For those, still not in the know, there was policy of migrating young people from Britain to bits of the former British Empire in the expectation that they would have a better life.
Some did, some didn’t, and while the motivations of those engaged in the programme were mixed, there is a now a generally held view that the policy was wrong, and the British and Australian Governments have said so.
Of course, the debate should still be placed in a historical context, where in the 19th century Governments remained slow to take responsibility for the poor, and the fate of destitute children or those whose parents were neglectful and sometime abusive.
Only slowly did that change as we edged toward the 20th century, leaving much of the work of caring for such people to charities, which sadly in the first decades of this century is being repeated.
The more I study BHC, the more complicated it becomes, but for most of us, one of the simple truths we wanted shared was that the British, Canadian and Australian Governments recognized that there were great injustices in the policy.
Some want an apology, which is a position which remains controversial. After all, should the modern democratic government of Germany along with other European states apologize for the Holocaust, or the Italian Government for the atrocities undertaken by the Roman Republic on the people of Carthage?
Apologies on their own are meaningless, but they do point to, and highlight that a wrong was committed, and that is a start, allowing those caught up in the events to feel that they and their experiences matter.
And in the case of the Holocaust, that is what Germany has done, rightly paying $89 billion, since 1952, in compensation for the crimes of the Nazi regime. We may think the figure should be more, but the principle is there.
So, we come to the announcement this week that the British Government has set in motion a scheme of compensation, stating that “The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) Interim Report and its report on Child Migration Programmes were both published in Spring 2018.
The Inquiry recommended that the UK Government establish a financial redress scheme for surviving former British child migrants on the basis that they were exposed to the risk of sexual abuse.
On 19th December the Government published its response to the Inquiry. The response announced that the Government would establish an ex-gratia payment scheme for former British child migrants, in recognition of the fundamentally flawed nature of the historic child migration policy.”*
It is limited “to any former British child migrant who was alive on 1 March 2018, or the beneficiaries of any former child migrant who was alive on 1 March 2018 and has since passed away”
And that qualification appears to have upset some, who if I have read their arguments correctly, feel it devalues those BHC who died before that date, while others have argued the money should be better spent on some form of memorial, be it a museum or perhaps a series of bursaries to extend the study of BHC.
Our own British Home Child died long ago, although exactly where and when remains a mystery, and so for us at least the payment is academic.
But even if it weren’t and our great uncle Roger could have benefited, the payment is about much more.
Our legal system is predicated on the idea of justice, and for many that rightly translates in to compensation.
But money cannot bring back the health of a loved one whose medical care was botched, or whose life was taken away by a faulty car, gas boiler, or aircraft.
Instead the money becomes a statement, …… a ringing endorsement that something wrong happened and by extension that applies to all those who were involved, from the very first who left in 1869 to those still being sent in the 1970s to Australia.
And that I think remains the significance of the British Government’s decision.
“It was never just about the money”.
Pictures; courtesy of the Together Trust, https://www.togethertrust.org.uk/
* British Government, https://www.childmigrantstrust.com/news/2019/1/30/ex-gratia-payment-scheme-for-former-british-child-migrants?fbclid=IwAR34pgNJmnwoIb8Pujyj1IjFONNZdzbFUNMIAj5OYp7CQSVClH2NIW8rMvY
 |
| On admission to the charity |
Of course, the debate should still be placed in a historical context, where in the 19th century Governments remained slow to take responsibility for the poor, and the fate of destitute children or those whose parents were neglectful and sometime abusive.
Only slowly did that change as we edged toward the 20th century, leaving much of the work of caring for such people to charities, which sadly in the first decades of this century is being repeated.
The more I study BHC, the more complicated it becomes, but for most of us, one of the simple truths we wanted shared was that the British, Canadian and Australian Governments recognized that there were great injustices in the policy.
Some want an apology, which is a position which remains controversial. After all, should the modern democratic government of Germany along with other European states apologize for the Holocaust, or the Italian Government for the atrocities undertaken by the Roman Republic on the people of Carthage?
 |
| Emma on admission |
And in the case of the Holocaust, that is what Germany has done, rightly paying $89 billion, since 1952, in compensation for the crimes of the Nazi regime. We may think the figure should be more, but the principle is there.
So, we come to the announcement this week that the British Government has set in motion a scheme of compensation, stating that “The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) Interim Report and its report on Child Migration Programmes were both published in Spring 2018.
The Inquiry recommended that the UK Government establish a financial redress scheme for surviving former British child migrants on the basis that they were exposed to the risk of sexual abuse.
On 19th December the Government published its response to the Inquiry. The response announced that the Government would establish an ex-gratia payment scheme for former British child migrants, in recognition of the fundamentally flawed nature of the historic child migration policy.”*
 |
| Emma after admission |
Our own British Home Child died long ago, although exactly where and when remains a mystery, and so for us at least the payment is academic.
But even if it weren’t and our great uncle Roger could have benefited, the payment is about much more.
Our legal system is predicated on the idea of justice, and for many that rightly translates in to compensation.
But money cannot bring back the health of a loved one whose medical care was botched, or whose life was taken away by a faulty car, gas boiler, or aircraft.
 |
| Thomas Bowers helped by the charity |
And that I think remains the significance of the British Government’s decision.
“It was never just about the money”.
Pictures; courtesy of the Together Trust, https://www.togethertrust.org.uk/
* British Government, https://www.childmigrantstrust.com/news/2019/1/30/ex-gratia-payment-scheme-for-former-british-child-migrants?fbclid=IwAR34pgNJmnwoIb8Pujyj1IjFONNZdzbFUNMIAj5OYp7CQSVClH2NIW8rMvY
Thank you for your excellent piece on the BHC.We have two BHCs in our ancestry, sent to Canada in the 1880s.They didn't experience physical abuse but emotional abuse and they were denied an education that was promised when they were surrendered to their respective sheltering homes. They both died believing their parents deserted them and that they were inferior because of that. I did the research too late to help them discover the real reason they were sent to Canada. My grandmother raised me and I knew her well enough to believe that she would say set up a memorial fund to benefit the migrant children who are suffering even now.
ReplyDelete