Ellen Wilkinson On Justice To Children

Southland Times, Issue 22207, 27 December 1933, Page 5

Ellen Wilkinson On Justice To Children

The following I read in the News Chronicle by Ellen Wilkinson. An important Act of Parliament came into operation recently in England. Some enthusiasts have already called it the Children’s Charter. While that is, perhaps, too high a claim for it, the Children’s Act, 1933, is a useful and longneeded piece of legislation. The previous Children’s Act was passed in 1908. Rudimentary and experimental as were many of its provisions, they seemed revolutionary compared with the terrible conditions existing for children in the slums of our large towns at that time. A whole new generation has grown up since then. Public opinion towards child-life has progressed considerably. Various special Acts have been passed in this long interval. The 1933 Act consolidates all these, with amendments to the old Act. It has proceeded very cautiously, with little of the reforming fervour that was behind the 1908 Act. It is an interesting coincidence that Sir Herbert Samuel was at the Home Office on both occasions (he was Under-Secretary in 1908). The new Act, with 109 clauses and six very important schedules, deals with the child problem in three main divisions—criminal children, neglected children, wage-earning children. The 1908 Act set up Children’s Courts for the first time, rather sketchily, with the same magistrates working in the same places, and with much the same procedure as the adult court. The 1933 Act provides for a special panel of magistrates selected for their knowledge of, and interest in, children’s work. It allows the Lord Chancellor to make special rules for procedure in children’s courts, and directs that a separate place must be provided for them. The Children’s Court might be in the same Town Hall, for example, but cannot now be held in the same courtroom. The age of the children who can be tried in the children’s court is raised from 16 to 17 years. These improvements are probably the best thing in the Act. They begin a new era of usefulness for Children s Courts, and, best of all, recognize the importance of guidance rather, than punishment. But the age of criminal responsibility” is only raised from seven to eight years, and the age at which the death penalty can be enforced is made 18 instead of 16. . Whipping as a punishment is retained. We have to thank the House ot Lords for that. , The 1908 Act allowed the Childrens Courts to consider cases of juveniles where no offence had actually been committed but where the children were living in bad homes of carefully defined kinds. No doubt the existence of these definitions has been a nuisance at times to social workers who wanted to rescue children from surroundings which were undoubtedly doing them harm, but which did not come within the categories. The 1933 Act abolishes these categories and provides instead a sweeping definition of what constitutes “being in need of care and protection.” There is just a danger of poverty by itself being regarded as a proof of unfitness to have the care of a child. You remember in the Chaplin film how. appalling was the garret in which “the kid” and his protector lived, but the love between the two more than made up for the lack of the amenities any institution was likely to offer the boy. Another rather disquieting, feature of the new Act provides that if a child is committed to an “industrial school the period of detention —whatever the offence—is now automatic. If under 14, he must stay three years or in any case until he is 14 years old; if over 14, three years but not over the age of 19. The Under-Secretary (then Mr Oliver Stanley) excused this on the singular ground that automatic sentences would avoid sensational headlines —three years for stealing three apples and that sort of thing. But if the boy is deprived of his liberty for three years for stealing three apples there ought to be Press headlines about it. Such headlines have not infrequently forced the redress of injustice. It is a popular safeguard, none the less needed because helpless children are involved. No provision is made in the Act for extension of remand homes for children, although an average of about 3000 young people a year make their first acquaintance with prison in this way. The Ministry claims to save £BOOO a year by administration through this Act. Wage-earning Children. The Act raises the age of prohibition of street trading by childdren from 14 to 16 years of age and gives local authorities power by local by-laws to regulate such trading for another two years. But it has refused to regulate the laws of wageearning children under 18. It is estimated that at least 400,000 youngsters under 18 are working in completely unregulated trades, and some for very long hours. Those who come under the Factory Acts and the Shop Acts are not much better off. The former allows up to 60 hours a week, and the Shops Acts graciously fixed 74 hours, exclusive of meal times, as the maximum for young persons under 18. Recently, as a trade union official, I had to deal with a case of a lad whose death was directly due to the very long hours he had been working. M.P.’s as dissimilar in views as Lady Astor and George Lansbury fought side by side to have some regulation for children’s hours included in the Bill. After much agitation outside as well as inside Parliament the Government took power in Section 19 to allow the local authorities to make by-laws regulating the hours of youngsters under the age of 18. But except for van, errand and messenger boys, they are not allowed to regulate the hours of young persons employed in the transport, building or engineering trades, in agriculture or domestic service, in shipping or in any factory, vzorkshop, mine, quarry or office.

But if they can find children working in any other trade they may make regulations for them: only Section 19 does not come into force to-day. It has to wait for a special resolution of Parliament.

Fortunately, the care of the children does not wholly depend on Acts of Parliament, and there is much in the Act which, given eager, kindly spirits to work it, may do something to help the overworked or neglected or illtreated children of our land.