Last week, Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard wrote a rather dreadful comment piece in The Times lamenting the role of the Children’s Commissioner and suggesting that there wasn’t any need for such a position: “How about a Ginger’s Commissioner, for the rights of us redheads?” he asked. “What about a Wii Commissioner, for those who want access to computer games?”
As I’m sure many others did, I sighed, tutted and wished once again that columnists of his ilk would get out of their trendy Islington townhouses and dig a little deeper before putting pen to paper. So I was glad to see that Sathnam Sanghara composed a fantastic response to the piece; answering the criticisms with a robust defence. His standfirst said it all: “If this column were about puppies being held in indefinite detention with no judicial oversight, my inbox would be full.”
Attacking government quangos and those paid to head them up is easy fodder for op-ed writers, and I’d be lying if I hadn’t ever seen the title of a government agency and thought: ‘my taxes go to pay for that!?!’.
But I struggle to think of a section of society more worthy of a publicly-funded body that stands arms-length from government and calls it to account. Those under 18 are heavily reliant on the state, from the education they receive, the healthcare they need, or the thousands of them who are looked after through fostering, care-homes or social services. Many young people come into contact with the state through getting into trouble with the police, but for every young person under 18 with an ASBO, there are around 200 who are providing substantive care to a parent or sibling*; massively subsidising the nation’s social care bill as part of a workforce that would be illegal if it was recognised. All this, and yet because they haven’t yet turned 18, the state isn’t accountable to any of them. Earlier this year, young people were even banned from entering Parliament.
Perhaps Stephen thinks that young people should get together and form their own lobby group to ensure their views are heard and counted, just like every other sector does. There are, of course, organisations that do this, and I’ve seen some brilliant examples of where this is occurring (tomorrow for example, young people will sit in the House of Commons chamber to discuss some of those issues). But, by the very nature of their age, young people don’t have the financial resource, or the time, or the knowledge of how the system works, to effectively campaign amongst professional policy makers and politicians. They need adult support and funding. Especially if English isn’t their first language, or they’ve had an unstable upbringing, or they are simply too young to engage in a debate with adults.
Stephen picks on a single comment made by the current Children’s Commissioner, Sir Al Aynsley-Green, as demonstration of the pointlessness of the role. Last year, Sir Al was quoted as saying that using stop and search powers to prevent knife crime could antagonise young people, and this was seized on as ridiculous both by a government minister (Tony McNulty) and a raft of pundits who get paid as much as Sir Al does to file their columns. The original quote follows the introduction of new powers that the police were given to stop and search people even if there was no reasonable suspicion that they were carrying a weapon. Sir Al, quite reasonably, said: “There is a balance here. On the one hand for young people to feel safer by having the presence of the police – but on the other hand making sure the new powers don’t create further antagonism by increased stopping and searching.” To my mind, that is exactly what someone paid to stand up for the rights of children should be pointing out: especially when I know teenagers who line their walls with the Stop and Search receipts they’ve received.
Sathnam highlights the work 11 Million (the organisation that the Children’s Commissioner heads) has done defending the rights of children who are detained, without legal representation, because of the action of their parents.
But if I was to highlight another reason we need a Children’s Commissioner, it is the effect Sir Al and his team had on the use of Mosquitoes, the devices that emit a high-pitch audio sound that only younger people are able to hear. It is appalling that it took the intervention of the Children’s Commissioner to highlight how indiscriminate these devices were before councils and other agencies started considering and regulating their use. Until then, it seemed no-one in authority concerned themselves with the legal, let alone ethical, consequences of using these devices.
Perhaps when red-heads are subjected to audible irritation because their demographic is deemed a nuisance; or gamers are locked away in cells, without access to any medical facilities, because their mums and dads broke the law, then they will deserve a commissioner who makes sure the government is looking out for them. But whilst the UN deems the UK to be the worst place in the developed world for children to grow up in, then we absolutely need someone paid to argue the case for young people.
Like Stephen, I would love to compile a list of government quangos that should be got rid of, and put the Children’s Commissioner on that list. But unlike Stephen, I’d like that to happen because the state recognises and respects the rights that young people have, rather than his approach: simply deny there is a problem in the first place.
* Calculation based on the statistic of 869 ASBOs issued to young people aged 10-17 in England in 2007, against 175,000 under 18s who are classed as Young Carers by Ofsted’s Supporting Young Carers report.
Sorry, I haven’t blogged for a while, primarily because my new job (details) that kind of took over the last couple of weeks (plus my birthday).
During that time, two interesting new pieces of news broke. Firstly the report of the Youth Citizenship Commission, and secondly the launch of The Youth of Today, the butterfly that resulted from the caterpillar that was the National Body for Youth Leadership.
I’ve been wanting to blog about the Youth Citizenship Commission since it reported the Friday before last, but having seen the reaction from others it doesn’t exactly set the world alight. Perhaps I should at least read the whole report prior to writing about it, but if the press release is anything to go by I can’t exactly imagine it being a riveting read.
Yes, there are some interesting nuggets of ideas, including keeping schools open when polling is going on and proper funding of UKYP, but essentially it boiled down to revealing that young people felt disengaged with politics and that there needed to be better citizenship education in schools. Hardly earth shattering.
What was even more disappointing was its stance on Votes at 16. Personally I’m in favour of a reduction of the voting age, although I don’t actually think it’s the number one priority and I understand there are quite reasonable arguments against reducing it. So what annoyed me the most about the commission’s finding was that they didn’t come to a conclusion. If the Government of the day produces a Green Paper, asks a commission to investigate various elements of it, it doesn’t really want it to come back going “erm, we don’t really know – make your own mind up.” That’s a bit like a forensic scientist saying “well, what do you think happened?”.
And, once again, I see mandatory volunteering being bandied about: this time for Key Stage 4 pupils. I’m all for using lesson time to allow young people to help in their community (I used to help out at a local school instead of do PE), but I really worry when I see words like compulsory being thrown into the mix. Before it becomes compulsory, someone has to at least answer the concern that it could alienate a generation of future volunteers.
Perhaps what is most depressing though is that I can’t help feeling somewhat cynical that the much more radical Power Inquiry came up with far more exciting solutions to these problems, yet it faded into nothing. What is the point of these inquiries if change doesn’t come about from them?
The Youth of Today looks a more promising proposition. I’ve already blogged about it when the original proposal was announced, and I still really hope it is a catalyst for recognising the importance of developing young leaders. But, as other commentators have pointed out, my reaction was that it seems a bit too heavy on the institutionalised mandate: leadership appears to be about MPs, councillors and similar elected bodies. I realise there are other schemes that promote innovation and individual excellence, but I’d hope the Youth of Today takes a broader, more grassroots approach to what leadership is. With the exception of our friend in the States, I struggle to think of many politicians who really fit my idea of what good leadership is. And not all young leaders get excited by the prospect of a trip to the Houses of Parliament.
As an example of what I mean, I’ve been party to conversations about the Young Achievers Awards, an independent charity that seeks to recognise inspirational youth volunteers (colleagues of mine are trustees for the charity). Young Achievers Awards are presented to people like Ryan Hartson, a 23-year-old from Rotherham, who was described by his MV co-ordinator as “an all round mentor and role model to literally hundreds of young people.” Ryan initially helped and then ran dance lessons, before organising a Battle of the Bounce competition that attracted over 200 young people. He’s gone into schools to talk about his work, not bad for someone who had to deal with bullies when he was younger due to a speech impediment.
As part of his prize for winning a Young Achievers Award, Ryan met with Jonzi D, artistic director of Breakin’ Convention (an international festival of hip hop dance). As a result of that meeting, Ryan was invited to audition for this year’s convention in Nottingham. His company was successful, and got the opportunity to perform with some of the biggest names in hip hop theatre. They’ve also performed in Bradford as part of the Breakin’ Convention there, as you can see:
Apart from being a great opportunity for Ryan, what was brilliant was the feedback from the Breakin’ Convention, which included him being described as “very organised and a complete joy to have on our stage.” To me, Ryan absolutely symbolises what a young leader should be about, and exactly the sort of person that The Youth of Today should be championing.
Incidentally, you might like to know that this year’s Young Achievers Awards are now open. You’ve got until the 27th September to nominate a suitable young person.
Yesterday, after work, I headed from where I’m based in Old Street to Westminster to attend the Hansard Society’s debate on the role under 18s have in politics. Given the tube strike, getting there was an achievement in itself, although I was impressed it only took me 45 minutes to walk the three-and-a-half miles.
On the panel were the ever amenable Jo Swinson MP, BYC‘s chair Emily Beardsmore, 22-year-old Meryl Roberts, who was shortlisted to be Labour’s prospective parliamentary candidate in Keighley (although she wasn’t selected) and 16-year-old Gerald Owusu, who is a activist in his local community as well as MYP for the UKYP.
The debate covered the typical ground of votes at 16, the negative portrayal of young people in the media and by politicians, the low turnout by 18-24 year olds and the fact that only a handful of MPs are under 35 (Jo being the youngest at just shy of 30). Wearing my trustee hat, it was heartening to see many of the young people in the room say that they wanted better citizenship education.
Years ago, when I had the one of my first career wobbles whilst at the BBC, I applied and was interviewed for a job on the education team at the Electoral Commission. I was asked to present my ideas on engaging more young people, and I suggested a website that they could debate and vote on issues. My interviewers nodded in enthusiasm for the idea, but then promptly shot it down because the Electoral Commission can not be involved in anything that could be seen to favour one political party. And whilst I can understand that the regulator needs to remain objective; it seems a little daft that they are the statutory body charged with promoting political engagement. As someone said yesterday, politics is nothing without a difference of opinion.
Like many of these debates, the people in the room were broadly in agreement that something needed to be done, and in the wake of the expenses scandal there is a feeling that now is a good time to seize the opportunity. The debate was on the day Gordon Brown announced he wanted to introduce changes to the electoral system. Unfortunately, as one speaker from the floor passionately pointed out, no-one who could change the situation was in the room to hear this call. And, much that I like supporting these events, it does feel sometimes that we gather in a room, agree something needs to change, and then go back to where we were before.
So what could be done? Well, much that it pains me to say it, young people (and those who support the idea of young people’s greater participation) could learn from the BNP. The BNP managed to secure victories in both the local and European elections; but more than that, they have massively shifted the debate about immigration so that both the Tories and Labour are trying to prove their credentials at being tough on asylum seekers and other migrants.
The greater the number of people who don’t vote, the more power you have if you can get them into a polling station and ticking your box. In the last two (possibly three) elections, had the non-voters had a party to vote for, it would be in government. And if, as many young people claim, they are disenfranchised by existing political parties, that sounds very like the reasons people choose to vote more fringe parties such as the BNP.
Emily Beardsmore said she never wanted to be an MP. But even if she didn’t get elected, the threat that she could be elected by voters who think she will better represent them than other people would be enough to wake up the other parties. And, unlike the BNP, existing politicians couldn’t complain about their fundamentalist undertones. Although they might just try fitting a mosquito to the Houses of Parliament.
So, anyone want to start a political party?
Image artwork by Borf, phot courtesy of After Yesterday. Used under licence.
I spend an interesting afternoon yesterday at the Hammersmith HQ of Haymarket Publishing – the publisher of the youth sector magazine Children and Young People Now. They, along with the National Youth Agency, were launching a report identifying initiatives around the UK that aim to counter the negative public perceptions of young people.
I was a last minute stand-in for a colleague, but I was glad I went: catching up with the inevitable small group of people who work in this field. It was great to see (if not talk to) Fiona Blacke, the new Chief Exec of the NYA and recent Twitterer.
The discussion was useful, but it was preaching to the converted, and although I agree with UKYP‘s Andy Hamflet that it’s great to see people coming together and starting a movement, we need to engage a much wider circle if we want to make a difference. It needs to be young person led, yet adults have to stand up and be counted when it comes to challenging the negative perception of young people by the media.
But, without doubt, the comment of the afternoon came from Lisa White at 11 Million. She said her colleagues had been discussing the horrific Baby P case, and a similar story that is going to become major news over the next few months concerning a recent incident in Doncaster.
The public have been rightly outraged at the abuse that Baby P (who we can now know was called Peter) suffered during his short life. And yet what Lisa argued, and a sentiment I totally understand, is that had Baby P survived, or had the abuse been inflicted on him in his teenage years, then the public’s sympathy for him would have waned the older he got. The words “suffered physical abuse as a child” is a phrase that we read far too often without thinking about what that actually means.
As Channel 4′s excellent Lost in Care programme highlighted, kids who are permanently taken away from abusive parents aren’t always placed into a loving, caring adoptive family. Baby P was young enough to still be attractive to potential-parents, as most adoptive parents go for children under five, but they also, on the whole, avoid children who have physical or mental health problems.
Had Baby P not been adopted, he would have most likely been fostered. Children can be placed in a foster parent for periods of up to six months. If Baby P was two when he was taken away, he would have been moved a minimum of 32 times before his 18th birthday. And, because of a lack of suitable foster carers, those moves would regularly be into other counties or cities. That there are children who come out of extended fostering reasonably stable is an enormous credit to them.
Baby P may have one of the 10,000 children placed into a care home. Unlike the rest of Europe, the UK prefers fostering over care homes (although that is starting to change, particularly with the introduction of social pedagogy). Many young people, particularly teenagers, live in collective accommdation rather than with individual families.
Children in care fall massively behind their peers when it comes to educational attainment. According to the DSCF 14% of looked-after children received five GCSEs A-C in 2008, as opposed to a national average of 65%. Children in care also are twice as likely to offend than the national average, and half of young people in Young Offenders Institutes have been in care.
The kids the Daily Mail see as feral are often the kids whose lives began in a similar vein to Baby P. Abused by their parents, taken into care, let down by the state and aged 18 kicked out on to the streets and told to fend for themselves. That’s not justifying the actions of out-of-control children, but there needs a more sympathetic approach to their plight.
I wrote about five versions of the Participation doesn’t just mean parties post before I published it. Harry Phibbs comment piece covers a multitude of issues and it was difficult focusing my post on one element. The responses to it have drawn in other issues.
CB asks whether UKYP and local youth councils have led to a separation of young people away from the adult political arena, and therefore are counter-productive. It’s a genuine concern and one that I think should be seriously considered; but I don’t think young people have stopped being involved in ‘adult’ politics as a result. MYPs and local youth mayors etc all regularly meet with politicians and other stakeholders, as do many other young people. I don’t know of any research that suggests this is the case, nor whether there ever was a golden period where this happened. However, we should not be complacent.
My reason for supporting UKYP/BYC etc was that it provides a space for young people to develop the skills and experience needed for political engagement. As I was writing it, I used the term “sandbox politics”, but decided not to use it as it could belittle their work. However on reflection I think it is quite a good term. (Deprived from a sandbox computer that you can test new things on before deploying them on to a main/live system).
The danger of not having “sandboxes” is that young people who are less confident about engaging in public debate or being proactive in campaigning for something never get the opportunity to develop those skills. Or they attempt them and are put off by the rough-and-tumble of political engagement. Harry Phibbs says that young people should write a blog if they want to participate, but even that requires a fairly thick skin, not to mention confidence with the written word.
That’s not to say UKYP/BYC are just sandbox operations – and I’ve been impressed by campaigns like UKYP’s fares fair campaign for a consistent deal for young people on transport (an issue that I can’t imagine being raised by any of the existing political parties). BYC has long campaigned for Votes at 16, and that feels like it is moving closer to being a reality.
Mike’s point about UKYP/BYC being “representative” organisations I agree with more. But in defence of UKYP I don’t think its messaging recently is around that. Nor do I think that politicians, who are elected in broadly the same way, can criticise UKYP for not being representative of young people when MPs hardly reflect the UK’s population. It’s also interesting to ask how much money, outside of the political parties, is spent on improving the diversity of elective representatives in both Parliament and local councils. I’d hazard a guess at very little.
Last week Harry Phibbs, writing in the Guardian, attacked the UK Youth Parliament and other young participation organisations for wasting tax-payers money on a “state-sanctioned system of bogus school elections to create smug, tame ‘youth politicians’”. His central thrust is that young people should get involved in ‘adult politics’ rather than a “segregated, pretend version”.
Harry’s justification for why there is no need for organisations like UKYP and BYC is based on his personal experience of joining a political party and writing letters to newspapers. That’s great that he did, and there are many young people who do today. But the assumption that because he did and knows others can therefore means that any young person can is both naive and quite possibly elitist. It also assumes that the only way to be involved in politics is via an existing political party, and that young people should respond to existing issues rather than be able to set the agenda themselves.
I know nothing about Harry’s background (bar the fact he went to a comprehensive school), but I’m assuming at some point – either at school or through his home life – he learned about the political process and how he could get involved in it. Not everyone is as fortunate to be in that position, and many young people in the UK have parents who have little understanding of how to engage in politics, save for sticking a cross on a ballot paper once in a while (and even that is debateable). Citizenship education, where stuff like this is learned, was only formally introduced onto the curriculum within the last ten years. It’s provision remains patchy, partly because Harry’s party, the Conservatives, have strongly hinted that they would seek to remove it should they regain power.
Outside of the education service, only the Electoral Commission has the statutory remit to promote political participation, and their publicity is aimed squarely at getting the vote out (not even understanding what you are voting about). There is not a single penny spent within government on any kind of public education about standing for election, the right to protest, how to campaign and what your MP could do for you.
Harry might see this as a good thing: that spending tax-income on trying to widen participation is pointless. But from where I’m standing, as someone who is passionate about politics but finds both the current political system and the parties totally demoralising, I struggle to comprehend why giving citizens the tools and knowledge to participate in politics is anything but a ‘no-brainer’. A view echoed by the findings of the Power Inquiry.
So both UKYP and BYC are filling a role that parliament and political parties are failing to do: teaching people about how the political process works and giving them the tools and knowledge as to how to get involved in the political process. Where Harry sees “tame”, I see rational. Where he sees “smug”, I see confident. That Harry managed to pull only two names of note, both from several decades ago, suggests that the majority of graduates of these programmes aren’t career politicians but citizens who pursue other walks of life, just having the skills to take on the politicians at their own game should the need arise.
If Harry doesn’t like UKYP, BYC and the local youth councils that span the width and breadth of the country, perhaps he’d like to suggest an alternative? From where I’m standing, it sounds like his vision is that unless you’ve inherited the knowledge and confidence to participate, and you believe in one of the established parties, then you don’t deserve an invite to get involved in politics.
As a side-point, Harry loses credibility somewhat with one of the laziest snides at students: namely that they “are too apathetic even to boycott lectures or hold a sit-in”. It’s a shame he (and the many others who use this argument) don’t appear to have given any thought to what successive governments have done to universities over the last 20 years, and the fact that those loans, tuition fees and living costs don’t magically get paid for these days. While he had the luxury of a juicy grant and free education that allowed him to spend his spare time involved in a sit-ins and protests, the average student in 2009 is spending around 20 hours a week in paid-employment. Protest is, unfortunately, a luxury of the rich.
I guess I’m pretty cynical about politicians at the best of times, but every so often something comes along that just angers me and makes me question more and more whether we live in a democracy or a dictatorship controlled by a bunch of self-appointed numpties.
And recently just such occurrence has happened. Last year the UK Youth Parliament, an organisation I’ve long had huge amounts of respect for, held a sitting in the House of Lords chamber. It was a hugely symbolic and also incredibly powerful recognition that young people have just as much of a right to debate issues as the grandiose folk who usually occupy those red benches. The House of Lords sitting came on the back of UKYP sittings at both the Welsh and Scottish chambers.
Since then, several times including to an audience that I was part of, Gordon Brown announced that he wanted to extend the invitation to UKYP to give their representatives (MYPs) the chance to hold a sitting in the House of Commons chamber. This was fairly unprecedented, and indeed it was agreed that it would be a one off rather than set a precedent; but the Prime Minister wanted to show that young people’s representatives should be at the heart of a democracy as much as their adult counterparts.
UK Youth Parliament isn’t a fly-by-night or half-baked organisation; launched 10 years ago it involves over 90% of UK local authorities and through elections in schools and youth organisations a turnout that massively puts the General Election vote to shame*. In fact, the whole UKYP structure is amazingly democratic, and the MYPs take their responsibilities very seriously.
So you’d assume that the Prime Minister’s invitation to allow the MYPs to spend one day in the House of Commons chamber would be universally supported. Sadly that’s not the case. In fact, the proposal has been put in front of the House three times, and three times it has been rejected by MPs.
There are plenty of MPs, from all parties, who support this initiative and want it to succeed. But there are also MPs who don’t. And it’s not that I object to MPs having a different viewpoint to me, it’s that I have yet to hear one sensible explanation as to why those MPs don’t want it to happen. Because the government hasn’t scheduled any time for the debate (which although is unfortunate, I actually don’t have a problem with because I think there are bigger issues for MPs to spend time worrying about), all it takes is an MP to shout ‘object’ and the proposal is dropped.
Beyond the simple issue of refusing entry to the House of Commons chamber to young people, there is a much more worrying underlying problem. I beggar to believe that there are any votes in preventing young people having their day in parliament, nor that any newspaper would get worked up by the issue. Indeed, the House of Lords debate received very positive coverage, including a showing on BBC Parliament. So, assuming that MPs aren’t acting on the whim of a tabloid editor, or because of a whip, they must be acting on a deeply-held principle. And that suggests to me, and I’m sure many others, that there are MPs who fundamentally believe that young people don’t have a right to be heard.
But apparently it’s the young people’s fault they aren’t engaging with politics…
