When Hempsall's was established in 1999, the sector was entering a period of huge ambition and transformation. The National Childcare Strategy was beginning to take shape, and the idea that childcare should be considered a core part of public policy was gaining some momentum. Since then, we have witnessed the development of Sure Start, Children's Centres (and them withering on the vine), the Childcare Act, the introduction of free entitlement programmes, provision for disadvantaged two-year-olds, 30 hours childcare, wraparound childcare and, most recently, the largest expansion of funded childcare in a generation.

Alongside these policy developments, we have seen nine Prime Ministers, seven general elections and more ministers responsible for early education and childcare than most of us are able to remember. Governments have changed, priorities have shifted, terminology has evolved, and policy frameworks have been redesigned. Yet despite this continual political movement, the fundamental purpose of the sector has remained strikingly consistent.

That purpose is today’s opportunity. Opportunity for children to achieve the best possible start in life. Opportunity for parents to participate in employment. Opportunity to narrow gaps in outcomes before they become entrenched. Opportunity to strengthen communities and support economic growth. And an opportunity to embrace regional approaches.

Across different political administrations, the language may have varied, but these objectives have remained surprisingly constant. This perhaps explains why early years and childcare has always been such a political space. Unlike many policy areas, it sits at the intersection of several government priorities simultaneously. It is education policy because of its influence on children's learning and development. It is economic policy because it enables employment and productivity. It is social policy because of its contribution to safeguarding, equity, inclusion and social mobility. It is also, increasingly, recognised as a key part of the nation's wider infrastructure. I don’t quite agree when people criticise the latest iterations suggesting bias one way or the other, multi-agendas and policies are certainly in action at all times.

That last point feels particularly important at this moment.

Over the years, the sector has often been discussed through the lens of individual programmes, funding announcements or specific reforms. Yet the longer I work in this field, the more convinced I become that early years and childcare should be viewed in much broader terms. We should think of it as national infrastructure. Just as transport, housing, energy and digital connectivity support economic and social prosperity, so too does a sustainable and high-quality early years and childcare system.

The challenge is that infrastructure requires long-term thinking, whereas politics often operates to much shorter timescales. The sector has lived through periods of rapid expansion, restructuring, review and reform. Some initiatives have flourished and become embedded. Others have disappeared before they were able to reach their full potential. What practitioners, providers, local authorities and families have experienced throughout those years is the reality that policy certainty is often as valuable as policy innovation.

This is why I believe the conversation needs to move beyond individual programmes and towards the development of a durable settlement for the sector. By that, I do not mean political agreement on every aspect of funding, regulation or delivery. Different parties will always have different views, and healthy debate should be welcomed. Rather, I mean a shared understanding that early years and childcare is fundamental to national success and therefore requires stable foundations that can endure beyond electoral cycles.

A similar argument sits behind some of the recent discussions on devolution and regionalisation. In a recent blog, reflecting on Andy Burnham's vision for greater devolution, I noted the potential opportunities this could create for early years and childcare. The attraction is not simply that decisions would be taken at a different level of government. The more interesting possibility is that services could become better connected to local priorities, labour markets and communities. Childcare does not exist in isolation. Its effectiveness is closely linked to employment, skills, housing, transport, health and family support. Regional and local structures may be better placed to understand and respond to those connections.

However, the objective should not simply be to move responsibility from one tier of government to another. The objective should be to strengthen the overall infrastructure of the sector. Successful devolution requires strong national frameworks alongside local flexibility, creating a system that is both coherent and responsive.

These questions are especially relevant as various reviews and reform discussions continue across children's services, education and family support. Reviews are valuable. They create opportunities to challenge assumptions, examine evidence and identify new approaches. The sector should always be open to learning and improvement. Yet experience suggests that reviews alone do not transform outcomes. Sustainable improvement is delivered through capable leadership, a confident workforce, effective partnerships, stable funding and long-term commitment. Perhaps that is the most important lesson of all.

At Coram Hempsall's, we have always been proud to be apolitical. We work with governments of all colours, with local authorities led by different political parties, and with organisations that bring a wide range of perspectives. Our commitment is not to a particular ideology but to improving outcomes for children and families.

That perspective perhaps allows us to make a simple observation. The evidence is now overwhelming that early years and childcare is central to educational achievement, economic participation, social mobility and equality of opportunity. It is no longer a peripheral service that supports other priorities. It is itself a strategic national priority.

The coming years will undoubtedly bring further reviews, reforms and political debates. Ministers will change, governments will change and policies will continue to evolve. What must not change is our understanding of the sector's importance. If we are serious about improving life chances, reducing inequality and supporting economic growth, then we need to invest not only in programmes but in the long-term infrastructure that underpins them.

Children only get one chance at childhood. The systems that support them deserve to be built with a longer horizon than the next election. That is not a political argument. After the past 35 years in this sector, it feels more like a statement of fact.