This discussion is closed.
toronto353
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
B755 - Youth Engagement Bill, TSR UKIP

Youth Engagement Bill
Image
A bill to make provision for a programme which will re-engage young members of society who have not achieved higher or additional further education.BE IT ENACTED by The Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1: Eligibility


  1. Every individual who has attained the age of 18 years, and who has not attained the age of 26 years, shall take part in one year of youth engagement at some time between these years unless they are exempted.
  2. Exempted individuals are those who—
    1. have achieved an accredited higher education qualification, or
    2. are working towards an accredited higher education qualification, or
    3. are working towards an accredited further education qualification, or
    4. have achieved an additional accredited further education qualification post-18, or
    5. have a criminal record considered substantial, on a case by case basis, or
    6. have a severe mental illness, or
    7. have a severe physical disability.

  3. Non-exempt individuals who do not take part in one year of youth engagement before the age of 26 years shall be guilty of an offence.


2:
Required activities and attainment


  1. Regulations created by the Secretary of State must include the following elements within the youth engagement programme—
    1. additional educational assistance for those who have not yet attained GCSE A*-C or equivalent level qualifications in English and Mathematics, and
    2. coaching and instruction to attain basic levels of physical fitness, smart appearance, self respect and respect for others; and
    3. instruction in personal financial budgeting, household bills, nutrition, cooking, tolerance towards others, treating elderly and disabled people with dignity and respect; and
    4. instruction in basic aspects of the law in relation to the most common offences involving young people, and
    5. a residential element, requiring that participants live away from home, and
    6. an element of public service, comprising one or more of the following to be chosen by the individual—
      1. charitable work, or
      2. care for the elderly or disabled, or
      3. overseas deployment activity, or
      4. work connected with the NHS, or
      5. work connected with the emergency services, or
      6. work connected with the armed forces.


3:
Pay and recognition for participants


  1. Participants of the youth engagement programme shall be paid the national living wage during their year of participation where accommodation and travel shall be funded by the Secretary of State.
  2. Participants of the youth engagement programme shall upon completion receive a certificate from the Secretary of State recognising their achievement and attainment during the programme.



4: Interpretation


  1. In this Act “national living wage” means the out of Llondon living wage calculated by the equation and methodology used in the Centre for Research in Social Policy paper “The Living Wage in the United Kingdom” published in 2011 by Donald Hirsch and Rhys Moore; available in the Commons Library.
  2. Youth engagement shall be defined as participation in a full time scheme accredited by HM Government as meeting the requirements of the youth engagement programme and set out in regulations by the Secretary of State.



5: Affirmative Resolution Procedure


  1. Regulations made under this Act shall be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the regulations have been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.


6: Short title, commencement and extent


  1. This Act may be cited as the Youth Engagement Act 2015.
  2. This provisions of this Act come into force two years from the day on which this Act is passed.
  3. This act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.


0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Nay. It's essentially national service.
0
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
Shouldn't individuals already in work be exempt?
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
Nay!!! All this stuff should be taught in school not in some extra truncated course.
0
Arkasia
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
I agree, I feel this is a good idea.
0
Kittiara
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
As InnerTemple says, what about those people already in work?

Also, what classes as a severe mental illness? Mental health is complex.

I also find 2.1.2 quite patronising. Adults don't need to be told how to dress, do their hair, etc. If they choose to enter a job with a dress code, I'm sure they'll abide by it, but otherwise it's nobody's business what someone does with their appearance.
0
tengentoppa
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
Nay. Pointless state mollycoddling.
0
sdotd
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
aye
0
Airmed
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
Nay, based on the mental health illness. As Kittiara mentioned, mental health illnesses is a complex area.
0
username851717
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
Nay this reminds of a discussion ages back with a kipper or two (may have been here or the UK politics forum) whereby something very similar was being proposed.

I'd also question whether this is actually youth engagement? Those between the ages of 18 - 26 are legally responsible adults.

Although the mention of a living wage is somewhat impressive.
0
Jean-Luc Picard
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
Nay
0
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
Nay. In part because my mind says youth is under 18, partly because I see it frankly pointless, but also for the points raised by Kittiara.
0
Ryan Stevens
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
Awful idea forcing this onto people would make it resented and very unproductive in my opinion
0
PetrosAC
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
Nay! For all the reasons already stated above
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
'Nay'.

Once 16 i believe people should be free to do what they like with the exception of being long term unemployed in which case i do agree with more aggressive means.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by Kittiara)

I also find 2.1.2 quite patronising. Adults don't need to be told how to dress, do their hair, etc. If they choose to enter a job with a dress code, I'm sure they'll abide by it, but otherwise it's nobody's business what someone does with their appearance.
I wish that we had a clothes retailing sector that was less concentrated in a few hands so that people had real choice. Also that people felt able not to be slaves to bad fashion made in sweatshop factories, sold to them by people on zero hours contracts.

Back to the original point. If there is to be something akin to national service it should be for all.
0
The Financier
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
Nay.
0
The Legal Eagle
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
Someone pass me the scalpel, it's time for some heavy duty dissecting. Serjeant at Arms, all is honourable in the House.

1 year? That's stupidly long! You may as well force them into the military.

So you want to leave out those studying, or have studied? Nice.
"Substantial" - what measures "substantial"? Theft? Robbery? Sexual assault? Manslaughter? Attempted murder? Definition, please!

"Severe mental illness" - how is that measured? I am not far off being diagnosed with clinical depression - is that severe? Or is that to individuals who suffer from bipolar/schizophrenia/psychopathy? Please, define this.

"Severe physical illness" - is that someone who is suffering from cancer, and is making a recovery and should resume normal life in a few years? Someone with spinal issues and requires a wheelchair, but is otherwise fairly well. Or someone with locked-in syndrome? Again, you must explain this.

Why are we forcing young adults to do physical exercise? And is that to the point they coach, too?

"Smart appearance" - I want to grow a beard, is that not "smart"? I know someone who wants a Mahican, will they have to have their head shaved? This is utterly preposterous that it is being considered infringing on peoples' lives, when they are grown adults.

As for the rest of 2.1, I can only shake my head. This is utterly nonsensical.

"Instruction in basic aspects of the la in relation to the most common offences involving young people" - are you honestly having a laugh? Making a mockery of parliamentary time? This is just stupid. What would you define as the "most common offences"? Minor driving crime? Public order? Armed robbery? Seriously, think about what you writing. Young people aren't the generic body that TSR UKIP seem to believe they are, via this shoddy Bill.
Though, this also could mean young people being involved as the 'victim'. With no definition, "youth" could be 10-26, or younger. This needs clearing up, sharpish.

2.6 - I don't want some delinquent (as TSR UKIP seem to make out the people this Bill targets will be) administering medication, or prodding me with needles. What about wannabe teachers? No work with children? Is that because all young people are pedophiles - is that why they aren't providing a definition for "most common offences?

No approximate costings to the taxpayer?


In all seriousness, I don't know what I've just read. It's the biggest bit of nonsense I've read in a long while. It's probably as low, if not lower, than the quality of the Daily Mail and the Sun combined. Seriously, if TSR UKIP is to be judged on their Bill quality, then the TSR public will learn a lot. If you want national service, make it clearer. If not, stop trying to interfere in the lives of young people who may well be doing something not considered - such as running a business.

A clear NO from me. I appeal to anyone who has a conscience to vote against this ultra-authoritarian Bill.
1
toronto353
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#19
This is in cessation.
0
toronto353
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#20
This has been withdrawn
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (554)
33.95%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (674)
41.3%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (330)
20.22%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (74)
4.53%

Watched Threads

View All