Appendix 5
Memorandum by the International Association
of Former Child Migrants and Their Families
Welfare of Former Child Migrants (CM 166)
Contents1. Summary of Main Points2. Introduction3.
Submission4. Acknowledgements5. Recommendations
1. #Summary of main points on submissionThe welfare
of former Child Migrants in the Commonwealth countries they were
deported to was, and remains, the responsibility of ALL Governments
who were involved in child migration schemes.Assurances were given
in the Houses of Commons and Lords during the 1948 Children's
Act debate that children transported to a Commonwealth country
would receive the "same standard of care" as they would
had they remained in Britain. These assurances alleviated the
concerns of some Members of Parliament and the British Federation
of Social Workers, and placed the responsibility for Britain's
former Child Migrants firmly on the British Government. These
assurances were not honoured.For the last 10 years all Governments
and agencies involved in the schemes have been made aware of the
psychological, physical and sexual damage suffered by thousands
of innocent young children through the implementation of the Child
Migration Schemes: by the Director and Trustees of the Child Migrants
Trust, by the documentary and book Lost Children of the Empire
(1989), by the drama-documentary Leaving of Liverpool (1992),
by Margaret Humphreys book Empty Cradles (1994) and by
the vast numbers of personal stories told, through the media,
by former Child Migrants.The Association membership believes that
a full judicial enquiry, with wide-ranging Terms of Reference
is absolutely vital to enquire into the appalling atrocities and
abuse of human rights on a large scale, affecting the lives of
thousands of children and their families. We feel this is essential
for the process of healing and reconciliation to take place and
to ensure that these extremely damaging social policies will never
again be implemented.The Association recognises the Child Migrants
Trust as the only independent and neutral body providing the comprehensive
counselling service required by our membership.Many elderly mothers
and fathers are dying while the Child Migrants Trust is searching
for them. This is a disgraceful legacy of the Child Migration
Schemes; and of the lack of Government recognition and understanding
of the Human Rights of former Child Migrants and their families.
Adequate and secure funding for the Child Migrants Trust must
begin immediately, so that all former Child Migrants and their
families have the opportunity to be reunited, and to receive the
skilled and professional counselling service provided by the Trust.The
Association has supplied a comprehensive account of what our members
require the Government to seriously consider and take the appropriate
action, so that thousands of people affected by the social policies
of past Governments who were involved in the United Kingdom and
Commonwealth Child Migration Schemes will receive justice on this
human rights issue which has seriously affected their past, present
and future well-being.
appendices to the minutes of evidence taken
before
2.# IntroductionSome of the effects the Child Migration
Schemes had on former Child Migrants were to rob them of their
personal identities, their nationhood, their families, and their
medical histories. These massive disadvantages were reinforced
by a lack of education, isolation, the failure of aftercare services,
the abandonment by both Commonwealth and State Governments and
the withholding for over 50 years of precious family information.Former
Child Migrants were scattered like seed across the British Empire,
landing on isolated farms or in institutions throughout Canada,
in foster care in New Zealand and in small and large institutions
in Australia.Whether this was a planned policy or just a by-product
of the schemes is not important. What is important is the impact
it had on former Child Migrants. The isolation made former Child
Migrants think that they individually, or the group they were
with, were the only children to the deported. It left them in
an extremely vulnerable position, and it stopped them from complaining
about the way they were being treated—who could they complain
to?The only people they could get any family information or personal
records from was the voluntary body responsible for their care.
These voluntary bodies withheld that knowledge, and refused the
children in their care their entitled right to this important
information when the former Child Migrants were children, and
when they were adults. If a person, or organisation, withholds
or refuses to pass on knowledge, they are placing themselves in
a position of power, while those seeking knowledge are rendered
powerless. To withhold or refuse anyone personal family information
or medical history and information is an inhumane act. To withhold
even such basic information as birth date and parentage is cruel.The
Child Migrants Trust has done much more than reunite former Child
Migrants and their families. It has given former Child Migrants
back the knowledge which they have been denied for decades. Former
Child Migrants are no longer powerless—no longer vulnerable
innocent children without rights.The aims and objectives of the
International Association of Former Child Migrants and their Families
are:
To give former Child Migrants and their families
a united voice as they pursue their rights to receive justice
from all Governments involved in the Child Migration Schemes.
To express and promote the common interests
of former Child Migrants world-wide by virtue of their removal
from their country of birth.
To educate and raise issues relating to the
needs of former Child Migrants and their families with Governments,
state agencies and non-governmental agencies.
To convene International Conferences in conjunction
with the Child Migrants Trust, and to arrange and provide for
or join in arranging and providing for the holding of exhibitions,
congresses, meetings, lectures and seminars.
To establish and distribute twice yearly International
Focus, which will keep members informed on developments and
issues pertaining to former Child Migrants and their families
world-wide. It will also invite people with specific interest
in the child migration issues to contribute articles, and also
give former Child Migrants and family members the opportunity
to contribute.
To procure to be written, printed, published,
issued and circulated gratuitously or otherwise such papers, books,
periodicals, pamphlets or other documents or films as shall further
the aims and objectives.
To promote, carry out or assist in carrying
out research, surveys and investigations and publish the results
thereof.
To do or arrange to be done any lawful matters
necessary, incidental to or in order to promote or assist the
promotion of the aims and objectives.The International Association
is an independent organisation with well defined aims and objectives.
It intends to work alongside the Child Migrants Trust. This is
the agency which was specifically established to provide a highly
specialised professional service for Child Migrants and their
families. Furthermore this was, and continues to be, the first
and only independent agency to specifically address the needs
of former Child Migrants. Without the pioneering work of the Trust
we would all be living our lives in total isolation, without identity
and families, believing that we were orphans and that our families
and country did not want us.
3. #SubmissionThe words that are generally used
in reports, speeches, etc to describe the position of former Child
Migrants are "migration" or "emigrate". Former
Child Migrants believe the correct definition of those words to
be: "A person, or persons, who emigrate to another country
of their own free will or, in the case of children, of their parents
or relatives free will". Former Child Migrants find this
terminology when applied to their own position to be insulting.
Former Child Migrants did not emigrate of their own free
will, and we will only use these words when using quotes. The
word that this Association will use most commonly in this submission
is "deported", because former Child Migrants strongly
believe that is what happened to them when they were expelled
from their country of birth as young innocent children.The Association
believes the definition of the term "deported" in regards
to the position of former Child Migrants to be: "That as
innocent young children who had committed no crime they were deported
like aliens from their country of birth, without the consent of
their parents."—because they were innocent young
children who had no rights and no recourse.In Bringing Them
Home, April 1997—the report of the National Inquiry
into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children
from their Families by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities
Commission, the term "undue influence" is used. The
definition for this term is given within the report on page 9—"The
term 'undue influence' has a similar meaning to 'duress'. An influence
which is 'undue' is an influence 'by which [a] person is induced
not to act of his own free will' (Concise Oxford Dictionary)."The
Association will use this term within this submission because
former Child Migrants believe the "respected" national
voluntary bodies who were involved in the Child Migration Schemes
used "undue influence" with them personally to convince
them they should go, and used "undue influence" in their
public recruiting programmes.The deportation of thousands of young
children from the United Kingdom and Malta to Commonwealth countries
under the British and Commonwealth Child Migration Schemes commenced
in 1618 and ended nearly 350 years later in Australia in 1967.
Innocent children, some as young as four years of age, were deported
to America, Canada, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Australia and New Zealand.The
flow of these innocent souls eased, and finally ceased during
the Second World War, only to resume in 1947 when the British
Government established a Committee of Enquiry under the chairmanship
of Miss Myra Curtis, CBE, with the relevant Terms of Reference:
"To enquire into existing methods of providing
for children who from loss of parents or from a normal home life
with their parents or relatives: and to consider what further
measures should be taken to ensure that these children are brought
up under conditions best calculated to compensate them for the
lack of parental care."The Curtis Committee took evidence
from those voluntary organisations that had been involved in arranging
the migration of children without their parents. Their findings
and conclusions were set out in paragraph 515 of their report:
"We understand that organisations for sending
deprived children to the Dominions may resume their work in the
near future. We have heard evidence as to the arrangements for
selecting children for migration, and it is clear to us that their
effect is that this opportunity is given only to children of fine
physique and good mental equipment. These are precisely the children
for whom satisfactory openings could be found in this country,
and in present day conditions this particular method of providing
for the deprived child is not one that we especially wish to see
extended. On the other hand, a fresh start in a new country may,
for children with an unfortunate background, be the foundation
of a happy life, and the opportunity should therefore in our view
remain open to suitable children who express a desire for it.
We should, however, strongly deprecate their setting out in life
under less thorough care and supervision than they would have
at home, and we recommend that it should be a condition of consenting
to the arrangements made by the Government of the receiving country
that their welfare and aftercare should be comparable to those
we have proposed in this Report for deprived children remaining
in this country."'After the Curtis Committee had handed its
report to the Government, legislation for the Children's Bill
was presented to the House of Commons. Many concerns were voiced
by members of the House during the debate on the Bill. On 7 May
1948 the Children's Bill received its second reading in the House
of Commons. Dr Somerville Hastings, Member of Parliament and a
Member of the Curtis Committee, had reservations concerning Child
Migration in any event and in particular the safeguards within
the legislation:
"We cannot afford to lose a child from
this country. The population here is ageing and, as is well known,
the Dominions will accept only children who are specially sound
in body and mind. I feel that children should emigrate only if
they really want to go and are over 14 or 16 years, and that as
good arrangements have been made for their supervision in the
Dominions or elsewhere as would be made under this Bill in their
own country."Introducing the Bill for a second reading in
the House of Commons on 7 May 1948 Mr Younger, the Under Secretary
of State for the Home Department, outlined the purpose of the
legislation. He stressed the defects in the previous system of
child care, highlighting those categories of vulnerable children
who needed to be brought within the scope of protection of the
State; he stressed the inadequate arrangements for temporary care
of children who were the responsibility of public authorities
and emphasised that there had been too many voluntary and public
authorities, many guilty of:
"A failure to give to those under their
care the personal sympathy and human understanding so necessary
to the well being of children who lack the love and affection
of their parents."As the Children's Bill passed through Parliament,
the President of the British Federation of Social Workers, Lady
Cynthia Colville DVQ, JP, and other Officers of the Federation
wrote to The Times newspaper. Their letter was published
on 24 March 1948 and, after referring to the Children's Bill and
paragraph 515 of the Curtis Report, set out the following:
"The undersigned have reason to think that
the practices of the various agencies for the migration of children
overseas vary and that their methods of selection of children,
their welfare, education, training and aftercare in the receiving
countries are not always of a sufficiently high standard. We would
urge therefore that in conjunction with the Commonwealth Relations
Department, an inter-Governmental Commission of Inquiry be set
up to examine the whole system of care of deprived children of
British origin in the Commonwealth with special attention to aftercare
and employment."The British Federation of Social Workers
concerns were vindicated when they met with Miss Armitage, a Child
Welfare Officer of the Prince of Wales Fairbridge Farm School
in British Columbia. She was a trained Social Worker who spoke
of the difficulties of persuading her employing Committee in the
basic principles of child care. She emphasised the points on which
guidance was required, drawing on her experience of Canada:
1. Selection
2. The seriousness of separating a child from
its mother.
3. The recognition that a child has an emotional
life.
4. The procuring of full histories of the children.
5. The maintenance of contacts with families
or relatives in the old country.
6. Consultation with the children on emigration
and assertion of their wishes.
7. Psychological examinations to take place at
an early stage of selection, not after residence at the Reception
Centre.In 1956-57 the British Federation of Social Workers continued
to be concerned at the development of child migration and responded
to the establishment of the Migration Board by declaring:
"Since the general opinion in this country
seems to be against any child being brought up in an institution
unless he is unsuitable for adoption or fostering, it seems doubtful
whether it is in the best interests of children for them to be
sent abroad in order to be brought up in institutions, completely
cut off from any home ties they may have, and perhaps in isolated
places."'It is now known that the concerns of the British
Foundation of Social Workers, the Members of Parliament and the
Curtis Report were well-founded.Over the last 10 years Margaret
Humphreys OAM, Founder and Director of the Child Migrants Trust,
has made governments involved in the Child Migration Schemes aware
of the psychological, physical and sexual abuse; and of the past
and continuing pain and loss suffered by former Child Migrants
who were deported from their country of birth, their families
and their friends under the British and Commonwealth Child Migration
Schemes.For the last 10 years the British Government has had the
opportunity to respond positively and humanely on this extremely
sensitive human rights issue. The Covenant of the International
Human Rights Commission states that everybody is entitled to a
family life; and Britain is a signatory to this Covenant. This
entitlement, this right to a family life, was taken away from
former Child Migrants when they were deported from the United
Kingdom and Malta under the Child Migration Schemes; and many,
many hundreds of former Child Migrants still do not have this
right. Many are still British citizens.While the International
Association of former Child Migrants and their Families acknowledges
the British Government's funding to the Child Migrants Trust it
believes (considering the vast numbers of children sent) that
the amount has been appalling and that the overall response to
this sensitive human rights issue, by all British Governments
over the last 10 years, has been extremely disappointing and has
perpetuated the pain and loss for former Child Migrants and their
families. British Governments have not seriously addressed the
damage done to thousands of people through the Government approved
Child Migration Schemes and have not, it seems, understood the
complex social, moral and human rights issues these schemes created.In
his reply to a question from David Hinchliffe MP during Parliamentary
Question Time on 2 November 1993 the Prime Minister, John Major,
said:
"As the honourable gentleman will know—for
I am aware that the has taken a great interest in this matter—the
migration schemes to Australia and other countries were run at
the time by respected national voluntary bodies. The Government's
concern now is to ensure that former Child Migrants who want to
make contact with their families are able to do so. Any concern
about the treatment of the children in another country is essentially
a matter for the authorities of that country." (Extract taken
from Empty Cradles by Margaret Humphreys, page 302).During
the 1948 Children's Act debate assurances were given in the House
of Commons and the House of Lords—assurances that children
sent to a Commonwealth country under the Child Migration Schemes
would receive the "same standard of care" they would
have received had they been allowed to stay in the United Kingdom
and that regulations would be made to control the emigration arrangements
made by the voluntary organisations.The assurances given by the
House of Commons and the House of Lords during this debate are
clear in their message—British Governments would still have
a responsibility to ensure that the children deported under the
Child Migration Schemes did receive this "same standard of
care".While the "respected" national voluntary
bodies physically removed the children and in our view were to
blame for subsequent abuses, the British Government was responsible
for the Acts of Parliament that allowed this to happen.All British
Governments who held office while these schemes were operating
ignored their responsibilities to the deported children and ignored
the assurances given in both Houses during the debates of 1948.
British Governments who have held office since the full consequences
of these Schemes were made public by Margaret Humphreys in 1987
have, overall, ignored their responsibilities. This Government
now has the opportunity to address its responsibilities to former
Child Migrants and their families.On many occasions since the
last election Prime Minister Tony Blair has emphasised his determination
to place human rights issues at the top of his Government's agenda.The
"respected" national voluntary bodies used undue
influence when they told innocent young children tales of
fantasy and adventure and told them they were orphans, that their
parents were dead. They used undue influence when they
told the children and their families (particularly their mothers)
cruel lies.These "respected" national voluntary bodies
used highly emotive advertising campaigns as they vied to outdo
each other in their quest for more children to be deported.These
"respected" national voluntary bodies did not
provide the children with the same standard of care they would
have received had they been allowed to stay in their country of
birth. British Governments did not ensure that his happened.
The assurances given in both Houses during the 1948 Children's
Act debate were not honoured.Prime Minister John Major's reply
to David Hinchliffe in 1993 showed former Child Migrants that,
as far as that British Government was concerned, once we had been
deported we were forgotten—Out of sight, out of mind.
What do former child migrants and their
families want this
British Government to do now?The Association of Former
Child Migrants and their families want a full Judicial Inquiry
into the Child Migration Schemes. The Association believes that
a full Judicial Inquiry is absolutely necessary to ensure that
former Child Migrants and their families receive justice on this
important human rights issue and to ensure that the social policies
which have affected thousands of people, thousands of innocent
young children who had no power and no voice, can never be implemented
again. The Judicial Inquiry should have wide ranging Terms of
Reference which allows it to:
Investigate all aspects of the Child Migration
Schemes.
Investigate the British Government's role in
the Child Migration Schemes.
Investigate the national voluntary bodies role
in taking care of the children when they were deported, when they
were in their care in the countries they were deported to and
their role after the children left their care.
To call, and if necessary subpoena, any person
or persons who were actively involved in the removal and care
of children through the Child Migration Schemes.
To call Margaret Humphreys, Director of the
Child Migrants Trust, who is recognised internationally for her
professional work with former Child Migrants and their families
and for her expertise in the area of separation and family reunification.
To visit each country involved in the Schemes
so that former Child Migrants and their families have the opportunity
to inform you of the widespread abuse.
To call the International Association as a representative
body of former Child Migrants and their Families.
To enact policies which will address all of
the current needs of former Child Migrants and their families.
To instigate a series of meetings with all Governments
involved in the Child Migration Schemes to ensure that former
Child Migrants receive justice in the countries that deported
them and in the countries which received them. Britain should
take the lead on this sensitive human rights issue.
To call upon the Prime Minister, on behalf of
the Government, to apologise to Britain's former Child Migrants
and their families for the unnecessary pain and loss they have
suffered because of the Child Migration Schemes.
The International Association would like a National
Remembrance Monument at a place in Britain nominated by the Association
membership. This could be a small plaque or a garden etc. The
members will decide what they want.
The Association would like the Child Migrants
Trust to be adequately funded. The Trust has been grossly under-funded
by British Governments over the last 10 years. They are working
with many hundreds of former Child Migrants and their families
on these very complex issues which were created by the social
policies of past British Governments. The Child Migrants Trust
provides a unique, specialised professional service which meets
the needs of former Child Migrants and their families. However,
this is necessarily a slow process and large numbers of former
Child Migrants want and need this service and want the Child Migrants
Trust to provide it. The Association would like the British Government
to provide adequate funding which allows each Social Worker employed
by the Child Migrants Trust to work with a small number of former
Child Migrants and their families. This will ensure that every
former Child Migrant who, for decades, has had no knowledge, no
identity and no family can receive the unique service provided
by the Child Migrants Trust.
We would like the Government to set up a fund
to assist former Child Migrants to go back home to be reunited
with their family members, and we would like some form of compensation.Many
people feel that once a former Child Migrant has been reunited
with their mother, father or family member everything is "hunky
dory" and everyone lives happily ever after. They seem unable
to comprehend that this is another chapter in a very long and
often extremely painful story. A bitter-sweet story which can
bring great joy and great sadness at the same time. 30, 40, 50
or 60 years of pain, loss, grief, anger and sadness cannot be
resolved in one or two short visits and Australia will always
remain 12,000 miles away. Former Child Migrants will always live
emotionally in two countries.The vast majority of siblings have
the opportunity to understand each others personalities, their
similarities and their differences, through growing up together
and through the love and care of their parents. When former Child
Migrants were deported from their country of birth and told their
parents and families were dead they were denied this right.The
Association recognises and acknowledges the Child Migrants Trust
as the only independent and neutral body providing former Child
Migrants and their families with the complete professional service
they need; before, during and after they have been reunited. The
independence and neutrality of the Child Migrants Trust is vitally
important to former Child Migrants and their families. The lack
of adequate funding for the Trust and the continued refusal of
all Governments involved in the Child Migration Schemes to determine
policies which will solve the problems created by the schemes
has meant that some former Child Migrants have had to go back
"cap in hand" to the national voluntary bodies which
deceived them as innocent young children—who physically
removed them from their country of birth, who lied to them and
their parents and who, in many cases, treated them in a brutal
and inhumane manner while they were in their care in the country
that had been "chosen" for them. The Association sees
this as almost akin to asking the Jews to go back to the Nazis
for counselling and reconciliation—and no-one would ever
dare consider that.The behaviour of the voluntary agencies involved
in child migration over the last decade leaves much to be desired.
Many of our members have written to them, some spanning 40 years
plus, for information about their families. These pleas for help
where frequently met with more deception and indifference. The
behaviour of these same agencies now is, in many respects, little
better. We are appalled by some of the strategies they are engaging
in at present. We believe that the agencies which required overseeing
and monitoring in the past need regulating now in relation to
this issue.In 1945 the streets of the United Kingdom were full—full
of people dancing, singing, laughing and crying as they celebrated
the return of freedom and democracy. The end of the Second World
War, the end of Hitler, the end of Fascism.In 1947, just two short
years after the end of the war, Britain started deporting its
innocent young children again—this time to Australia and
New Zealand 12,000 miles away—the other side of the world.
Britain is the only country (that the Association is aware of)
that has deported its children during times of peace—or
times of war.Many former Child Migrants fathers died during the
Second World War. One died during the Battle of Britain—his
son was sent to Australia without his mother's consent.When former
Child Migrants were deported they were told that they were "orphans"
and this term continues to be used whenever their plight is discussed.
This no doubt makes it easier for people to accept that the Child
Migrants has been better off. The term "orphans", when
used to describe former Child Migrants, is a MYTH...and is an
insult to former Child Migrants and their families, The Child
Migrants Trust have found only one or two former Child Migrants
who are in fact orphans. Former Child Migrants believe the real
definition of an orphan is a person who has lost both parents.One
of the main reasons given for removing the children was that "they
would be better off". During the 1948 Children's Act
debate on Child Migration Mrs Jean Mann MP expressed concern regarding
the concept of separating a child from his/her family simply on
the basis that they might be "better off", and said:
"There have been many times in my life
when my own children would have been much better off, materially,
in a home abroad with people who could have provided a better
home and better clothing than I was able to provide for them at
times in my life. No-one would have dared to come to me and say
that, because of that fact, they thought there was a better place
for my children, Australia. It is true that we can benefit the
child materially, but we might break their hearts and that is
something we must always consider."When mothers, who found
themselves in a more stable situation, went back to the institutions
to take their children home many were told that their children
had been adopted in Britain. Some, it is now known, were told
that their children had died.These were particularly cruel lies.
Mothers left after receiving this (adoption) news feeling extremely
sad that they would not see their children again, but relieved
that at least their children would be living with a good family
right here in Britain—only to be told by the Child Migrants
Trust 30, 40, 50 or 60 years later that their children had been
sent to Canada, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Australia and New Zealand—the
other side of the world.The mothers who were told their children
had died, by so-called respected voluntary agencies and the Church,
have had to live with that cruel lie and their grief for the rest
of their lives.The Children's Bill contained two clauses on Child
Migration. Clause 17 dealt with children in local authority care—these
would only be allowed to emigrate with the Secretary of State's
consent, and only if it benefited them. Clause 32 concerned children
cared for by voluntary organisations. This, said the Secretary
of State, "may by regulations" control emigration arrangements.
There was immediate pressure to change the word "may"
to "shall". Speaking in the House of Lords on 13 April
1948 Lord Llewellyn said:
"It would be a great satisfaction to the
Societies who do this work best if they knew that some of the
bodies who do not do it so well could be brought up to mark, so
that children are not sent out without any regard to whether they
are likely to go to decent homes when they get overseas, whether
they are themselves in a fit condition and are the kind of children
who ought to be sent abroad."The Lord Chancellor Viscount
Jowett's reply was crucial and, because of its reassurances, the
British Federation of Social Workers withdrew its insistence on
amendments to Clause 32.
"My Lords...I can give an assurance that
the Home Office intend to secure that children should not be emigrated
unless there is absolute satisfaction that proper arrangements
have been made for the care and the upbringing of each child."A
few still regarded the Bill as inadequate. In reply to all the
doubts raised the Home Secretary announced:
"All the points which have been raised
by my Honourable friends are those which will have to be covered
by the regulations when they are made...In drafting the first
regulations, I shall see that adequate attention is given to them...The
regulations will certainly require adequate arrangements to be
made for ensuring that the child who is being emigrated has the
same aftercare as that which is required by the Local Authority
child."These assurances satisfied MPs and the Bill became
law. Section 33 (Clause 32 in the Bill) gave the Secretary of
State the power to make regulations that would control the way
the voluntary organisations arranged child migration.Under the
Childrens' Act of 1948 the Secretary of State was given the legal
power to control the emigration arrangements made by the voluntary
organisations, but this was never used. No agency was required
to register. The last group of children was sent out to Australia
in 1967, but it was not until January 1982 that any regulations
were made—many decades too late. (Lost Children of the
Empire by Philip Bean and Joy Melville, 1989, pp 168-169).Former
Child Migrants' mothers, fathers and other elderly family members
are dying while the Child Migrants Trust are searching for them.
What civilised country, whose Prime Minister places human rights
issues at the top of his political agenda, can allow this violation
of human rights to continue?Any person on this Select Committee
who is over the age of 36, if their family circumstances had been
different, could have been deported—sent away—12,000
miles away from your country of birth, from your family and friends,
to the other side of the world, and lived for decades:
Having been told your family were dead—the
most cruel deception that can be inflicted on anyone.
Unaware that your name or birth date had been
carelessly changed.
Unable to obtain a passport because you haven't
enough, or any, family information.
Ignorant of the fact that you may have missed
out on your legal rights, that you have not only failed to inherit
any money, however little the sum, but any trinkets or family
photographs which every "normal" person treasures as
proof of identification with family.
Having no records because the policy of the
organisation which sent you overseas was to withhold your records
from you. You would have no birth certificate, and no knowledge
of any hereditary diseases which, unknowingly, you could pass
on to your children.These are some of the things which former
Child Migrants have lived with or, sadly, without—for decades.Many
of the children were finger-printed on their arrival at Fremantle,
Australia. Deported like criminals from their country of birth,
and treated like criminals in the country they had been deported
to—at an extremely young age and when they were in a very
vulnerable position.In his book The Scheme (often referred
to by former Child Migrants as The Scream) Dr Barry Coldrey
often uses terms to describe the Child Migrants of the Christian
Brothers institutions which are derogatory, insulting and degrading.
For example (our emphases used):
"The boys were placed in, or abandoned
to, the Irish and later Australian and Canadian institutions came
from the lowest level of the working class, a sub-culture with
which the Brothers had little experience. (p 348)
"The children were commonly those who had
been born illegitimate; and abandoned during the war years in
the United Kingdom; the desperate poverty and insecurity of their
early years in wartime British orphanages had made some of them
feral, uncontrollable young boys. They had negligible education
before reaching Australia and as tested were low IQ They were
little people of a kind which Australian Brothers had no experience.
Difficulties of adjustment on both sides were to be anticipated;
and problems there were—in abundance. (p 358)In regard to
the sexual activities of some of the Christian Brothers in regards
to the young children under their care, the Brothers have invariably
tried to reverse the blame and make the paedophiles within their
organisations the victims—for example:
"There were three other migrant boys who
had been through the courts. Their thieving propensities are second
only to their immoral practices.; (Brother) Doyle noted, and added,
"Ten other migrant boys were all guilty of immortal practices."
(page 390)
"Many of the boys were immortal in England.
They were in institutions where older boys used to go to work
outside. The dormitories were the principle sources of infection.
These boys inoculated (sic) each other on the way out. They were
guilty of bad practice on the way out—and started again
at Castledare, Clontarf and Tardun almost as soon as they arrived...
The percentage of bad cases is too high altogether in comparison
with similar troubles breaking out elsewhere." (page 391)Dr
Coldrey provides no proof that supports the sexual allegations
levelled against Child Migrants, or in support of the derogatory
terms he uses throughout the book.Many of the main voluntary bodies
who were involved in the Schemes have referred to any former Child
Migrants who have complained about the treatment they receive
while in their care as "a few malcontents", and
asked why they did not complain sooner, or when these deeds happened.It
is shown throughout Dr Coldrey's book that many Child Migrants
did complain at the time, but they were not believed. The particular
Brothers who featured in every complaint were believed—and
the boys in many cases received more punishment for their troubles.Throughout
this book Dr Coldrey often infers that former Child Migrants were
generally inferior in almost every aspect, in comparison to the
Australian boys, except in their sexual activities it seems. He
defends the acts of brutality dealt out by some Brothers against
the Child Migrants by saying that the type of punishment handed
out was acceptable "in these times". One only needs
to read the preface to understand where Dr Coldrey's interests
and loyalties lay:
"The author, Dr Barry Coldrey is from Victoria
and has never worked in Western Australia and has no ties here.
He is a Christian Brother who was invited to Perth to do an independent
study of the history of the Boys Homes. The only constraint on
him is his professional reputation. The Christian Brothers (WA/SA)
have co-operated in the work by opening their archives to him,
and by financing two trips to England, Ireland, Rome and Malta
to gather information. (again, our emphases)".On page 414
of Dr Coldrey's book it is noted that "two had been deported
to Britain". It is hard to imagine how these two former Child
Migrants have survived...or even if they have survived—given
that they were deported from their country of birth and then deported
from the country "chosen" for them back to their country
of birth—the full circle.Fairbridge representatives also
used derogatory, insulting and degrading terms when talking about
some groups of Child Migrants who had recently arrived. This excerpt
from a report by a Fairbridge representative to the Society's
headquarters in London about a party of children who arrived in
Australia, bound for a Fairbridge Farm School, on 19 May 1950
shockingly underlines the attitude towards them. A former Child
Migrant came across this Fairbridge Society report years later,
and it is easy to imagine his feelings as one of the group:
"This party is one of the worst which we
have ever received. From whichever aspect they are considered,
there is nothing to recommend them...My immediate reaction to
their appearance was unfavourable. They were unattractive, sullen
in their demeanour and quite different from the cheery children
we used to receive. I made contact immediately with the conducting
officers and their report was most adverse..."
"Before selection for such a chance in
life I think children should have their intelligence quotient
assessed and also, as far as possible, hereditary and emotional
tendencies reviewed..."
"The Immigration Medical Officer told me
after the examination of the children that from his point of view
they were the worst party he had seen and he expressed considerable
surprise that the majority of them had been passed as suitable
immigrants... his oral report to me in X's case (name withheld)
was that she was definitely dull and might be found on the psychiatric
examination to be held next Friday to be sub-normal...she has
a squint...she is certainly the worst from a medical point of
view..."
"Fairbridge cannot afford to handle children
of the type comprising the Largs Bay party. Such children created
a thoroughly bad impression on the voyage out and it is impossible
to prevent such impressions being broadcast...We may be able to
do something with the younger children in the party, but personally
I wrote of the older ones as being anything in the way of credit
to Fairbridge..."
"We have in the past featured that it is
an advantage to Australia to have immigrants of good sound British
stock. If they are neither good nor sound we must modify out statements
and lose one of our most profitable items of propaganda. (our
emphases) From Lost Children of the Empire by Philip Bean
and Joy Melville, page 113.In contrast, during the last 10 years
Margaret Humphreys has managed her campaign to bring the child
migration issue into the international arena with great dignity.
The time and quality of the therapeutic work that has taken place
with individuals has been achieved in a very quiet and low-key
manner. During this time Margaret Humphreys has never sought to
make headlines, re the sexual and psychological abuse that was
carried out, nor written any academic articles which might serve
to stigmatise former Child Migrants further. The Trust has tried
to deal with these issues in a diplomatic and sensitive manner,
with the focus on reuniting families and working constructively
with former Child Migrants who have been betrayed and deceived,
leaving them with little trust and low self-esteem. The difficult
and complex task of bringing Child Migrants home to their mothers
and fathers is complicated enough, but many former Child Migrants
have experienced brutalising childhoods in institutions where
they experienced physical and sexual abuse on a horrendous scale.
The difficult task of working with us has meant that the Trust
has, by necessity, had to concentrate on addressing the therapeutic
needs of former Child Migrants, rather than focusing entirely
on campaigning for us.The Association of Former Child Migrants
and their Families holds all governments involved in the sending
and receiving of Child Migrants under the British and Commonwealth
Child Migration Schemes responsible for the injustices they received.The
present British Government has the opportunity through this Select
Committee to take appropriate action to ensure that the injustices
done to former Child Migrants and their families through the Child
Migration Schemes are acknowledged, so that former Child Migrants
and their families receive the justice they deserve and their
right to (what the majority of people take for granted) a family
life.We are asking you to help us. It is not too late. We would
like to think that the British and Australian Governments can
work together as they did in the past to provide us with a package
of measures that will go some way to meet our practical and emotional
needs. There are opportunities that should be taken to ensure
that what remains of out lives can be lived with some peace and
contentment which often comes from knowing who you are and where
you belong.The Rt Hon Tony Blair MP said recently: "There
will be no forgotten people in the Britain I want to build."
Please don't let Britain's former Child Migrants be forgotten
any more.4.
# AcknowledgementsThe Association wishes to acknowledge
our members' appreciation to:The Child Migrants Trust—for
their wonderful professional service, which has given former Child
Migrants and their families the opportunity to have a more positive
and peaceful future.Nottinghamshire County Council - for
their continuing support, understanding and acknowledgement of
our position over the last 10 years.David Hinchliffe MP —for
his support and understanding of the child migration issues and
for bringing our plight to the attention of all politicians who
sit in the House of Commons.Margaret Humphreys —words
cannot express what many former Child Migrants and their families
feel for Margaret Humphreys. For the last 10 years Margaret Humphreys
has placed former Child Migrants and their families' needs before
her own personal and family needs, travelling the width and breadth
of the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Zimbabwe, America and
anywhere else in the world to reunite families and to provide
her quality professional counselling service.Without Margaret
Humphreys and her dedicated colleagues this Select Committee would
not be sitting, this submission would not have been written and
many hundreds of former Child Migrants would not have their own
families...their own identity.5.
# Recommendations of the International AssociationThe
International Association of Former Child Migrants and their Families
recommend that the Health Committee consider the following:
1. We would like the British Government to instigate
a series of meetings with all Governments involved in the Child
Migration Schemes to ensure that former Child Migrants receive
justice in the countries that deported them and in the countries
which received them. Britain should take the lead on this sensitive
human rights issue.
2. We would like the Government to set up a fund
to assist former Child Migrants to go back home to be reunited
with their family members, and we would like some form of compensation.
Payment of airfares by neutral body, such as Government or the
Child Migrants Trust, would enable former Child Migrants to return
to the United Kingdom to meet with their families with dignity
rather than having to return to the migrating agencies for charity.
3. Re-settlement procedures and a package for
former Child Migrants who choose to return to Britain permanently
and presently experience great hardship meeting requirements for
Government assistance. This will restore choice to former Child
Migrants who did not choose to leave their country of birth and
citizenship.
4. The International Association would like a
National Remembrance Monument at a place in Britain nominated
by the Association membership. This could be a small plaque or
garden etc. The members will decide what they want.
5. To call upon the Prime Minister, on behalf
of the Government, to apologise to Britain's former Child Migrants
and their families for the unnecessary pain and loss they have
suffered because of the Child Migration Schemes.
6. The Association of Former Child Migrants and
their Families want a full Judicial Inquiry into the Child Migration
Schemes. The Association believes that a full Judicial Inquiry
is absolutely necessary to ensure that former Child Migrants and
their families receive justice on this important human rights
issue and to ensure that the social policies which have affected
thousands of people, thousands of innocent young children who
had no power and no voice, can never be implemented again. The
Judicial Inquiry should have wide ranging Terms of Reference which
allows it to:
(a) Investigate all aspects of the Child
Migration Schemes.
(b) Investigate the British Government's
role in the Child Migration Schemes.
(c) Investigate the national voluntary bodies
role in taking care of the children when they were deported, when
they were in their care in the countries they were deported to
and their role after the children left their care.
(d) To call, if necessary subpoena, any
person or persons who were actively involved in the removal and
care of children through the Child Migration Schemes.
(e) To call Margaret Humphreys, Director
of the Child Migrants Trust, who is recognised internationally
for her professional work with the former Child Migrants and their
families and for her expertise in the area of separation and family
reunification.
(f) To visit each country involved in the
Schemes so that former Child Migrants and their families have
the opportunity to inform the Inquiry of the widespread abuse.
(g) To call the International Association
as a representative body of former Child Migrants and their Families.
(h) To enact policies which will address
all of the current needs of former Child Migrants and their families.
7. The Association would like the Child Migrants
Trust to be adequately funded. The Trust has been grossly under-funded
by British Governments over the last 10 years. They are working
with many hundreds of former Child Migrants and their families
on these very complex issues which were created by the social
policies of past British Governments. The Child Migrants Trust
provides a unique, specialised professional service which meets
the needs of former Child Migrants and their families. However,
this is necessarily a slow process and large numbers of former
Child Migrants want and need this service and want the Child Migrants
Trust to provide it. The Association would like the British Government
to provide adequate funding which allows each Social Worker and
Family Researcher employed by the Child Migrants Trust to work
with a small number of former Child Migrants and their families.
This will ensure that every former Child Migrant who, for decades,
has had no knowledge, no identity and no family can receive the
unique service provided by the Child Migrants Trust. The Child
Migrants Trust is the only neutral, specialised professional agency
working on behalf of former Child Migrants and the Association
wishes the Trust to be recognised by Government as the lead agency
in the field.
8. Protocols between Government departments and
the Child Migrants Trust to be established, to enable fast tracking
of research into the whereabouts of families of former Child Migrants.
In particular, arrangements to be developed with the General Register
Office, the Departments of Health and Social Security, and the
Army Records Office.
9. Central archiving of all records concerning
former Child Migrants currently held by the migrating agencies
at a neutral repository where they can be preserved for our descendants.
Our personal records could then be accessed with professional
support if needed, and without the pain and stigma of requesting
assistance from the migrating agency.
(a) Adequate funding for the creation of
a centralised database of Child Migrants' records to assist tracing
of lost relatives, easier accessibility of records, and to finally
provide a clear overview of the numbers of children migrated world-wide.
This database to be held by a neutral organisation, such as the
Child Migrants Trust.April 1998
| 
