View report page

10
reluctant to join, giving as the reason that if their clients' names were on
a list it would have unfavourable effects upon confidentiality. This viewpoint
was maintained in spite of the fact that the register would be kept in
the health and welfare department, where confidentiality of medical and
social documents was a well established principle and that the names
were anyway probably on one of the many lists kept in the same department.
The problem of liaison with workers of voluntary associations was
also discussed. It was decided that this would best be done by resuming
the luncheon meetings that were once organised by Canon Lewis, but this
time under the aegis of the llford Social Service Association.
Has the change-over had anydisadvantages?There is one; it involves
the position of the Medical Officer of Health. With the increase in population,
increase in responsibilities and increase in staff, he is inevitably
more isolated from the people for whom the services cater, i.e. the troubled
parent, the head teacher, the family doctor, the case of infectious disease,
the disturbed child, the individual seeking a better home, convalescence,
or any one of dozens of other needs. With the necessary interposition of
senior officers, the Medical Officer of Health is at least one step further
removed from the citizen. Many of his own staff will now be strangers. I
find it hard to understand why in the field of social welfare there are
those who would wish for large local government units. A quarter of a
million population is, if anything, the maximum size for a health and
welfare authority. It is argued that large authorities bring economy and
efficiency. Whilst not accepting this, even if it were true, the argument is
not decisive. It would doubtless be more economical and efficient (I
believe the experiment has been tried in China) to cease to have families
in units and put them all in large institutions with food prepared by skilled
dieticians, cleaning and laundering done by specialists, infants and
children looked after by trained nurses; case-workers at hand to deal with
family quarrels and fully staffed sick-bays for father or mother when they
catph cold. We all realise that such economy and efficiency would in the
long run fail miserably to produce happy and worthy citizens. I realise
that it is easy to pick holes in this analogy between local government and
family structure, but it has enough truth for my purpose. Large units are
needed for planning, and services which cannot adequately be carried out
by smaller ones. Social welfare does not require the techniques of mass
production.
For the last time as an llford officer, I would like to thank the volunteers
of the llford Federation of Voluntary Workers, llford Social Service
Association, W.V.S., Red Cross, and many others for their consistent and
necessary help.
The Chairmen, Vice-Chairmen and members of the llford and Essex