Youth Parliament
Friday 30 October 2009
The UK Youth Parliament, sitting in the House of Commons, met at twenty minutes past Eleven o’clock
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
11.20
am
Mr.
Speaker: Good morning and welcome. This is an historic
occasion. It is one that I hope you will enjoy and all of us will
treasure.
On
13 March this year, Parliament decided that this great event should
take place. In the whole history of the House of Commons, you
are the first body of people other than Members of Parliament
themselves to be allowed to use this Chamber. I, however, am not
entirely new to the Youth Parliament and the Youth Parliament is not
entirely new to me. I had the great privilege of visiting Canterbury on
27 July this year, just after the House had gone into recess, to speak
to the annual conference of your Parliament, and I am conscious of the
strength of the Parliament, the skills that it embodies and the future
opportunities that it will
create.
I
want to say at the outset, by way of tribute to you as Members of the
Youth Parliament, that I and my colleagues the Leader of the House of
Commons, Harriet Harman, the deputy shadow Leader, Shailesh Vara, and
the Liberal Democrat shadow Leader, David Heath, all greatly respect,
among other things, just how inclusive your Parliament is, not merely
in the obvious sense that it brings together young people from right
across the country but in the sense that it is substantially more
representative of the country as a whole than the House of Commons as
presently
constituted.
I
know—and it is hugely to your credit—that consistently,
50 per cent. of your Members are women; something like 22 per cent. of
you are drawn from the ethnic minorities communities that so enrich our
country; and 3 per cent. of you are young people with disabilities. All
of those statistics are better than we have in our
Parliament.
You
debate important issues, you have shown real initiative and you enjoy
great debating prowess. You met this morning in Westminster Hall, which
itself boasts 800 years of parliamentary history. The debates today
will be recorded in the usual way by Hansard, and they will also
be recorded for subsequent transmission on BBC Parliament.
I hope you
are going to enjoy the day. I just want to say two other things that I
hope are of some relevance before I ask the Leader of the House to say
some words to you. First, whatever the imperfections of our system of
government and representation—I know, and all Members of
Parliament know, that we need greatly to improve—we are, I
think, proud that we have in this country a democracy. Before I became
Speaker of the House of Commons, for many years, with many colleagues
of many different parties, I took a great interest in the plight of the
poorest people on the planet. Visiting many poor countries, I was
struck often by the fact that the poverty was either created or
exacerbated by bad government—by tyrannical leaders; by despots;
and in some cases by people responsible for genocide.
In many of
those countries, you could not speak your mind. If you did, you would
be arrested, imprisoned, tortured, raped or killed. It is hugely to the
credit of our country that we have a democracy, and the significant
point about it is that you can, when of age, choose who represents you
and then, after a while, if you think you made the wrong choice, or if
you think the person you chose is no longer the right person, you can
change your choice. That is the beauty of our
system.
The
second point I want to make to you, which you know, and which we should
communicate loudly and clearly to the outside world, is that politics,
whatever you think of it and whatever you think of individual parties
and particular leaders, does matter, because it will affect you, your
friends, your family and the future of your country.
The sort of
economy we have; the quality of education that we enjoy; the scale of
health service provision that we can offer; the state of our transport
infrastructure; the effectiveness of our fight against crime; the means
that we adopt to protect and nurture our environment; the state of our
relations with other countries; and what we do to help the poorest and
most destitute people on the face of the planet: all those depend on
the decisions we make, the laws that we pass and the money that we
spend. That is why politics matters.
I,
personally, am thrilled to welcome you here today. I look forward to
the proceedings getting under way, but just before they do, I would
like to ask the Leader of the House of Commons, Harriet Harman, to say
a few words to you.
The
Leader of the House of Commons (Ms Harriet Harman): I wish
to say just a few words of welcome, because I know that you are keen to
get on with the debate. First, I wish to congratulate each and every
one of you on being elected. You have already done a tremendous thing
by being elected to the UK Youth Parliament. Congratulations on being
here on what is, as Mr. Speaker said, an historic day for
Parliament and one that I hope that you will remember all your
lives.
As Leader of
the House of Commons, I welcome you here today and shall just say a few
words about where you are. This Bench to the right of the Speaker is
where Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister sits, and I sit next to him as
Leader of the House, and it is where the Cabinet sits. The Benches
behind are where Government Back Benchers sit. Over here to the left of
the Speaker is the Opposition Front Bench, where David
Cameron, the leader of the Official Opposition sits, and it is where
the shadow Cabinet sits. I was on these Benches for 18 years
trying to get over to the other side, the Government side.
The Liberal
Democrats sit on that Bench beyond the Gangway, and it is where Nick
Clegg sits. The Scottish Nationalists sit behind them, and people from
Northern Ireland. Most of the Benches opposite them are for Labour Back
Benchers, and on the front row sit members of what is called the
awkward squad, who give everybody a hard time when they are
speaking.
I
hope that you will hugely enjoy the day. Do not be nervous, because you
are going to do a great job. We are going to leave you now to get on
with your really important debates, but there are MPs watching up
in
the Gallery, the press watching in the Press Gallery and many people
watching in the Public Gallery. Enjoy this historic occasion, and you
are very
welcome.
Mr.
Speaker: Thank you, Harriet, and thank you, Shailesh,
David and Bridget Prentice for joining us. This will be a great day
and, as Harriet said, make sure that you enjoy it. Give it your best.
We respect you and we look forward to your participation. It should be
tremendous
fun.
There
are two small, but important points to make before we get under way.
First, Members who wish to speak should stand in their place or, if in
a wheelchair, raise their hands. Secondly, Members should always say
their name and region at the beginning of their remarks, otherwise the
Hansard writers will not know who you are. If you can pause
briefly, for a few seconds, before you start your speech, that will
enable the microphone to be
activated.
Without
further ado, we will get under way.
Free
University
Education11.30
am
Funmi
Abari (London): The first debate today will
be,
Should
university education across the United Kingdom be made free, as it is
in Scotland for Scottish young
people?
Mr.
Speaker: I call Mr. Jonathan Gilchrist to second the
motion.
Jonathan
Gilchrist (North West): At the moment, the tuition fees system
benefits either the extremely rich or the poor. Last year, in a UK
Youth Parliament survey, one in three students who wanted to go to
university said that they could not do so because they did not have the
required funds. In context, that is one in three doctors who cannot go
on to cure, one in three teachers who cannot go on to educate and one
in three politicians who cannot go on to change the system that stands
today. Why is the right to education at any level determined by your
social background, parental income or where you live?
At the moment
in the UK, people see scrapping tuition fees as unfeasible, and
politicians are using the current economic climate as a
get-out-of-jail-free card. I am not saying that scrapping tuition fees
means raising taxes, as was the confusion in the House of Lords, and I
am not saying that taxes will have rise, as people will say that it is
not feasible. However, we are in the House of Commons today because we
can make change.
Last year, in
a campaign, we were told that it will cost £3.5 billion to scrap
tuition fees and make it free for all. If taxes cannot rise to fund
that, where will we get the money from? I am arguing, therefore, for
changing the priorities of Government spending. Some £20 billion
is being proposed on a cold war relic of Trident nuclear
missiles—£20 billion on a cold war relic or £3.5
billion to give every young person the right to free education? The
nuclear deterrent funding is just one way, and there are many others,
such as an alumni
network.
It
is right that everyone be treated equally, so why should people miss
out on that right? It is time that the UK Youth Parliament took a stand
on tuition fees—something that most politicians are not willing
to do. Today, however, with 300 young people sat in the Chamber, a
change can be made. We are sat here today so that this campaign will be
listened to and debated at great length, and I urge people to think of
a system in which every young person in this country has a right to
free education—one not determined by whether you are rich or
poor and irrespective of where you live. It should not be an education
that leaves you burdened with a huge debt at the start of your career.
I therefore propose the motion to the House that university education
should be free for all young people, as it is in Scotland for Scottish
young people. At the very least, a full and frank inquiry should be
held into how the system is run at the moment in the
UK.
Mr.
Speaker: Jonathan, thanks for a fantastic and robust start
to our proceedings. It has got things off to a great beginning. I ask
Funmi if she would now like to make a speech. Funmi, please come to the
lectern.
Funmi
Abari (London): Good morning, everyone.
You would get
a loan to buy a car or take out a mortgage for your own house, but not
go into debt for your own future? You want things fairer, but
abolishing tuition fees would do the opposite. Lower education and the
NHS are free, but we have private and public provision. If university
is made free, we will also have private and public provision there.
Your future boss will not look just at what degree you have, but at
whether you had a private or public education. So you will have worked
dead hard for your degree, only to be told that it is not good
enough because it is private. Will that be
fair?
Abolishing
tuition fees will not increase accessibility. Free Scottish
universities have fewer students from disadvantaged backgrounds than
universities in the UK. It is free, but less accessible. Is that fair?
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Some £2.5 billion from
taxpayers every year is needed to pay for this free lunch. Is that
fair? Only 20 per cent. of the adult population have a degree. That is
a minority. Why should university students be the highest priority of
the Government’s very little money? What about the people who do
not go to university—your mother, your friends and the rest of
the UK? Why should they have to suffer?
You cannot
climb a broken ladder. There are many problems that young people face
before the age of 18 and university, and these problems need to be
fixed first, before we even start thinking about free education. Right
now, we are forced to pay three times more than what our education is
actually worth. Paying for uni is sustainable; paying too much is
simply exploiting us, and that is the real problem. I cannot afford to
go to university, but the Government will give me a loan. I’ll
go to uni and I’ll get my degree; and then I’ll be in
debt, but I’ll work and, hopefully, gradually pay off that
debt.
Tuition fees
should not be abolished. It is unrealistic, unsustainable and not in
the best interests of all young people and those yet to come. So I put
it to these young people today: do not abolish university
fees. But lowering the fees to what they are actually worth? Hell yes,
that is fair.
Mr.
Speaker: Thank you for that excellent speech Funmi. Is
there somebody on the other side of the Chamber who wishes to
speak?
James
Greenhalgh (West Midlands): I have been working quite hard on this
campaign. If you think that there are priorities other than those young
people who are not going to university, let me tell you this: if you
are from a well-off background, you are so many times more likely than
someone from a less well-off background to go to university. That is
simply unjust. We have to change that system. We have developed a
graduate endowment policy in the UK Youth Parliament, whereby after you
go to university, you pay a certain amount of your wages, for a certain
period of time, into a pot that goes towards paying for higher
education.
We have got
to get away from the whole idea that if you go to university, you will
have tens of thousands of pounds-worth of debt. That is outrageous. We
are being encouraged to save and not get into debt, yet this is exactly
what the Government are encouraging us to do.
That is wrong. So I say to you: we need to scrap fees and we need a new
system. That is what we have got to fight
for.
Jack
Taylor (London): In America, you can expect to pay more than
$50,000 a year for a university education. But after three years of
education here, you can leave with only £35,000 of debt.
Abolishing tuition fees will not abolish that entirely—only by
£10,000. The Member who opened the debate said that if we
abolished Trident, we could pay for university fees—or we could
give a free £100 tax rebate to every person in the UK. I know
what I would prefer.
I am going to
university next year. I got an offer
yesterday—woo-hoo!—but I won’t plug it;
it’s all good. But I do not expect the people who do not go to
university to pay for my education from their taxes. Why should people
who get up at 6 o’clock in the morning to work as a dustman, or
my father, who did not go to university but worked as a builder, pay
for my education? I should pay for my education. I will be benefiting
from it and I should be the one who incurs the debt, because I will be
enjoying the pleasures
afterwards.
Samuel
Watkin (South East): University tuition fees have for too long
burdened the students of this nation with debt. Fees of more than
£3,000 a year for higher education are damaging the heart of
this country. According to an article in The Observer, on Sunday
5 October 2008, the average university-goer will leave higher education
with debts in excess of £20,000 in 2010. That, Mr.
Speaker, is wrong, and our Government are not doing enough to help
these students either.
Families with
an annual income of less than £25,000 can only get a grant of
nearly £3,000, meaning that most families will have to borrow
heavily to afford tuition fees, let alone the living
expenses.
I have heard
many politicians on this topic and they often say we cannot afford to
do this at present. With student debt mounting and some of our
brightest minds being barred from attending higher education, our
country will face the full force of the cost of not taking the right
step of abolishing tuition fees.
With the
majority of people in our nations attending higher education, these
students will be running top businesses in the future. These countries
will be the centre of the world because their young people will all
have been given the right to free higher education. Please, Government,
help keep Britain great well into the future—by abolishing this
immoral tax on our students. It is no longer a question of whether we
can afford to; it is a question of whether we can afford not
to.
Mr.
Speaker: Thank you very much. I was just about to appeal
for some young women to stand and speak in this debate and I see that
my wish has been granted.
Jennie
Hunt (London): I am from Bexley. I personally believe that it is a
bad idea to have free university tuition. My problem is that I fear it
would be easy for people to go to university without any sincere desire
to get a degree. Many people could go to university, faff around a bit
for a couple of years without having their heart in it and then drop
out. I would say that at that point they should have to pay for those
wasted two years that they have burdened the taxpayer with. If
people go to university sincerely in order to get a degree, work hard
and do really well, that is when they should get their education for
free.
James
Bartle (North East): I am from Newcastle. We have heard from
several Members who have given lots of nice reasons why university
education should be free, but we have also heard that it is going to
cost us £3.5 billion to be able to do that. If
politicians say all the time that we cannot afford it, it is because we
cannot. Forget about the debt people get into when they go to
university, as this country is in £800 billion of debt to begin
with! That is the biggest political scandal in this country in a
generation. We cannot afford it.
University
would suffer. Universities are asking for more money. The president of
Universities UK said that UK higher education requires further
injections of resources for teaching and learning in particular.
Universities need more money, Mr. Speaker, and Members who
support this motion are going to deprive them of
it.
Mr.
Speaker: It is fantastic that everyone is participating in
the right spirit. May I ask if we can hold the applause until the end,
so that we can save time and have as many contributions as possible? I
will note at this point that we have been joined by the Government
Chief Whip, Nick Brown, who is chattering away at the back. You are
very welcome, Nick. Please identify yourself so everyone knows you are
here. There is the Government Chief Whip. Thanks for joining us,
Nick.
Julie
Lennox (Scotland): I would like to say to this Parliament that I am
very angry at those not supporting the abolition of tuition fees. We
heard the young man opposite talking about us being £800 billion
in debt, but that was caused by rich bankers. [Interruption.]
Excuse me, but I am speaking. [Applause.] It does not matter
what job people have got or whether they are making £8,000 a
year as a hairdresser or £100,000 a year as a lawyer or
whatever, as they are still going to be paying tax. How is it fair that
some of our brainiest young people cannot go to university because they
cannot afford it—because their mum or dad have not had the
opportunities? It is just not fair. Education is the only way out of
poverty. If people are educated and have a good degree, they will earn
extra money, so they will have to pay the higher tax rate. They will
make more money and provide more jobs, which will help to get the
country out of its debt in the first place. Free education is one of
the only ways we are able to achieve this.
Christie
Fisher (Bolton): It was said earlier that the way to get out of
recession is to have free education. So the country is to get into even
more debt, on top of the £8.5 billion—another £3.5
billion—so that you can slowly graduate out of debt through free
education and getting your degree? The way to get out of debt is to get
your degree and get yourself out of debt to get the country out of
debt. Yes, you will leave university with a debt, and you will earn the
money back to pay that debt. Who will pay for that debt if you do not,
as an individual? Where will the money come from? It will come from the
taxpayer. We may not pay taxes now, but when that £3.5 billion
comes back to us to pay, that is when we will say, “Oh! We
shouldn’t have had free tuition, because it’s coming back
to get us now.” That is not fair to the people in the whole of
the United Kingdom who did not go to university.
The
opportunity is there. You have your maintenance grant, and you have
your loan and you pay it back. That is how it works. You cannot get
anything for free in life, so why should tuition be free?
Jason
Hill (Derbyshire): You say that the £3.5 billion will come
back to us. If it does, then it does. But if you are saying we cannot
afford it, how come MPs are claiming expenses? If MPs do not claim
expenses and we get rid of some tax benefits, the money will come and
we will be able to abolish tuition fees. Perhaps if we cannot abolish
them, at least we can lower
them.
Oliver
Rowlinson (South-East):Young people—the very few young
people watching this debate today—will see how out of touch,
unrealistic and unaffordable scrapping or reducing tuition fees simply
is. It is equitable for students to make a financial contribution to
their degree teaching. They stand to gain financially from a degree.
Education is an investment, and it is rational for students to borrow
at this stage of their life cycle to finance such investment.
Fees
encourage students to be more selective in the courses that they
choose, and discourage students from taking Mickey Mouse degree courses
such as Beckham studies, golf management and surfing. Too many young
people are pursuing courses which lead to those sorts of stupidity. The
argument that young people like ourselves often use is, “Why
should young people who’ve been failed by the education system
pay the bills for others to get a better education than them by paying
tax?” Surely, as Members of the UK Youth Parliament, we
should be tackling the real issues: the fact that we have a
broken society, the fact that we have a broken political system, the
fact that we have a broken economic system, and the fact that, as my
fellow Member on this side said, we have a national deficit of
£175 billion. It is time to stop spending, and it is time to
live within our means—and certainly not to reduce or scrap
university tuition
fees.
Mr.
Speaker: As you know, the proposers and seconders of the
motion had three minutes. Strictly speaking, after that speeches are
supposed to last for a minute. A lot of people want to take
part, and we will have to move on to the next debate fairly
soon. I appeal to everyone to make their points very
briefly.
Petergaye
Palmer (Brent): Lowering tuition fees is really important. I want
to train to become a commercial pilot, but the fees are really
expensive—over £50,000. There is no way my parents can
afford that. I am standing here speaking on behalf of many
working-class young people who want to achieve because they want a
change in their lifetime, not because mummy or daddy is in a really
good job, and they do not want their family to feel bad because they do
not achieve. Please, I am asking you, can tuition fees be abolished? I
think that young people should achieve no matter how working class they
are—no matter what class they are. Everyone should have a chance
of
success.
Sam
Hatzigeorgiou (South-East): They say it will cost the Government
£3.5 billion to abolish tuition fees. We should think about all
the beneficial courses that there are, from agriculture to engineering
to law. We should
think about all the money that will be taken in every year from people
doing these courses. This will bring huge economic benefits to the
country. The country is in a mess and we need to do something about it.
If more people get educated and get into work, that can help to rebuild
this country. That will be our future. Abolishing tuition fees will be
what sorts this country out. If we lose them, hopefully it will lead to
more things that put this country back together again after the ruins
following this crisis.
Rebecca
Harriss (East Midlands): I believe that university fees should be
abolished because of the effect of them on one of the society divides
we have. If everyone can go to university and get the degree they
want—and they passionately believe they should for their
education—why do we deny them that right? Everybody has the
right to free education. Why do we have to stop people once they have
left secondary school, done their A-levels or gone to college? In our
current economic climate, the debts we incur from university will not
go away any time soon just because we get a job—if we are lucky
enough to get a job. In the end, the country should consider the fact
that our young people are the future and we need an education that is
good enough to create that
future.
Thomas
Brookes (North East): Many people lament the passing of the
UK’s leadership in many fields of expertise. However, one area
we can still be proud of is our universities. Without uni fees, those
high standards would be in tatters. A degree is a reward people should
have worked hard for and that should be treasured. From that degree,
they will reap the benefits across the years after paying a just
price—especially when compared to the cost in America, as has
been said. It is fair that we should pay for university fees. Nothing
in life is free. We should pay for university fees, and we can pay for
university fees, and that is why they should not be
abolished.
Jayde
Tunnacliffe (Yorkshire and Humberside): My dad will not be able to
afford to send me to university. He did not go to university, but I
will go to university, pass my degree and pay back the loan I was given
to be able to do it. Just because I cannot afford to go does not mean
that that should stop me. University tuition does not need to be free
for us to be able to have the right to an education. If my dad cannot
afford to send me, why should he pay the tax to be able to send
everyone else?
Joe
Loverock (West Midlands): My point is that this generation has a
legacy that is happening over in America with Barack Obama. Our legacy
to give to the next generation is, “No more uni fees”. I
believe every generation deserves a legacy, and our next
generation’s legacy depends on whether we deal with uni fees
later or
now.
Abla
Seckley (South East): The average cost of university fees is more
than £3,000 each year. By the time we have paid that money, we
will come out with a huge amount of debt, so what is the point of
busting your hump over so many years to get great A-levels and great
GCSEs by doing midnight black coffee sessions and endless coursework,
if by the time it comes to it we cannot afford to go to university? If
your circumstances mean that you fall just above the threshold for help
but your
parents cannot afford to send you to university, why have you done all
that hard work in order to have somebody else say, “I’m
sorry, but you can’t do it”? If your dream is to go to
university, or if it is your way out, who has the right to crush that
dream and say, “You can’t do it”?
So
this is what I propose. I propose a lowered university fee, and those
who then take up that lowered fee and attend university on that rate
then pay a slightly higher tax on a sliding scale depending on what
they earn. That would allow people who would otherwise not be able to
attend university to attend it, and people who do not attend university
will not need to pay the tax. Some might say, “If we keep paying
this higher rate of tax, we might end up paying much more.” They
should think of it this way: it is your gift to the next generation, as
it will allow people to keep on going to university and make our
society a much fairer and brighter place.
Britain
prides itself on being fair and democratic, so why should we tell
somebody—unfairly—that they are not allowed to attend
university?
Laura
Gorman (Scotland): I should like to make two quick points. First, I
wish to disagree with the Member who said that lowering fees would lead
to a lowering of standards. Despite the abolition of tuition fees in
Scotland, many of its universities remain among the top four in the
United Kingdom in their subjects. Secondly, many people are saying that
in a recession we have to prioritise and make cuts, but other European
countries such as France and Germany are coming out of the recession
much quicker than we are and that is because they have a higher
percentage of university graduates. Although we may have to spend more
now to provide this, surely abolishing tuition fees will safeguard us
against a recession in the
future.
Olatunde
Seye (South East): At the moment, we are all crying that there are
no jobs. Let us consider the other side and what would happen if we
were to abolish the tuition fee. When everybody comes out with a big
degree, where are the jobs going to come from? I have a friend who left
university with a degree and after two years ended up working in
Primark. If we abolish tuition fees and everybody has their degree
today, where will the jobs come from? Abolishing tuition fees is not a
realistic goal at all. Lowering the price is okay—we can deal
with that, although we will get into debt—but at the end of the
day if we get our qualification and get a job, we can pay our debt from
that. We would not then have to stand outside looking for jobs
everywhere.
Tom
Turner (Wales):
rose—
Tom
Turner: Today we have heard what this House and this country can
and cannot afford. At the moment, this country is suffering from a
brain drain, when people with young, bright minds say, “I
can’t afford to get my higher education here in Britain. I am
going to have to move abroad, take my skills overseas and
possibly—perhaps even probably—not come back.”
That is what our country cannot afford to let happen. We cannot
afford to lose our teachers and our doctors—they provide vital
services, and the country would be brought to its knees if this process
were to continue. It is already happening, so let us stop it by
allowing our young bright minds to be educated here. Thank you very
much, Mr.
Speaker.
Dara
Farrell (South East): Surely the current system is doing a
disservice to all young people: those who value their education and
have not paid for it directly. As another Member said, they reach a
stage where they cannot go any further because they cannot afford it.
Young people spend so much of their lives working towards education and
they reach a stop where they cannot go any further. The education
system, as it stands, will be improved if young people know that at the
end of it they can get to university, obtain a degree and better
themselves.
Mr.
Speaker: I am sorry, but I will have to call the
winding-up speaker. There will be lots of opportunities in the course
of the day for people who have not been called to contribute, so I ask
Members please to sit down. Just before I call that speaker, I wish to
put on the record our appreciation of the fact that there are
colleagues of mine from the House of Commons here to support you and
admire what you are doing today. They include: the hon. Member for
Wealden (Charles Hendry); the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead
(John Austin); the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, the hon.
Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Sylvia Heal); the hon. Member
for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel); and the hon. Member for
Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). They are all here
because they are interested in listening to, and perhaps even learning
from, you. At this point, I shall ask Ariba Karim to wind up this
debate.
Ariba
Karim (South East): The points raised were passionate, and some
really good ones were raised.
Fifteen
thousand; thirty thousand; one in three. Young people, we have heard a
variety of passionate arguments why university fees should be kept. The
first was the economic crisis that we find ourselves in. In a deep
recession, do we need to burden ourselves any more by adding another
£2 billion to £3.5 billion to the taxpayer a year? Or do
we listen to the morality in our consciences—how three quarters
of working young people will opt not to go into further education
because of the fear of future debt and the fear of not being able to
afford the cost of going to
university?
When
you vote today, it is important to consider not only the views of those
in the Chamber, but the views of
young people all over England. It is time to consider not just Joe
Bloggs, but Joanne Bloggs as well. “Ludicrous” is how one
young person described the concept of tuition fees to me.
“Practical” is how another described it.
“University fees do not worry me,” said one student.
“I’m not looking forward to the shadow of debt that
I’ll be left with,” said another. She described this as
the curse of her generation, and stressed how she will be unfairly
shackled with debt from the word
go.
UK
Youth Parliament, we have campaigned on abolishing university fees.
Here is one example of how we did it: the postcards that were sent to
our MPs, urging them to support us in this campaign. These were sent
from young people all over England. Now is the time to be heard, and it
is time to hear answers. We have agreed that the cost of university
must go down, and more opportunities besides university must be made
available. Most significantly, the views of young people not yet at
university must be considered in any review of university tuition
fees.
Finally,
the most important thing to consider is this. For those who do end up
going to university, the university fees become a part of their
everyday lives—whether they need jobs, and whether they can
afford food, transport or even shelter. You could be one of the 15,000
denied a place at university, you could be one out of the 30,000 in
debt, and I could be the one in three of us who might not even be able
to afford university, and who is left thinking that it is the only way
forward for me to get a good job, a good salary, a good
future.
Imagine
if, in 10 years’ time, 15,000 or more are denied, 30,000 or more
are in debt, and one in three or more are deprived. Imagine if in 10
years’ time, things have not changed. So, young people, vote for
that change, and vote for it now, because now is the
time.
Mr.
Speaker: Ariba, thank you for winding up the debate in
such fantastic style. I have been interested in politics since my late
teens, but I couldn’t have spoken with the eloquence or
performed with the poise that members of the Youth Parliament have
shown this morning, so it is hugely and permanently to your
credit.
We
have been joined by other parliamentary colleagues, and I must not miss
them out: Dawn Butler, the Member for Brent, South; Laura Moffatt from
Crawley; and Peter Bottomley from Worthing, West. The numbers are
ballooning all the time as colleagues take an interest in what you are
doing.
We
are going to have lunch at 12.45 pm, so I have to ask that the next two
debates last for only 20 minutes each. That means that we need
contributions to be short and sharp so that I can get as many people
in as possible.
Youth
Crime12.4
pm
Alex
Knight (Eastern): The topic of the second debate is youth crime and
how to tackle it, and the proposition
is,
As
more and more young people appear to be drawn into youth crime, what
can be done to tackle the hot-spots where this occurs? Should those
young people who are found guilty be sent to prison or be forced to
undertake community
service?
I
am here today to propose that prison is the most suitable method of not
only rehabilitating offenders, but providing them with skills for life
that are beneficial to them and to the population as a whole. My
argument will take three strands. First, prison and offenders
institutes can be places where offenders can develop their education
academically and practically. Offenders are able to take GCSEs, NVQs,
A-levels and many other different courses through the prison system,
giving them a chance to enter society with higher employability,
greater self-esteem and an understanding of how their behaviour has
harmed those around them.
Secondly,
there are anger management and rehabilitation schemes in prison, giving
offenders the tools with which to handle themselves in the real world.
Those schemes can also provide for the transition into society. Thirdly
and, perhaps, most importantly, I stress that when rehab courses are
attended and done properly, then and only then, offenders’
chances of being rehabilitated can increase dramatically, giving them a
chance in life to step forwards not backwards.
An
example of someone who has gone through the prison system and become
successful is Levi Roots. He is a successful entrepreneur who
experienced the prison system in the 1980s. He is a clear example of
why we should not write someone off as unable to provide a positive
contribution to society just because they are an ex-offender.
I
believe that everyone here wishes to see greater provisions for young
people, not only within the local community, but at home in order to
prevent them from offending in the first place—tackling issues
at the grass-roots level to prevent them escalating into becoming
problems that affect wider society. However, the message that I am hear
to spread is that, when crime has occurred, the way to make sure that
individuals do not re-offend is to put them through the prison system:
removing them from their communities while ensuring that, once in the
prison system, they are provided with greater life skills and training,
so that when they leave prison they are less likely to re-offend. Do
not get me wrong: I am saying not that community sentencing should be
ignored or abolished, but simply that, in many cases, the prison system
is the right form of action, however imperfect the current system may
be.
The
Home Office says, “Youth crime harms communities, creates a
culture of fear and damages the lives of our most vulnerable
people.” So how should we, as a society, deal with those young
people who harm our communities? I propose the prison
system.
Christopher
Monk (East Midlands): Before I begin, I should like to thank you,
Mr. Speaker, for your compliments towards those who have
spoken already.
Community
service. Why shouldn’t someone, young or old, who has damaged
the community pay for what they did by working to improve it? It is
important that vulnerable young people who have made a mistake are not
isolated from society and support, but instead receive the help that
they need, as well as the punishment that they deserve. I have been
told of a case in Wales of a young person who committed a violent
crime. They were sentenced to community service. They were successfully
rehabilitated and became a youth worker.
[Interruption.] I shall obey the convention in
Parliament of not mentioning people who are not in the
Chamber.
Prison
tends to make criminals better at what they do—committing crime.
Prison is great at educating criminals. Young criminals, like all young
people, have impressionable, flexible minds and are great at improving
their skills. Surely it is better that their gardening improves, not
their robbing. Anyway, the vast majority of young offenders are not
dangerous. A shoplifter is a danger not to society, but merely to the
balance sheet of the local corner shop. Why lock those people up when
we know that prison is not safe? Why put minor offenders in the same
place as those who have carried knives, used knives and killed with
knives?
As
well as being unsafe, locking up young offenders is very expensive. For
15 to 21-year-olds, according to the Government’s own figures in
response to a recent parliamentary question, the average cost is
£33,000 a year—enough to pay for 11 students’
tuition fees. For under 15-year-olds, the average cost is
£192,000—enough to pay for 64 students to go to
university for free.
Why
lock up someone who stole a packet of Polos in the same cell as someone
who stole someone’s VW Polo at knifepoint? It is clear,
therefore, that imprisonment should be the last resort for the worst
category of young criminals, not the first-choice destination for
first-time offenders.
Mr.
Speaker: Chris, thanks for that very eloquent and witty
speech. Although you have observed the convention, I suppose that in a
sense I am about to break it, because I want hugely to welcome the 150
or thereabouts parents and youth workers who have joined us today. You
are hugely welcome—thank you for
coming.
Emma
Fletcher (London): Hi everyone, I am Emma Fletcher from the London
borough of
Sutton.
In
some cases where I live, people who are doing community service, for
whatever crimes they have committed, have ended up coming to Sutton
Youth Parliament meetings. We do not go to meetings as a
punishment—we go there to sort out what is going on in our
borough, and have a cup of tea and a few biscuits. It is not a
punishment for these people to be sent to meetings such as mine. It is
just ridiculous, frankly. These people should be punished in a way that
is actually a punishment instead of doing things which I do and enjoy
quite a
lot.
Alex
Armstrong (South East): Members of the Youth Parliament, I am a
little bit confused why we are here promoting the idea that young
people commit crimes.
Surely we are meant to be here promoting a good image of young people.
The media are portraying us as yobs. We are here today to promote young
people as good citizens, and that is the way I feel that we should be
treated.
Tom
Sparks (Scotland): I was not planning to speak about prison versus
community service, but I think I have to take issue with one thing that
was said. Is everyone aware that 75 per cent. of people under the age
of 18 who go to prison commit another crime within two years of their
release—or actually, I should say, are convicted of another
crime within two years of their release? The actual figure is likely to
be far higher. Prison has no place in the criminal justice system for
under 18-year-olds. Are Members also aware that courses within prisons
are often enormously over-subscribed? People can spend years in prison
before they are even given access to any course that might help them on
their release.
Young
people have to face a different problem. There are young people who do
not respect society because society does not respect them. I believe
that voting at 16 and other initiatives to get young people more
involved in society through a positive image are the ways to tackle
youth
crime.
Chris
Browne (North West): I am a member of the Youth Parliament for
Knowsley. I reckon that young people should do community service and be
made to look for a
career.
Rhiya
Pau (London): Mr. Speaker and fellow Members of the
Youth Parliament, I question this: how can we deny anybody a second
chance? Young people who are exploited because of their backgrounds and
circumstances are not criminals; they are just troubled people who need
help and assistance so that they can be rehabilitated back into the
community and become the law-abiding citizens that we
are.
I
feel that prison is such a harsh option, and community service probably
does not act as a deterrent to criminals. We need something that is
going to integrate young people into the community as a punishment, not
community service; going and helping old people in their garden, or
gardening in an allotment—is that going to prevent you from
committing a crime? No. What we need is for people to learn and improve
their values, and prison and community service do not offer either of
those
things.
Momodou
Taal (West Midlands): First, I think the papers over-publicise what
happens and the level of youth crime. Just throwing youths in jail does
not help, and prevention is better than cure. Politicians should
actually go into crime spots, look at what happens, and look into the
factors contributing to youth crime such as the over-representation of
black youths in the justice system. Rather than police standing in an
area looking intimidating, why do they not go into these areas, do some
work and look into what contributes to youth crime? Only then can we
find the solution.
Connor
Lovell (Yorkshire and Humberside): I believe that community service
and prison are not the best option for young people who commit crimes.
We have to go down the route of social work so that they will learn how
to respect their community
better.
Another
option is to build better places for young people to go to keep them
out of trouble, like improved new youth
centres.
Victoria
Caswell (Eastern): Where I live has high amounts of
poverty—I believe that Norfolk is the fifth most deprived county
in Britain. There are no new facilities for young people and there is
absolutely nothing whatever to do. Poverty and crime are quite linked,
and more should be done for young people so that they can do things in
their community. I believe that I do community service by choice, and
people should not really just be told to do it as
punishment.
Rebecca
Barrow (East Midlands): First, I would like to say that I do not
think we should be discussing prison or community service. The question
we should be asking is: why are young people doing this in the first
place? Why are they robbing people in the streets or doing whatever
they are doing, and going to prison or getting community service? It
should not be about whether they should be put in prison or given
community
service.
Katie
Rowe (South East): Young people are the future, but why is the
focus on what happens after these crimes are committed? Why is not the
focus on preventing these crimes from happening?
Some
70 per cent. of the media on young people is negative. Why is that
happening? Today is a day when all of us young people have come
together in the House of Commons—we are doing something good. I
bet this does not get as much publicity as some of the negative things
that go on. I would actually put money on it. What I want to know is:
why are we not focusing on preventing crime? Why are we not coming up
with the solution to stop it from happening rather than talking about
what is happening
afterwards?
Rupert
Bailey (South West): As a media representative, I want to come back
to one of the comments that was made. I assure you that the media team
are doing all we can to make this as high-profile as
possible.
It
is obviously very important that we focus on the prevention of crime,
but where youth crime does happen we need to shift it to an issue of
morality. We need to support these young people, and by giving people
the proper rehabilitation and support—which is not necessarily
in prison—and by making them feel supported and welcoming them
back into society through methods such as the very commendable work
done by the youth service, we will do all that we can to reintegrate
young people back into society and break the cycle of crime that can
emerge from young
offenders.
Ellen
Shannon (Northern Ireland): The question we are asking today is how
to punish youth crime, but I feel that the general consensus in the
room is that we should ask how to prevent it from
happening.
Young
people in my area feel that poor parenting is a major contributing
factor and that there should be a system in place for prosecuting and
imprisoning the
parents of young offenders, similar to the system for the parents of
truants. It is thought that that would encourage parents to discipline
their children before they even commit youth
crime.
Only
yesterday, figures from a study in Northern Ireland showed that of the
10 to 17-year-olds who took part in restorative justice—meeting
with the victims of their crimes—38 per cent. reoffended,
compared with 71 per cent. of those who served a prison sentence.
Perhaps that, along with community service, would be beneficial,
instead of prison.
The
Prison Reform Trust is calling on the Government to establish a
restorative justice system similar to that in Northern Ireland, which
it says could do much to help to reduce the number of young people
behind bars in the rest of the UK. Restorative justice not only helps
young offenders to move on with their lives after sentencing and vastly
to cut Government spending, but it gives something back to those who
suffered at the hands of youth criminals.
Of
course perpetrators of violent crime should be behind bars, but those
who have committed non-violent crimes should be helping the communities
that they hurt in the first place, and giving back something to
society.
Mr.
Speaker: Once again, I congratulate everybody who spoke in
this debate. There were good, strong, stirring and impressive speeches,
as in the first debate. I am sorry if you wanted to speak and could
not. That is something that happens every day in the House of
Commons—some who want to ask a question or make a speech cannot
because there is not time to include everybody. However, I will
obviously try to ensure that those who have not been able to speak in
the first two debates get a chance as we move on.
We
are about to start the third debate, and I just want to note
that we have been joined at various times by Tim Loughton, the
Conservative Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, and we still have
in the Chamber Laurence Robertson, the Conservative Member of
Parliament for Tewksbury, whom I thank for his support on this
important
day.
Free
Transport12.19
pm
Emma
Nelson (Telford & Wrekin): The statement is this:
Free
transport for over-60s, but not for young people. Should the over-60s
have the right to free transport when young people in full-time
education, with limited resources and access to paid employment,
struggle to secure concessionary
fares?
Young
people are always asking for more and more from society. Should we be
given special allowances purely because we are young? What do young
people actually do for their community? Look at all of us here. We are
a few hundred out of the thousands and thousands of young people in the
UK. We are doing something productive, but we are in a minority.
Thousands of young people in the UK do nothing to serve their society,
and so deserve nothing in return.
I
question the statement that young people “struggle to”
access “concessionary fares”. In London, buses are
already free for young people providing that they carry an Oyster card.
What bus company in the UK does not charge young people less than
adults? We already have money off our travel, so why should we ask for
it to be free?
Think
about the economic climate in which we are living and take a moment to
consider where this money would come from. The Government are making
dramatic cuts to different services, such as cadets, welfare and
hospitals. How can we justify taking money away from the health
services and the forces, just so that we can get around for
free?
The
Government pay a subsidy to the bus companies and get their money from
taxpayers. Free is an idealistic concept. We will be paying for the
buses when we hit 18. When we are struggling to pay off student loans
and later mortgages, do we also want to deal with higher
taxes?
This
is the Xbox generation. Physical exercise is something that avatars do
in your favourite video game. Money should be put into encouraging
young people to walk or cycle to where they need to go rather than just
hopping on a bus.
Would
more young people use the buses if they were free? Surely that would be
making life easier for the parents of those who already use the bus.
Twenty-five per cent. of boys and 33 per cent. of girls in
the UK aged between two and 19 years of age are overweight or obese and
there are few signs that those percentages will decrease. Free
transport will encourage even more young people to use buses for
shorter, walkable journeys. Childhood obesity can take nine years off
your lifespan. As the UK Youth Parliament do we want to make buses free
and encourage the kind of laziness that kills young people in later
life?
Elderly
people deserve to use the buses for free. They need to be able to get
around. They have lived in this country for a long time and have earned
the right to free transport. However, young people should be fit and
healthy, and we are already charged less than adults for the
bus. Young people do not need, or deserve, free
transport.
Mr.
Speaker: Thank you very much, Emma, for that contribution,
and for getting the debate off to such a good
start.
We
are also joined by John Randall, Conservative MP for
Uxbridge—put your hand up, John, don’t be shy—who
is a senior member of the Tory Whips Office, and by Eleanor Laing,
Conservative MP for Epping Forest. I keep mentioning these names
because I want you to understand that, on a day when most MPs are in
their constituencies, large numbers of MPs from all parties have stayed
here to hear you. That is evidence of the commitment that Parliament
feels.
Liam
Beattie (Scotland): Is it fair that young people who are not
legally allowed to drive have to pay for public transport, when those
over 60 can drive? Is it right that low-income families have to pay for
their children’s fares on public transport when the pension rate
is at an all-time high? Finally, is it right that young people, who are
restricted by law in the amount of hours they can work, have to pay
full fare on public
transport?
The
definition of young people from the United Nations convention says that
young people are those between 14 and 25. I therefore propose that
public transport be free for all young people up to the age of
25.
In
Scotland, the Scottish Government introduced a national concessionary
scheme for young people between 16 and 18, giving them a third off
single fares on all buses. This has allowed young people in Scotland to
have a cheaper and more attractive public transport system. However, I
believe this has not gone far enough, as young people still see the
cost of public transport as the main barrier to using it.
I
come from the Scottish Borders, an area that is very rural and where
young people rely heavily on public transport to get from A to B and B
to C. Young people have to pay a fare of up to £12 to get to
Edinburgh, the nearest city. Why should those young people be so
financially disadvantaged compared with other young people who live in
more urban areas? In the Scottish Borders we have a sporting complex
that young people use to keep healthy and active. However, a lot of my
friends are unable to go to this complex simply because they do not
have enough money to pay for the bus fare. The ability to access these
services should not come down to how much money a young person has or
where they live. Age should not be a barrier to participation, but it
is for young
people.
There
are already free public transport schemes in place for certain groups
in society, but not for young people—the same young people who
receive an unequal minimum wage compared to their elders and who can
work only a certain number of hours if they are still in full-time
education. Surely we in the United Kingdom pride ourselves on being a
fair and equal society. Why should a 16-year-old in full-time
education, doing their A-levels or Highers at school have to pay full
fare, when someone across the road, who happens to be a pensioner and
has a car and life savings, does not have to pay anything for their bus
fare? That is
wrong.
Some
75.8 per cent. of the 6,000 young people consulted on the
Scottish Youth Parliament 2007 manifesto agreed with the following
statement:
“Every
young person between 15 and 25 should be entitled to free public
transport which is efficient and accessible to
all.”
I
therefore propose that all young people in the UK be given free access
to public
transport.
Justin
Kempley (Eastern)
rose—
Emily
Christer (North-East): Free transport is an issue that
really affects me in my local area, but I have attended the Department
for Transport and rallied the case for every single person in this
room. I have tried my best, but the message that I have got from
Ministers and the concessionary travel department is that, as a body of
young people, we are not going to be able to do this on a national
scale. So I urge each person in this room to take this matter and
thrust it deep into your constituencies, because as individuals you can
make a difference. We can unite and do this
together.
Leifr
Shepherd (Wales): Earlier someone brought up the issue of people
being lazy and obese, and public transport just making them lazier. A
lot of youth clubs arrange physical activities and there are leisure
centres, but people cannot participate, because they cannot
get to those places and because they cannot afford the bus
fares.
Justin
Kempley (Eastern): Second time lucky, Mr.
Speaker.
I
want to speak from my own experience. I am taking a gap year and I
commute every day by tube to my workplace in London. Boris Johnson
recently raised fares way above inflation to close the gap in the
funding of tube fares and public transport in London. This caused
outrage among London commuters, rightly or wrongly. One of the letters
that I read in the newspaper asked, “Why can’t we cut
concessionary fares?” People are wondering why our fares stay
low while theirs are sky-rocketing. We have such good will from the
public on so many issues. We risk sacrificing that if we make
unreasonable demands such as free public transport, which is simply not
affordable in the current climate.
Kate
Taylor (South-West): Young people work in school to get grades.
They use grades to get jobs and they get jobs to put money into the
economy, and then they become pensioners and get free transport. Young
people cannot do much more to put money into the economy when they are
in school, unless they get a part-time job. But we work hard at school
to get a job, so surely free transport to get to school to make money
to put into the economy is the least that the Government can
do.
Spiros
Georgiou (West Midlands): Members of the Youth Parliament, I want
you not to slide the importance of this issue to young people in the
United Kingdom. Every day, people suffer from not being able to afford
transport to where they want to go. Comments were made about the
over-60s contributing to the economy and therefore deserving
concessionary fares. How are we supposed to contribute to the economy
when we cannot get to outlets to make those contributions? It is easy
for you to say that you can hop into your friends’
or parents’ car, but why are the Government not making it easy to
hop on public transport by making it affordable for young people? I ask
you, Members of the Youth Parliament: are public transport fares really
fair?
Thomas
Turrell (East Midlands): As young people, we seem to live in a
world where we want anything and everything for free. We come here
today and we say, “We want free university! We want free
transport!” Members of society who are over 60 might have fought
in the war. They might have had a good job or been in the armed forces.
They have earned their free travel; we have not, to be fair.
Let’s be brutally honest here: what have we done?
[Interruption.] You can boo and you can hiss, but
it is the truth. The truth may be unpopular, but it is the truth. We
moan at politicians for lying, but it is about time we stood here and
told the truth.
Conal
O’Hare (Northern Ireland): I find the situation of folk in
England, Scotland and Wales slightly baffling. Everyone in Northern
Ireland who lives more than a couple of miles away from school has the
right to a free bus pass. I take it that that is not available to
people in England, Scotland and
Wales?
Rizwaan
Malik (London): It is in
London.
Conal
O’Hare: Well isn’t London wonderful?
[Interruption.] Well, it is. I am not trying to
insult London—I love London, it is wonderful. I am making a mess
of this, like Boris
Johnson!
The
point I was trying to make was that Northern Ireland is pretty much the
poorest part of the United Kingdom, yet by doing this for our young
people there, we can promote social mobility, encourage people to go to
school and stop truancy. If we can do that in Northern Ireland, which
is also a very rural society, where we have a grammar school system,
which means people travelling a lot further than they do in England,
then surely you can do it in England, Scotland and Wales,
too.
Mr.
Speaker: That was terrific, thank you. In addition to the
names I have already mentioned—Dawn Butler, David Heath, Tim
Loughton and others—we are now joined by Alan Meale, Labour
Member for Mansfield; Kate Hoey, Labour Member for Vauxhall; and,
indeed, Paul Clark, Labour Member for Gillingham and a member of the
Government.
Gemma
Bailey (London): I personally think that London is really lucky to
have its Oyster cards. I would love to have free transport, but the
reality is that it is probably never going to happen. I would like to
think that we had the opportunity to have free transport or at least
lower fees. In our regional meetings in the borough, we have a separate
group working on transport and we want to get to fixed rate on trains
and tubes for people in full-time education. If we had a fixed rate, it
would help people going to university by saving them so much more money
in the long run.
Dean
Proudman (West Midlands): I paid £250 for a bus pass last
year. When I was late for college just once last year, I got
told to move closer. It is not fair to pay £250 or the
buses then to be unreliable. Five people in a car; 50 people on a
bus—global warming? Do the maths.
Becci
Crocker (South West): I have a short and simple point. I have
spoken to old people in Devon about the concessionary card issue, and
many of them said that they would be happy to give up their
concessionary cards if they had the money available to pay for
themselves, so that young people could have the chance to
travel for free.
Adam
Ansari (West Midlands): I am a youth MP for Wolverhampton. Public
transport is a growing issue for my constituents, and I believe it
unfair for public transport to be free for the over-60s, but not for
young people. My constituents and I travel long distances by public
transport to receive a better education. We have to pay £7.50 a
week to receive that better education. The Government need to identify
this as a growing issue for young people.
Adam
Ward (South West): A scheme whereby young people do not have to pay
the adult fare until they are 18 is realistic and reasonable. In the
rural area I represent in East Devon, cost is only one of the main
factors preventing young people from using public transport. In a
survey I recently carried out, young people said that they would like
to use public transport for environmental reasons, but frequency,
availability and quality issues made it hard for them to do so. For
example, our youth worker had to wake up at 5 o’clock this
morning, as two trains had broken down, in order to get us here for
10.30. To stop our generation from becoming gas guzzlers, we urgently
need to improve rural as well as urban transport pillars.
Charlotte
Lee (South East): I and many other young people in my constituency
believe that young people should have concessionary travel. About 6 per
cent. of young people miss college every year simply because they
cannot afford to travel there on public transport. A girl in my local
area said that she spent £21 getting into London for a school
trip, when she had already had to pay £20 for the trip
itself. Some 39 per cent. of 16 to 24-year-olds spend at least six
months looking for a job to no avail, and they cannot afford to pay
these ridiculous prices. It is also a much better option for the
environment. When Kent introduced its freedom pass, there were
25 per cent. less cars on the school run, so if the Government want to
reduce their carbon emissions, they really do need to consider this
very
seriously.
William
Quick (South West): I am from British Forces Overseas, Germany.
First, I would like to announce to Emma, who moved the motion, that
making public transport free will not convince people to be slack and
take the bus, and lie on the bus. Instead, it will convince them to get
off their Xboxes and get out of the house and get some
exercise.
Secondly,
let me say that the Liberal Democrat party and the Conservative party
want to pump—I think— £16.4 billion into a
new high-speed rail link. That is promoting low CO2 levels
and a lack of cars being used. We are also promoting that service to
the youth and asking them to use it so that CO2 levels in
Britain can be lowered, rather than using private
transport.
Siobhan
Brasier (South West): Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Today
we have heard the reasons for and against young people being entitled
to free public transport, but that is not to say that people aged 60
and above should not be entitled to free public transport too. As Kate
Taylor from the South West said, free transport to get them to school
so that they can then make money will help the economy. So surely this
is a good
thing.
Young
and old people have similar reasons for requiring free transport, such
as a limited income. Many older people can no longer drive, and young
people cannot if they are under 17. Isolation affects areas, generally
rural areas, so public transport is the only way to get to places that
are inaccessible on foot, or are situated many miles away from rural
communities: places such as the library, swimming pools,
cinemas—things that we use every day. Those are of interest to
all age groups, and they are regularly available to those of us who
live in large towns or cities but not to those in rural
areas.
We
heard from Dean Proudman, the MYP for the West Midlands, that he paid
£250 to get to school only to be late. Why is he paying that
much when he cannot actually get there on time? Yet the Government, the
general public and the media continue to complain about young people
hanging around on street corners.
This
is not a new problem, but we do know the answer—in the form of
regular and accessible youth work provision, facilities that are open
at times when young people can access them, and places that they can
reach by means of free public
transport.
In
answer to my colleague’s question, “What have young
people done to deserve free public transport?”, I would say that
maybe they cannot get to places to volunteer and help because the
public transport is not reliable. However, the problem is not just free
time. Many young people still have to pay for school buses,
particularly to attend higher education. The prices are high, and it is
unfair. If a young person wants to go to a different college
from their local one, they will not get free public transport if the
local college offers the same course.
A
lack of transport is clear here, and it is having an effect on the type
of skills that young people can acquire. So today, in this Chamber, the
young people of the UK are calling on the Government to provide access
to public transport and facilities for young people
on an equal basis. Why should young people in London be entitled to a
free Oyster card when young people in Cumbria are not? Why should a
young person in Sussex be able to access a concessionary fare scheme
card for buses in the county when the young people in Gloucestershire
cannot? And why, when the problems faced by old and young are so
similar, should people over the age of 60 be given free transport when
we are not?
I
ask this House whether the real reason for the disparity in the
provision of free public transport is simply down to the fact that to
give it to young people would not win any party any votes, but to give
it to the older generation
does.
That
concludes the morning session of our sitting. The UK Youth Parliament
will now adjourn until 1.30, and I invite people to return to
Westminster Hall for
lunch.
12.45
pm
Sitting
suspended.
1.38
pm
Sitting
resumed.
Mr.
Speaker: The Youth Parliament will now consider the fourth
motion of the day, relating to the economy, as printed on the Order
Paper. Just before we get under way with the Front-Bench speeches and
the moving of the motion, I wish to put in a plea: when we come to the
general debate, please stand or otherwise indicate your wish to speak
only if you have not already spoken. A lot of people want to get in, so
it would not be fair for some people to speak twice and others not to
speak at all.
The
other thing I wish to say is that this afternoon I am afraid I am going
to have to be a bit tough and say that Back-Bench speeches must be no
more than a minute long, so that we get as many people in as we
possibly can.
I
hope that you enjoyed your lunch and that you are looking forward to
this next debate, on the economy. I call Miss Carissa Tossell to move
the
motion.
Capitalism,
the Economy and Job Opportunities
1.40
pm
Carissa
Tossell (North West): The proposition
is,
Some
economists believe that recent economic events have shown that
capitalism cannot and does not work. Is it time for a fairer, more
inclusive economic system to take hold? What can we do to increase job
opportunities for young
people?
As
everyone here knows, job opportunities are an issue for many adults,
especially in the current economic climate. However, one group of
people who tend to be forgotten in this are the young people of today.
The current climate affects us all, whether we are young or old, in
school, college or university, employed or unemployed. With the
economic downturn there are fewer opportunities for young people to
gain part-time or seasonal employment—for example, Christmas
work—which is made even worse by the fact that big companies are
closing their sites around the
country.
This
particularly affects those young people who have little or no income,
or whose only income is the education maintenance allowance. Young
people are in one of the worst positions that they have ever been in
once they have left full-time education, with a lack of university
spaces and the highly competitive job market of our time, so what hope
do we have after leaving full-time
education?
I
propose to you all here today that not enough is being done to support
the young people searching for a job, even though an increasing amount
of young people are taking vocational courses and apprenticeships,
which allow them to develop the necessary skills while they work. This,
however, is not the way forward for every young person, and even the
young people who are taking part in these courses are not guaranteed a
job after their training is finished. This shows that even if you take
time to invest in your future via further education, you are still very
unlikely to get hired in the profession that you have been trained for
and that you want to go
into.
We
all know that there are job opportunities available. However, these
opportunities are not easily accessible, and when a young person does
find a job that they have the skills to get, they are in direct
competition with older, more experienced competitors, making it that
much harder for a young person to get a job. Making it harder still is
the fact that after young people have attended higher education, there
are not enough jobs for these highly skilled young people who have
thousands of pounds of debt and have a very low income coming into
their
household.
Education
is slowly becoming just a pathway into an era of well-educated,
unemployed young people. Surely if the opportunities are there, why is
not enough being done to advertise them, and why are so many talented
and bright young people being left with nothing but their education
that won’t get them a
job?
Joseph
Lee (North East): My region, the North East, has the second highest
youth unemployment in the country, with 22.6 per cent. of young people
out of
work and education. An important local industry on Teesside is shedding
jobs and threatens thousands of families’ futures, so I know
that the economic crisis is real, and that unemployment is a serious
problem for my
area.
Youth
unemployment in September stood at 946,000, and those 900,000 or so
have been let down by institutions that have been very generously state
subsidised, but I do not believe we should be as pessimistic as Carissa
suggests. The figures for September were lower than expected. Although
that is little consolation, I know, for those without a job, it gives
us reason to think that the efforts made by both business and
Government are working, to some
extent.
Barnsley,
Swindon and Newcastle are among 11 areas with Government-backed funding
to trial different approaches to getting young people back into
training. Schools and colleges are offering the most diverse range of
courses ever, giving people qualifications more suited to them and more
suited to the workplace. There are many examples of the private sector
providing help and training to make sure that young people are
recession- proof. Morrisons is retraining all its
under-25-year-old employees, and new apprenticeships from companies
like Centrica are now coming to fruition. Other employers pledging
support for young people include Microsoft and Phones
4U.
Turning
to whether capitalism is a good enough system, I don’t think
that many people are in favour of unfettered markets or reckless
banking, and I agree with Lord Turner that much of the City is socially
useless, but I don’t think that the answer is the abolition of
private property. The way out of recession is through individuals,
businesses and an active Government providing jobs and opportunities
for people. We must never be complacent or dogmatic about market
forces, and we must never underestimate the misery of unemployment or
abandon a whole generation. But there is reason to be optimistic about
the job market, and a huge amount is being done to provide young people
with training, educational and job
opportunities.
Mr.
Speaker: Joe, thank you very much, indeed. One of
the regions slightly under-represented in the debates this morning was
East Midlands, so I am looking for someone from the East
Midlands.
Adam
Gravely (East Midlands): I live in a very rural area with very few
places to find work. Even in our town, finding work is really difficult
and, for a young person, finding a part-time job is really difficult. I
was looking in KFC, and it had a big sign on the windows, saying,
“Full-time staff only. Not students,” which it
underlined. It will be difficult to solve the crisis in the lack of
jobs until the economy strengthens, but that must happen through a
mixture of the public sector and the private sector.
I
should like to focus on the investment in apprenticeships.
Apprenticeships are a really good way forward for young people to train
in a place of work. Many young people I have seen have hopes of getting
apprenticeships, but they are not getting them because such positions
are just not available. That is really, really affecting them, so
something must be done about it.
Mr.
Speaker: Thank you very much, indeed. Friends, we have
been joined this afternoon by Andrew Mackinlay, Labour Member for
Thurrock, who was here but, I think, has now had to go. However, thank
you, Andrew, for your support. We have been joined also by Andrew
Pelling, Independent Conservative Member for Croydon, Central.
[Interruption.] Oh, he says that there is nothing
Conservative about him whatever; he is an Independent now, full stop.
Fair enough. We also have Lembit Öpik, Liberal Democrat Member
for Montgomeryshire. Give them a round of applause. [Applause.]
Another under-represented region this morning was the North West, so
can I have a speaker from the North West, please?
Ian
Goley (North West): Young people have got to be given, or at least
have the chance to earn, the opportunity of a job, especially in the
current economic climate, which people have already referred to. It is
an economic climate that, through no fault of our own, will result in
fewer job opportunities for young people—fewer job opportunities
for us. My point therefore is that more emphasis has got to be put on
job opportunities for young people. We are the future, as others have
said, and the opportunity has got to come from Government. It is not
our fault, and the issue of job opportunities for young people has got
to be
addressed.
Mr.
Speaker: A further under-represented region this morning
was Wales. Can we have a contributor from Wales? Not if you do not want
to.
Bethan
Williams (Wales): Someone said earlier that more apprenticeship
places need to be created, but emphasis also needs to be placed on
practical experiences within those apprenticeships. People are getting
places on college courses, such as plumbing, carpentry and building,
and completing their three years, but they are coming out at the end
with no practical experience and no hope of finding of a job with a
company. Who wants to employ a plumber who has never fitted a tap? Who
wants to employ someone who has sat in the classroom for three years
and has no experience in the real world? The apprenticeships scheme
needs to be reformed so that people get on-the-job experience all the
way through their course.
Shannon
Taggart (West Midlands): Two years ago, the unemployment rate for
20 to 24-year-olds with a bachelor’s degree was just 2.2 per
cent. Now, it is more than four times that, at 9.3 per cent., showing
our ageing society. We are coming out of recession, but employers need
to be given an incentive to train young people. They would rather keep
their old people, who are more experienced, and not give us a chance.
When I go to university, I will be in the class of 2010, competing not
just with my peers, but with previous years, the classes of 2009 and
2008. The Government need to give employers more incentive to train me
and help me to sustain
myself.
Poppy-Jo
Lumley (Yorkshire and Humberside): Hi, I am from
Leeds.
At
what point does this become discrimination against young people and the
people of tomorrow? Surely this “experience” comes not
only with age but with how much you feel responsible for what you do.
Should there not be more opportunities for young people to have work
experience, and should jobs not let people have work experience,
unpaid, and then offer them places? It is getting to the point where we
cannot even get work experience for
jobs.
Nafisah
Atcha (North West): It is really unfeasible to scrap capitalism,
because if not capitalism, then communism, and some of the champions of
communism are Mao, who killed many of his people, and Pol Pot, who is
listed as one of the top 10 evil men and killed a third of his
population. I think, just for the sake of young people getting jobs,
that it is unfeasible to turn to communism. Its ideology works, but it
will never work in a
society.
Felicity
Probert (South West): Basically, the word I want to give you all
today is “progress”. If we do not have progress, we
cannot continue to get out of recession. Young people are not being
given jobs because they do not have experience. People are not
employing them because they do not have experience, but that also means
that they cannot progress. By building experience, we can progress and
get out of recession. As we heard, communism will inhibit any
opportunities for progression and we will hit a brick wall. Young
people will not be able to get jobs if we do not continue with
capitalism.
Nick
Barnard (North East): My point is that it is not the
employers’ fault that they are not employing young
people—it is young people’s fault themselves. I think
that young people are not doing enough to go out there and speak to the
employers and make an effort to say, “Look, I know I’m
not as experienced—I don’t have all the experience that a
45-year-old’s got—but I’m willing to learn.
I’ll do whatever you’d like me to do—I’ll
start at the bottom and work up.” That is how a lot of people
gain experience, and that is what young people need to
do.
Joanna
Tomlin (London): A lot of youth are involved in a lot of crime, and
think they cannot get a job to support their families. They are in
desperate need of money, because with tuition fees we are not getting
the money to go to university or to travel. We need that money.
Sometimes it seems as though the only option is crime. If we are going
to reduce our crime rate, we desperately need to give children the
opportunity to work. If there seems to be no experience available, we
need to publicise more where it is and how we can get it. Connexions is
not enough, and it cannot cater for
all.
Kathryn
Whalley (Eastern): I agree with the young lady from Wales that
apprenticeships are a brilliant thing, but she is right about training
in college. If you talk to apprentices they say it is so much more
useful actually to go into a company to get the experience, so that is
what we should be looking to do. But because
companies cannot afford to take them on any more, they are getting the
college places but not the work
placements.
Ben
Smith (South West): I think we have identified today that young
people having jobs can solve transport issues and university issues,
and just help them to be able to pay for the things they need. Instead
of us coming here and saying, “Can we have this for
free?”, that will do it for
us.
Leonie
Thomas (South East): Every child who is born today already owes
£22,000 because of how the Government have dealt with the
economy at this present time. I do not feel that the economic system
has necessarily failed us, but I definitely feel that the way the
Government have handled it has failed this generation and the next
generation.
Derek
Couper (Scotland): We talk about training schemes and education,
and they need funding. I am all for young people being educated and
trained to fill positions, but we know that young people who train and
who educate themselves do not always go into the field that they want
to. I will tell you why KFC does not want students—because it
can get graduates. Young people who train themselves and pay to educate
themselves cannot get into their desired
professions.
I
have no time for the opinion that young people do not get jobs because
they do not try hard enough. I have recently left school and a lot of
my friends are looking for jobs. Every single day we fill in
application forms, go to shops and hand in CVs. It is not down to young
people; it is down the economy, and that is what we need to
fix.
Rachel
Howe (South East): I have friends and relatives who leave
university, sometimes with a 2:1 degree, and they are unable to find
jobs. If those people cannot find jobs, what chance do people who leave
school at 16 have of finding a
job?
Elliot
Nolan (South West): The main issue is not the lack of skills that
are available but the economy itself. The problem came from having an
unregulated economy. We need some more elected officials to govern our
economy, so we can have it in a more structured way and more jobs are
available, even for the unskilled such
as—yes—16-year-olds.
Lexia
Tomlinson (West Midlands): If you study most democratic states, you
see that they come with capitalism. If you have communism, it does not
work, as we see with China and
Cuba.
With
regard to people of our age who try to get work, it is not that we do
not have the experience or that we do not want to work, but that people
do not want to let us work. They say, “If you have no
experience, you can’t work”. If they refuse to let us
over the barrier to work, how are we ever going to get
anywhere?
Daniel
Harper (Wales): Many people seem to think that we do not have the
skills or the experience, but in Powys, to go back to transport, we
have a lack of buses. Many of my colleagues live in rural areas. I live
in a quite a densely populated town for Powys, and the job
opportunities are not there. I have people coming up to me every day
going, “Do you know of any jobs?” I am fortunate—I
am among the employed. Many of my friends are not, and many people in
rural areas cannot get public transport to places where they can get a
job.
Stephanie
Wills (North West): Yes, there are not enough jobs, but I would
prefer my parents to have a job instead of me. If there are jobs going
I would much rather that my Mum and Dad had a job, so that they can
have a good
living.
I
also think that because there are not enough jobs, young people should
be more enterprising and come up with alternative ways to make money,
such as setting up their own micro-businesses. I also believe
that money is not everything, and even though we need money to get by,
young people should look into voluntary work a lot more. I know a lot
of people who have the degrees and the education, but because they have
not volunteered their time to society, they are not able to get jobs.
At my age—I am 18—I am far more employable than some of
my family members who are fully educated with a degree. Young people
should not focus entirely on getting jobs; they should focus on
volunteer work and being more
enterprising.
Fred
Cotterill (South West): We have had heard that capitalism means
progress, or that communism does not work. Yeah, because capitalism is
so obviously working brilliantly! When one in three children in this
country live in poverty—and this is a first-world
country—how can you possibly say that our system is working?
Inequality is rising, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That
has been happening for the past 30 years. How can it possibly be
accepted and how can it be okay?
What
we need—[Interruption.]
Sorry—I’m on a run. What we need is to take it back to a
democratic level and grass-roots level and ask what people really want
in their communities, and not rely on some idea of “market
forces”. Market forces are not human. How can they possibly know
what we want and need?
Clare
Calder (South East): Manual professions tend to be better paid and
male-dominated. Girls need to be encouraged to learn manual trades, and
traditional female jobs such as caring should be better paid and open
to boys.
Adam
Lonsdale (Yorkshire and Humberside): Until recently, I was one of
946,000 unemployed young people. I found a voluntary placement and I
have since applied for a job and been accepted for an interview, which
had not happened before. Voluntary placements are brilliant for young
people because they can gain the experience that they need for an
interview. After all, that is what companies are looking for these
days.
The
Government should put more funding into allowing hundred of thousands
to take up voluntary placements around the country, because many more
people would be accepted for jobs. Young people are the future and they
need the experience.
Katie
Byrne (North West): More job opportunities for young people are
needed, as that will improve their independence and make them more
reliable. Also, if
more young people have jobs, they will be able to earn enough money to
afford transport, and it will therefore easier for them to get to
places, to refer back to our transport
campaign.
Mr.
Speaker: We are still a bit short on people from the east
midlands. Does anyone from there want to contribute?
Jason
Hill (East Midlands): Referring back to those who say that young
people need the skills to work and we need to give them opportunities,
where I come from in Derbyshire has a mining background. Ever since the
mines got closed, our area has been buggered, near enough, because the
only jobs we can do involve getting a bus and it costs £4 to get
to the nearest town. That is why we need free buses.
We
need the opportunity to get to universities. We have got colleges and
schools around us, but young people need the opportunity to get to a
college to get education, which will give us the chance to get the wide
range of jobs that are out there.
I
will be going into the armed forces soon—I had to work my rear
end off to get there—because my area has a mining background.
Yet again, it is not all down to the community; it is also down to your
parents, because they have got to support you in as many ways as
possible. You all have friends, and you should use them to support you
as well.
Mr.
Speaker: Thank you very much for that contribution. I
think the word “buggered” is unparliamentary, but never
mind.
Nick
Pringle (North East): As has been said by many of my colleagues,
capitalism clearly is not working. The bankers have proved this: you
cannot trust a capitalist with money.
As
many of my colleagues picked up, the apprenticeships that have been
introduced by the Government are extremely successful in training
people. However, a very good friend of mine recently completed his
apprenticeship and found himself unemployed and unemployable. Although
the apprenticeships are fantastic in training people, the Government
must ensure that businesses are prepared to take on those who have done
them. I understand that the economy is not prepared to take those
people on at the moment, but we must be prepared for when we come out
of recession—very soon, I hope—because very many jobs
will be available for people in manual skilled labour.
Ashleigh
Kincell (Yorkshire and Humberside): My father is in manual labour.
People do apprenticeships to learn skills to do those jobs. The number
of people who have lost their jobs in the recession is vast and men who
have families to support are losing their jobs. Employers bring in
students who do not have as much responsibility to earn money as those
men. The jobs are a lot more important for those men, because they have
houses and mortgages to pay, and children to look after. As much as I
would like young people to be able to get those jobs, other people must
come
first.
Tessa
Tyler Todd (London): Each and every one of us sitting in this
Chamber today has been directly or indirectly affected by the current
economic situation.
Owing to the mistakes that have been made in the past, we can smell the
stench of unemployment on our streets. This needs to change and it
needs to change today. As Joe said, 11 areas might have Government
funding, but what about the others? This provision needs to be improved
upon, and it needs to reach out to more people. It is one thing for
people to offer and promise us more apprenticeships; it is another
seeing it happen. Well, we are standing here today, asking for it to
happen.
As
Carissa said, young people are in one of the worst situations—if
not the worst—they have ever been in. Barack Obama himself has
said that young people will be the most affected by the current
economic climate. The old quote goes, “If America sneezes,
Europe catches a cold.” Well, it’s more like we have
caught flu. Everyone is affected by this and will go on being affected
by this for a very long time. In the future, we will have high taxes:
not for better health care, or better schooling, or better policing,
and not for anything that will benefit us—no, nothing like that.
We will be paying for the mistakes of the past. We will basically be
paying for the bonuses of the bankers who got us into this situation in
the first place. This is why we need to vote for this debate,
because—trust me—we need all the help that we can
get.
This
leads me on to the subject of apprenticeships, voluntary work and
training. Please tell me how a young person is supposed to fund
themselves to live alone, perhaps in London, for a couple of weeks to a
month while they take part in one of these things. Please enlighten me
as to how they will be able to fund themselves with no income,
especially if their parents cannot support them. How are they are
supposed to get by? This is a question that a lot of young people are
asking themselves. Are we creating a new form of
elitism—“Don’t worry, we’ll create work
experience, apprenticeships and voluntary opportunities, but you can
only take them up if you can afford to.” As a Member of the
Youth Parliament, this appals me as it should
you.
Today
we are asking the Government to change this and provide some sort of
support for people in that position, as there is no point having things
like that in place if they are not accessible to the people who need
them. In these hard times, we need to stand united as one. Together we
can make a difference. We are not just sitting here today as ourselves:
we are sitting here as representatives of the young people in our
constituencies, as representatives of the young people in our regions
and as representatives of the thousands of young people across the UK.
When voting later we need to ask ourselves what would be of most
benefit to the people we represent. In my opinion, there is only one
answer to that question, and that is voting for this debate. Please
vote for us later and make a change today for the young people of
tomorrow.
Mr.
Speaker: Tessa, thank you for that forceful and
impassioned winding-up speech, which was richly enjoyed by everybody
present. I congratulate people on their speeches, as I did this
morning. I say with absolute sincerity that they were first-class
speeches. I appreciate, too, the way in which people adjusted and made
short speeches. That was very considerate and it meant that we got more
people in than we would otherwise have been able to
do.
Lowering
the Voting
Age2.4
pm
James
Evans (South East): Are young people engaged with the world around
them? Do young people want a say in the decisions that affect their
everyday lives? Are we not sitting in the House of Commons today
discussing, debating and voting on these very issues? Our opponents
question whether we are informed to enough to vote at 16. Are we mature
enough to vote at 16? We are mature enough to leave home, to go out to
work and to pay our taxes. At 16, we can marry our MP, we can sleep
with our MP and we can have children with our MP. We can sign up in
preparation for fighting and potentially dying for our MP. And suddenly
we are not mature enough to vote for them. What an absolute
disgrace!
It
is time for Parliament to get its priorities right and for Westminster
to wake up. At 16, many young people will be mapping out the rest of
their lives. If young people are ready to commit themselves to society,
society must be ready to commit itself to young people. For every
overblown story on youth crime or yobbish behaviour, there is a
fantastic performance by a youth drama group, a team of young
volunteers at a hospital and young people across the country helping
with that all-important institution that we call family. There
is a time to give those young people a say, a time to give
young people everywhere a voice and a time to give them the
vote—and that time is
now!
Mr.
Speaker: That is as powerful a speech as I have heard in a
long time. Thank you very much. I call Miss JemmaKarmaleeta Nye to
second the
motion.
JemmaKarmaleeta
Nye (Wales): Didn’t James make
a good speech? Did his arguments not make you want to agree with
allowing 16-year-olds to vote? In fact, did you not come here today
with the preconceived idea that it was just and fair that they should
get the vote? I urge you to listen carefully to what I have to say. You
must think and say no, or be led
astray.
The
right to vote was previously fought for, but now it is being handed to
us without real consideration. Think about why politicians want to give
us the vote. Is it because we are mature and attentive, yet antisocial,
or simply to indoctrinate us and gain our much-needed votes? Giving the
vote to 16-year-olds is pointless. We need education to go with it. A
huge percentage of the population with the right to vote do not use it.
Ask yourselves why. Surely it is because they do not understand the
system or know enough about what they would vote
for.
Those
who vote have had no compulsory education in democracy or politics. If
we, as young people, are to understand democracy, we need education.
The Government control the curriculum and determine our learning, and
some subjects are compulsory. Let us make learning about politics and
democracy compulsory—perhaps for just six lessons at the end of
A-levels, just before turning 16.
I
use the analogy of sport. In school, every child gets to play with a
ball—whether a football, or netball or whatever—but not
everyone likes it. Some sit and watch while others play for, or
support, established teams, but
the point is that they have been introduced to the ball. However, I tell
politicians not to be hypocritical in their attitudes towards us. We
can make our own decisions and have our own opinions, which is why we
are here today. You should not start disguising your manifestos to
attract the younger of the voting population. We deserve to be treated
equally, and if we have received the right education, we will be able
to distinguish between jargon and reality. Let us make democracy and
politics—but not, I hasten to add, party politics—the
ball. If young people like the ball, they will find out for themselves
which team they want to support.
The
key to all this is education, and without it the vote at 16 is
pointless. If it is given we will fail to utilise it properly and will
be in danger of being led astray. I hope that you will rethink that
preconceived idea that you entered with today and decide on the basis
of what is best not just for you, but all young people. We
deserve
better.
Jonny
Lyness (Northern Ireland): At 16 you are more ignorant and
susceptible to being led astray and indoctrinated by extremist parties.
If the voting age was reduced to 16, there would be a rise in the vote
for the British National party and other parties like that.
Umaru
Saidu (London): Lowering the voting age is a major issue and a big
concern for young people, as they feel that they can be politically
involved, but they also feel frustrated by the lack of political
representation, something that appears not to change anything for them.
I would question lowering the voting age, because the main issue is not
the voter but who is voted for and who makes the decisions for the
voter. Therefore, it is vital not only that young people are allowed to
say who they will be able to vote for, but that they are given a
reasonable chance, by politicians telling young people that they want
to represent their views and have not just gone into politics for their
own gain.
Scott
Prince (North West): Let me say to everyone in the Chamber today
that you have all been given the fantastic opportunity, as I have, of
joining the UKYP. As you very well know, if the voting age goes
down to 16, we will not be able to stand in parliamentary
elections and be Members of the UK Youth Parliament. How many people
here would not have been given the opportunity to be part of something
as fantastic as this if we had voted at
16?
Hollie
Mediana (Wales): Everyone in this Room is politically involved.
Therefore, I would like to think that before you voted on something,
you would learn about it first. So just take a moment to think about
all those people who drop out of school. They are the ones who
complain, but they do not yet know enough to vote at 16. Yet we should
have that vote, so let us inform those people who do not know before
they vote on something that is so important to us and which should be
so important to everyone else. At least then more people will be voting
in two years’ time, because that is why people do not vote now:
they do not know what they are voting for or why. In the end, we will
become a more intelligent country than we are
now.
Aston
Jones (West Midlands): Is voting at 16 pointless or not? Some
16-year-olds know about politics and some do not. I know about
politics.
Joe
Feeney (Yorkshire and Humberside): The British National party won
seats in my region, which we can all agree is disgraceful, but what are
the reasons for that? The reason can only be political education. Very
few of us got to vote in the European elections. We have all been
educated in politics, at least briefly. A year ago I wanted to take
history in my A-levels. Fortunately, there was not enough room on the
course and I did politics instead. A year later, I am in the House of
Commons. I learnt so much about politics. With a correct political
education for everyone—and I do not mean an hour of personal,
social and health education, citizenship or general studies, in which
we fall asleep or throw paper at the person in front of
us—parties such as the BNP will not get into
power.
Emma-Louise
Benson (Eastern): Young people today are not that interested in
politics at 16. We in this Chamber are a minority. I do not think that
a significant number of people at 16 are interested enough in politics.
Voter apathy is at its highest among young people aged 18 to 25.
Lowering the voting age to 16 will not make much difference, because
people will still not use the vote.
Keenan
Alexander (Scotland): This topic relates to the national campaign
for the Scottish Youth Parliament. Through that, I attended an event in
which we spoke to members of the public about their opinion on lowering
the voting age to 16. We had all sorts of responses, including that
young people are not mature enough, but who are these people to say
that we are not mature enough? If we are young and actively interested
in politics we may well be a minority, but surely that does not mean
that we should not have the ability to participate and the right to say
what we
want.
Charlotte
Kilroy (North West): I am from Oldham. I believe that the voting
age should be lowered to 16. As has been said, at that age people can
join the Army, get married and pay taxes—these are classed as
adult things—but I say that if young people can fight for our
country and have to pay taxes, why should they not have a say in how
those taxes are spent? I believe that we should be able to vote at 16.
If we have to pay tax, we should have the ability to vote. Otherwise,
the national age of adulthood should be raised to 18, and we should not
have to pay taxes until that age. As I say, if we have to pay tax, we
should be able to vote.
David
Collier (London): I am the Member of the Youth Parliament for
Bexley. As one of my fellow MYPs has already said, we are 16 and we can
vote. We can vote in the UK Youth Parliament until we are 18 and from
then on, we can vote in the main Parliament. There is no need to lower
the voting age, as we can already vote. Lowering the voting age would
mean having to lower the voting age for the Youth Parliament.
Poppy
Jeffery (South East): One of the main reasons the general public
are against lowering the voting age for the benefit of people here is,
they say, that young people are not interested enough in politics to
care to vote. However, if that is the case, what are we all doing here?
The popularity of the UK Youth Parliament is so
high that it proves that young people actually are interested in
politics. People say that maturity is an important issue for voting,
but it is our choice to vote for who gets into the UK Youth Parliament,
so why should it not also be our choice to decide who should run our
country? It is our choice to join organisations in the first place. I
repeat the point—why should we not have the vote and be able to
say who runs the
country?
Joe
Vinson (South West): Adults say that young people are not
interested or informed enough about politics to vote at 16, so will
somebody tell me how many adults are interested or informed enough
about politics?
India
Burnett (Eastern): As some of my fellow MYPs have already said, a
more pressing issue is young people’s desperate desire and need
for political education in schools. I feel that this must be introduced
before we can begin to tackle the issue of lowering the voting age.
Only then will young people be able to make informed voting decisions
and, most importantly, be motivated and encouraged to take part in the
political process.
Bex
Bailey (East Midlands): I represent Nottinghamshire. MPs represent
young people as much as they do adults and Government actions affect
young people as much as they do adults. Young people do care about
politics, as we have shown today. Even those young people who say that
they do not care about politics are often interested in issues such as
global warming, poverty, taxes and so forth. I believe that we should
lower the voting age to 16, but combine it with political education in
schools, so that young people are well informed in order to
participate.
Oliver
Phillips (Staffordshire): So we are not mature enough. Well, in the
words of my late grandfather, some MPs are not mature enough to
represent us. Look at us sitting here in the Chamber. Have we jeered at
each other? Have we thrown things at each other? Have we drawn things
or written notes and passed them to everyone and laughed at people? No,
we have not. We have represented young people, which is what we are
here to do, which MPs fail to do,
apparently.
Look
at us now. We are all together, united in one aim. We all want the best
for young people. That is obvious. That is why we are here. That is why
we stood—because we are passionate about young people. MPs only
want what they want. They are there to do the best for themselves.
Disgusting!
Emily
Thorpe (East Midlands): A few months ago I was driving through a
town in my region, and there was a BNP rally. I was horrified to find
that so many young people were taking part in it. I agree that we are
mature enough and educated enough to make a stand in politics, but we
need education about the different political parties, or we will end up
with a swarm of
BNPs.
Sean
Barnes (South East): Morally, allowing people to vote at 16 is the
right thing to do. At the moment, under-18s are under-represented in
Parliament. As has
already been said, at 16 you can join the Army, get married with
consent, have children, move out of your home and pay tax. If MPs are
serious about reforming and cleaning up the UK’s politics, they
will taking a step in the right direction and lower the
voting age to
16.
Ffion
Thomas (Wales): Voting at the age of 16 is already happening in
places such as Brazil, Cuba and Austria, which became the first country
in the EU to allow it. We are already voting—thousands and
thousands of young people are already voting: school councils, youth
councils and young people in Youth Parliaments. More than 27,000 young
people voted to elect six members in Essex, and in 2005 the turnout in
Sutton was higher in the Youth Parliament elections than in the
election for a Government. Who can say that young people do not want
the
vote?
James
Troup (South East): I think that we live in a time in which people
have become very cynical and disillusioned with politics, and as a
result voter turnout is very low. So would it not be a great thing if
we opened up the voting age to a new group of people, and hopefully
moved towards some real change in our
nation?
Liam
Beattie (Scotland): On the idea of having a piece of paper to prove
that you can vote, let me say that democracy is founded on equality
across the patch. It should not be down to whether you know what the
Liberal Democrats stand for or what the Labour party stands for.
Regardless of your intelligence, you should be able to vote.
About
200 miles away, in the Channel Islands, 16-year-olds have been given
the vote. In the Isle of Man, 16-year-olds have been given the vote.
Those islands off the British Isles are allowing 16-year-olds to vote.
Surely we should be following those
examples.
Daniel
Johnston (London): Perhaps a good phrase to follow is one
that has been used countless times in revolutions and civil
wars: no taxation without representation. If we can be taxed, in
principle we ought to be allowed to vote as well. That is all that
matters: the
principle.
Ben
Balla-Muir (South East): I agree that everyone should be able to
vote at 16, but I believe that, as others have said, you need to be
able to know who you are voting for. I have friends who had no interest
in politics until they saw the BNP on “Question Time”
last week. It is controversial issues that bring out an
interest in politics. People who say that they have no
interest in politics must be able to know if they want to vote,
but in order to vote, they need to know properly who they are
voting for.
Others
have pointed out that young people are already voting. We have had to
go through the Government: the Government had to vote for us to sit
here today. Surely, if we want to have the vote and bring about change
properly, we must be able to vote, but know whom we are voting
for.
Uma
Akther (London): The decisions politicians make are about the
future, and 16-year-olds are the future, so doesn’t it make
sense for them to be able to vote?
Max
Bailey (North West): I have asked this question a lot of times when
I have come into contact with people in politics, and they tend to give
me the answer that young people of that age will not vote with an
educated mind—that they will just tick the first box they see.
Why do they think young people are that naïve, and why are they
so afraid of parties—that already have elected
representatives—actually getting into power? That problem is to
do with not young people, but the government system at the moment. If
so, why do we not put political education into schools? They then start
to say that young people do not want political education. I
don’t want to learn science, but I still get taught it and I am
never going to use it.
Ahmed
El Houdiri (South West): I think all people need in order to be
able to vote is to be educated and know what they are voting for, and
if a 16-year-old is educated enough in that way, they should be able to
vote.
Oscar
Clarke (North East): I am one of the youngest here. My year group
and the years after will all have to stay in education until 18. I do
not see a point in having a vote if you are still in compulsory
education. Someone else talked about the BNP and younger people being
more vulnerable to propaganda and the BNP therefore possibly getting
more votes. We don’t want that. I know that there are people who
are passionate about politics and who do want to vote, but they are
exceptions, and we do not legislate for exceptions. Some people can
drive safely when drunk, but we legislate not for exceptions, but for
the
majority.
Clare
Coles (Yorkshire and Humberside): People of 18 and older do not
vote, so why would 16-year-olds? Most of them would not vote wisely,
because they are not
interested.
Rosie
Foster (South East): I do not understand how it is that we are all
here today: why is it that I am 13 and they still don’t think I
should vote when I reach the age of 16, when I am mature enough to sit
in the House of Commons and have a
debate?
Kishan
Parshotam (London): We have to remember that 40 years ago it was
this country that led the rest of Europe and most of the world in
lowering the voting age to 18. We have heard that Austria and islands
off the United Kingdom are lowering the voting age to 16. Should we not
accept that now too, before it is too late for us to vote? Let’s
all join together and vote
together.
Joe
White (West Midlands): I feel that we should not ask young people
to make an uninformed decision when voting. Would any of us in this
Chamber today be happy if the number of votes for radical fringe groups
were to soar? A certain fringe group at present has roughly 3 per cent.
of the vote. I would like to put that into context by referring to what
I have been studying in my history A-level. The NSDAP, or Nazi party,
had 3 per cent. of the vote in 1929, and by using
people’s fears, the great depression, the economic crisis and
putting their views to the impressionable, their support rose to 37 per
cent. in just four years. To be a true democracy, we need to educate
our young people in politics and allow them to make their own informed
decisions. We must have education in politics to enable them to do that,
and I urge everybody to support the “Value the vote”
political education campaign, for that is the first step towards
getting votes at
16.
David
Leitch (Scotland): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I
understand that you have been trying to ensure representation from all
across the United Kingdom in this debate and therefore you have been
calling people from different regions. However, I wish to point out
that the United Kingdom is made up of four nations—not regions.
Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not regions, therefore by what
you have been doing you have been making England much more represented
than the other nations. I am not a nationalist by any mark, but I find
it quite sickening that we, as four separate nations, are being grouped
as regions.
We
should have been looking at the people who had stood up the most; I
feel as if I have been on some sort of rollercoaster over the past
couple of debates, because I have been up and down every single time
you have asked for someone. I feel that instead of looking for
representation from other regions, what we should have been doing is
looking for representation
—
Mr.
Speaker: Thank you, I have got the point. I am extremely
grateful to you and I will respond. I hope colleagues will understand
if I take one more point of order, and then we really must proceed with
the wind-ups.
James
Bartle (North East): Further to that point of order, Mr.
Speaker. May I say to the Member who has just spoken that Scotland had
a speaker in every debate, as did every region? If you had not been
following the procedure of allowing someone from every region to speak,
people would be complaining. [Interruption.] Please let me
speak, it is my turn this time.
Mr.
Speaker: May I start by thanking the colleague who raised
the first point of order? I respect him for doing so and I appreciate
the fact that he has done so. I would like to say that it is not
perfect and we can always do better, and I am genuinely sorry if there
are some people who wanted to speak, which there will inevitably have
been, whom I have not been able to call. That is my first
point.
My
second point is that I absolutely accept, and would not dispute for a
moment, the status of the nations of the United Kingdom. No aspersion
has been cast, no insult is intended and no disrespect, by me, from the
Chair, is felt. I am sorry if people feel that they have not had the
fullest opportunity, but what I can say, as a matter not of opinion,
but of fact, is that speakers from throughout the UK have been called.
In the course of the debates, there have been at least eight speakers
from Scotland—that is a matter of fact; the record is very
clear—as well as speakers from Northern Ireland and from Wales.
I have tried really hard to ensure that every part of the kingdom has
had a chance. I have worked very hard to try to ensure that just as
many women have been able to speak as men, I have wanted to ensure that
people from our British ethnic minority communities have contributed,
and I have wanted to
ensure that people with disabilities have had the chance to contribute.
It might not have been as good as you want. I am open to improvement,
because I am very imperfect, but I have done my best.
[Applause.] I like you more, minute by minute. I wish we
got that reaction from colleagues in the House of Commons on a daily
basis. I was not bidding for applause, I promise you. I will take one
more point of order, but after that I want to wind
up.
William
Quick (South West): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I
am not disappointed in any way, but I would just like to inform the
Chair that there are three representatives of the British Forces
(Germany). There is a wide nation out there that is under-represented
and would like to make their voices
heard.
Mr.
Speaker: That is a very important point, and I respect it.
We should never forget those people who, in the greatest spirit of
patriotism and sacrifice, are putting their lives on the line in the
interests of the freedom and the security of the rest of us. I know
their young people are represented here today, and I respect
that.
Joe
Bennett (Yorkshire and Humberside): I think we can all agree with
that.
Today
we have heard arguments from both sides and found that although we in
this Chamber are all directly involved in politics, not everyone our
age is, alas. Nor are all the people aged at or above the current
voting age of 18. Aged 16, we have numerous liberties which should
include the right to a vote. However, the opposition argue that we
young people are notorious for misusing those liberties, as shown in a
number of statistics and news articles.
We
pay the price for democracy through taxation, but do we want the
responsibility of learning, researching and voting for our Government?
To make what we define as a good decision, we need information and
education, perhaps. More importantly, we need the right to a decision.
This matter is controversial because it questions the right of young
people aged 16, and the role of young people—the people in this
Chamber and outside—in democracy.
Democracy
is the backbone of our country, the soul of our nation and the heart of
this very organisation. It is because of this that I urge that we take
this matter forward and act for constitutional reform on the subject.
It is my personal belief, and that of the well known political
theologist, John Locke, that if you pay the price for democracy, you
deserve the benefits. Not all of you might agree. However, I think all
of us in the Chamber today can value the opportunity that we have been
given, the right to have our voice in this room today. All of us can
appreciate democracy, and it is for democracy that I put this campaign
forward.
Mr.
Speaker: Joe, thank you for the sincere, serious-minded
way in which you have wound up the last of five outstanding
debates.
Rhys
George (South East): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I
would like to say thank you to all the MPs who voted overwhelmingly for
us to be debating here today for the first time. Without them, we would
not be here and the people of Britain would not be able to see what we
mean and what we are trying to do to benefit young
people.
Tom
Astell (Yorkshire and Humberside): On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker. The people of Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland have their own Youth Parliament. England does not. We have only
the United Kingdom Youth Parliament. We need a voice as well, like
Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland.
As
you probably know, the Speaker of the House of Commons has to remain
impartial as between Members of one party and another, and as between
Members of political parties, who are by far the majority in the House
of Commons, and those who sit as Independents. It is also the case that
the Speaker does not knowingly become embroiled in controversy on
political issues.
I
would not now vote in Divisions of the House of Commons, and I would
not express opinions about what I now think about issues of contention,
but what I can tell you, further to the point of order that was raised,
is that when that Division took place in March this year on whether the
Youth Parliament should be allowed to debate here, I voted for your
right to debate here because I felt very strongly that it was the right
and proper thing to happen. I think we feel vindicated today. Just
before I wind up—[Interruption.] We might
have a chance for further contributions later, but I fear that I must
move on.
I
just want to welcome one other colleague here today. I have tried to
name-check every colleague who has taken the trouble to turn up, and I
should like to welcome my parliamentary colleague and, from my point of
view as MP for Buckingham, near-neighbour in Milton Keynes, Dr. Phyllis
Starkey. Thank you for coming.
[Applause.]
Members
of the Youth Parliament, I am advised that the total number of MYPs who
have spoken is at least 109, so I think that we have done pretty well.
The Youth Parliament will now divide to choose which of the five
subjects debated today will be the UKYP’s campaigning priority
for the coming year. All members have the opportunity to vote once for
their chosen subject, by means of secret ballot. Those of you on my
right should leave the Chamber by the door behind me and turn left into
the Aye Lobby behind you. [Interruption.] Wait a minute. Perhaps
I could just finish explaining the procedure, although I am glad that
you are enthusiastic to vote. It is a great sign.
Those
on my left should leave by the doors at the far end of the Chamber and
turn left into the No Lobby behind you. In the Lobby you will be given
a ballot paper with the five debate subjects listed. You should place a
cross by the one that you believe to be most important, and then place
the paper in the ballot box at the end of the Lobby. Afterwards, please
return to your place in the Chamber. Members of the House of Commons
staff will be on hand to assist you. The Division Lobby is now
open.
Colleagues,
I am on a promise, and I do not want to break a promise. I am not going
to have loads more contributions, because we simply do not have time,
but I did promise the young woman on the third row back who was itching
to say something that she would have a quick chance to do
so.
Rebecca
Barrow (East Midlands): I just want to go back to an earlier point
and say that at the end of the day, we are one UK Youth Parliament and
we represent young people as a
whole.
Mr.
Speaker: Thank you. And there was a young man who asked me
whether he could thank the staff of the
House.
Aakash
Bharania (London): Yes, I would like to thank all the youth workers
here today for bringing us all down here; all the House of Commons
staff for being amazing and for great facilitation; you, Mr.
Speaker, for great chairing; and those who organised the event. Thank
you.
The
Youth Parliament proceeded to a
Division.
Mr.
Speaker: Colleagues, you will be pleased to know that we
have got the results. The votes cast were as
follows:
University
Education being free:
56
Youth
crime and how to tackle it:
34
Free
transport for over 60s, but not for young people:
54
Job
opportunities for young people:
62
Lowering
the voting age to 16:
107.
Members
of the Youth Parliament, you have chosen your campaigning priority for
the
year.
Thank
you, that is the end of our proceedings. Order.
Order
Youth
Parliament adjourned at 3.6
pm.
| Home Page |