You are here
قراءة كتاب Report of the Juvenile Delinquency Committee
تنويه: تعرض هنا نبذة من اول ١٠ صفحات فقط من الكتاب الالكتروني، لقراءة الكتاب كاملا اضغط على الزر “اشتر الآن"
Report of the Juvenile Delinquency Committee
Bill I sent you you will find Part I devoted to preventive work, and clause 1 begins, 'It shall be the duty of the Superintendent to take positive action to prevent children, etc.'.
"(2) On page 1 the definition of 'Child in need of care and protection' is so widened as to cover every possible type of preventive case, if read in conjunction with the amendments passed during last session and with the Cabinet authorities to spend public funds on such children.
"We do not think it necessary to increase the powers of Child Welfare Officers for these purposes. To give them more actual powers over children who have not committed an offence would be to risk justifiable public objection to interference with the liberty of the subject and the rights of parents."
Page 58, paragraph (b)
In its report the Mazengarb Committee said that the establishment a few years ago of a Ministry of Social Welfare, and the urgent need for more preventive work to be done, suggest the possibility of better administration if "child welfare" were given an independent status under the Ministry for Social Welfare.
This suggestion was examined by the Director of Education and by the Superintendent of the Child Welfare Division of the Department of Education. They reported fully to us, and their views are set out below in summarized form.
The strongest arguments that were placed before us in support of the view that child welfare should be a separate and independent Department were to the following effect:
(1) The Superintendent would—as the head of his own Department—be the captain of his own ship subject only to the direction of his own Minister.
(2) The Director of Education has a huge Department of his own to administer, and he cannot be expected to give to child welfare the full measure of attention it should have.
(3) The Minister of Education must in the main find his principal and absorbing interest in the school system, and he could hardly devote to child welfare the same degree of attention that could be expected from the Minister of Social Welfare.
(4) There would be times when the Superintendent must find it burdensome to have to work through a Department with far-reaching special interests of its own.
(5) The public standing and prestige of the Superintendent of Child Welfare would be enhanced if he were recognized as the head of his own independent Department.
The arguments on the other side may be summarized in the following way:
(1) Child welfare by itself would make a relatively small Department and as such it might tend to become inbred and to stagnate.
(2) A separate Department of Child Welfare would cost more than at present because it would not be able to rely upon some of the staffing and administrative facilities of the Department of Education.
(3) Some of the institutions now conducted or controlled by child welfare are really schools and as such they would always need to be under the real control of the Department of Education.
(4) In actual practice no one could define with precision where the functions of child welfare could be separated from those of education.
(5) Over the years child welfare and education have worked out their own joint policy of administration. They have in fact worked along in harmony and with effective co-operation, and there appeared to be no sound reason for disturbing a set-up which was in fact efficient, economical, and harmonious.
We were completely satisfied that the present arrangement has the full support of the Director of Education and the Superintendent of Child Welfare. This view has also the support of the Public Service Commission. After a study of the evidence that was placed before us we came to the unanimous conclusion that matters should be left as they are.
If it was decided by Government that child welfare should remain linked with the Department of Education it would be advisable that some form of administrative procedure should be worked out to define the relations between the Director of Education and the Superintendent of Child Welfare in so far as their respective approaches to the Minister of Education and the Minister of Social Welfare are concerned. It was clear to us that the present set-up is both efficient and harmonious. A detailed plan for the due performance of the various duties was worked out and agreed to by all interested parties. As it is a purely administrative matter, we have not felt that it was necessary to embody it in this report. Suffice it to say that in our opinion child welfare should remain a part of the Department of Education, that its Superintendent should have a right of direct reference to the Minister of Social Welfare, that the Minister of Social Welfare should be directly responsible for the administration of the vote applicable to the Child Welfare Division, and that the administrative plan placed before us should be adopted and applied unless and until varied by agreement between the Ministers concerned.
Page 59, paragraph (c)
Dr Beeby said:
"It is true that no regulations have ever been gazetted prescribing the duties of Child Welfare Officers. The provisions for them under the Act are merely permissive, and we think it would be a retrograde step to gazette any. The duties of the Superintendent are adequately defined in the Act, and, as in other parts of the Public Service, he delegates such of those powers as he thinks fit to his subordinates. The Division's work has been done on this basis since the passing of the Act, and we can recall no incident where the absence of regulations has caused any difficulty. To define the powers might well be to restrict them and to interfere with the very preventive work we all desire.
"There should, as the Committee suggests, be some mention of Honorary Child Welfare Officers in the Act, but their powers, again, are better given by delegation than by legislation. It is very desirable that the extent to which use is made of an Honorary Officer's services be allowed to vary with the requirements of the district and the ability of the officer."
We agree with the views expressed above by Dr Beeby.
Page 59, paragraph (d)
The Mazengarb Committee pointed out that the practice and procedure of the Children's Court may tend to vary from place to place throughout the Dominion because the Court was not presided over by its own specially appointed Magistrate.
On this point the Director of Education said:
"This comment is true. The position has arisen because of the practical difficulties of having the work carried out by specially appointed Magistrates. The volume of work involved could justify the appointment of only a few such Magistrates, and, because of the geographical spread of the work, they could not handle it expeditiously."
On this point we have no recommendations to make. We feel that the best possible results are being secured by the Magistrates having regard to their numbers and to the conditions under which they work.
Page 59, paragraph (e)
The Mazengarb Committee felt that it was a pity that proceedings in the Children's Court were not conducted in a separate and distinct building. It should at least be possible, said the report, to hear and determine the cases in a room other than the ordinary Court room of a Magistrate's Court. This was rather in the nature of a counsel of perfection. In less-densely populated districts it would not be easy or economic to provide separate accommodation of the kind envisaged. In larger and busier centres it