FOR Mother’s Day I took Ma Stewart to Quarriers Village, in Inverclyde, to have lunch and walk around the beautiful Old English and Scottish baronial houses. I explained the history to her: that it had been built as the Orphan Homes of Scotland in the 1870s by the philanthropist William Quarrier. His vision was that each child in his care be assigned a house-mother and house-father to nurture them. My mother was so taken with this idea, of a parental-based system of care, that I hadn’t the heart to tell her how this vision had soured and that the village was the centre of a child sex abuse scandal.

This week the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry began in Edinburgh with unreserved apologies offered to victims from charities and church groups, Quarriers among them. Also this week, the Independent Review of Scotland’s Care System was launched by its chair, Fiona Duncan, who pledged to deliver a review that “changes lives and is transformational.”

While both of these were, quite rightly, grabbing the headlines, another case that could have far reaching impacts on our vulnerable children and how we care for them was also underway.

Two fosters carers, James and Christine Johnstone, took Glasgow City Council to an employment tribunal. On Thursday and Friday, their QC told the hearing that Mr and Mrs Johnstone should be classed as employees of the authority. If their status was changed, this would give the couple rights to a salary and benefits, such as sick pay.

The couple is supported by the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB), which says foster carers should be classed as professionals, rather than substitute parents. This test case, for which a written decision is expected in four weeks, could have ramifications for the entire system.

The union, which says it has an increasing membership of foster carers, is also calling for employment rights in England where the National Fostering Stocktake is currently calling for evidence.

Are foster carers professionals or substitute parents? And can they ever be both?

Last year, the Fostering Network in Scotland found that foster carers in some local authorities are not given the financial support needed to care for fostered children, suggesting they were paying for the children they look after out of their own pocket.

The Scottish Government, unlike in England, Ireland and Wales, has yet to introduce a national minimum allowance for foster carers. A Freedom of Information request submitted by the charity showed 25 per cent of Scottish councils were not paying their foster carers allowances equal to the minimum allowances in England and Northern Ireland.

In Scotland some foster carers receive as little as £77.69 per week and yet is 10 years since the Scottish Government proposed looking at a national minimum allowance.

Fosters carers are often qualified, they require to be registered and they perform a difficult, vital task round the clock, seven days a week. And yet it grates, the notion of foster carers being employees. While we expect any other role of a similar nature to be paid, foster carers are expected to be motivated by selflessness.

The argument against a change is that if foster carers are paid, unsuitable adults will step forward motivated only by money.

In the current conversation around this topic there is one thing glaringly lacking: the perspective of young people.

A young woman who was care experienced once told me: “Everyone in my life was paid to be in my life.” She was unable to reconcile herself to the fact her main carer was paid to care for her and, when she turned 16, she would move on and they would be paid to care for someone else.

It can never be underestimated how adept care experienced children are at sizing someone up and how far reaching the emotional impact of living in a home without real love and affection can be.

Fostering still labours under the image of the earth-mother ‘auntie’ with the burgeoning family of waifs, doing it out of an excess of love. Was that ever a reality?

Foster caring is such an emotionally and mentally draining and task that it seems too great a leap to think people will step forward purely for the money.

Similarly, you can’t nurture a child only with good intentions. A decent income is something we broadly accept eases the burden on a household. When the household is supporting children from our most troubled families, surely it is important to help ease that burden as much as possible.

The conflict is in the balance between ensuring carers are financially protected and ensuring children feel they are not merely work for someone.

Whatever the outcome of the Johnstone’s tribunal, it is vital to think of the impact any changes might have on young people in care.

Like Quarriers Village, good intentions can only prevail if the child is the centre of every decision.