Britain's stolen children.

It has been said that Britain is the only country to export its children.

From the 17th century until 1969--when the traffic just fizzled out--some 30,000 children were `exported' to colonies and dominions of the old Empire.

It started with the North American colonies, then (after independence) spread to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), and the British West Indies.

It is thought that one in ten modern-day residents of eastern Canada is descended from British child migrants. Child migration to that country ceased in 1939. After World War II the slack was taken up by Australia, where entire ships were chartered for this purpose.

The children, aged between about five and 14, were supposedly orphans, though this is hotly disputed, and supposedly (at least in the latter years) volunteers, which is also challenged.

The traffic was conducted openly, with occasional photographs of departing youngsters in newspapers. Yet very few people--certainly in modern times--seem to have known about it.

Writers and sociologists have given them various names: `lost children of the Empire', `Leaving of Liverpool kids' (after a TV programme), and the white `stolen children'.

There are other categories of `stolen children', probably the best known being Australian Aboriginal and American Indian native children removed from their parents to be raised in institutions or by white foster parents.

The disappeared

There are also the Argentinian children--Los Desaparecidos (the disappeared)--`stolen' from political prisoners and raised by families loyal to the former ruling junta. In a similar category are the many Aryan-looking children taken by Nazi troops from Poland and other occupied countries to be raised under the notorious Lebensborn scheme.

Common features of people within all the above groups are dysfunctional behaviour patterns and an understandable desire to find their roots.

The schemes were, for the most part, well intentioned. In the case of the British children it has been said that those who engineered the scheme probably sent their own children to boarding schools at the age of six or seven--so why not to the other end of the world?

Child migration was organized on a government to government basis. The British Government saw it as a means of `seeding the empire' and giving deprived children `a new start in a new land'. There was also the benefit--not publicly expressed--of getting rid of a social problem by transferring it elsewhere.

The Australian Government shared the official British view, and probably--again this was not publicly stated--saw the kids as useful cannon fodder in a revived (post-World War II) threat from Japan.

The actual work of sending, receiving and caring for the children was put into the hands of some 35 Christian charities and religious bodies--the Salvation Army, Barnardos, the Fairbridge Organization, the Christian Brothers, Sisters of Mercy and the Sisters of Nazareth being the best known.

Regrettably, many of the orphanages to which children were sent were appallingly run, with serial sex offenders and men (and women) of sadistic temperaments in key positions.

This situation went well beyond the `few bad apples' defence often used by these institutions. Fear of scandal caused some religious leaders deliberately to cover up this quite appalling situation, thus making it worse.

Currently there are attempts at reconciliation, with--as in the case of the Aboriginal children--an argument about who should say sorry and precisely what this means.

Quite recently, British Prime Minister Tony Blair met a former child migrant at 10 Downing Street and `apologized' for child migration. He followed this up by announcing a grant of [pounds sterling] 1 million to assist former child migrants in various ways--mainly by creating a database to assist those seeking to trace their next of kin.

A House of Commons committee, which investigated the problem, suggested that the Australian Government should conduct a formal inquiry and, if necessary, prosecute sex offenders. The Australian response, rather unsportingly, was (in the words of a government minister): `The Pommies sent them here. It's their problem.'

Meanwhile, both groups blame the state governments and church organizations, who reply, in turn, that they were merely middle men. It's the best game of musical chairs in town.

Positive attitude

At the time of writing there is a glimmer of hope, thanks largely to a more positive attitude by many of the participating religious groups. They have gone from a phase of denial to one of actively seeking reconciliation and offering air tickets, counselling, housing loans and other practical measures which complement--though the churches actually got in first--the British Government proposals.

The issues are clouded by lawsuits which make apologies and admissions seem risky, and also lend ammunition to those who say accusations of ill-treatment are invented, the whole thing being purely a money-making exercise.

Sadly, for many the willingness to help is too late. All too often reunion with a parent or close relative, when it occurs, is with a headstone rather than a living person.