SECTION 1
1. CHILD MIGRATION—A
BRIEF HISTORY Britain
is the only country in the world with a sustained history of child
migration. Only Britain has used child migration as a significant
part of its child care policy over a period of four centuries
rather than as a brief and temporary expedient during times of
war or civil unrest. To its credit, Britain offered a welcome
to Jewish children escaping from Nazi Europe. Yet, at the very
same time, hundreds of British children were being sent overseas
as part of a hidden, shameful chapter in Britain's history.The
reality of this policy was to remove children, some as young as
three years old, from their homes, from their mothers and fathers,
from all that was familiar to them, and to ship them thousands
of miles away from their home country to institutions in distant
lands within the Commonwealth.The origins of the scheme go back
to 1618 when a 100 children were sent from London to Richmond,
Virginia which is now one of the United States of America. The
final group arrived in Australia in 1970. It is estimated that
child migration programmes were responsible for the removal of
over 130,000 children from the United Kingdom to Canada, New Zealand,
South Africa, the former Rhodesia and Australia.
Definitions and destinations In
the post-war era, approximately 7,000 children were shipped to
Australia while New Zealand, Rhodesia and Canada received a combined
total of about 1,300 children. Governments have not been able
to provide accurate statistics concerning the numbers of children
received from the United Kingdom. Many of the children were sent
without their parents' knowledge or consent. Even children in
Local Authority care were sent but they could only be migrated
with the permission of the Home Secretary.In this context, child
migration refers to children generally between the ages of three
and 14; the majority being between seven and 10. These children
were sent away with the expectation that they would never return,
to start new lives always without their families and often after
many years of harsh institutional care, in a foreign land.
Migrating agencies and motives Many
Child Migrants, British boys and girls, were sent overseas by
specialist agencies such as the Fairbridge Society, established
specifically for the purpose of migrating young children to populate
the empire with "Good White British stock". Well known
national charities such as Barnardos, which provided a wider range
of child care services, along with the Church of England, the
Methodist Church, the Salvation Army and the Catholic Church played
major roles. Such charitable agencies did not operate under the
more strict framework of regulations which controlled the work
of local authorities. It was this lack of accountability that
allowed the charities to make ad hoc decisions which forever changed
the lives of thousands of children and their families.In New Zealand,
children were often placed with foster parents while those in
Canada were entrusted to the care of farmers often without sufficient
preparation or supervision. Some Canadian farmers were even charged
with manslaughter, such was the extent of their cruelty. Very
few children were legally adopted overseas and the vast majority
spent their entire childhoods in large, cold institutions or farm
schools which accommodated up to 350 children.Child migration
was inspired by a variety of motives, few of which gave first
priority to the needs of the children involved. Consequently,
child migrants were viewed as a convenient source of cheap labour
on Canada's farms, as a means of boosting Australia's post-war
population and as a way to preserve a white, managerial elite
in the former Rhodesia. Certain groups of children were excluded
as countries would not accept physically handicapped or black
children, for example. One of the earlier motives of the schemes
had been to maintain the racial unity of Britain's Empire.There
was a misguided view that these British children could somehow
be given a fresh start many thousands of miles from all that was
familiar. The tragic reality for many children was appalling standards
of care which fell well below accepted standards found within
British institutions. Far too many children experienced practices
and policies which would not have been tolerated by British child
care agencies in that era. Children as young as seven sent to
institutions in Western Australia were involved in building works
without adequate food or basic safety measures. Many were injured
in building accidents at a time in their life when they would
have been in school or playing with their friends if they had
remained in the United Kingdom. During the same period in Britain,
many children were being placed into family based care away from
institutional settings because of advances in the knowledge of
children's developmental needs. But for most children destined
to be migrated there was no family life offered. In many respects,
child migration lagged behind both public opinion and enlightened
child care policies.
Rhetoric and reality Unfortunately,
insufficient attention and consideration was given to the long-term
implications of separating children from their families, their
friends, their social context and their country on a permanent
basis. Even if the children were to have remained throughout their
childhood within a children's home in the United Kingdom they
would have had the option of seeking out their families at a later
time; not so for child migrants who were told individually and
collectively that their parents were dead, that they were "war
orphans"; that they had nobody in the world and that their
country did not want them. The loss and bewilderment was profound.
Their sense of rejection and isolation was to remain with many
for the rest of their lives. After being told fanciful tales of
travel to the "Land of Milk and Honey" where children
ride to school on horseback and pick up fruit on the side of the
road, Child Migrants were sent to Australia without passports,
social histories or even the most basic documentation about their
identities. Brothers and sisters were frequently separated on
the docks and sent to different institutions in different parts
of the country; some were finger-printed and then loaded onto
the backs of trucks for long journeys to institutions in remote
regions, only to be put to work as labourers the next day. Many
felt an extreme sense of rejection by their family or country
of origin or both. Others felt rather like characters from one
of Kafka's novels; their sentence was obvious—exile from
their family and homeland—but the nature of their or their
parents' crime was a complete mystery. Many of these issues relate
to the deeply flawed assumptions which permeated many child migration
schemes. It was considered that a fresh start in a new country
was best achieved by cutting all the ties between a child migrant
and his or her mother and father and extended family. Only in
this context can certain strategies be understood, such as allowing
children to believe that they were orphans, even though their
parents were very much alive, or providing children with only
a short birth certificate which provides no details about their
parents.Indeed, if these children had really been orphans it would
have made it even more difficult to justify a policy of shipping
them thousands of miles away to remain in desolate institutions
or farm schools throughout their childhood. The most obvious solution
to the needs of such children would have involved attempts to
find foster or adoptive parents to try to replace in some way
what they had lost, namely their parents and an experience of
family life. However, as their parents were very much alive, adoption
was rarely considered since it is a complex legal process requiring
attempts to obtain the parents' consent. Instead, both the children
themselves and the wider public were confused and deceived by
the inappropriate and untruthful use of the label orphan.
A series of scandals Throughout
its long history, child migration has been punctuated by a series
of scandals. The lack of educational provision, the overwork and
inadequate pay, the suicides following episodes of ill-treatment,
and the appalling evidence of protracted physical and sexual abuse—all
have featured in official inquiries or newspaper headlines in
both nineteenth century Canada and South Africa as well as post-war
New Zealand and Australia. These variations on a theme represent
different forms of child abuse, involving a particularly vulnerable,
large group of British children whose interests have never been
safeguarded effectively and consistently. Unfortunately, lessons
learned after bitter experience in one country have rarely been
applied to child migration policies as a whole. Thus, large-scale
child migration to Canada involving nearly 90,000 children was
effectively stopped in 1924 following an official inquiry prompted
by extremely serious concerns about the ill-treatment of child
labourers. It was decided that the migration of children below
school leaving age must cease as it exposed too many children
to the risks of exploitation and abuse. Sadly, this argument was
not followed to its logical conclusion in respect of children
who were sent to other countries like Australia.
Safeguards and standardsSimilarly,
another vital opportunity to safeguard these vulnerable children
was missed when child migration resumed after the war. In 1948,
concerns were expressed about the poor standards of care being
offered to child migrants in terms of their selection, education
and after care by leading welfare agencies. The British Federation
of Social Workers claimed that many children faced "a new
life of drudgery" and called for a commission of inquiry.These
warning signals went unheeded. Again, in both Houses, during debates
on child care services, further calls for action to regulate more
closely the work of voluntary migration agencies were met with
promises and assurances from the Lord Chancellor and the Home
Secretary. Both argued that children would not be emigrated without
proper arrangements and that regulations would ensure that standards
of after care abroad would match those of children in local authority
care. However, no such regulations were made when they were most
needed during the first few decades after the war. These empty
assurances paved the way for widespread exploitation overseas. Thus,
the Children Act, 1948 did very little to protect one group of
British children who were most vulnerable—child migrants
who were sent thousands of miles away from their parents and homeland.
Sadly, the anxieties and fears expressed in Parliament were well
founded as later scandals proved time and time again. The failure
to provide the necessary safeguards which had been promised by
Government Ministers exposed many hundreds of children to severe
and damaging abuse. The assumption that the good intentions of
respected voluntary agencies were sufficient to protect young
children from abuse was shown to be entirely worthless. The British
Government's failure to insist upon more strict controls over
the activities of voluntary agencies was reinforced by a similar
poor performance by the Australian authorities in their inspection
and supervision of the quality of care offered to Child Migrants.
The resulting nightmare for some Child Migrants represented almost
the full realisation of a paedophile's dream, near Perth, in the
form of the large institutions administered by the Catholic Church,
under the auspices of the Christian Brothers. Even the Christian
Brothers themselves admitted, eventually, that at least several
Brothers were involved in the serious and repeated sexual abuse
of many child migrants who also suffered from outrageous brutality.More
than 250 men were prepared to endure protracted legal proceedings
to press their case for compensation. Few of them would endorse
the Government's faith in "good intentions" as a sufficient
safeguard for vulnerable children shipped almost to the other
side of the world.
Reaction and responsibility Unfortunately,
before the Child Migrants Trust was established in 1987, public
knowledge or awareness of Britain's child migrants was extremely
limited. Even today, many people react with a sense of shock and
disbelief that so many children were sent abroad so recently.
When ordinary men and women realise how vulnerable young children
were left without adequate protection overseas, they feel a deep
sense of shame. Those who pursue the matter further often discover
the extent of the abuse suffered by these children or the limited
help offered to them as adults. At this stage, their shame frequently
turns to anger.Given its discredited history, it is not surprising
that neither the Governments nor the agencies concerned with child
migration have been keen to accept any realistic measure of responsibility
for the human costs of these schemes. Similarly, there has not
been made available a fraction of the energy and investment to
reunite former Child Migrants with their families as was previously
given in order to separate them.
2. THE CHILD
MIGRATION EXPERIENCE The
sad circumstances of the Child Migration experience include the
following:
— These children were removed from Britain
often without the knowledge and consent of their parents.
— Few children were given adequate information
and honest, straightforward explanations to make an informed choice
about their migration.
— There was a lack of preparation to equip
these children for their new life in a different climate and culture.
— Child migration selection documents contained
scant information and, at times, incorrect factual details about
the child.
— Children asking about parents or family
left behind were frequently told that they were orphans, that
their parents were dead. Such statements were often a deliberate
deception.
— At times, children's names and birthdays
were changed for administrative convenience.
— Brothers and sisters were not always
cared for together or even sent to the same country.
— Many were placed in large institutions
isolated from the rest of the community and experienced severe
deprivation and near slave labour conditions. This is particularly
the case in Western Australia.
— As a result of child labour, many were
deprived of a basic education.
— Many experienced severe physical, sexual
and emotional abuse.
— They were inadequately prepared for life
outside of institutional accommodation.
— Many children were not given their full
birth certificate or any details about their family background
or medical history.
— As adults seeking family information
from the agencies in whose care they had been and from Government
Departments, their enquiries were often met with bureaucratic
indifference and, at times, calculated deception when information
has been made available.
— Many former Child Migrants have been
humiliated as adults by their lack of basic documentation and
remain confused about their nationality.
— Some parents were led to believe that
their children were being cared for by families in Britain when,
in fact, they had been sent to institutions overseas.
— Few arrangements were made to ensure
that children's inheritance rights were protected.While former
Child Migrants share many characteristics, they are also a varied
group as adults.On discharge from institutional care, usually
around 16 years of age, many former Child Migrants were placed
in labouring or domestic work on isolated farms. Others developed
itinerant lifestyles, often using boarding house accommodation
but rarely becoming involved in close, long-term relationships.
This pattern of adult adjustment seems particularly associated
with men who spent long periods in large, single-sex institutions.
Among those who report explicit episodes of abuse by residential
care staff, there is a high incidence of relationship difficulties,
alcoholism, low self-esteem, depression and other psychiatric
disorders.Many former Child Migrants have struggled to develop
basic skills in literacy and only a small minority were educated
beyond the minimum school leaving age.Certain groups of former
Child Migrants remain very loyal to the institutions and agencies
which provided for their care. Significant numbers have very positive
records of achievement at work and long-standing marriages. However,
their need to know about their family and medical background remains
profound.
Identity and illegitimacy Even
those with successful careers feel overwhelmed at times by the
many experiences of loss and deprivation which they have suffered
both before and after their migration. Many lack a coherent understanding
of both the reasons for their migration and their history of placements
with their family in Britain and in care. Some of the agencies
concerned with child migration did not employ qualified social
work staff and there was little appreciation of the significance
of this biographical information for a child's emotional development,
self-image and identity, even in terms of the state of knowledge
at that time. In addition, there was a belief by Catholic agencies
that it was better to avoid the stigma of illegitimacy by telling
the children that they were orphans. Consequently, as adults,
many former Child Migrants have had considerable difficulties
in adjusting to the realisation that their parents, who had not
died at the time of their emigration, might still be alive today.
Their confusion was reinforced by a popular perception in Australia
that the majority of Child Migrants were war orphans. In fact,
this description was true of only a tiny minority but it served
to prevent awkward questions being asked and difficult issues
being addressed by those concerned.It is important to remember
that among those former Child Migrants sent abroad in the post-war
period, even the youngest are now middle-aged. Consequently, time
is running out for many who wish to be reunited with their elderly
mothers and fathers in Britain before it is too late.
3. THE PRESENT
EXPERIENCE The largest group for
post-war Child Migrants was sent to Australia, one of the most
distant countries involved. Obviously, it is very difficult, expensive
and time-consuming for those sent abroad to find their mothers,
fathers, brothers or sisters in Britain. Even if this were possible,
it is not desirable for families who have been separated for more
than 40 years to be reunited without the option of support from
skilled professionals experienced in this delicate and specialised
field of work. The work of the Child Migrants Trust is based on
a twin track approach with a counselling service which is complemented
by a family history research and record retrieval service. Only
professionally qualified, very experienced Social Workers are
employed by the Trust for this emotionally demanding work. The
Trust's two offices in Australia in Perth and in Melbourne, both
funded by the Federal Government, liaise on a daily basis with
its staff in Nottingham.
Concerns and citizenship Both
public and political awareness of child migration as a matter
for public debate is much further advanced in Australia compared
to Britain. This is a result of extensive mass media coverage
and former Child Migrants speaking publicly about their difficulties
and concerns. In addition, there have been important civil and
criminal proceedings against the agencies involved in child migration
and their present or former staff members. The Child Migrants
Trust has played a crucial role in raising public awareness of
these issues through its books, articles and appearances in different
media.In 1993, the Australian media gave considerable publicity
to the formal apology by the Christian Brothers to those former
Child Migrants and other children who had suffered physical and
sexual abuse at any of their four institutions in Western Australia.
Civil proceedings for compensation by over 250 former residents
of these institutions led the Brothers to establish a Trust fund
to assist those concerned, the vast majority being former Child
Migrants from Britain. It was clear that the Nationality of former
Child Migrants was only one of several important issues which
had not been given sufficient consideration by those responsible
for Child Migration policies. Many former Child Migrants in Australia
did not realise that only those arriving before 1944 were automatically
granted Australian citizenship. Those migrated in the post-war
era had to apply for citizenship and pay a fee. Consequently,
many former Child Migrants remain British citizens, either through
choice or ignorance about their position. In a very few cases,
this policy resulted in former Child Migrants being deported back
to Britain as adults after being convicted of criminal offences.
The Trust has advocated on behalf of former Child Migrants in
Australia who no longer have to pay an application fee to take
up Australian citizenship.
Information and identityThe
plight of former Child Migrants in Australia has been of particular
concern to the Trust for a variety of reasons. Most former Child
Migrants were sent to Australia most recently where they received
the worst level of care. A vast number of these people have been
outrageously deceived for much of their lives and have suffered
the most profound loss. They were stripped of their identities
as children and then denied access to information about their
families. For years, many former Child Migrants have written pleading,
begging letters to the agencies who migrated then only to be met
with more lies, evasion and indifference.Every week, child migrants
previously unknown to the Trust come forward requesting assistance
to find their families, and still often describe themselves as
"war orphans". On a daily basis, men and women migrated
as children, now in their fifties through to their eighties, describe
to the Trust's social workers' accounts of trauma and abuse in
care. They describe the tangible impact of childhood abuse on
their lives, displayed through sleeping disorders and nightmares,
episodes of depression, an inability to form close, trusting relationships
and a lifetime of despair. Many former Child Migrants display
symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and recount in enormous
detail one or two specific incidents which have left indelible
scars. For example, numbers of child migrants have recounted the
degradation of having their hair shaved off as a punishment in
the presence of other children. This humiliation was perceived
by them as the final stripping of their identity.Aside from the
emotional damage observed by the Trust's workers many child migrants
today bear the physical scars of their childhood abuse. This includes
major hearing loss as a result of constant beatings to the head.
Some continue to receive surgical reconstructive treatment while
others live with constant pain from injuries received as children
in the care of charitable agencies.Child migrants who present
to the Trust describe an increase in their desperation to find
their families as the years advance, linked to their own ageing
and the dwindling possibilities that their parents may yet be
found alive. Further, they describe an escalation in their sense
of loss and confusion as they reach a point where their own children
have grown up and they reflect upon the key milestones in their
lives and their fragmented sense of identity. Many describe and
have written evidence of approaches made to the migrating agencies
and the governments for information about their families stretching
back over 40 years. Frequently, child migrants approach the Trust
with high levels of suspicion because of their previous contact
with other agencies. Many insist that they would only be prepared
to work with the Trust if they were assured that it has no organisational
links with the agencies who first migrated them and later failed
to provide them with personal documentation, aftercare and assistance
to find their families.
Charities and credibility The
experience of the mothers and fathers of child migrants has been
documented over the past 10 years. Many feel a deep sense of shock
and bewilderment at the circumstances of their lost children.
Whatever the situation surrounding the original separation of
the children from their families, the Trust has evidence that
it was the expectation of Child Migrants' parents that their children
would be protected and nurtured by the charitable agencies. The
stark reality of child migration is quite beyond the comprehension
of aged mothers who understood that their children were to be
adopted within the United Kingdom, or who requested short-term
care from the charitable agencies only to return after a brief
period to be told that their child had been adopted or in some
instances had died. Many mothers and fathers of Child Migrants
feel betrayed by the charitable agencies and they wonder how Government
could have allowed this to happen. This has raised significant
concerns about the credibility of the migrating agencies and leaves
many questions about the role of Government in these matters.
Passive or proactive The
services available to former Child Migrants tended to be quite
passive rather than proactive in approach before the Trust's advocacy
began to make an impact. Some agencies do not provide either counselling
or family research services but merely provide access to their
past records. A pensioner who was sent as a child to a Fairbridge
Farm School in Australia by Barnardos sought their help to find
his family as Fairbridge do not provide this service. Barnardos,
in turn, asked the Salvation Army to pursue these enquiries but
this request was rejected as he was born to parents who were not
married. In despair, he contacted the Trust and found that although
his mother had died, which he expected, he had a sister who was
looking forward to meeting him. They were reunited by the Trust
in England.Many former Child Migrants have no agency to return
to as some smaller agencies ceased to function when their particular
scheme came to an end. Consequently, no records can be traced
in Britain for the several hundred children sent to the former
Rhodesia and New Zealand in the post-war period by two different
voluntary agencies. Those who feel that they have not been given
full details about their family background as well as those with
experiences of abuse as children often prefer to approach the
Child Migrants Trust rather than return to an agency concerned
with their migration.Despite its limited budgets, the Trust has
developed a tradition of being prepared to take its services to
its clients especially those who live some considerable distance
from the Trust's offices. The Trust's Director has visited former
Child Migrants in all the countries involved this century, including
Zimbabwe, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Regular visits to
Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Eire are accepted as a routine
aspect of the Trust's work in counselling the families of former
Child Migrants. Other social work staff and Trustees have also
visited Australia, given its significance in the recent history
of child migration. It is difficult to convey the transformation
experienced by those clients who, having believed for perhaps
50 years that they were orphans, discover that they are not alone
in the world. Furthermore, often their mother or father is not
only alive and well, somewhere in Britain, but is looking forward
with some anxiety and much anticipation to meeting them as soon
as possible. Perhaps they can develop a relationship with their
elderly mother for only a few years, before serious illness or
death intervenes, but much can be accomplished during those vital
years.
Relatives and reunions Some
clients of the Trust have been reunited with large extended families
and been introduced to over 45 relatives during the course of
a hectic month's visit. Sadly, of course, some return to Britain
to pay their respects at the graveside or at a cemetery. However,
this at least provides a kind of closure, a resolution of their
search for some answers to urgent questions about their life.The
Trust's experience has demonstrated that provided sufficient support
and time for preparation has been made available to elderly relatives,
they can be expected to cope with reunions even after a prolonged
period of separation lasting many decades. Reunions involving
the same generation, such as a brother meeting a sister or half-sister,
tend to pose fewer difficulties and have become regular events
in the Trust's calendar. These experiences of meeting their family
for the first time are just as significant for those former Child
Migrants sent abroad in the pre-war period, despite their reduced
chances of meeting their parents. One 70 year old man, who left
these shores in 1938 and returned this year to meet his four brothers
and sisters stated that this was the first time in his life that
he actually felt that he was a member of a family. The benefits
can also be felt by those relatives whose lives have been enriched
by a reunion with their sons and daughters or brothers and sisters.
Funds and finances The
full potential of the Trust to reunite families has been frustrated
by its constant struggle for funds. Initially, the Trust applied
to the Department of Health with a proposal that an effective
level of service could be provided with a grant of £111,000
to begin in April 1990 followed by a grant of £92,000 in
each of the next two years. However, the Trust received only £20,000
in the first year with no further grants for the following two
years. Funding resumed again in April 1993 but after annual grants
of £30,000 over the past three years, the Trust now receives
£25,000 for the present financial year. This will be reduced
to £20,000 next year and there are no plans for any further
financial support from the Department of Health.The Trust's original
request for a total of £295,000 over three years has resulted
in grants over a nine year period which fall short of the target
by over £100,000. The need for a reasonable sum to be allocated
over a fairly short period was based on the specific and urgent
needs of the Trust's clients—to be reunited with elderly
parents while they were still alive. Similarly, the absence of
any grant for a period of two vital years deprived the Trust's
few staff of any sense of stability in terms of planning the delivery
of even the most basic level of service. Fortunately, the Trust
has been able to rely on the consistent goodwill and support of
Nottinghamshire County Council which provided the secondment of
the Trust's founder and Director, Margaret Humphreys. This bold
and generous decision has given the Trust a solid backbone of
reliable support. Other local authorities, for example, Liverpool
City Council and private donations from concerned members of the
public have also helped to maintain the Trust's services. The
Trust has also been very fortunate in having key staff members
who, whether paid or volunteers, have worked very long hours with
limited resources.
Rights and resources For
many former Child Migrants, especially those who retain their
British citizenship, the low level and erratic nature of the Government's
funding for the work of the Trust produces a very poor impression.
Many feel that the Government's failure to protect their interests
as children has been reinforced by the low priority given to financing
services for them as adults. Government funding for the Child
Migrants Trust is due to end next year but the difficulties and
deprivations suffered by some former Child Migrants will last
a lifetime. Many feel that their basic human rights have been neglected
and abused. Most simply ask for rights which the majority of the
public take for granted—the right to an identity, a copy
of their full birth certificate and an opportunity to be reunited
with their families.
4. SOME PROPOSALS
FOR FUTURE
ACTION In our view former Child
Migrants and their families require and should be entitled to
a fully comprehensive and specialised range of services. As a
neutral, independent agency, the Trust has been established in
order to meet the needs of this unique group of people. If former
Child Migrants are to be given the opportunity to be reunited
with their families before it is too late, urgent action is required
to enable the Trust to complete its vital work within a reasonable
period of time. The Government should give urgent consideration
to the following measures. 4.1 There must be adequate and secure
funding for the Child Migrants Trust if former Child Migrants
are not to be disadvantaged again as adults. The Trust's funding
by the Department of Health ends next year but the needs of former
Child Migrants demand a service for several more years at least.
The past levels of funding have been woefully inadequate and inconsistent,
given the nature of the tasks faced by the Trust. 4.2 A package
of resources which includes the payment of airfares to enable
families to be reunited. 4.3 Co-operation and assistance from government
departments in relation to accessing information to locate families. 4.4
The Trust should be assisted to compile and complete a world-wide
computerised database of former Child Migrants. This would require
the co-operation of governments and agencies. 4.5 Talks between
the British, Irish, Australian, Canadian and New Zealand governments
to ensure a co-ordinated response to the needs of this group of
people. 4.6 Our clients often speak of the need for an apology
and some form of public recognition of their suffering. There
are no plaques, monuments or museum exhibitions which refer to
this aspect of Britain's history. 4.7 The Trust has worked exclusively
and intensively for 10 years with this large group of British
subjects and their families. The work has been pioneering and
contains many lessons for contemporary child care policy and practice.
The Trust's experience needs to be collated and presented before
both public and professional audiences. However, this important
developmental and educational work cannot be undertaken with the
Trust's present limited resources.
| 
