Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
WEDNESDAY 20 MAY 1998
MR TOM
LUCE CB and MR
DAVID MATTHEWS.
Chairman
1. Good morning, colleagues. Can I welcome you to
this first session of the new inquiry into British child migrants.
Can I, first of all, begin with an apology. I have to leave the
Chair at about 20 past 12 to speak in a Debate in the Commons
Chamber. I do apologise for this. Mrs Wise will take over as Chair.
I will return to the Chair once the Debate is over. May I begin
by welcoming our witnesses for the first session, Mr Luce and
Mr Matthews. I wonder if you would be good enough to begin by
briefly introducing yourselves to the Committee.
(Mr Luce) Thank you, Chairman.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am the Head of Social Care
Policy in the Department of Health. The Social Care Group, of
which Herbert Laming and I are jointly head, covers a full range
of social services' responsibilities and our responsibilities
for children's social care. Mr David Matthews is a member of the
Group who covers, amongst other things, specifically the responsibilities
that we, like others, inherit for the emigration of children. 2.
We are most grateful to you. Can we also thank you for your written
evidence which was very helpful to the Committee.
(Mr Luce) It was entirely
Mr Matthews' work. 3. Thank you very much. Can I begin by asking
you both the most basic question that is put to me when I meet
people who were former migrants. People come over from Australia
or elsewhere in the world and ask, "Why did it happen?"
Could you give us some brief background and your views on why
this scheme began and why people appear, in some instances, to
have been treated rather badly.
(Mr Luce) To some degree
it has to be surmised. We do not pretend in the Department of
Health to be professional historians. What is clear is that the
various schemes have complex backgrounds, but if one starts with
the 19th century schemes and perhaps leaves out the sort of precursor
in the 17th century, there were two main motives for the schemes.
One was a philanthropic motive on the part—in the lead,
one might say—of various voluntary organisations and, indeed,
individual people who wanted to find some way of relieving the
terrible poverty and deprivation and appalling living conditions
of many children, particularly in the big cities, as a result
of industrialisation. These schemes had their origins in the days
that were described by Dickens: terrible family situations, appalling
living conditions for children, virtually non-existent or certainly
very unreliable child welfare schemes, many of which were actually
concentrated in what we now call the voluntary sector, although
in those days they would have regarded themselves as charitable
and philanthropic. It was natural that against that background
people would want to find some solution for, at any rate, some
of these children, a solution that did not seem to present itself
in Britain domestically. That was undoubtedly one reason. The
other reason was of a rather different kind, which was that the
British territories overseas were still at a relatively early
stage of their development and, in particular, Canada and Australia
were fighting very hard to develop their countries and their economies,
against a background where they faced enormous challenges in bringing
successful agriculture into their lands with a very small and
scattered population. So they wanted both to increase the population
of their countries and they also wanted, it must I think be recognised,
more pairs of hands for the labour force, including young pairs
of hands. That seems, from the perspective of modern day values—in
particular, the use of children for labour—to be something
objectionable; but, of course, it must be remembered that the
apprenticeship system and the indenture system for children (what
we would now call children) existed in this country as well. So
I think basically those are the two reasons for the origins of
the schemes in the last 150 years or so. 4. Accepting the point
that you make about none of you being professional historians,
I am well aware that these schemes go back a long, long time.
I am particularly concerned about the developments post-war. This
scheme operated in this country until 1967 and I suspect everybody
who is sat round this table in Committee could be eligible for
Australia or New Zealand or wherever if they were in a voluntary
care home. The key concern that we are anxious to establish, (bearing
in mind the huge amounts of written material you have received
in evidence from migrants), is why when Parliament passed the
1948 Children Act, that framework of supervision for children
in care did not appear to apply to youngsters who were placed
within the child migrant scheme.
(Mr Luce) I would say
to that, that if you go back—I do not want to emphasise
the historical perspective too much—but if one goes back
into the latter decades of the 19th century, it is quite clear
from the work that has been done in a number of really excellent
books, which I know yourself and I am sure other Committee members
are familiar with, that by the 1870s there was already a degree
of anxiety or even conflict arising over the emigration of children.
Very interestingly, is the report done in 1874 by Mr Doyle, who
was Poverty Law Inspector for the Local Government Board, which
was quite seriously critical of the arrangements that were being
made for children emigrating to Canada. It seems to me that one
can trace in that report, and in the controversy that it
created, the essential conflicts that have been with these schemes
ever since that time. In that report one sees quite clearly a
number of principles adopted by Mr Doyle, which can be seen really
as a statement of some of the most important child care values
that have been developed since; in particular, an emphasis on
the rights of parents and an emphasis on the rights of the child.
It was, to my mind, very interesting that that axis, that perspective
on the issue, was developed from a local government base. I think
it is clear that by the time one gets to the late 1940s and the
early 1950s, that the interests which were predominant in the
Curtis Report, which itself led to the 1948 Act, were in many
ways from that same perspective; although, of course, by then
they had been joined by many others, including many in voluntary
bodies. As I perceive it, the sort of conflict between the pressures
on successive British governments to help the Dominions and other
British-linked territories to develop their economies and develop
their populations remained a significant influence right up into
the 1950s; there was a conflict throughout that period between
the child care values that we would recognise today and the obligations
that successive British governments thought they had towards the
British territories overseas, particularly at certain key periods.
I would like to come in a moment, if I may, to the assumption
of your question about whether, in fact, the schemes were inadequately
regulated in the late 1940s or early 1950s; but before I come
on to that I would like to try and think back a little into the
general situation in Britain at that time. Britain, like other
countries, was coming to terms with a new world order after the
Second World War, which clearly had a number of menacing features.
It also had fought that war with a great deal of support and sacrifice
on the part of the British Dominions and other British territories,
not least Canada and Australia. So it is not, to my mind, surprising
that in that situation it wanted to consolidate and support its
relations with the Dominion countries. Therefore, I do not find
it personally very surprising that there remained within the Government
quite a strong instinct towards continuing to support their economies
and their populations as they then saw them. That said, it is
not clear to me from the papers that we have studied, that the
Home Office, which was then the responsible Department from the
child care point of view, departed significantly from the standards
that it was trying to apply in domestic child care matters. There
were quite a number of agreements and understandings, in particular,
with Australia. It had been part of Australian law since 1921
that the Federal Minister for Immigration should have a legal
guardianship role, vis a vis the children who were emigrating,
as individual children. 5. So you say that Australia had some responsibility
here for these children?
(Mr Luce) It seems to
me quite clear that the legacy of responsibility lies with three
parties. It lies with the United Kingdom Government. It lies with
the governments of the receiving countries. All of them passed
reciprocating legislation or made reciprocating arrangements in
their own public administration. It also lies with the sending
agencies. 6. I am conscious that you are not responsible for history
from 1600 whatever, but you have some responsibility for policy
now. Clearly this Committee is anxious to look at the contemporary
concerns of foreign migrants primarily. Can I put to you a concern
that I have. I personally was astonished, having worked in personal
social services and various agencies, to know absolutely nothing
about this issue. The scheme only ended in 1967. I started in
1968 and I knew nothing about it until I met an Australian who
told me about it in 1992. Am I right in thinking that there has
been some attempt at suppressing this history of this scheme?
If you feel this is unfair to put to a civil servant because I
respect the fact you may not wish to answer it—but am I
right in my opinion that there has been some attempt, at a fairly
high level, in respect of influencing people in governments by
voluntary organisations, by the churches concerned, to keep the
wraps on this matter and not address the concerns of foreign migrants?
(Mr Luce) I should say
that the Department of Health accepts its responsibilities. We
absolutely accept our share of responsibility from this inheritance. 7.
I am not asking you this. What I am saying to you is that I have
the impression that there has been an attempt to keep a lid on
this matter. Migrant said to me that this is a deliberate collusion,
in a sense, between voluntary organisations, certain church organisations,
and successive governments. Is that a false impression?
(Mr Luce) I would like
to think it was not a correct impression. Certainly from the Government
perspective these matters were very frequently legislated on.
Over the years they were subject to a good deal of public inquiry
and debate. They were, for example, in the 1920s looked at by
a Royal Commission on the Dominions. Certainly, in recent years,
I do not think that we would accept that we have made any attempts
to push it under the carpet or to suppress anything. It does seem
to me, on reading the material, that the activities of the Government
have been perfectly open. In debates on these matters—not
least in debates on the 1948 Act—there were very clear references
to the interests of charitable bodies, (churches and voluntary
organisations as well, of course) as well as to the interests
of the receiving countries. So it is all done, so far as I can
see, in an absolutely open and constitutional manner. 8. If that
is so, why is it that until very recently files were restricted?
Obviously you have been having debates on this matter and some
years ago I was pleased to see the previous Government subsequently
release certain records. However, I am concerned that those records
were not available to migrants and their organisations previously,
which would have enabled them to find out their legitimate concerns
about where they came from and who they were. Why did that happen?
Can you give me an assurance now—and Mr Matthews may wish
to comment on this before other colleagues come in—that
there are no files being held from migrants which would enable
them to learn about why they were treated in the way they were,
where they came from, and who they are.
(Mr Luce) Certainly, Chairman,
I will do my best to answer this. What I personally find very
puzzling about this is, what appears to us to be from the Government
material we have received, a relatively low level of inquiry and
complaint about the emigration schemes until the second half of
the 1970s. So far as we can see (and we cannot be absolutely certain
about it but as far as we can see) there was not a high level
of application—at any rate, to central government, or complaints
to central government. In our memorandum you have a list of the
files that to our very best knowledge and belief are the relevant
ones. I noted with interest that there were two or three Home
Office files, I think, going back to the 1950s or possibly the
1960s, which seem to be about complaints by young people, who
were emigrated to Canada, about what had happened there. It is
really in the latter part of the 1980s that pressures mounted.
I find it difficult to explain but that appears to be the situation.
When that happened and, in particular, as a consequence of the
Adjournment Debate that you yourself instigated, Chairman, we
looked very carefully at the arrangements for viewing these records.
In fact, I think Mr Matthews can elaborate on this. Someone from
the Department, or on the Department's behalf, actually looked
at all the files that appeared to be in the relevant classes in
the Public Records Office. We concluded that subject to certain
safeguards about privacy of individuals mentioned in these files,
that they could be opened and they could be released to people
who had bona fide interest in seeing the content. I have looked
at a number of them myself. In fact, I have brought some specimens
along. There are a couple of points to make. First of all when
children were emigrated by voluntary bodies there was no requirement
to get an individual consent from central government—whether
it would have been the Home Secretary up to 1991 or the Secretary
of State for Social Services thereafter—the actual references
to individual people tend to arise. They are not the prime case
papers about the emigration of those children. They tend to arise
because the Home Office approved these schemes. It approved sending
agencies. To judge from those files I must say it took those responsibilities
seriously, but some of those files contain lists of the children
whom it was proposed to emigrate under a scheme that was being
submitted for approval; or by a sending agency that was submitting
it for approval; so the Government's central records are not the
prime source of information on individual cases. Nevertheless,
we have now made them accessible. We fully believe, to the fullest
extent of our knowledge, that we have made them all accessible
to emigrated children or to people who are bona fide acting on
their behalf.
Audrey Wise
9. Obviously the current position of the Government
and the Department will be coloured by its perception of the past
situation. Although you have said you are not professional historians,
nevertheless in your evidence you have chosen to go back to 1618.
I noticed that in the very opening of the evidence it says: "Child
migration as a policy was, in a social climate very different
from that of today, a well-intended response to the needs of deprived
children." Now, I cannot speak for 1618. I cannot even speak
for 1948, but I can speak for a time when I was not only an adult
and a mother but also a local councillor coming into politics—in
babyhood, I went on the council at 21—and this was in the
late 1950s. This scheme was going for another 10 years. As an
active local councillor I knew nothing about it. When I came into
this House in 1974 I knew nothing about this. I can tell anyone
here who does not go back as far as that, that the social climate
was not all that different as to excuse some of the practices
which have emerged and are emerging. I find it absolutely scary
to know that if my parents had died I could have been one of these.
My children could have been one of these. This is not some dim
distant history. I feel it is necessary to put that on the record
and to ask if you have any further comments on this historical
perspective. Also, your evidence says there was much public debate.
But the public debate you have mentioned in your evidence, 1874,
you have also mentioned this morning the 1920s. You have even
mentioned 1948. I can tell you from absolute first-hand knowledge
that there are huge sections of the population most likely to
be affected by this practice, but there was no public debate because
there was no knowledge. Would you like to address the latter part
of this period.
(Mr Luce) Certainly. First
of all, you have referred to your experience as a councillor.
I think it is pretty clear that throughout the whole business,
the local government social services sector was a great deal less
keen on participating in these policies than were other sectors.
I think it would have been exceptionally rare, particularly in
the latter period, for a local authority to deliver a child in
its care into an emigration scheme. So far as public debate is
concerned, my point was that at the time the policy was being
shaped, including that in 1948—and the 1948 Act remained
the crucial bit of legislation until 1989—there was a good
deal of debate and the conflicts around the policy were quite
clearly visible in those debates: the conflict between a sense
of obligation to particularly the Dominions and the rising concern
from a child care perspective. David Matthews may want to add
but in the 1960s, the schemes finished in 1967, as I understand,
and had been petering out throughout that period, so I suppose
it is an example. It is a kind of something that goes on in a
relatively small way at that point and nothing really happens
to bring it to public notice, so it does not get widely noticed.
(Mr Matthews) I would like to add that
the number of children who went to Australia in the period from
the war is relatively small. I guess something like 7,000. That
is small both in the context of people getting assisted passages
as families going to countries like Australia, and also small
in the context of children that were in public care at the time.
So for those two reasons perhaps this was not noticed very much.
We draw attention to the Ross Report, which seems the most significant
of the reports that were done in that period around 1956. There
were a lot of other visits that we have not drawn attention to,
references to which can be seen on the files, to people going
and reporting back about the progress of children in Australia. 10.
Your answer illustrates very neatly my worries. I was going to
go on to this business of "relatively small" and you
anticipated that. Somewhere in your evidence you say that under
10,000 children went to Australia in the final period of migration
between 1947 and 1967. Under 10,000. Now, you choose to compare
that with people who went voluntarily to emigrate, which is an
entirely different thing, and with a number of children in care.
But it is possible to look at it in another way, is it not? 10,000
children is a lot; or even between 7 and 10,000 children is a
lot of children. This illustrates my concern that it still seems
to be the Department's view that this somehow is not a terribly
serious issue. "Only" 7,000 children or 10,000. Only.
I think that is a lot of children, especially when they were my
kind of children.
(Mr Luce) We entirely
accept that. 7,000 children, 7,000 souls, is a lot of children.
The point that David was trying to illustrate was, I think, in
response to your earlier question about why in the 1960s there
was not a higher degree of public awareness. There were no new
schemes launched. Basically, this was rather the tail end of a
long system, but we do entirely accept that those children at
the time (and still) are an important part of the shared inheritance
between the British governments and the sending agencies. The
other thing I would like to mention is that it does seem to me
that there is a very interesting difference between the report
by Mr Moss, done on behalf of the Home Office in 1951, and the
report done on behalf of the Commonwealth Relations Office by
Mr Ross five years later. What seems to me clearly to differ between
those two reports was the extent to which in the second one, what
one might call modern child care values were very plainly evident,
and the reluctance of Mr Ross's group to sanction the continuation
of the policy appears to me to be quite evident. They did find
some words to say that when it was all done to the higher standard,
that there were "still benefits to be had" or some such
phrase, but the difference in quality and character between those
two reports I thought was very significant. There is also evidence
that in the receiving countries it was not just a difference in
their economic circumstances. They were starting to feel recessionary
pressures and they had large populations anyway. It was also fairly
clear that child care values were beginning to come more to the
fore in their own attitudes. I entirely take Mrs Wise's point
but I would like to assure her that we do not regard the numbers
as significant of anything except of historic trend and a possible
explanation for her earlier point. We entirely accept that 7,000
or 10,000 or even 2,000 or 1,000 children would be a matter of
great seriousness; and we entirely accept our part in the inheritance
of responsibility for them whatever the numbers and whatever the
period in which their emigration occurred.
Mr Austin
11. You sought to make a distinction earlier between
the motivation in the 19th century and in the immediate pre-war
and post-war period. It seems to me that you were suggesting that
apart from the philanthropic element in the 19th century policy,
it was part of the policy of white colonisation and a reinforcement
of that. You were saying that what happened right up to the 1960s
was, in essence, no different from that; the motivation was still
the same. Your comment that this country had obligations to the
former Dominions who had supported us during the war, only seems
to reinforce the view that right up until recent history children
were seen as a commodity to be bartered for political and economic
purposes.
(Mr Luce) I do find it
personally, as well as officially, extremely difficult to comment
on the exact cast of motivation for things which happened that
distance in time. There are references in the papers, including
Parliamentary papers and the official papers, and one does come
across phrases like "British stock". That may well have
been a feature. But I would find it very hard to say that perhaps
at any time, particularly in the later years, in the 1960s, that
this was the predominant motivation. It seems to me pretty clear
that there were philanthropic motivations of a genuine kind that
lay behind the policy at all stages. There were also motives of
a different kind. I expressed somewhat differently earlier on
about the way in which successive British governments over a very
long period, including a period of extreme difficulty and very
fundamental world political change after the Second World War,
saw an obligation to support the Dominions. One could put it rather
differently. One could put it that they saw an interest to support
the development of democratic countries, particularly democratic
countries with strong ties to this one. But I am not sure I can
say any more than that.
Mr Gunnell
12. If I could ask you a question about the voluntary
organisations. It seems to me that you have told us the Government's
position, but implied in what you have said that there are a large
number of children who perhaps you hardly have the names for—certainly
no more than the names—children whose emigration was as
a result of the activities of the voluntary organisations. Now,
would it also be true that information is much less available
to those whose emigration was arranged through voluntary organisations?
Is there very frequently a reluctance from such organisations
to provide the data and to provide the information, since they
are organisations which quite frequently are charitable organisations?
They are raising money within this country at the moment for charitable
work which they are doing. Therefore, it cuts across their fund-raising.
It would be against their interests for their role in this whole
matter to be exposed today, because it may not help them in the
charitable work which they are trying to do now. Does one get
a sense of that reluctance and is there some mechanism by which
we can get a deal more co-operation from voluntary organisations
who were involved in charitable emigration?
(Mr Luce) Our perception
is that the voluntary organisations who in the past were emigrating
children, are doing what they can to help make available their
records to the children themselves, or to others with a bona fide
interest. It is not a particularly easy thing to do. I think I
am right in saying that until well after the war, until 1955,
that there was actually no legal obligation on any child care
agency to keep records for a specified time. I think I am right
in saying that it was only in 1991, under regulations made through
the Children Act of two years previously, that the Department
of Health put an obligation on local authorities and other agencies
dealing with child care to keep records for, I think it is now
75 years. The sending agencies do appear to have actually kept
records. They do appear to have kept records, although naturally
over a very long period some of those records will have met with
accidents, they will have been lost, or there will have been fires
or whatever. But our perception is that they are really trying
to be helpful. I know that there were perceptions—particularly
in the late 1980s when quite a lot of the contacts appeared to
have started from the emigrated children and organisations acting
on their behalf—there were perceptions at that time that
the going was very slow and there might have been some reluctance.
I do not think that is something I can comment upon. Our perception
is that sending agencies are really trying to be helpful.
Dr Brand
13. I might be able to accept that there was not
a conspiracy to keep it all quiet, but would you agree that your
evidence so far shows that certainly there has been enormous complacency
in government departments about this issue. As you say yourself,
you only got concerned when there was significant reaction. We
are dealing with vulnerable people in isolation, where perhaps
you might have anticipated that some support was required. I am
thinking very much of a recent event where local authorities were
placing children miles away, very often through agencies, and
we ended up with the Utting Report showing quite clearly that
we still have not got it right now.
(Mr Luce) That is a very
relevant point. I think we have to acknowledge it. It is a sad
acknowledgement to have to make that quite a number of the complaints
that have been made from emigrated children are complaints that
could, in the somewhat different context of domestic child care
policy, have been made and should have been anticipated better
than they were. What the Utting Report shows is that the level
of awareness of risk to children living away from home was at
the heart of the failures to police a child care system properly
in the 1960s and the 1970s and even during the 1980s. As you say,
no-one, against this background, would dare to guarantee that
these problems have been solved. So I think I would have to reply
to your question by saying—and it is not a happy acknowledgement
to make—that there were failures of prediction and failures
of awareness here or in other countries, in the receiving countries,
relating to the position of emigrated children. They were failures
which had parallels domestically.
Mr Walter
14. Very briefly I wanted to come back a little on
Mrs Wise's perceptions about what happened in terms of post-war
policy, and whilst accepting the fact that neither of you are
historians, just to ask you a mechanistic question about the internal
workings of the Department. The Children Act of 1948. In your
evidence you say: "Section 17 enabled a local authority with
the consent of the Secretary of State to procure or assist in
procuring the emigration of any child in their care." You
say there was provision for the emigration of a child who was
too young to express a proper opinion on the matter, with the
consent of the Secretary of State if the child was to emigrate.
Earlier on in that section it talks about the child giving consent
or the parent giving consent. Now, bearing in mind how governments
and departments worked, at what level within the Department was
that consent being given? Was it simply that somebody sent in
a form and a rubber stamp was put on it and it went back, or did
someone actually look at these cases?
(Mr Luce) It is difficult
to be absolutely certain, leaving aside the fact of the material
we have. 15. This was going on until 1967 from the evidence we
have.
(Mr Luce) I would say
that characteristically, where a consent of that kind is required
from a government department—whether it is the Home Office
or us or whoever—whereabouts in the hierarchy the decision
would be made would vary a little bit according to how novel the
case was in terms of the issues that it raised. What normally
happens in these situations is that there is a kind of framework
put together on the basis of the first year or so's experience
in which, unless there is some special consideration in an individual
case, cases which show certain characteristics would be agreed.
Cases which showed certain other characteristics would be disagreed.
That I think would normally be done by a professional and administrative
staff at around the level that used to be called principal which
is—I do not know how you situate these things—but
cases which are a middle-management level. Cases which showed
more complex characteristics would probably be dealt with at one
or two levels higher. Some cases, I would think, would tend to
be put to Ministers themselves. 16. So you think that some of these
cases did come before Ministers in that period?
(Mr Luce) I would not
be at all sure about that because the requirement for individual
consents related to local authority emigrated cases. There were
not a lot of those. There was not the same requirement for individual
consents by central government on emigrated cases for the voluntary
sector, which were the large majority of emigrated cases.
The particular provision that you read out about a child not being
capable of consent I think referred to a rather special category—this
is extremely complex and I cannot be certain that I have it quite
right—cases where a family was intending to emigrate for
some reason or other, perhaps because the children were wards
of court or for some reason of that kind; and it was very difficult
for the local consent to be given because the child was too young
or perhaps the child had some brain damage or whatever, so that
had to come into the centre. What I remember from reading proceedings
on the 1948 Act was that Mr Chuter Ede[24],
I think it was, said that he would not want the consent arrangements
to act in such a way that they split up families. I think certainly
one of the issues that arose in proceedings on the 1948 Act was
that. There were some exchanges in the House. It may be that the
bit you read out related to that. Generally speaking, the way
in which the administration of a Secretary of State consent would
work would be as I have explained. It would have to be very unusual
or difficult cases that went to a Minister. I do not know whether
any of them did but the number was, I suspect, quite small.
Mr Austin
17. In its first year of operations the Child Migrants'
Trust said that it received in the region of 1,000 inquiries.
I wonder if you can quantify how many representations or inquiries
were received by the British Government from former child migrants
prior to the establishing of the CMT. What was its official response
at that time?
(Mr Luce) So far as we
can tell, a very small number of inquiries and complaints were
received for the middle or latter part of the 1980s. I do not
think we have any example of what response they received. I did
mention earlier that the Home Office files, which are listed for
the Committee, showed that there was a small number of files that
appeared to be concerned with complaints from emigrated children
about what had happened to them. There are also a number of files
about failed immigrations, if I can use that expression, children
who came back when they were still quite young. We have a very
strong impression that before the middle to late 1980s there were
very few inquiries, complaints, applications for records. 18. Are
you suggesting that the Department was generally not aware of
the repercussions of the schemes on the individuals concerned?
(Mr Luce) I cannot be
absolutely certain what was in the Department of Health's mind
at that time. I think there was nothing happening much by way
of external pressure that would have put it higher on the Department's
agenda.
19. I appreciate that you cannot accept responsibility
for what governments were doing at that time, and that you cannot
answer for the sending agencies, but the Child Migrants' Trust
has claimed that inquiries to sending agencies and government
departments were often met with bureaucratic indifference. In
their evidence they have said: "... at times, calculated
deception when information has been made available." I wonder
if you would care to comment.
(Mr Luce) First of all,
I hope very much that there is no well-grounded case of calculated
deception in relation to a reply from the Department of Health.
So far as the bureaucratic indifference is concerned, I do not
really know. However, I think it is sometimes a sad fact that
people who approach government departments on anything they feel
very, very strongly about personally—and one can imagine
the depth of feeling there is amongst emigrated children—are
inclined to think that the style of the replies they get are not
equal to the circumstances that are concerning them. I hope that
there was not any real bureaucratic indifference. I cannot claim
that phenomenon never, ever exists but I like to think that in
our dealings in child care matters we go to considerable lengths
to avoid it.
24 Note by Witness: Hansard HOC Col 1863, 1948.
Back
|
