Letter from the Director Fairbridge, to
the Clerk of the Committee
CHILD MIGRATION (CM 106A)Further
to our submission and oral evidence, I have just been reminded
by the Archivist at Liverpool University that between 6 and 9
July various historians and scholars into child welfare, including
child migration, are giving papers at a conference been held at
that time. If the Members of the Select Committee wish to understand
more fully the policies and reasons behind child migration this
would be the place to acquire that knowledge. It has been planned
for well over a year, and I understand that many eminent people
will be participating.Also at the University of Liverpool from
Barnardo's archives, NCH Action for Children Archives and our
own there are minutes and correspondence of the Council of Voluntary
Organisations for Child Migration for the period of 1951-65 which
is, I believe, relevant to the present Select Committee. I realise
that this is quite late into the whole procedure, but as Mr Dobson's
hearing is on 9 July I thought it worth drawing your attention
to the conference.Relating to our own evidence, I would like to
clarify Fairbridge's position regarding a clearing house agency
as I am not sure I properly articulated the reasons behind this.Fairbridge
feels that an independent and neutral agency is essential to ensure
that former migrants have the service and choice they deserve.
At present none of the agencies working in the field are either,
which includes the Child Migrants' Trust who have campaigned unstintingly
for former child migrants. More importantly, though, is the fact
that there are still people who are statelessthey have
no documentation to prove their identity and appear unable to
apply for citizenship for either Britain or their present code
of abode.My recommendation to form a Government agency is primarily
to enable the process of identity and reunification in the fastest,
least traumatic way possible. No voluntary agency would have the
authority or resources to communicate speedily with other Government
Departments both internally and internationally. A Government
agency would be in a position to call upon counselling and social
services resources quickly whereas, again, no voluntary agency
would have the authority. A government run agency would also have
the added effect of tacit recognition, if not formal recognition,
of child migrants which would go a long way to mitigating their
sense of unfair and unconcerned treatment from those in authority.
I hasten to add that I would envisage a multi-agency approach
with the statutory body acting in a co-ordination function. This
would not entail large resources but would ensure participation
by all sending agencies.If such an agency ran an access data base,
combining all names, dates of birth and sending agency concerned
(which would be provided by the sending agencies) they would be
able to offer a choice to former migrants quicklysuch choice
to include the child Migrants Trust and the sending agencies.
It would also be Fairbridge's recommendation that resources to
apply to sending agencies to ensure that they have the staff to
enable the process of reunification. At present I do not think
that any agency, except perhaps the Child Migrants Trust, whose
sold raison d'etre is to advise and help former child migrants,
have the resources to devote staff solely to the problems which
arise from child migration. It would be fair to say that Fairbridge
is in a different position to all other sending agencies as it
was the Fairbridge Society not Fairbridge which was involved with
child migration and Fairbridge now works with disaffected young
people in inner cities in the UK. We do not have the resources
to work with child migrants although we do as much as we possibly
can, such as obtaining birth certificates, enquiring on behalf
of former migrants from other agencies regarding records of relatives
and sending files to former migrants on request for all of which
we make no charge.I hope this has clarified Fairbridge's position.
We would not wish to detract from the work undertaken by other
agencies, and in particular the Child Migrants' Trust, but from
the experiences of Old Fairbridgians reported to us here we do
not feel that the Trust has the neutrality or confidence of many
former Fairbridgians, which is fundamental to making it all happen.
17 June 1998
PS: I have just received a letter from David Spicer
of the Child Migrants' Trust saying that the letter of agreement
which they used to ask former migrants to sign is no longer extant*
which does make the matter of exclusivity a lesser issue.
|