Vulnerable children still need monitoring

But over the longer term, it might be something else that will prove more significant. The coalition government is shedding many of the ways in which previous governments have brought about change. It is handing over the levers of power - to local government, to groups of GPs, or to local people (sometimes termed the "big society"). The government describes this change as being more "local", empowering individuals. Its opponents characterise it as trying to pass the blame for cuts onto somebody else. Whichever line you choose, it is hard to deny that the coalition has a different vision of what government is all about.

Take children in care. Under the previous government, there were targets set for the number of times a child in care was moved from one placement to another; targets for narrowing the gap in their school results; targets for the number of dental checks - and dozens more. Local authorities were required to submit data on their performance against these targets. The government appointed regional teams of experts to monitor local progress, and to advise on how to achieve better results Ofsted checked up on progress, and published performance tables of how local authorities performed. Nationally, the government reported each year on their progress. It was described as a "top-down" process - government driving change by setting out exactly what it wanted, and chasing you until you improved.

This approach had its critics. Local authorities resented being monitored so precisely. Many commentators queried the range of targets chosen, what they told us about what was really going on and the relative benefits of the targets and processes - given that they attracted time-consuming administration like nails to a magnet. However, the taxpayer did get some idea of what was happening to their investment. Most of the measures showed progress, even if that progress was not as fast as was desired. And when a local authority stopped paying attention, charities and the press gave them a hard time. There was no hiding place.

Today, the targets are gone, inspections are reducing, regional advisers are being laid off, performance tables abandoned. Many professionals are relieved. But will we know if things are going wrong? At a time when services are being cut so deeply, how will we know what is happening to children in care?

At some point in the next few years we will have another crisis - one that captures the attention of the media. Prime Minister David Cameron has said that he would ensure that the most vulnerable would be protected from the worst impact of the cuts. So while government will try to shift the attention away from itself to the local service providers, or the community, most people will still look to government to take responsibility for the quality of services to our most vulnerable.

Overall, I have supported the shift away from central targets and government teams. I have supported the move towards letting the sector take more responsibility for more of its own improvement. I have studied the evidence of what works best in improving services, and have been convinced that sector-led support is better, and cheaper, overall.

But I also think that government needs to retain some ways of monitoring - and intervening in - what happens to the most vulnerable children. Most governments start their term believing in taking their hands off the reins, and gradually learn that they need some ways of bringing about change directly. The government should make an exception of children in care and disabled children, and start thinking about how they can keep some control.

Sir Paul Ennals, chief executive of the National Children's Bureau