Five years ago Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) raised the issue of alleged 'intimidation' of Brent Youth Parliament members in the House of Commons
LINK
He said:
Recently, my hon. Friend Ms Butler [Dawn Butler then an MP] invited young people who were
members of her Facebook group to visit her in Parliament. Many of those
young people were also members of the Brent Youth Parliament. Shortly
thereafter, members of the Youth Parliament received a letter from Brent Council's senior lawyer. The letter stressed that Brent Youth
Parliament is supported by the London borough of Brent and it counselled
them as follows: "You will obviously
need to give careful consideration as to whether you wish to align
yourself with a particular person or group and what impact this may have
on others' perception of you as a Brent Youth Parliament member. If you
do decide to participate in local politics, you will need to give
consideration as to which person or group you are willing to be
connected with and any implications of this."
Many of these young people have been frightened by the letter and
regard it as a warning shot. They have previously believed that Brent
council was encouraging young people to become politically active, but
they now consider that it encourages them only if they are sympathetic
to the Liberal Democrats. What action can this House take to ensure that
these young people are not bullied in this way by a local authority?
Unfortunately I think the problem is related to the way the Youth Parliament is set up, regardless of the political complexion of the administration. Members 'shadow' particular departments and take part in Council Meetings, Committees etc but this closeness, (incorporation some may say), seems to prevent open, public disagreement with Council policy.
In April 2011 Kishan Parshotam, the Chair of the Brent Youth Parliament, i
n a presentation to Scrutiny Committee, claimed that the YP was being ignored over their opposition to library closures
LINK
In January 2012 a youth wrote to me about his/her concerns regarding the independence of the Youth Parliament
LINK
Changes in youth provision are planned in Brent with options ranging from outsourcing to voluntary organisation to complete closure of the youth service.
When these proposals were first announced there was an outbreak of comments from Youth Parliament members on Twitter and then silence descended. I understand that there were suggestions that members should not get involved in party politics, which is rather similar to what was said above during the Liberal Democrat administration.
If Brent Youth Parliament cannot campaign over drastic cuts to the youth service which will impact on young people throughout the borough, what can they campaign on? There was a presentation to the Council meeting on December 15th (see below) but I would expected press publicity at the least and public meetings, visits to youth centres and schools, to gain support for the retention of the service.
Of course Youth Parliamemnt Members should get involved in opposing the cuts - as loudly and vociferously as possible.
That is what happened when cuts were proposed by Ann John's Labour administration and the cuts were opposed by young people with some success.
LINK
A question I wanted to ask at the Scrutiny Committee was not taken. The Safer Neighbourhoods Team has spoken about their work to prevent youth offending and prevent re-offending which included work with gangs based on the Cincinnati model. The police recognised the roots of crime in inequality and deprivation and the remedy in improved educational outcomes and employment opportunities.
They'd had some success and I wanted to ask what they thought the impact of cuts in the youth service and the closure of Stonebridge Adventure Playground on their work.
Cllr James Denselow's blog LINK in an article on crime in Brent included this:
Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala, who represents the Stonebridge ward, works with
youths in Brent. He is calling for the availability of more activities in the
borough to divert young people away from crime.
He said: “This is terrible news for our young people. Although it’s
important we take tough action on youth crime, it’s also important we provide
alternatives to keep young people out of crime.
“The government cuts to youth services, such as abolishing Brent Connexions,
which gave career advice to young workers, is making it harder, not easier, to
tackle youth crime.
“We need to divert our youngsters away from crime and gangs. If not, we
could easily see another repeat of the London riots”.
Now as the result of Coalition cuts Brent is proposing to cut the Youth Service. The social long term impact of cuts made for short-term financial gain is incalculable.
In Haringey, Seema Chandwani, former Deputy Head of Haringey Youth Service wrote in September 2012 LINK:
Tottenham
sadly is now on the map for all the wrong reasons, an area that will
long be known as the home of the riots and not for the first time as the
1985 riot also took place here. Prior to the riots, as many Youth
Workers up and down the country are aware, Young People from Haringey
(the borough where Tottenham is located) commenced a campaign to save
their Youth Service. Despite their campaign, in Feb 2011 Haringey
Council decided to cut the Youth Service by 75%. Cuts started to take
effect from April 2011, the riots occurred in Aug 2011.
It
will be wrong to state that the closure of the Youth Service led solely
to the riots, but knowledge informs us that a circus of social
circumstances leads to social disorder. For Young People in Haringey,
specifically Tottenham there is an array statistics that demonstrate a
negative impact on Young Peoples lives ranging from low educational
attainment, high youth unemployment, high crime rates etc. Intelligence
should have informed decision makers of the potential risks of the
action they were about to make, especially as the Young People and wider
community had told them at every juncture – Young People needed their
Youth Service.
There was some self-congratulation at the Scrutiny Committee that Brent had not experienced rioting at that time but the message to the Council must be 'Brent Young People need their Youth Service' and Brent Youth Parliament members should feel free to shout that from the roof tops.
The current campaign in Haringey
LINK
