alliances with other professions to rubbish others. They tend to preserve their patches and guard their resources and decision-making powers. As Rowan Dickman notes in an article this month, understanding between professions which has been established can be undermined. It is a constant battle to ensure good co-operation between professions.

But it is a necessary one. It will not be dealt with by prescription and the establishment of systems alone. Systems, regulations and procedures are all needed, but the fundamental requirement is the wish to co-operate. Professionals need to obtain their job satisfaction from meeting children’s needs and to subordinate all other aspects of their work to this aim. Turf wars have to be seen as less rewarding than achieving things for children and young people. This change of attitudes will take time and leadership, and if this is the task which Margaret Hodge has set herself, we support her.

So the Minister is right to identify the slow pace and long-term nature of the process, but the parliamentary timetable tends to work against long-term planning and thinking. It may be that Margaret Hodge will have the opportunity as Minister for Children to see her objectives achieved, but history tells us that Governments and Ministers come and go, and she may well need to rely on others to see her vision implemented over the next ten years. We want to see her campaign succeed and we would therefore encourage Margaret Hodge to talk to other parties, so that services for children avoid becoming - if at all possible - a party matter, and so that the politicians can take a combined approach in ensuring that the necessary changes are seen through.