---

Use of the Chamber (Youth Parliament)

I will speak as briefly as I possibly can to allow as many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members as possible also to speak in the debate. I have a few observations to start with, one of which is that the inspiration for much of the Youth Parliament came from the late Andrew Rowe—a former Conservative Member of Parliament known to many if not all of us—so its origins lie in a colleague who sat on this side of the House. At its best, the Youth Parliament is something that we all ought to applaud. In an age when too many young people think, "Oh, politicians are all the same, and we don't want anything to do with politics", to see enthusiastic youngsters acting in a replica of the House, having been elected in their schools and elsewhere, is something that we ought to applaud. To encourage young people to enjoy the idea of Parliament and to participate in its concepts and merits is something that we should all do if we possibly can. I came to the issue very much in the middle, after the reshuffle, and quite a lot of water had gone under the bridge before I understood quite what was going on, even though I raised it on 12 February in the second of my encounters with the Leader of the House. It is a pity that this has been mishandled. The trouble is that the motion on the Order Paper is very broad and no terms and conditions are attached, and there has been no consultation with Front Benchers or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) has said, with any of the relevant Committees, despite assurances that that would happen. We have an open motion, no consultation and basically a vacuum of understanding about what is really proposed. There are no understood terms and conditions, no rules of engagement and no basic details, which we all understand lie behind the motion. It is therefore fully understandable that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have found the whole process objectionable and are fearful of what we are being asked to vote for, and therefore object to it in principle. I fully understand their annoyance, which is felt mostly by hon. Members who have a fervent and long-standing appreciation of the courtesies and proprieties of the House. It may not be sacred, but it is a supremely important place. It is not just any old room. It is a symbolic and working Parliament, looked at across the world as the seat of democracy. It is the pinnacle of democracy in our country, and therefore its use cannot be treated lightly. The experiment in the Lords worked rather well. It was broadcast on the Parliament channel. As the Deputy Leader of the House has said and even as Members of the House of Lords have said, it really did go extremely well, and it was a credit to the participants who debated and were televised there. When I discovered in the midst of all this that I was very much in the crossfire, I undertook to try to broker at least some understanding of what might be involved. Having asked for some sort of discussion a couple of days ago, so that we could have an exchange of letters or comments about what would be involved, I finally spoke to the hon. Gentleman today, and he has kindly referred to what was basically my checklist of what I thought should be at least explained to the House.