{"id":14554,"date":"2022-02-06T09:19:32","date_gmt":"2022-02-06T09:19:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/?p=14554"},"modified":"2026-04-18T19:34:30","modified_gmt":"2026-04-18T19:34:30","slug":"an-empty-promise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/2022\/02\/an-empty-promise\/","title":{"rendered":"An empty Promise"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Following the Independent Care Review, a Promise was made to children and families by the Scottish Government in\u00a0 February 2020.\u00a0<\/strong>
<\/span><\/p>\n

The Promise was that:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 <\/span>\u00a0No child would become looked after by the local authorities for want of help and support that could prevent them being taken from their homes.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
\u2022 <\/span>When it was unavoidable for a child to be \u201clooked after\u201d by their local authority, they would experience a level of care and kindness as near as possible to\u00a0 that\u00a0 experienced by children in their own families.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n

Expectations of the Review<\/a> were high. There would be no more institutional failing of the poorest and most vulnerable children. Families would be supported and not broken. The unpalatable truths about the realities of public care which have emerged through public inquiries would be a thing of the past. Children would be loved and cherished.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

\u201cWe grow up loved, safe,
and respected so that we
realise our full potential.\u201d<\/p>\n

Scotland\u2019s Ambition for children and young people<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The STV documentary (‘Shameful’ Failure to improve lives since The Promise…<\/a>) on Tuesday 1 February exposed the truth: that things have not improved at all, that things have indeed probably got worse.\u00a0 Not for the first time, the state has proven itself to be a lousy parent. Nothing has changed.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Children paid the price<\/h2>\n

Could it have been different? Did Covid prevent progress?\u00a0 Certainly, Covid created problems\u00a0 but it also offered many opportunities to do things differently, to show that <\/span>lessons were learned, that they could put care and kindness at the heart of what they did. Instead,\u00a0 the system looked after itself, children paid the price.<\/span><\/p>\n

Parents Advocacy and Rights<\/a> (PAR) believes that the Care Review was undermined by the usual\u00a0 failure of attempts at reform of care \u2013 failing to put the families and communities who suffer the most from the failings of the state to care at the heart of their work.<\/span><\/p>\n

Three years <\/span>ago<\/span> PAR, a parent-led charity, asked the Independent Care Review to involve with the\u00a0 families of children in or at risk of care. We said that decisions made that exclude the people affected by them\u00a0 are bad decisions. And that families and how they work had a lot to teach government about how to care. PAR was told we could be heard from a distance but not be part of\u00a0 any working groups as some children and young people participating had been abused by their families and so including families\u2019 perspectives would be just wrong.\u00a0\u00a0 Families were not \u201cstakeholders\u201d but outsiders.<\/span><\/p>\n

So parents watched as councils and charities,\u00a0 who were at the same time being indicted by the Care Abuse Inquiry<\/a> as responsible for decades of child abuse,\u00a0 were invited to lead working groups, co-chairing with care experienced young people.\u00a0 They were respectable\u00a0 \u201cstakeholders\u201d while families were a problem that had\u00a0 to be kept at arms-length.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Put families and communities at the centre<\/h2>\n

The failure to deliver on the Promise was inevitable \u2013 families were outside the tent, no status quo was upturned, no institutional power challenged, no radical, practical plan emerged.\u00a0 Just a Promise to do better.<\/span><\/p>\n

Instead, when Covid struck, decisions were made to protect the system, not the children and their families at the heart of it.\u00a0 For instance, many parents and children were forbidden <\/span>contact, despite the restrictions allowing children of separated parents to move between households. Why were children in care different? Why was their need for love and continuity of relationships less <\/span>important?<\/span>\u00a0While councils and children\u2019s hearings and other organisations equipped staff for\u00a0 remote working, parents and children were left without the vital equipment and support to remain in contact and to take part in meetings that were about them.<\/span>\u00a0<\/p>\n

There is still time for families and communities to be put at the centre. The Promise could start by holding meetings for families in the communities where most of the children are drawn from \u2013 the parents, grandparents, sisters and brothers, relatives of children in care or at risk of care.\u00a0 Why not ask them what is needed? Ask them what helps? Ask them to help design alternatives to pumping money into feeding the care system and instead pump that money into supporting families.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Further reading:\u00a0 <\/strong>Janice McGhee and Lorraine Waterhouse, Sceptical Scot October 2020\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

#KeepThePromise \u2013 or childcare without parents<\/a><\/blockquote>