students the education they deserve." mr. speaker, there is a real risk that standards in the university will fall if investments are not sustained. mr. speaker, quality is not the only thing we should consider. fairness should be at the heart of our university system. be at the heart of the system. we should all remember that students do not pay a penny toward their university education. you don't pay a penny until you leave. nobody will pay for their education until they left university. they started working and they are earning over 21,000 pounds a year. if their wages go down, so will payments. if they start -- stop working, the payments stopped as well. mr. speaker, that is fair. because in the end, the person that benefit most from having a degree is the student. if you have a degree you can get better paying jobs which will be significantly harder if you did not have a degree. it is estimated over the courses

of their career a graduate earns on average 23.5% more than somebody who doesn't have a degree so why should the taxpayer have to pay for the privilege of that young purpose having that extra money? turning to the issue of debt -- people are rightly worried about the level of debt that they get into at university. but they should think about the amount they would add to the level of national debt in this country if the taxpayer -- has to fill the gap in university funding. the level of debt we get into at university is minuscule compared to the 952 billion pounds of debt which our generation has been saddled with because of economic mismanagement of the previous government. my fellow -- it is true. that is a record the previous government should be ashamed of and a record for which, mr. speaker, i hastened to add, they

have yet to apologize. [applause] again, my fellow -- it is true. we have a clear choice. we could vote for brilliant universities, funded through a fair contribution from graduates' or we can say, no, students don't have to pay any more. but we will then have to access -- accept that we will have the third great universities which gives students degrees of little value. i know the choice i would make, mr. speaker. i hope the house will share in my view and i commend this motion to the house. [applause] >> thank you for that very robust opening speech. to oppose the motion i shall in a moment call mr. conner morgan. i know you will give him a warm welcome. i just informed members of the youth parliament that conner will say some words and irish gaelic and then he will for our benefit repeat the meaning in

english. mr. connor morgan. [applause] >> [speaking in an irish gaelic] for those of you not one of the prisons and fluids and irish, i apologize. loosely translated it was, thank you, mr. speaker, fellow members it is a great honor to stand before you and have an opportunity to address you and iris and i wanted thank you all of you for the opportunity and respect you have shown me. [applause] 7,000 pounds is the amount of debt a prospective medical student will face the 70,000 pounds but 32,000, average stood it will face should the

catholic religion fees be lifted as indicated. members -- some perspective. average wage in the u.k. each year its 25,543 pounds. let me ask you something. is it fair that raising the cap on provision fees, education will become privilege only for those who can afford it? [applause] is it just the current members of parliament, many of whom had university education paid for by the state now expect us the disenfranchised of the economic mess pay for the mistakes question -- is it right considering we as young people are constantly being told that we of the future, our future appears just to be a burden of debt and uncertain job prospects. we are the representatives of young people. we believe education is a right everyone should be entitled to. we do not believe wealth or class should play a factor and we most certainly did not believe that we should be

expected to begin our lives trapped beneath the question byrd of debt of up to 70,000 pounds. this view is also held by 95% of young people, all of whom oppose lifting the cap on tuition fees. we did not believe the young people have been adequately consulted and those -- choosing to worsen an already entirely and just set of circumstances. what kind of society do we live in when one of the three young people will choose the university based on how much it cost, what kind of education system allows of the port to be left up behind, a kind of decision makers not only disregard the views of young people but also make rash -- can never pronounced as were right -- decisions that negatively affect the lives of many. we must band up, be heard, and send a clear message to disinformation's -- decisionmakers that we matter and our education must never be compromised. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you, and congratulations. can i just issue one appeal. i will try not to make -- to make the mistake myself, but the deal is if you already have spoken, please, -- if you have already spoken, please, do not stand at this stage. there are plenty will have not had a chance to speak. this one -- young woman, here. yes, you. no disrespect, but this young woman here. >> i am alex from midland's. what sort of society do we live in where to get a job of any work you have to of gone to university? the degree has become the new a level. we should be able to leave school and go get training and get a printed ships and do that but now we have to go and get

into debt to get a job that is not as good as we would have gone 30 years ago. it is not right. [applause] >> who have we got from the northeast of england? young man. >> thomas robinson -- thomas robinson. young people in the constituency find the report suggesting -- suggested warning. we have a magnificent university recently named university of the year. it 16 out of 23 awards in middlesborough are socially deprived. people find it hard to pay for university, even when they are academically able. we believe the rise in tuition fees will make our higher education system. is where the rich can afford to go and the poor cannot and we urge the coalition government not to make such a devastating decision that will no doubt exclude so many young people from achieving their true potential. thank you. [applause]

>> someone from london. over here. >> lawrence from -- i should be going to university next year. i suspect quite a few of you are. how come i going to pay my tuition fees -- true, i am paying but when i leave -- but how and i going to live and have a social life when i fall into the -- i would get nothing, i will get the lowest amount that the government can possibly give me? also, how many times do you hear my learned friend and colleague they are only learned because they go to university. how many mp's had not been to university? it practically all have. and they are trying to take that away from our generation, away from us. is that really fair? [applause]

>> thank you. how about somebody from the west midlands who has not spoken before? what about the young man here? >> thank you, mr. speaker. my name is tommy and i am from birmingham. if the universities are allowed to up their tuition fees 10,000 pounds a year, a young medical students will leave university with a debt of over 50,000 pounds. working-class students that want to do medicine, like in my constituency, maybe put off from going to university and following their dreams. this may make universities an institution for the rich and not for the talented. [applause] >> can we have somebody from wales? who have we got from wales? the young woman here. >> i am from -- how many of you

go to university? how many of you agree to this issue. the same -- i disagree because some families may be able to spot for their tuition fees that may not as they might have more bigger families but people with a bigger families would stop their children from going to university -- would you stop them from having more children? from my point of view, i would say to stop them -- stop the tuition fees getting higher and some people might not be able to afford them but the people who can't, you should think of them more than the people can. [applause] >> what about the se?

the young gentleman here. >> leon from buckinghamshire. may i point out that the government had promised that should university tuition fees rise, there will be enough money be it from student loans or more scholarships and universities to cover the cost. i actually think that the government's rise in the loan repayment threshold actually puts -- that have to lend out more money and they might not get it back. 40% cut in the university but did -- budget, it is inevitable the fees will rise. what we should focus on now is how much university fees will rise by, whether there will still be a cap or not, whether

we are going to turn it to a free market where universities can charge as much as they like. [applause] >> do we have somebody who would like to contribute from the east of england? i think the young woman in the back is about to explode. >> thank you, speaker. currently i am a student at manchester university. i am very proud of what i in doing right now but when i heard about tuition fees going up, out war going on. it was shocking. there were -- to be honest, lord brown frankly i did not agree with what he is doing. fortunately for made -- if for me, i would to a university to get a career and not a job and i did not want the university to

say you have to go and you did not need a degree, but i want to get a degree, i want to learn. university is about learning, not necessarily a degree. but what we don't realize with rules of economics, they said just recently that university fees went up -- it would go private. this is a process that happens in america and these fees literally equaling quadruple the amount we pay annually? i would be horrified to have to leave university with debt of about 50,000 pounds but here we have this right, is education, a privilege that we have in universities in the uk, so, lauren brown, please listen to them. personally as a student we will have to now think about, can i afford university any more? it is a massive thing.

it to conclude, one argument i want to say about lord brown, quoting just now -- each year take into account market prices and budget for them to pay. students will not be eligible for financial support if their grades are below the standards. lord brown, what is the standard? thank you. [applause] >> i am looking for a speaker from your shire and -- yorkshire and humbershire. the young woman with blond hair. yes. >> i am from leeds. in 2008 i actually headed in the house of lords for abolishing university tuition fees. two years on it, i still agree

with the statements. i think it is ridiculous now two years now where we are. what we want it then was to lower it, to not have it existed so everybody got the education they deserve. it is not working that way. i understand universities need the funding, but can't we find funding from somewhere else? maybe a little, but not to this paired -- instead i sat on the computer at this blank screen and all i could think about was the debt, the money, and how much i wanted to go and how much i knew that i can't. if there is nothing more than i want to go to university. i always wanted to go. something i always wanted to do and now i am doubting whether i can. thank you. >> can we have a speaker from

northern ireland, please? >> so many people people would not be against -- recently oecd university graduate rankings, percentage of young people with a degree and we were third and now we are 15th. failing behind countries like ireland to with 40%, poland, and finland. oecd special advisor said -- 50% say too much, i say to little. [inaudible] [applause] >> the young woman here has been waiting for some time.

>> raising them as a poor solution. we -- we live in a meritocracy, not an aristocracy and raising them i think just creates more of an aristocracy. [applause] >> i know people are keen -- doing my best. time for somebody from the northwest. i need to call a young man at this stage. you are on the stage. you have the floor. welcome. >> i would like to draw attention to some things said before. he said in front of all of a mip's -- people keeping a record

need to know your name. thank you. saying universities are fair -- i wonder if you can tell me what is fair about this. foreign students at the moment pay the same as those studying locally. in the eu, if he came from the eu to study in scotland you pay with the scots pay, which is nothing. if i was going to study in scotland i would have to pay 1,175 pounds and probably more. if i lived in the you i and discriminated against because i am english and cannot study in scotland for the same money. how on earth is that fair? [applause] >> what about the young man just at the end? you, you are looking around. no, just to your right.

yes, you, indeed. well compared -- welcome. >> the government can't afford to put any more money into the university system, which is what is causing this rise to each individual in the student fees. but the other option is, -- there are too many people being driven into university when it is not the right option for them. more apprenticeships spend workplace and would mean less strain on the university system and allow the government to fund those spaces and give them the education that they need without driving up debt for that individual. [applause] >> right, ok, we will have you. you have been waiting very patiently. >> mr. speaker, the academies --

[inaudible] when the brown report is adopted -- the process of dividing the countries lerner's will be complete. an opinion such as this demonstrates how out of touch some really are, cutting the program that encourages young people to attend university. the generation of politicians who attended the university for free are disenfranchising young people. we are all in it together. surely, young people are in it more than most. >> i am looking for a female speaker from the southwest.

do we have a female speaker from the southwest. ? >> i am from devon. a three-year degree at at the current university levy, 9,900 pounds. the student accommodation for first year, 150 pounds a week at 40 weeks is 6,000 pounds. the second year, 52 weeks, 9,100 pounds, third year, 52 weeks, 9,100 pounds. degree each year, 300 pounds of the three years, nine a pound. a transport to it and for university -- a conservative total of 35,500 pounds. now consider raising the levy for the university of 7,000 pounds per annum, recalculate and you get 46,000 pounds plus 2.5% inflation. consider a medical degree for seven years.

costs could be up to 12 grand a year. in effect, this is discriminating against young people with poor backgrounds and i believe that everyone should be born into the world with equal rights to succeed. and even though this is never going to be achieved, i think we should try to move one step further toward this or in this case prevent the government from moving a step backwards. thank you. [applause] >> once again, i am afraid, time is our enemy and to conclude the debate i do need to call mr. daniel paul moore -- daniel palmer. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. i always wanted to say that. what do you think the effect will be if tuition fees were to rise? that is the question i have been asking young people in chester

and they came back to me and said that people from low and middle income families will be put off from going to university, causing them to become institutions for the rich only. the rise in tuition fees will also cause the gap between the rich and board to agree -- increase and it would be unfair for people who cannot afford to go to university should be deprived of the opportunities. there has been a lot of strong support a justification for a rise in tuition fees. some of them being university is not always the right path to get a high-paying job, that the rich -- apprenticeships, internships and college education. the argument that a rise would deter their repeople will go to universities -- at the taxpayers' expense -- reducing the number of people increases the value of the word of the degree. fairness, it had been mentioned

in the media quite a lot actually and also in this house today. i would like to ask the house to think about is following questions before they vote. it is it fair that the people cannot afford to go to university don't have the same opportunities than those who can afford to do so? equally, is it fair that the taxpayer should pay for your education when you take all of the benefits? should university tuition fees rise? >> thank you for another lively and well-informed debate which i think you enjoyed. again, i say to people who did not get called, don't despair, have another go. this is the daily experience of colleagues when normally the demand to speak exceeds the number of slots available. the use parliament will now consider the third motion of the day and the last of the morning

session relating to job opportunities as printed on the order paper. hamid.ammed out thabbas >> mr. speaker, member of the youth parliament, education is the password -- passport to the future. how many of us are prepared at 16? how many employers want to employees 16 years old? by giving them people just take the extra years of polar training we are giving them breathing space. two years of additional skills. after two years to prepare or most purport and lay it preparing them for possible two years -- why throw 16 years out in the cold economic climate right now when we can do something about it? that is why i support raising the school leaving age to 18.

it is rising by 2015 but today opportunities for young people are decreasing. cuts implemented everywhere. young people finding it difficult to get jobs or even internships, older and more educated people taking the. office for national statistics show currently 742,018-24 year old unemployed. some may say that school is not for everyone and not -- not everyone is an academic but let me ask you something -- who said you have to pour your head into books for another two years, that you have to write for exams another two years? you can do practical apprenticeship ships or part- time education or training, if you are employed. as we heard last week, we are losing another 490,000 jobs. is that fair for a 16 year old to leave school knowing that 490,000 jobs being cut and his or her chances are becoming more difficult? isn't it fair for them --

possibly have a stronger case to gain a job when the economy has recovered. the extra two years also gives the government provide more jobs. young people have time for more academic or practical skills. work experience of another major factor. one week work experience is not enough for young people today to decide which course it went to jews and possibly for their future career. orchis. allows people to learn directly about working life and allows them to put things into practice. i believe we need more experience. some people may say that 16 and 17 year olds should have the right to choose to go to work or stay in school or training. the simple answer to that is, how in this climate will a 16 year old be able to find a job when there are so many others fighting for the same job?

being unemployment at such a young age as long term impact. you. sn't about me or this is about us. we need to stick together and work on the bigger picture, giving the young people the best possible spot them live in tough times. i believe waiting until a team is the way forward. thank you very much. [applause] >> mohamad, thank you for that splendid and articulate speech to open our debate. just before i call the second speakers who oppose the motion i would like to mention my parliamentary colleagues from the northwest is present and behind him, looking suitably sober face is the honorable richard shepperd. last from -- and definitely not

least, i think working behind share is the honorable member mr. dennis skinner. i want to very warmly welcomed dennis because he is a parliamentarian who has always spoken his mind without fear or favor on every subject and if memory serves me correctly, he entered the house on june 18, 1970. and he has served without interruption since, for 40 years, four months, and 11 days. he is a very senior member. dennis, you are very welcome. please give us all away. [applause]

straight from the coal face, he said to me. tony who retired from the house in 2001 famously said -- he said the only purpose of the old is to give encouragement to the young. there we are. to oppose the motion i have mr. adam osmond. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker, and this opportunity for everyone here to get a new facebook profile picture. alan sugar, richard branson, -- smith, three people who brought themselves up from nothing, three people who worked hard for what they wanted and three people who got where they wanted

to be. but what do all of these people have in common? they all left school at 16. i am not for one minute, though, suggesting that everyone should go out and get a job when they are 60 because we all know that the job simply are not out there. the point is everyone should have a conscious choice to continue with education or get a job at 16. nobody should be forced into education against their will. that is a presumption, frankly, that originated in the dark ages. it will cost 16 million pounds -- 60 million pounds to keep everybody in education until 18 and at a time of cuts, that is ludicrous. if education is not for everyone. and i appreciate -- it has been said already that this motion does not just include education, but training and apprenticeship as well. however, it must be said that with the loss of the connection servers and most local authorities to to the cuts announced last week it will be harder than ever to find.

what it did to get young people into apprenticeships and trainings is invaluable and will be sorely missed. because of this lack of support to young people, job opportunities will be lost and youth unemployment will rise. these people who would have left and filed a job at 16 will be forced to stay in school and possibly become a disruptive influence in the classroom. there is a boy in my area, his father is the owner of a local sweet shop. the boy helps but the father and has done for -- as generations of gone before. when he turned 60 in his father was taken ill and could no longer work. under the motion put before you today, he could not take this business on. are we really saying we wish to say this family sweet shop and other businesses sold out because it 16 he has to be at education and is clearly not mature enough to run a business?

nowadays employers increasingly preferred to take on workers with ample work experience needed to do the job. so, by rising the raise of 18 you will have two years less work experience compared to somebody who left at 16. for what? a few extra qualifications not always look into your profession, one life experience is more valuable than anything. extended to the end of university you have six years less work experience. what does the graduate have? two-tape -- 2-2 degree incline on, 40,000 dead and unemployed? how those keeping a young person out of the system for six years to solve the youth unemployment crisis? the answer, it doesn't. [applause] >> i am looking to call people from parts of the country that so far have been slightly

unrepresented. beginning with whales. somebody from wales. >> josh from wales. economic climate this country does not have the money to fund education force people who did not want them. there are people who are quite happy to leave school at 16 and go work in a shop. there are some people who are quite happy to settle down, have a family, and live -- i did not see how these qualifications are going to benefit them. it is a total waste of money. [applause] >> thank you. i see we have been joined by the honorable members of birmingham -- give us a wave. thank you for joining us.

looking to call somebody from the west midlands. the young man at the end who just had his hand. >> according to a recent survey conducted do without one of the young people i did not receive enough support from the education system. is it right we fail them for next two years? it's not be about passing exams but digesting and reproducing on exam day. we need to change this and change education so we are producing rounded young people will have the skills to go into employment and in university. only then can we meet society's demands and take our education system into the 21st century. [applause] >> i am looking for someone from london. somebody from london? yes, your good sold. thank you. >> i represent -- in london.

ladies and gents, can we take into consideration that the government would like to cut the number of people going to university and now hiring the age of 18 for people to stay in school -- they are only contradicting themselves. they want people to stay in education until 18, however, they want to cut down the people who get into university. and at the end of the day, the people who get the extra qualification and get to universal nation -- university have the debt on the soldiers. -- shoulders. who will get the job? but want to start at 16? everyone says, education is not for everyone. some people want it and some do not. internships are needed for people. academics and education and getting your head in your books are needed for others. and we think about this --

saying that people cannot go to university -- and the lady back of the bench actually wants to learn, not to get a career but to get a degree? can we take into consideration? thank you. [applause] >> i am looking to call someone from the east of england, who is from the east of england? young woman, you deserved to be called because i call you earlier and somebody thought i was calling them. >> i want to consider the motion is not to keep everyone until 18, it is to keep them in education, not necessarily in books. you can have apprenticeships, work experience, working with a box alongside job opportunity. not everyone knows what they want to do at 16. i am fortunate, i know what i want to do at 16 but not everybody does.

keeping them in education and of the two years might help give them an idea what they wanted it when they are older. and the rising university fears, would it not help to get more qualifications that might help you get a better job in the future? >> thank you. >> york sure -- yorkshire? >> i think not everybody is capable to stay on after they are 16. not everybody is capable to stay on the extra two years. i think they've got to make the choice whether they want to, whether it is right for them, because of the courts and a lost of connections in most parts of the u.k. did to the cuts it is going to hinder their choice to decide whether they want to stay or not. [applause] >> what about someone from

northern ireland? the young man here has been patiently waiting. >> from east belfast in northern ireland. i think it is an absolute agrees that people are sitting here saying that i should be dictated to until i have to leave school -- if i want to leave school at 16 i should be entitled to. if you raised age to 18 -- 21, then tuition fees, what will happen to that? everybody is controlled and watched. controlling our education even more is a national disgrace. thank you. >> how about somebody from the east midlands? the young woman from the east midlands. >> personally i think making the age to 18 will benefit statistics involved with youth unemployment. but it won't hide the fact that the financial problems young people face.

as first year at college, i realize you need a job when you are in college. any money that i get at the moment is from my parents. -- the fact that ema's following year, people with parents with a lot less stilwell lot more. acting raising the age is not going to benefit in any way. [applause] >> somebody from the northwest. what about the young man there with the checked shirt? >> education is make compulsory for a 16-18 -- classrooms will be disruptive, and if there are not more vocational courses they will still waste it in a way. this will make the standards drop and it could affect everyone else who actually wants

to be in college. thank you. >> somebody from the southwest. the woman in the red blouse. >> two-thirds of young people in poole think education is not necessary to employment. although for many people education -- borden ramsey, for example, he left school at 16 and is now worth 67 million pounds. much more than most people who leave school at 18. what good would staying on until 18 have done for him? learn the same school -- skills, but not as good? it would not have been any good to him. if he would have stayed in school he would have been in a classmate with people did not want to learn, and maybe

disrupted the class -- above for young people staying in education is essential, they should be given a choice, may be encouraged to stay to improve their life chances, but not force. young people deserve the choice. >> thank you. someone from the northeast. what about the young man right in the back, yes. >> i think, ladies and gentlemen, we're thinking too much about statistics at the moment. we need to remember that these are real young people we are talking about and we need to remember that they should have a choice because at the age of 16, you can decide whether or not to engage in sexual activity, you can decide whether you want to go and try out for the armed forces so why at 16 can't you decide whether not to leave education? we need to make it clear to young people -- if we are going

to send them out of the age of 16. if we do raise it to 18, they can choose whether or not -- we have to make sure we give young people the choice because that is the only right thing to do. thank you. >> any further interest from wales? the young woman. >> from south wales. i think we have to acknowledge we have a problem now and a lot of people are finding we will have a problem with increasing young people electing to go to university. people are leaving school at 16. it is a problem i think will get a lot worse if we choose to raise the compulsory age 18. that money, that would be substantial would be compiled an

extra two years of education could be spent so much more wisely on work placement up to age 16 year-old that will not only help those who do choose to leave school at 16 to get a job and move more seamlessly into the world of work but help those, if they choose a bachelor to stay on until 18 and go through to university to compete that much more easier -- easily. a lot of you know here. >> the se. who do we have from the se? the young woman here has been standing several times. >> thank you, mr. speaker. melissa camp from southeast england. i, too, personally -- i am sure all of you have been aware of the troublemakers and the class or people who cannot wait to get their -- it over and done with. i always felt and always

believed that people who won educations will do so, and not necessarily -- a-level heart, regardless, but master english for the to performing arts. there is apprenticeships and work place and where we can fund the extra money into education, 60-18 year olds, instead of making it more -- mandatory, making it optional so if you do what your education after your gcse's, you have the security and support. you did not necessarily want to go to college but apprenticeships -- to become a plumber or carpenter, but have the light go about doing that? >> i am afraid we have run out of time. just before i call the person who will conclude the debate i would like to refer to another one of our colleagues who just entered the chamber, and i am

referring to the member for west -- east -- jay swinson. give us a wave. it is particular pleasure -- when she came into the house of commons in 2005 at the age of 25, she was the youngest member in her intake. secondly, joe has been a champion of the youth interest and participation and empowerment from the moment she set foot in the house. it is absolutely right and proper that she is here today. thank you once again for first- class speeches with different opinions sincerely expressed with real knowledge and fluency

and passions. all of us today who said on the house of commons on a daily basis are incredibly impressed. to conclude the debate i call ms. holly >> [speaking in foreign- language] thank you, mr. speaker. do either of you ask yourself what jobs are available to you? should you be educated until 18? are you competing for jobs with people more experienced and qualified than you are? this is extremely common in our current economic climate. well raising the school and training leaving age to 18 self youth unemployment and fix you problems? 71% of young people already stay in education until they are a team but it is the 29% we need

to consider today. those of you who are academic, you can go on to higher education, but just take a moment to think of those who are not like you, those who struggle with education, or maybe do not understand the purpose of -- by increasing the mandatory age immediately, will this give the government time to reduce the current unemployment figures? in two years' time, and that's in this -- one, and even-number of people competing for university spaces. how many to accommodate the number of graduates? two, the qualifications that don't include practical skills required to work. unemployment is higher between age 19-25. will they be reduced as a good enough to warrant spending 60 million pounds annually on 60-18

year olds? have we not just what is the biggest cuts to public spending in living memory? keeping them in education with the >> opportunity to experience a mobile work placements, and powering them to make informed career decisions. if you were to leave at 16, experience more beneficial from the age of four before you choose your subjects? or if we were to wait until 18, could there be a focus on work experience for all students, academics or not, or would it be too late to influence our way of thinking? either way, more work experience will create ambition among young people today. the motion we are faced with is -- should schools and education leaving age be raised to 18 immediately in order to lower youth unemployment? is it guaranteed that unemployment levels are reduced? i come here today with my long winded speech patterns with

statistics. this is not about you and i speaking of the house of commons or that we may enjoy it -- it is about young people's lives. those in universities and those on streetcorners. crating self esteem, confidence, optimism and positive approach to life in general. there are two simple sides to this. yes or no. if we say yes, raise to 18, the unemployment figures will decrease, but they are just figures, just numbers and just statistics. but these young people be happy? will they be getting the education that they need and is an affordable -- uniform cost, equipment, school dinners? are they going to be given more opportunity for work experience and will they be able to -- more prepared for the working world? the other side is to stay at 16. the young people, they will have

a choice, just as united nations on convention of the rights of the child states that we should have. bob will young people be happier? do they know what they want at 16? stereotypical to ask if they are board on the street corners? committing crime? or is this just a reality? bearing in mind that those are the young people that will be competing for jobs with university graduates. 29% -- the decisions we make today. yes, they are important, but how the politicians respond to what we have said, what we voted on, will be like changing for generations of young people. [applause] >> thank you, holly, for rounding off and that such style. that concludes the morning

session. at the youth parliament will adjourn until 1:30 p.m. and i invite everyone to return to westminster hall for lunch. however, because we started late, we are a little behind schedule and lunch will have to be truncated at somewhat. can i emphasize to people to be back for 1:30 p.m. when we must start our afternoon session. do do need to start to becoming back from westminster hall at 1:15 p.m.. a brief lunch. thank you. you acquitted yourself with great distinction. >> thank you, you beat me to it. please, be seated. order, order, the youth

parliament will now consider the fourth motion of the day, relating to the war in afghanistan as a printed on the order paper. to move the motion, i call mr. tin jennings -- tim jennings. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. for too long our troops have been and afghanistan serving our government day after day risking their lives, not knowing if they will step on and ied and those a leg or arm work today is the day they die. our government's war in afghanistan lead to 341 honorable men and women from our armed forces being killed. that is 341 dead british citizens to many. in this current economic climate, to be pouring money into the afghan war is ludicrous. it is looking like the current cost of the war in afghanistan and iraq by the end of this year

spent by the british government will exceed 20 billion pounds. the illegal war in iraq has had so much money wasted on it from the balir -- blair era. the government cannot expect us to accept all these cuts and everything else while they spend this much money on war? is it well spent? well, the first six months of this year, 3268 civilians died. these are not the taliban or warlords but people who go to work, had children and partners. but the government tells us the war is justified because the infringement of human rights or ask them this -- why not invade zimbabwe or north korea? [applause] why are they so difference? if they truly believe this we would be in zimbabwe now. this issue runs much deeper than tony blair's latest money book -- deeper than politics and

budget cuts. this is issue of fundamental right of a human being's life and by withdrawing our troops in the next two years it will be our government's first steps in sorting out the mess it created. i want to see tony blair and david cameron to look is extended of old afghan girl and i was dad was shot and killed in the crossfire of the war the government is responsible for entellus we are going to keep our troops in there for years to come so the terror of her walking down the street not knowing if she will step on a roadside bomb and a shot by her -- like her dad. bringing the troops home the next two years is essentials, not just because of the massey -- massive negative impact but because of the simple fact. this government is killing innocent human beings. [applause] >> tim, thank you for that

introduction to the debate. to oppose the motion i hope you will welcome him as i call mr. -- [applause] >> we pull out by 2012, terrorism riveras -- prevails by 2013. if we stick to our commitment and complete the task, we wiped away tears of taliban terror. we and our allies must stay in afghanistan -- to be the threat of global security that taliban created until their shadow government is reduced to a level that the afghan security forces can deal with themselves. british and american officers are needed to train and afghan army to maintain the authority of the kabul government. once we have done that job,

afghanistan will thrive as an independent and self-governing nation. but russian that development will only in coverage of the taliban and enable them to rebuild the underground leadership structure that seldom take complete control before we came. giving them a date for the meeting will not tackle the shadow that looms over the whole of afghanistan. the unwilling child soldier and a mother the just lost her child -- can we put this cancer from our country? but others are asking more trivial questions -- can we afford to be in afghanistan and the lager,, taxpayers will foot the bill, should we run away? to save millions the day. i say, no, because you cannot put a price of the things we are fighting for. these are people's lives and families and you cannot argue

with the purses when the liberty of a people is at stake. [applause] i say, the question that we really need to be asking ourselves is one of identity, one of conscience. throughout history and even today britain -- blood and violence in sierra leone and northern ireland and cause of both to protect the lives of the oppressed. why should it be any different now? afghanistan is not iraq. hamid karzai in the 2001 appealed to the u.n. for troops because the taliban destroyed real democracy and committed the most heinous atrocities, killing the families of young men who refused to join their ranks, torturing minority ethnic groups and having women as second- class members of society. the taliban have killed over 10,000 ennis and afghans sent to thousand one will have done

nothing wrong. to withdraw before the are completely destroyed will see a backlash against those who did not support them. the afghan people deserve better. they deserve better than tierney and corruption and torture. they deserve to live as free people and we need to provide that liberty while we are there. agree with the notion we should withdraw soon. but i think what we do need to do is change the way we talk about the war immediately. precisely what we mean about a victory. victory would be ensuring the safety of innocent afghan civilians. victory would be honoring the sacrifices of 341 british soldiers who died so far. a victory would be a step forward for afghanistan into an age of self reliance and honest government. leave now or in the near future would put at risk the nine years of torture -- toil our brave

troops spent filling this one did nation. -- healing this wounded nation. this conflict began because the afghanistan government asked us for our help. but they were not the ones who needed us. i believe the real victory of military intervention in afghanistan is the genuine difference it has made at the grass-roots level for the >> i say we choose freedom over fascism and stay until the job is done for the people of the guests and, however long it takes. [applause] >> i would like to off what is it out like to welcome the new

hon. member. she is not a member of parliament, but i like to welcome my wife. [applause] she is the 18 supporter of you as an institution. i would like to ask the woman just standing there to kick off. i think she is from the southwest. >> i am from british forces, and germany. obviously, this is a basic issue for you from my area, as it does he affect us, and the vast majority of those i am representing have parents who have been in afghanistan, are in afghanistan, or are preparing to go to afghanistan. it is true that we in the military holds great pride in our troops, and are incredibly

proud of them and the massive jobs they are doing, but we are holding up a government. by doing that, we lose valuable human lives. these are not soldiers we are losing. these are people. these people have families left behind. if they have families, they have friends, the army is a close- knit community, and when someone dies, it kills every little part of that person that was in every other part of the community. i do not know if you have ever lost a vital member of your family, but it brings your entire world crashing to a halt. imagine waking up and finding out your dad is gone and will never return of all. not that he has moved to canada, but that he has died, and you will never see him again. imagine the heartbreak. he has to stop. it has to stop torturing these

families. would they want to die in vain, or what they want to protect the ones that are lucky enough to survive? furthermore, our heroes have been given a job the government refuses to equip them properly for. if we are not willing, or we cannot afford to equipment, -- equip them, why are we sending them there? i believe it is a crime to shoot a gun at someone and to put someone who was unequipped in front of that bullet. [applause] >> we find this question difficult to answer, but the children whose fathers, brothers, sisters, and mothers

say yes, withdrawing troops is a positive action. it would be wise to make sure the afghanistan government is stable before we leave, but our army cannot achieve that in two years -- can achieve that in two years if we concentrate now. [applause] >> thank you for that. i'm looking for a contributor from the madeleines. yes, the young woman here. please. >> we have talked about conscious and our moral concern. thousands of civilians are dying. this might seem like a huge number, but it is many more to saddam hussein's casualties.

what is right or more about this? [applause] >> somebody from your chair. who do we have standing up? >> harrison cotter. it is important to remember that many of those fighting at losing their lives in afghanistan are themselves young people. there are -- they are our friends, our family, and our neighbors with our support is unwavering. with hundreds of our sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins, neighbors, and friends moving their lives, are those surviving being transformed? and with a government spending billions on this, there is a need to ask ourselves two questions -- is this war justifiable, and is the impact of beneficial to both the citizens of afghanistan and the citizens of britain? if the answer to both of these questions appears to be no

tariffs -- appears to be now. [applause] >> east of england toward the young man. >> when we first entered the bridge when we first entered afghanistan, -- when we first entered afghanistan, it was to start democracy. now, we have lost lives, and we no longer a crew of this war. however, i ask you this, where is the honor of abandoning a country that we initially invaded? our soldiers, our fellow people, want to fight in this war. it is their job. they love what they are doing. why should we pull them out of something they enjoy doing to bring them back into a country, where yes, they will be working, but not doing what they are

trained to do, when we asked not the honor for them to do this? they want to fight, and i say let them fight. see why. [applause] >> the east midlands. yes, the gentleman there. >> thank you. what is the legacy we will leave the children of tomorrow? bath, war, fear, kate -- there is no glory in death. bring our heroes home. [applause] >> thank you. the northwest, the young man there. >> i do not believe we should have a set point to bring the troops back. i agree that we should bring them back as soon as possible, that we should not run away from what we started, that we should only come back when the afghan government can provide human

rights for all people. we need to finish what we started. [applause] >> how a lot a contributor from whales? yes, the young woman who was trying to get in earlier. >> our country is in bad enough as it is. -- in that enough as it is. we have spent money for our children to risk their lives. [unintelligible] we should make love, not war. our government is killing our soldiers. [applause] >> thank you. a participant from northern ireland? the young man there, with the blue tie. >> i would like to say that i do not see there is any way honor can be preserved when innocent lives are being lost in afghanistan. where is our honor when we stand

there killing innocent civilians? it is a disgrace. in northern ireland there have been numerous protests to bring british troops from both sides of the argument. what i propose is that a gradual withdrawal is much more efficient than having a set date. while we, as a people, have the duty to go out and defend, we also have the right to preserve life, stand up for people who want to carry on with their lives. they did not choose for britain to invade. the afghan civilians, despite hamid karzai's please, they did not ask this to happen we should preserve their lifestyle. [applause] >> thank you. i would like to hear someone from wells. who are we waiting for?

yes, the gentleman there. >> thank you, mr. speaker. when we went to afghanistan, we made a pledge to their government. we would rid them of their fascist regime. we would stop the terror, the tyranny they suffered every day. can we, with good conscience, break that promise to them? no. i say we finish the job, then, we bring our boys home. [applause] >> someone from the northeast of england. what about the young man there? >> thank you. i am oscar. i am not a fan of war. i think the solution we should be aiming for is at peace. but, i do not think we should pull out. it would be totally disrespectful to the british men

and women who have lost their lives. it would be totally disrespectful to them if we pulled out before the job was done. >> thank you. someone from london. i have a rich choice. the young woman there. >> i would just like to say that as soon as we entered afghanistan, as soon as we send troops there, it became our moral responsibility to solve the issues there. whether we are doing this by war, which is not particularly effective with over 300 soldiers having died, maybe, even when we do withdraw troops, we need to find an alternative solution that will work just as well. it is our responsibility and we chose to undertake it. [applause] >> we have not had a se speaker so far. this young man, here. >> recently, i was listening to

radio, and i heard an interesting statement to the man who bought the mushroom troops home in 1989 from afghanistan, where he said at the war could not be won and the forces were flocking a dead horse, in his terms. this is absolutely true. it is costing this country billions of pounds every single year at a time when spending cuts are coming left, right, and gentle. if there were recently elections in afghanistan. one of the most deadly as parts of afghanistan, over 100 soldiers have died, and 500 people voted. that is a lot of soldiers fourth that amount of people. they then say the elections were a success, yet in the days after the elections people ripping up ballot slips and not counting

them keep appearing. is this a success? i do not think it is. they were barking up the wrong tree. if this war is draining our country, and puts us into more debt, and will cause more trouble for, and not get us anywhere. thank you [applause] >> i am looking for a female speaker from the southwest. yes. >> i think the simple solution would be left the troops do what they want to do. if they want to be there and fight for our country, let them fight for our country, but if they want to come home, let them come home. [applause] >> how about the west midlands? the gentleman there with a gray suit and the dark side. [laughter] >> thank you, mr. speaker. honestly, i believe there is no solution to this war, and if there is no solution, what a

example are the troops giving to us as young people? what makes this different than a playground fight? in a playground fight, why have been his two children decide how to fight, and they both get in trouble afterwards. the innocent people are finding themselves in trouble, and our economy is in trouble. i think we should pull out because it is going nowhere. [applause] >> the young man here. let's hear you. by the way, i should mention people speaking from here, the microphones are not taking all that well. if you do not have to go to the dispatch box, but a bit nearer to it. thank you. >> sorry, mr. speaker. i think it is really foolish and not need to suggest that the right thing to do is to withdraw from afghanistan now or the immediate future because the

fact is we got some really clear aims -- restore democracy, and make sure it is safe from terrorism. the outgoing head of the armed forces said that if we were to disrupt the strategy we have already got to withdraw for 2015, it would essentially say to the taliban, which give off that we surrender. it would not be the right thing to do. one of the saving graces that i thought was ill-thought, was to preserve spending in afghanistan. to withdraw now would only be a with of -- the trial of the people we need to protect, but the trail of the lives that have been lost there. it is necessary, and it is a just cause. [applause] >> very fluid at speech.

some people like to say there are about to explode, and i fully understand. if the young woman here, indeed. >> mr. speaker, if we pull our troops out from afghanistan, afghanistan will not be stable enough and forces will not be strong enough to protect citizens on their own. leading now would leave -- would lead to a taliban surge. we cannot afford " to let them believe they could win, especially if this would result in more terrorism attacks. [applause] >> right. what about the young man there. >> i am from london. speaking to young people in my constituency, about 25,000 young people, i've taken to a number of them, obviously not that many, but the majority feel

passionately and believe that the death of 341 uk troops, on number that is guaranteed to rise, is not worth the risk when there is in other countries terror go in on in a week. [unintelligible] there is the equivalent of one right each week in zimbabwe. you're talking about terrorism. why are we going into afghanistan when another terrorist attack is just as likely to occur from the instability of other countries. >> i am going to take a couple of more. the girls are a bit under- represented. we need to try to make good. the young woman there, with the pink top.

>> i represent what suffolk. thank you for choosing me. the war in afghanistan was launched in response to the 9/11 attacks. if the goal was to remove the taliban regime. considering the lack of results, justification has evolved to a mission without hope, and a sentiment that is going nowhere. western forces face a growing insurgency and endless war. innocent people should not be losing their lives. the reasons we entered the war are ridiculous. saddam hussein was not allied with al qaeda. if he had nothing to do with 9/11 and there were no nuclear weapons at all. why are we losing our men won the tactics we are using are not working? [applause] sure.'re who is trying from york sure?

the woman at the end there with the red hair. [applause] >> it is died. [laughter] >> may i just remind everyone here the people going out to fight in afghanistan know full well that they may lose their lives and their family know full well there are losing their lives and it is the rest they're willing to take for our country. [applause] >> the gentleman there, with the pink tights. >> -- hi. -- tie. >> thank you, mr. speaker. do you know the nature of our origin of this conflict? the people of our country do not care if this generation, our generation, has paid, and will continue to pay for the errors of the previous.

the young people of this country, her boss, the future, we are here to -- boss, the future, we are here to correct their mistakes. if we pull out now, all the deaths will be for nothing. do you want to save the 341 good men and women died for no cause? we, as britain's, have started a job, and we must finished it. we stand here, united. i did not verge you -- urge you to vote yes, or no, but vote for what is best for humanity. i thank you. [applause] >> i am afraid it is time to conclude the debate. i have called 20 people.

i know there are always people disappointed. please give a huge, warm, enthusiastic welcome to nest and the chadwick. -- emma chadwick. >> thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, guys. on behalf of all young people across the u.k., i would like to start by saying he why he to all of the troops that are fighting today. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the very fact we are debating this issue today proves how much young people appreciate and acknowledge our soldiers drapery. half the raw, we would not be the great nation we are today if it were not for our heroic soldiers. now, the taliban poses a very real threat, not just in

afghanistan, but right here, right in the uk. the taliban's tentacles spread fast, and the threat of terrorism is undoubtedly pushed from the afghanistan region. our brave men and when are fighting over there, every day, risking life and limb, and doing so that we do not have to. they are risking everything so i could said -- i could ride on the tube, so that we could walk down the street without worrying. how much will the taliban get? how much stronger with the taliban get if we started our -- stopped our soldiers now? history has taught us that we have to fight for freedom, fight for our safety, and fight for what we believe in. yes, i believe conflict can be a backward step toward peace, and

eight necessary to divide to protect what we hold. it is time to step back, remove yourself, and end the struggle. is it that time now? do we stop the heartbreaking death of our innocent civilians? these are deaths of mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, not to mention the phenomenal amount of money -- to 20 billion pounds is a massive bill, especially when we consider the recent government budget. [unintelligible] university fees, can we afford to take the risk? can be put a price on our safety, our freedom?

every day i turn on the news and i see pictures of young men, gun in hand, running across the desert, and honestly, it is heartbreaking, but i am so thankful we are reminded her if i am glad we do not forget their efforts, because that would be a crime in itself. when thing is clear, the effort our troops put forward is commendable. even when one says the government -- they're willing to defend our great nation care we will be forever grateful whichever way we vote today. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for the memorable

speech. this has, perhaps, understandably, and not unexpectedly, been the most highly-charged debate we have had so far. if the quality of the contributions have been outstanding. thank you, each and every one of you for taking part, and doing so with such skill, self- confidence, and sincerity. the youth parliament will now consider the fifth and last motion of the day, related to transport and young people. [applause] [unintelligible] >> here we sit, off 300 elected representatives within the most historically influential house in the modern era, and the problem of transportation

remains. should public transportation be set -- /or saved? mr. speaker, a lot of my friends from the age of 16 to 19 have free public transport. why do young people in scotland have a third of the affairs -- of the fares as my sisters? [unintelligible] what happens for the person who is struggling for the transferred to the education? at the end of the day, it does not benefit our economy. a lady within my constituency had told me that young people should pay like everyone else. young people have a lower minimum wage. young people, by law, must work shorter hours.

that is why we need trade -- cheapair transport. young people are studying in full-time education. that is why we need cheaper transportation. the lady at the age of 65, or there about, has the freedom to own a car, and she is entitled to free, not subsidized, public transport. we are in a recession, and we are realistic. we do not want free public transport, though we do need subsidized fares. cheaper transport will enhance the prospect of all young people, such as those who are potential effie's going to local tracks to break records, potential scientists who go to medical school, or potential lawyers who go to college to break the chains of injustice. that is why we need cheaper

transport. within my constituency, it is 3.60 pounds to get to my school and back. there are 726 pounds a wasted that could have been spent on books and equipment. it is in the back pocket of the bus company. that is why we need cheaper transport. if we, together, on this friday afternoon, fight and achieve this simple objective of subsidizing public transport for all young people, we have a better chance to increase education levels, job opportunities, and life chances of a leftist campaign be a steppingstone for others, and -- left this campaign be a steppingstone for others. for the little boy, or the little girl, to be able to pay

their transport fares survey could carry on. -- so they could carry on. i want 300 of you to declare that a time for truth transport has come, a new day has come. [unintelligible] [applause] >> thank you for the excellent contribution. to oppose the measure, i call ms. whitney me. >> thank you. we have a grand total of 32 billion pounds a year. we cannot afford the luxury. [unintelligible]

in an ideal world, i would agree that the cost to young people would benefit all of us. in a realistic debate, was a total depth reading for reaching reaching 43 billion cons, something has to -- with a total that reaching $43 billion -- pounds, something has to go. [unintelligible] with enough money, more of these families could avoid the heartache of losing the -- a loved one. neither can it be our forces who protect us, and risk their lives every day. it is much more of important that they have sufficient

equipment. now, our education system, which is key to ensuring the future for young people, [unintelligible] it has meant taking bigger cuts pare i believe making the right choice for our country's future. these are our future doctors and lawyers. it is much more important they have sufficient education and our future is safe. i understand transport is an important issue for young people. [unintelligible] government spending should focus much more on these than transport. his estimated 1.4 billion pounds is needed. with a current debt, it is

rarely feasible. in closing, i ask you this -- would you rather a stable education system, a safe place to live, and a functioning health service, a bus to the latest fell at the cinema? thank you. [applause] >> can i fpl to the -- can i appeal to those who have spoken not stand again. to maximize the number of contributors, it would be great if everyone who did speak spoke particularly briefly. we are short on the east midlands. we have anyone from the east midlands? the young man with the red tide. >> with the economic downturn we are coming out of, young people are finding that hard to pay for bus fares to get to education.

alongside the fees we have seen a rise, this would make it even more difficult for young people to get an education. because we are seeing a trend of young people leaving the country, the result is we are losing our future doctors, our teachers college of our lawyers. we cannot let this happen. these are our institutions. if we use all of the -- blues all of these young people, they will get jobs abroad. this will result in bring in our country back to its knees, and we cannot let this happen. we have just seen how bad we have coming out of the economic downturn, and we cannot see another one. [applause] >> the northeast of england. the young woman here. >> i just want to say this is about spending cuts, and

transport subsidies. i want to say what transport subsidies? we have barely any. do not penalize me because i am a full-time student and i want to learn. do not penalize me because i want to give back to the economy and have a good career so i can give to this economy. because of this economy, we always think of these costs, but we are forgetting what we are actually cutting. the economic downturn had nothing to do with the young people. let's not let the recession defect the young people. i think we really need to focus. transport with a universal subsidy would equal in quality among all young people, something the government would say they want. see why. [applause] -- thank you. [applause]

>> someone from london. yes, the young women here. >> i am from greenwich, in london, and i would like to talk about the cuts as well, thinking about where to get the money to pay for the subsidies -- a lot of people have earned more money and do not pay as much tax as they should. perhaps, if we are losing -- looking to save money, we should ask them pay as well. [unintelligible] >> northern ireland. the young man with the striped/-- stripe shirt. >> thank you. >> wells. it is time for wells.

yes, the woman there. >> personally, i think that bus fare fees are reasonable. [unintelligible] we are in a recession. pensioners get to travel free. why should they? their families cannot afford to give their children money to take the bus just to go to the cinema, just to go to their friend's house. my mother tells me to get a job, but the price of a ticket in my area would be just about the amount that i would earn. [unintelligible] [applause]

>> the young gentleman here. >> thank you, mr. speaker. everyone must face the burden in this. must all be in this together, and young people cannot be exempt from this, mr. speaker. it does not matter whether we need a free bus pass. it does not matter whether we need subsidization. every person needs schools, hospitals, police, needs to say -- stay safe, and every young person deserves that regardless of the fiscal situation. we cannot look upon young people, bus subsidization as protected from the cuts, because it would not be fair that way. [applause] >> i am looking in the direction of your shirt. -- yorkshire.

what about the woman at the end who is busy looking around? >> it costs me around 8 pounds for five days to get fruit -- to get to and from college. i cannot live with my parents. is my grandmother going to pay for me to continue with my education? [applause] >> thank you. the west midlands. what about the young men in the black with the light blue pullover. -- in the back with a light blue pullover? >> why should the old citizens get free transport when young people have a social life? [laughter] [applause] >> transport should not be a

burden to young people. see why. -- thank you. >> thank you. we need someone from the southwest. who do we have? the young woman, there. the young woman, here. >> not only do we have to pay for the opportunities, we also have to pay for our transport. even if you do get a job when you are young, you are on minimum-wage. how do you expect to fund all of the things we do on our own? >> just before we take another speaker, i have been mentioning of a people who are here to support you. i like to welcome very warmly john prescott. [applause]

>> john served in the house of commons for 40 years, and you can take him as an example of someone who always spoke his mind, bluntly, rose costly, and principally, but always in a way that was a credit to him and the democratic process. [applause] >> thank you for being here, and thank you for supporting the u.k. youth parliament. he east of a blend. yes, the oft woman waving her hand. >> [unintelligible] before i was fortunate enough to

be on this parliament, i was on the youngest assembly, and my main issue was transport. last year, my local area and told me they were going to issue a discount card to young people for free on all bus service from my area. i have seen this slip through my fingers this is not about me. this is about the young people. why why should i be forced to pay 70 pounds for a discount card? it is not fair. if we are going to focus on the costs, how are we going to get what young people want done? we are supposed to represent young people. if we should be pushing for the issues we believe in strongly, without -- ok, we need to be realistic, but we cannot ignore the issues that are prominent,

and we deserve reduced fares. [applause] >> thank you. i'm looking for a contributor from london. the young man here. he has been waiting a long time. there you go. >> as you know, we always have one of these. [applause] >> yes, we have cards, that allow us to have free travel and reduced fares. this is crucial to be able to access education we need. areas like mine, we do not have certain needs. health and social care courses are not in certain areas of our bureau. why are we not giving them an opportunity to access a career they want? social workers, why are we not allowing them to pursue their chosen career? [applause]

>> thank you for a very passionate contribution. someone from the west midlands. yes, the woman at the end there. indeed. please. i meant the woman back there. please. >> basically, at the age of 16 years, when you go on the bus, you have to pay the same as an adult, but you do not get the same privileges. to purchase alcohol you need to be 18. you are not allowed to drive until the age of 17. if you did not vote until the age of 18, however you have to pay adult fare. >> howl about -- how about yo

rkshire. the gentleman pointing at himself. [applause] >> i live in [unintelligible] it is the biggest region in the uk. therefore, we feel transport fares worse the others. personally, i have to pay 700 pounds a year for transport. last year, i owed 900 pounds. you can see how unfair the system is. it is not progressive. he deeply effected young people. where you live depends on where you study, and what friends you have. i have a lot of friends that live in the middle of nowhere. that is completely unfair pair got that is why we need to invest in -- and fair. that is why we need to invest in transport [unintelligible]

thank you. [applause] >> i need to call someone from the northwest. there is a young man here with a red tide. >> does it not seem of little farcical the we are talking about the difficulties of maintaining a secondary education when the coalition is about to cut ema and has not offered a valid replacement for that? [applause] >> ok. again, it is time for someone from whales. yes, the gentleman that in the back. >> the question should be asked should we cut the wages of the bus drivers, train drivers, people that sell the machines, rather than the cut -- rather

than cut the money we pay for young people's travel. >> how about a young woman from northern ireland? do we have such? you are not a young woman, but you are welcome to speak. [laughter] >> first of all, i want to say congratulations to conner morgan. the fact that he is here shows the progress that has been made in northern ireland. as far as young people being protected, i did not know how my more -- how by more conservative friends when dancer, -- what answer, but i said the reduced transport fares are basic essentials for a younger generation that is bearing the brunt of these costs. see why. -- thank you.

>> what about the young woman in the back row? >> kate taylor from the southwest. how can you expect all young people to have a subset is transport when people in various rural areas do not have transport? some estimate, it is more important to have a consistent and reliable system for all people. [applause] >> thank you. how about someone from the se? >> i am 13, so i am quite young. i can still claim a child's fare, but i think it is completely unfair they you get discount cards from the age of 16 on word, but -- on word, but if you did not have the cheaper rocard, you still have to pay the other prize from the age 16

off. that means i have about two more years of cleaning a child's fare. are you seriously going to tell me i have to pay an adult fare when i cannot vote, drink, drive, and i still have to legally be an education, depending on what age i go from. i think it is unfair that someone who was on a state pension through has access to a car can get free transport, while some one of our age has to pay either full adult price for a ridiculously high price. [applause] >> thank you, congratulations to you, speaking in public at the age of 13. you deserve our respect. the young man in the back with a light gray suit and the blue tie.

>> hi -- my mom has to pay 19.5 all pounds a week for me and my sister to go to school. i have to wait an hour and half to go home with the boss does not turn out sometimes. we need consistent transport that is fair to young people. obviously, we need to be economical, and we cannot have free transport. sure, it is important that young people should be allowed subsidize rides. [applause] >> thank you. please. >> one thing people keep mentioning -- think about it, one we are older, we will want the same thing. a lot of these elderly people have paid into the system over and over again, so there are entitled to these subsidies. [applause]

[unintelligible] >> at the end of the day, people are talking about cutting petrol prices. the war in iraq, one of the reasons we are there is for oil, right? [applause] it has everything to do with politics now. they told the truth about iraq, the americans are still there, so it stopped being -- complaining about elderly people, because at the end of the day we would do the same thing. [applause] >> i want to see why you, sir, for that speech. -- thank you, you, sir. i think you have a politician in new. -- in if you. i would like to call the young woman there.

>> as it was mentioned before, i am from a london borough, so i am really fortunate to have free, discounted transport, but i find it outstanding debt across britain if the government is allowing young people to struggle to get to schools and colleges. i think the spending cuts have to read that everyone, but the young people do not have the disposable income that the adults have, so therefore, i should be given some sort of discount all across britain. >> thank you very much indeed. >> yes, indeed. [unintelligible] >> if the government cannot ensure that a hospital with school -- hospital or a school is within walking distance to everyone's house, they should

make it accessible to everyone. is not fair to penalize young people for not being able to drive. unless they can say people can drive from the ages 1, two, four, which will never happen, you need to sort it out. [applause] >> thank you. a person we have from london. someone just said to me, choose a boy. >> as we have heard, the difference between the london region and all of the other regions, with the discount cards and all of that stuff, we only have to pay 10 pounds for our cars, and it is really unfair for you guys, so i would like to apologize. i would also like to thank the government for our cards,

because they are very handy. we should be complaining because it is not completely equal, but how can we all claimed to be the united kingdom if we are not completely united? how can we be united if we are not completely equal? >> thank you. we are getting toward the end. i am going to ask a young woman in the back there, and then a couple more. then, we need to wrap up. >> thank you. i would like to say this is not a simple choice between hospitals and discount cards, as some people are saying. [applause] [unintelligible] i am in the unique position. i will be frank. i did not go out because i cannot afford to go out. it makes a massive difference. i really hope it is not because

those that are over the age of 65 have the right to vote for the government, and we are not getting discount cards because we cannot. [applause] [unintelligible] [laughter] >> thank you, speaker. mr. speaker, i wish i had a reduced transport scheme to defend, but in the rural community of lincolnshire, we do not have anything. and it is disgusting and not acceptable. it is very hard to get a job, get we have job opportunities are rising in one city, yet young people in the surrounding areas cannot get into the town because of the lack of the efficiency. it is not acceptable. i will give you an example. i was speaking to a constituent who had just lost his job at 17, and was not entitled to a

benefit. there was a job opportunity in lincoln, but he cannot get it. enough is enough and we have been deprived. we have been left behind. it is about time we see affordable transport schemes. thank you. [applause] >> ok. we have time for just a very small number more. we can take the woman who is about four-foot long. yes, you, looking around. you are warmer and warmer. it is you. >> i live in one of the most rural areas there is in the country. 1,440 pounds is how much i pay to get to my train every week i have to decide whether i can carry on with a lifelong study, or stop because i cannot afford

it. many people from my school do not have the access that young people do in off further areas. 600 people [unintelligible] 500 state because they cannot go anywhere else. that is not fair. they now have to reassess their careers, the university wants to go to, and the different places they can succeed in life. if i want to the school i was supposed to go to, it would cost 3,000 pounds for half of the year. it is three trains. i am 17. i am looking to start my driving lessons, and even them are extortionate prices. i am sure some people in here would agree. [applause] >> ok. we have one more from this side, and then the wind up speaker.

yes, indeed, you. thank you. >> transport is a sensitive issue for me. i do not see why i should pay an adult fare. i come from a rural area. i think it would provide [unintelligible] i know that if young people paid full fare, it would seriously defect young people. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. to conclude the debate, i call mr. tom? so. give him a warm welcome. -- axle. >> thank you, mr. speaker. you have heard many different views on issues that affect young people. the issue on transport is

complex and one that has as many implications for the services. one question i would like you to think about is what you [unintelligible] -- would you give up your seat on a train for an old person? in 2008, the government introduced free travel for people over the age of 60. now the only people that continue to lose out are those under the age of 18. mr. speaker, money is always an issue. in my constituency on the east side of your chair, it covers an area of 1000 square miles, and it is mainly year-old. transport -- his role. -- rural.

the assembly has been campaigning for free transport for two years, and are currently successfully running a pilot scheme with 400 young people aged between 13 and 21. after raising 10,000 pounds in three months, the assembly has issued a free travel card to participants that as 25 pounds on it. once the plan is over, the young people get 10% off. the aim of this pilot is to raise awareness of need. so, what is this need? socializing? taking part in activities? or, getting a good education and qualification for a greater life? [applause]

>> naturally, and there are -- nationally, there are five and a half million young people aged between 13 and 19, as a ploy is to 3.5 million old people aged over 60. you could argue that old people have worked and you could also argue that they can afford to pay their travels. young people, who must rely on parents, and part-time jobs. money is always an issue. [applause] should they have access to cheap transport and be seen as

an investment in the future of this country? in this time of spending, local authorities, help services, the they are all looking at ways of saving money. what you need to ask yourself is, would you give up your card? would you give up your rocard -- railcars? would they have a negative effect on people's lives? by not investing, the police,

the armed forces, education, youth services, to survive. money is always an issue. i hope that when you vote on this issue, we think long and hard and and why all the options before making your final choice. during the time that i've been speaking, three babies have been born around the country. this could make an impact on their lives and not just our own. back to my opening question, would you really give up your seat for an old person? you may just have to. thank you for making this day possible.

thank you to the young people at home for watching. thank you, mr. speaker. [applause] >> thank you for concluding the debate today. we will come to point of order. that does conclude the debate. there will be a few more words to be said by people in due

course. the opportunity now is for the use parliament to vote. just before it does, how could i possibly fail to recognize to draw the attention of the parliament to the presence -- i refer to john hayes. the education minister. [applause] >> he is one of the great parliamentary characters of this institution, a legend in his own lunch time. he is a member who will invariably cite no end of authors, poets, playwrights suv has ever -- who he has either met or whose works he has read. thank you for coming.

on this occasion, i shall spare you my impersonation of him. shouldf you on my right leave the chamber by the door behind me. turn left into the lobby behind you. those on my left should leave by the door at the far end and turn left into the lobby behind you. in the lobby, you would be given the ballot papers with the five debates listed on separate papers. you should place a cross in either the yes or no box on each ballot paper. and the completed ballot papers to the doorkeeper's in the lobbies after word, returning to

your place in the chamber. house of commons staff will be on hand to assist you. needless to say, in respect to each vote, you should vote only once. [laughter] the division lobbies are now open. order, order. >> members of the youth parliaments, order, order. thank you. a small number of people led indicated that they would like to raise points of order. there will be an opportunity for points of order, but not just yet. very shortly. equally, i will take great pleasure in asking -- where is

natasha? there you are. thank you. let me say a few words. i get the distinct impression that members of the u.s. parliament have much enjoyed their session here today -- youth parliament have enjoyed their session here today. am i right? [applause] i know that you will want me, on behalf of each and every one of us, to place on record our warmest thanks to a number of people without, this event either would not have taken place or what have not done so anything like the smooth and seamless efficiency that we have enjoyed.

from the bottom of my heart, i would like to say thank you to a true, great, a dedicated professional, who has gripped this project from conception to execution, a great servant of the house of commons. [applause] thank you. the deputy principal doorkeeper, who i am trying to -- he has gone home. he is counting the votes. he is not here to be thanked. let's thank him back because he has done a wonderful job -- let's thank him because he has done a wonderful job.

[applause] robyn, taking about. -- robin, take a bow. >> thank you very much. you have been very easy to work with. thank you. >> the principal clerk of the table loftus, -- of the table opposite, he has devoted his professional life to the service of the house. he has been absolutely indispensable in the run-up and the conduct of today's proceedings. [applause] ar would like to thank the head of parliament education service,

with which it has already been my pleasure and privilege to work very closely over the last 16 months. i think the education service of the house, which reaches out to schools and colleges across the country, is one of the great assets of the house and the progressive movement that we are making to engage with civil society and to encourage the participation of young people. the head of that service does an outstanding job. [applause] thank you for everything you have done for today and everything you do throughout the year. from the office -- paul, where are you? [applause]

your role and your colleagues working with you has been fundamental towards being able to do our business away that is efficient and secure and that is very much appreciated. ann foster, where is ann? her role as an important, too. [applause] there is one group of people that i absolutely must not forget to thank on behalf of us all. that is the team. [applause] this year, we have not had the pleasure of the company of

members of the scottish use of parliament. -- use parliament. they are meeting and debating. i am sure they have been bought back the summary -- magnificent i hope they had had just as and a rewarding experience and you have experienced here in the chamber of the house of commons. last year was the first time you had the opportunity to debate here. i was struck, there is struck, by the sheer quality of the contributions, by the self- confidence that was displayed, by the ploy is that everybody could witness. we have seen it again today. just to underline the significance of what you have done, of how much you have achieved, let me say speaking

for myself, when i was your age, i was not speaking on a regular basis in public places in front of large numbers of colleagues. i had not gone to that point. i had not honed the skills. at that stage, i did not have that degree of self possession and self-confidence. what you have accomplished is something very special and very meaningful. i hope you feel fulfilled and proud tfor two reasons. first of all, for yourselves. your own self improvement, the development of your own self- confidence and assertiveness skills. that is very important. quite separately from the

benefits yourself, you have contributed to the benefits of the reputations of young people. as a consequence, we can all agree that whole is greater than the sum of the parts. not only have you done right by yourself, you have done right by the young people this country. whenever i go around the country and meet and talk to different young people, whatever you think of the political system, the democratic system is far from perfect, it is vastly better than the condition in which many people have to exist across the globe. before i became speaker of the

house, i visited some of the most conflict stricken and four parts of the planets. very often, that poverty was either created or exacerbated by conflict and by the truly egregious abuse of human rights. i meant people to would have given their teeth for the opportunity to speak out and speak up. in many parts of the world, there are still people who cannot do so because if they do, they will be arrested or tortured or imprisoned or killed. all leased here in this country, we should regard -- we should regard the glass as half full, if not better than that. we know the importance of politics. whatever you think of the system, politics matters. the quality of education that we enjoy, the standard of health care, the state of ar

infrastructure, whether or not we wage war, the extent to which we can tackle the disfiguring scars of poverty, it all depends on laws made, money spend, decisions are reached in westminster. you have taken part in a very important process. i hope it will come to be regarded as completely on controversial that you should come here each year to have your say to improve yourselves, to represent your community, and to do credit to young people. we have a role in the house that we do not refer to people all outside the house. i will simply mentioned today that i am sure there will be regional media interest. i know for a fact that e-

politics this year from the media. somebody said to me earlier, i hope that those people from the media will recognize that this is a really positive story about young people showing what they can do. you have to put up with a lot of unrepresentative, it inappropriately-, sometimes downright nasty discriminatory coverage in the media. i hope that our friends in the media will recognize today that this has been a dramatic success and members of the youth parliament, it is your success. i am proud to be able to tell you, although i love being speaker, at the two most enjoyable days so far in the course of my speakership were friday at the end of october

last year when i chaired the proceedings of the youth parliament, and today. thank you very much. [applause] on behalf of the shadow leader of the house, i know all of you will want to hear and will give a very warm welcome to the honorable member, the chair of the back bench business committee, my colleague, natasha in goal -- engle. >> i am a member -- thank you

very much for coming. thank you so much for inviting me to speak to you today. on a normal day, i am a backbencher. this is my first and possibly only ever time. if anyone were to ask me if there was in the debate on any day that i would like to take part, it would be today. i am enormously privilege to be here today to join you. being allowed to take part on your day is an enormous privilege to me. it is something that not many years ago, both mr. speaker and diet -- mr. speaker and i would think it was totally impossible.

it was really quite unbelievable. i want to say, a very special thank you, because i think we are in a special position to know exactly how important this is. and exactly how much work has gone into making this possible today. today would not have been possible if that man was not in the speaker's chair. [applause] that is absolutely sincere. what you have done is to allow these young people here today to demonstrate and to take the

opportunity to give a very, very positive representation of what young people are capable of doing. you have been absolutely brilliant. well done. [applause] most of all, the reason why this is so important is because those people, if they came here today, they would see for themselves, not only is there nothing to worry about, there is an awful lot to celebrate. well done for being so fantastic. [applause] >> one of the problems --

everything that you want to say has already been said. i just wanted to add my own thanks. what about you, it would not happen possible today. thank you very much, andrew. to robin and the doorkeepers, it is every day. without their work, i do not think we really appreciate what they do on a daily basis. thank you very much to the doorkeepers. [applause] i want to finish off with a biggest thank-you and that is to you, all of you have been here today. you have been absolutely fantastic.

u.s. shown us that we can do it, how we should do it. thank you very, very much. [applause] >>, jennings -- tom jennings, and he is going to say a few words. >> a massive thank you to everyone who has made this day possible. young people are making their mark. thank you. [applause]

>> members keep sprouting up from all over the place. i just spotted him working in the background. we are grateful to him for his interest. we are waiting for the results of the vote. i hope that people will come again as members of the use of parliament. -- youth parliament. some people are disappointed because they did not get called. i have made a particular effort to ensure that there has been a gender balance in the debate. we've been going about that in a very rigorous away.

if anyone is disappointed, i am genuinely sorry. i think there are points of order, i am told. is there a point of order? yes, there is a point of order. >> they have done it at a time [unintelligible] as a look to the future, a lot have things have to go to them. they are the ones that put investment in us. they do not do it because they have to, they do it because they care. that group to plant everything

for us and make our lives are very easy. thank you tube. -- thank you it to you. [applause] >> by the way, natasha's spoke with tremendous passion and sincerity. you often read about -- the great thing about this cause is that it does attract support ride across the house. labor members, conservative members, liberal democrat members. many of them are here today to support you. i have shared with you at the annual meeting the conversation i had with a member last year before i chaired the debates last year. it was a private conversation so i will never name that member. he has not retired from the house. he was a very long serving

member. as an example of just what " rank hostility we encounter, that member said to me, he had been a very vociferous opponent for your right to sit here. let me tell you, he said. it would be an unmitigated disaster. i know what i am talking about. i have sat here for over access decades. and i said, i understand that. what is your argument? eventually, he moved on -- he said, i know what i am talking about. these young people will leave chewing gum all of the chamber. at the worst, pen knives will be used. damage to these benches will be done.

i said to him, you are completely wrong. these young people will be pleased to come to the chamber. i predict to you that they will speak extremely well as they will be here if that your towards each other than many of my colleagues on a day-to-day basis. [applause] members, i note it is never popular to say, i was right. i think i can be committed to make an exception on this debt -- on this occasion. you have proven me right. thank you. the very last business of the day, you'll be pleased to know,

the ballot results. motion , sex education, for the motion, 211. against the motion, 104. as we say in parliamentary language, the ayes have it. motion number 2, and university tuition fees, for the motion, 57. against the motion, 267. [applause] the no's have it. job opportunities, for the motion, 56. against the motion, 271.

[applause] the no's have it. motion for, the war in afghanistan. for the motion, 137. against the motion, 179. the no's have it. [applause] motion 5 on transport and young persons. for the motion, 239. against the motion, 80. the ayes have it.

order, order. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> this weekend, saturday and sunday, interviews from london. the labor part -- the labor party shadow leader. sunday, comparing the british and american forms of government as we talk with our guests about elections, the impact of money in races, the power of the prime minister, and social issues.

>> this month, the fcc held a forum on teens and mobile devices. was onewhile taexting of the subjects covered. this is two hours. >> the topic is a generation of mobile. please pose some wonderful intelligent questions. good morning and welcome to mckinley technology high school. i am the principal here. today, we joined the federal communications commission in bringing together students,

parents, educators, and members of the business and technology committee to discuss the innovation of mobile technology in the classroom. we are an outstanding choice to host this prestigious event. we are the technology hub for the district of columbia public schools. our 21st century to -- approach to teaching and technology has paved the way for students to come -- to become the highest performing students in the united states. if our children are to compete globally, our approach to education must change and innovate to meet these new challenges. 95% of our students go off to college every year. there are increases in the achievement on standardized tests. this is not due to chance. a focus on developing a rigorous and innovative technology

curriculum, having a school of master teachers and a focus on aligning still learning to the demands of the global market. i would be remiss if i did not mention that we have the number one students in the united states. they are doing so well. they are trying to get a dress- down day for friday. and wonderful support from our parents and partners in the business community. as we gather here today, i wanted the opportunity derecognized in view of the importance entities responsible for this event. first, i wanted think the fcc for interesting as to those such a vital symposium. with regard to educational technology and innovation needed an education to move to an achievement and to close the achievement gap once and for all. we have been fortunate enough to become connected with a major industry leaders and secure

partnerships as we move toward providing their students the leading educational opportunities available in the united states. our alliance with transported technology, our partnership with the armed forces communications and electronics association, lockheed martin, google, to name just a few, has allowed us to pursue the rigorous curriculum that permits our students to achieve at an elevated academic level. i would like to thank all of our partners for having the school -- mckinley is a true beginning of the hill. i applaud president obama and the chairman for recognizing the need to address technology as a focus on educational reform. our leaders are at the forefront

of the issues that must be confronted to bring america back to the highest performing country in the world of education. it is my pleasure to welcome the fcc and chairman to mckinley. chairman was nominated by president barack obama as chairman of the federal communications commission on march 3, 2009. sworn into office on june 29. he has a distinguished pedigree that makes them qualified to lead the fcc into the next generation of technology and what it has to offer our society. he received -- prior to that, he completed his studies for his bachelor at columbia college. the chairman had to decades of experience in public service in the private sector. private -- he spent more than 10 years working in the technology

industry as an executive and an entrepreneur. he co-founded lunchbox digital where he served as managing director and he was especially -- in these capacities, he worked to accelerate and invest in early and mid stage technology in other companies. from 1997-2005, he was a senior executive at iac, a fortune 500 company. his public service roles have included work in the legal capacity. he has previously served as clerk for the supreme court justices and that the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. he also worked in congress for senator charles schumer of new york. he has been active at the

intersection of social responsibility and the marketplace. as part of the founding group of new resource bank, which specializes in serving as the need of green and entrepreneurs and sustainable businesses. he has served on the advisory board of environmental entrepreneurs. he has served as a board member on common sense media. we are extremely pleased that he has chosen the camera technology high school at the venue for this event. we firmly believe that makemie technology is leading the way in the district of columbia. we're providing students with the appropriate opportunities. they will serve their academic pursuits and provide them with the foundation to lead their peers into a new technologically savvy environment. ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to welcome to our school, the chairman of the fcc.

[applause] >> thank you, david, for that introduction. thank you for what you have done with this great school. thank you to all the students out there who are making in this job easy by being so good. [applause] to all of the students, i hope you'll be gentler with me. a 42-0. you guys are a science and knowledge is cold. what is up?

-- a science and technology school. what is up? thank you for coming now to listen to someone from the government. this panel is going to cover such important topics. thank you to all of you are up you are participating remotely. we of folks who are participating online. we have them from as far away as oregon. it is very early there. thank you for waking up and participating. thank you to the catalyst. you will see how great they are a little bit later. to the parents and experts, thank you. what the start by asking a few questions. how many of view are looking

forward to winter break? [applause] how many of you are looking forward to the finals you have to take before you get to winter break? [applause] all right. how many of you use the internet and in connection with your finals or homework or schoolwork? what the records show that there are -- what the records show that a lot of hands are going up. how many think of you need basic digital skills to get a good job? everyone. how many of you note that broadband tmeans high-speed internet? that is great. not that long ago, people did

not really understand what broadband was. it is good to see all of you have this level of knowledge. broadband is the most transformational new technology sends electricity. it is changing the way students to hallmark, the way people do -- hallmark, but every aspect of our allies. are almostnities limitless. a student anywhere can have access to the best libraries, the best teachers in the world. the last time i was here at mckinley, it was a number of years ago when there was something called net day. a group helped string internet wire is in the can lay in the late 1990's. it is amazing to be back here.

i do not know that we were imagining then the opportunities of digital text books. how many of you are tired carrying around a big backpacks? right? why shouldn't every kid everywhere have a digital textbook with up-to-date material, cutting edge interactive learning tools, broadband enables that. broadband can help transform the health care for the better. smart phones can help people with diabetes. they can track their glucose levels. they can and power real -- real- time monitoring by their doctors. how about energy? with broadband, the appliances and our homes to be able to talk to each other, saving energy,

saving money, saving the planet. the internet enables anyone anywhere to dream beg and bring those dreams to life. one thing we need to do to seize the opportunity is to produce -- preserve the freedom and openness of the internet. he was only a few years older than you when he invented facebook in his dorm room. he was in his early 20's when he founded google. neither of them had to ask permission to launch their website. that is why the fcc is moving to preserve the open internet. it is a vital part of what we need to do. to foster broadbent investment and promote a vibrant economy

created -- creating jobs for students like you. it is essential that we move forward next week to adopt the first in forcible rules to protect internet freedom and why i am so pleased to have broad support from the efforts across the spectrum, including the technology community, not investors, civil-rights organizations. it is very important that we do this. we need to make sure that all of our young people, no matter where they are from, have access to the internet and have the digital skills necessary to be full participants in a digital economy. we need to drive a broad band adoption and access everywhere, high-speed access with everyone connected, so that we can compete in the 21st century. and for our country to be competitive, we are looking to schools like this one to equip

students with more than just basic skills. --need to lead the world's science, technology, engineering, mathematics. president obama has made this a priority. this school is doing so much toward that goal. speaking, howrted many of you have checked your funds for texts or e-mails? [laughter] how many of you were tempted to check your phone? with every revolutionary new technology, broadband internet brings not only massive opportunities, but some concerns. one study found that the average

teenager consumes 11 hours of media content the day -- a day. another found that teenagers text so often, it comes to a text every 14 minutes. we all understand the lore of distraction. -- lure of distraction. we also know halt some online messages can be hurtful. this can have real consequences, consequences for french ships and relationships, consequences for careers, consequences that literally can be life or death. 80% of fatal teenager car

accidents are caused by a distracted driving. that is a tragedy that we have to tackle. do not text and drive. [applause] i have three kids. the oldest one is 19. he is a driver. i want him to have access to the internet for a thousand reasons. i want him to have a mobile phone with him wherever he is. i want him to be able to call me. i want all the benefits of that. they can change the world for the better. but i do not want him texting and driving. these are just some of the issues that the catalyst will discuss in a few minutes -- panelist will discuss in a few minutes. i am so glad that we're doing

this here at mckinley. i am here today to learn from students, parents, educators, and experts on what we can do to seize the opportunities of wired and wireless broadband, while avoiding the pitfalls. it is not about government regulation. it is about responsibility. it is about information and education. it is about empowerment. it is about providing a boost to innovators, developing new products, products and tools that can help parents and students with the challenges of having limits and also with identifying the good stuff that is out there. the quality digital content that

can help make a positive difference for students and families. to kick off today's discussion, we are very lucky to have a special guest. she is right here in this computer. you cannot see her. he will and a minute. she is in the award winning actress, jane lynch, you all know her from the hit show "glee." [applause] "glee" is just one of the many television shows and films that she has made special. my own favorite is a film from a few years ago called "best in show." i am so glad that she is here. just today, the golden globes

nominated her for a big award. [applause] she has been focused on these issues. before we bring her up live, what we ask that we played a public-service announcement that she helped put together. >> today, and a model citizen, but i used to be a model jerk. eventually, my bad habits caught up to me. now i am still in my community service by showing other parents how to guide their kids through the pitfalls of mobile phone misuse. i am here to teach text-ed.

question 15 -- tdtm means? eyes on your own paper. too dumb to mumble. pencils down. how do you think you all dead? >> really? >> come on, people. you're going to have to learn these abbreviations. your kids -- your kids are saving precious minutes every day. >> how do we break the code? >> don't you worry. there is an easy tool. the lg detector will help you figure them out.

get into the game at yourself. text with your kids. i shall, why don't you read the next little bed? >> 80% of teens preferred date -- say they prefer getting a text message from a parent and a phone call. >> you are not dropping a break in what they are doing. you are just giving them a drop on the shoulder. open up that digital dialogue and start speaking their language. >> she is amazing. >> for your home assignment, today is how much is a fun one. go to the link below and try to stop the detector. face the facts. lg text ed. class is dismissed.

>> as you can see, she brings her wonderful trademark humor to the issue of responsible mobile usage. she is tackling issues like texting while driving. while the video is great, at the real thing is even better. i am delighted to welcome via skype all aboard winning actress and recovery tax defender, the great jane lynch. [applause] >> good morning.

how is everybody doing today? [applause] >> everyone can hear you. we are so happy you have participated. we appreciate your ruling out of bed -- you ruling out of bed. we are here today to talk about the opportunities and challenges around technology with parents and students and experts. we just saw the video that you did. pretty entertaining. >> when they asked me to be a part of the advisory council, i thought it would be a great way to help parents and teenagers learn more about how we can be more responsible when it comes to mobile technology. the video is funny, i hope. at the end of the day, but this is a very important issue. i am glad to see the fcc and everyone there so dedicated to

having this conversation. i do not know if you are aware of that, but teenagers send a text every 14 minutes. that is more than 20,000 texts in the u.s. every second. i will bet someone in the audience is texting right now. listen closely. parents, did not think you are getting off easy. we know from our research that half of you are guilty of texting and driving. that is right, parents. we need to make sure you are doing everything you can to model good behavior. >> i cannot agree more. we can all benefit from a little bit of thinking and sharing about mobile technology and how it is changing our lives every day.

how did you decide to get involved? >> as a new parent, these issues are personally very important to me. being a parent is staring at -- scary enough. when you throw technology end, that is something else. when the opportunity came up, [no audio] [inaudible] we hope these videos are funny. [inaudible] it is about time we figure out some solutions.

>> i could not agree more. >> i hear that you played basketball with the president. that is what i thought, too. i guess that settles it. >> thank you for the vote of confidence. thank you for doing as today. it has been great talking to you. we admire your work as an actress and we admire your work in helping bring these issues to the attention of students and parents all over the country.

congratulations on your nomination today. good luck with "glee." >> have fun today, everybody. use your funds responsibly. -- phones responsibly. >> thank you. that was great. let me introduce a leading experts on generation mobile. amanda is a senior researcher at the american life project. she is here to present her findings on teenagers and mobile phones. thank you for coming. [applause]

>> i cannot really think of anything harder than trying to follow jane lynch. in order to try to make this more interesting, i thought i would have my talk today be about -- be more of a conversation. i will pose a bunch of questions to you and ask you about yourself on years. and see how that matches of their rest of the united states. the first slide, please. how many of you have a cell phone? i would be shocked if any of you did not raise your hand. in the u.s., 75% of all american teams have a cell phone. that seems kind of low, but you have to remember that we surveyed kids from 12 years old to 17 years old.

some of the 12-year-old and some of the 13-year-old still do not have a cell phone. you can see that they're not a lot of differences in who has a phone. the only differences that are operative our age. then again, middle schoolers -- are there any middle schoolers here? there you are. up top. [applause] so middle schoolers are less likely to have cell phones that high schoolers. kids from a lower income backgrounds are less likely to have them. overall, race and ethnicity and gender do not make any difference on whether or not you're likely to have a cell phone. so what are people doing with phones? not surprisingly, they text messaging. and they're doing that a lot more than they're doing anything else, more than they're talking on the phone, talking on a

landline, more than they are instant messaging, e-mail in, and all of these other ways of communicating have remained flat. text messaging, as you see in the upper left corner, has been skyrocketing. i will throw out some numbers of text messages you may spend in a day. how many of you send less than 50 a day? that is what i thought. [laughter] how many of you send less than 100 a day? [laughter] have many of you send around two hundred a day? how many it of you spend -- how many of you send more than 200 a day? as you can see, you all very much exceed the average american. the median number for you is 50 tax per day, that is from 12 to

17. hear, -- 50 texts per day, that is from 12 to 17. then you have the allies, who are sending more than average pared the average teen sends more than 3000 texts per month. but now we have to go to the other side. how many of you do not send a single voice call on a day? how many of you make two or three voice calls a day? how many of you make five calls on a typical day? 10? next slide, please. with voice calling, it is remarkably standard across age groups, across gender. pretty much, the average for most people is making and receiving about five calls per

day. as you can see, other folks sort makeull the numbers up and sen 10 or 11 call the day. but there is consistency in using voice calling. interestingly, with text messaging, you have about 50 average or medium for teenagers and 10 for adults. if you wonder why your parents and other adults cannot conceive of you sending as many tax per day, it is because they cannot imagine it because they don't do it. how many of you record videos with your phone? how many of you surf the internet from your phone? how many of you send instant

messages from your phone? how many of you checked a social network employes from your phone? [laughter] as you can see, it is not just text messaging and was calling. your phone, as you know, is a computer in your pocket. it can serve as a communicative and informational hub. it allows you to record the expenses of your daily life and instantly shared with other people. you guys certainly exceed the statistical norm. about a quarter of teenagers say that they send and receive e- mail and search the web on their cell phone. for low-income kids, kids who live in households where the families are less than $40,000 per year, the cell phone is the primary way you are going on- line. as you can see, many of these kids do not have the computer in the home. if they do, it is not connected to the internet.

the cell phone, for many, serves as a leapfrog. instead of having to compete for access at a library or share with her siblings, many teenagers in these populations are able to get online from their own personal the vice much more easily. i will not serve you on this one. these are some of the negative things that happen to people on cell phones. we see that about half the teenagers have gone a spam text or and none wanted text message. teen-agers of driving age say that they have a text while driving. about a quarter say that they have been bullied or harassed on their phone. about 15% say they have received were sent nude photos.

how many would say that your parents keep an eye on your phone use? raise your hands. very few. next slide, please. what this slide basically tells us is that parents are, in theory, paying attention to what their kids do online. the overarching message is that, if you are female and 12 to 13 years old, your parents are more likely to monitor your phone used and if you are a male or are in high school. that is the overall message. parents have a lot of tools in their arsenal with which to monitor your phone use. some can send time limits for how long you can use your phone or what, day or what places you can use it and some can limit -- what time of day or what places

you can use it and some can limit the number of calls. i do not actually know about the cellphone rules here at mckinley. next slide, please. but what i can tell you is that most schools allow kids to have cell phones at schools, but you cannot have them in class. is that what happens here? all right. some schools are more permissive and allow them to have phones any time of day. and there are a quarter of schools that are a lot -- that are a lot more locked down and mckinley is. you're not allowed to have a cell phone on campus at all. if you're caught with it, it is confiscated in italy. there are a bunch of things that teenagers can do with self on the school. about 75% or so say they have their phones turned on at school.

about 63% of teens say that they have sent a text message during class. a bold one quarter of teens say they have made a cell phone call while in class. [laughter] then we decided to look and see whether it mattered what kind of school you want to. does it matter if your school is really permissive or if your school is locking you down? it really does not matter all that much. 58% of teens who are not supposed to have a cell phone at school at all have sent a text message from class. certainly, i think this slide tells us that we have more work to do, particularly if you are a school administrator. also, it suggests how important the phone has become.

in my experience, i left my smart home at -- i left my smartphone at home this morning. and i had to go back and get it because i could not imagine being without it. i've understand that many of you feel the same way. i will introduce our next speaker, roslyn weisman. she will co-moderate the next panel. crossland has been internationally recognized as an roslyn has beenyn internationally recognized as an expert. [applause]

>> hi everyone, good morning. i am roslyn weisman and i will be co facilitating this panel. what i want to do with this panel is hear from young people

about how to actually talk about these issues of technology in ways that make sense so we do not waste anybody's time. lots of times, when we do this work, when we talk about it, it is general. we will really try to get to people's specifics. it will be about what we can do, advice, and experiences. we will be moderating the first panel "generation mobile speech." i am currently a member of the technology panel. recently, they conducted a survey that talks about kids texting once every 14 minutes. to introduce our panel, we have

to recover -- we have tory duggar,. jonathan harris. [applause] erin mn maine's -- aines. frank preston. lanita preston, mother of four

children. stacey kopnitsky has been a middle school administrator and is a mother. parry aftab is a children's internet lawyer. dwan jordan became a principal in washington, d.c. these are our panelists. [applause]

i know this will be a good one where we will have an amazing exchange of ideas. if you have questions and comments, you can twitter them and we can engage them as part of the process. are we ready? all right. let's start. can you give us say a few concrete examples of how texting affects the school environment. >> a middle school at montgomery county public schools in maryland, we do have a policy. the county's policy is similar to what was shared in the data. middle school and high-school students are permitted to have their cell phones on the bus and in the school until the first

school bell rings. then they're supposed to be off and out of sight. out of sight does not mean that it has to be off their personal body. we encourage lockers, but sometimes they choose to keep that much safely kept on their cells. i think the best thing for the school is that we do have a policy, but does it stop the 100% of the use? no. we give out constant reminders and constant feedback to parents and students about the expectations, but we're still putting out fires. as we put out fires, the daily reminder to students, we are looking at what the expectations and what happens whenever we have these cell phones popup in

class and interrupt instruction. i do think that, not during the instructional day, but part of the instructional day, and kids to give me good feedback about how they text their peers, their friends, share homework assignments, and look at opportunities to network and connect in a social aspect. that is positive. one that happened at my school -- the wild for wording of text messages about hitting each other. trying to find -- the wild text messages testing tha about hitting each other.

>> we live with technology. this is a positive and huge privilege and it will come into the schools. one of the questions i want to direct to the audience and to the teenagers appear is what are we saying as adults that is ineffective to you about these issues, about using technology. what is ineffective and effective about how we talk to about using mobile phones in the school when some have very stringent rules and some do not. we know that you have more control of your souls than we do, right? how do we do this? -- control of yourselves than we do, right? how do we do this? what is effective about managing mobile used and what has been ineffective?

what advice do you have so that we can be more effective for you? frank. >> i know for a fact that, when a person comes up to me when i am using my phone and comes to me in a negative manner and just takes the phone for me, that kind of thing, that is really upsetting. to have somebody do something like that, you feel like your privacy is being violated. i have done my phone taken away before -- i have gotten my phone taken away before. usually, when people come up to you with a very violent way of taking your phone, you feel like your privacy is being violated and you have to take measures to keep them out of your things. >> tory, what is a way that

somebody takes your phone that feels disrespectful or a violation of your privacy? >> when the teachers make assumptions -- they assume that, if you're in your bag, that you are using your phone. so they ask for your phone. of course, most of us have phones. so they come to our bag and take the phone. like frank said, we get upset and that makes kids want to tive ways ofgenuity o using the phone. it makes the situation worse rather than better. i have had teachers who have the warning policy, where they say to put it away. i find that a lot more effective than taking it out right. when they give us our phone back, now we know we cannot do it that way. we have to do the phone a different way to not get caught.

and it increases the amount of text messages and phone usage in class because kids find a new way to do it without getting caught. >> i have some teachers that pretty much say, "i know what it looks like when kids are texting." so if you're looking down or your in your bag or something like that, they will ask you to take your phone away. normally, the headmistress at my school do not really put into effect as much. they say that we're not supposed to have our phones at school, but many of the teachers are really lenient and they, like, allow us to use our phones and class. >> what are effective ways to

reach out to you? >> basically, do not come in an aggressive way. just say, hey, please give me your phone. we are to give to the lesson. that works. i have been caught and had a teacher said that to me. i put it away and not take it up the whole day. >> what is the teacher says they will lead to a. >> and the teacher will take it away. -- what if the teacher saystudey will not put it away? >> then the teacher will take it away. >> kids are multitasking.

what do you think? when you think about getting the balance right between your school work, homework, and the different lures of the devices, do you think there is a challenge here or something that you worry about? >> i am a firm believer that, in the classroom, you really should not have a cell phone because it is the time of instruction. but any other day, at lunch, on the bus, walking in the hallways, as long as we're doing or following the rules, doing what we're told, there is no reason why we should not have our sophos. it -- have ourself loans. there is -- have our self phones. if they cannot give us a

concrete reason why we should not have a cell phone outside the classroom. [applause] one of the effective ways to help me not to text and drive is somebody showed me the statistics. this is your chance of getting into an accident while texting. this was your chance of getting into a accident when not texting. giving me information and putting it in front of my face and here are some students that broke a leg in an accident because there were texting is really effective. >> you are saying that the facts matter. you don't to be told to not do this' and to not do that. but if you show facts about texting and driving, that is effective. >> that is true. just telling kids not to do it

because you should not to do it, we will not listen. point blank. but give us a reasoning behind it, i would say 80% to 90% of becausers will listen th there is a reason. if we have concrete evidence of why we should not do it, we are more inclined to listen to it. at the age we are now, we'll understand facts. >> i will put you all in the shoes of being the big brother or the big sister in your home. you have a little brother or a little sister and you are doing homework and you see that they are using the computer to do their homework and they're doing some research on a site and they

are learning skills. that is a good thing. then you come back and you see that, well, they are not doing their homework anymore. they have gone to some site to look at the videos or they are doing their homework and they have their phone out and they are iming at the same time and you're worried that they're not concentrating on their homework. what do you say to them? >> i think it is a maturity level thing. at my age, i know when being on the computer or texting will get in the way of learning. my little brother could be five or six. they do not really know and all they can think about is play- play, fun-fund. you can tell them, you can still text as long as you get your work done in a timely manner or

you can still text if you wash the dishes. as you get older, you know what is right and what is wrong. you know how to meet deadlines. you know had to do certain things. as you get older, it becomes a maturity thing. if you know you cannot multitask, do one thing at a time. [applause] >> frank, did you want to say something? >> i have a sister and as soon as she gets home, she gets on the computer. she does not do her homework until later on in the day. as long as you get it done, it is fine. >> we will go back to this. something i want to ask you all is how often, when you go on to the sites are when you're playing video grimes, the time passes so fast and you wake up and it is -- video games, the time passes so fast and you wake up and it is two hours later. they are so good at something

you in and you can lose track of time. it is difficult to keep track of your time and multitask that way. what i would like to do is turn it a little bit to perry and the driving. how would like principal jordan to be able to talk about that a little bit, how do you manage this in a concrete common-sense way with of the comments that the students made? >> i work with students lot, giving you the tools to change the world. one of my teenagers held an event on texting and driving. one of the things that he recognized was how often adults, parents, older brothers and sisters are texting while they are driving you or your younger brothers and sisters or people you care about. that was a real issue.

the second issue is, when we asked young people with a texting while driving, they answered one way. when we asked them if they read a text while driving, they answered it another way. so the kids who say they are texting, that means you are moving their thumbs while your communicating with somebody else, as opposed to reading what they are sending you. what role do think teenagers can play in stopping the pears from texting and driving or riding distracted? >> -- or driving distracted. >> sometimes, i am in the car with a family member. he has a droid. you can talk into it and it turns your voice into text messages. he thinks that is a good alternative to texting.

>> do you? >> i do not know. i am not really sure. >> frank? >> i have been in the car with somebody who is driving an texting before. i will not lie. it is pretty scary. i feel that they are not paying attention to the road. one time, they veered over to the speed bumps on the side. at that point, you have to say, you have to focus on the road. i have to get to where i am going, you know? you have to be upfront with the person who is driving and tell them that you are not comfortable being in the car while you were texting. or give me the phone and i will text for you. >> good answer. >> one of the things that i would ask the students here is -- we know in general that texting and driving is dangerous. everyone will say that while we are in this room. yet i really challenged.

i get so tempted. one of the things i would charge the young people hear about is to come up with ways, specific concrete ways that you can say to parents about reminding us in some ways to be good role models for you and also for you to hold yourself accountable in the way that you want parents to. it is wanting to talk about it in this room, but it is another thing when we are not only driving, but also crossing the street. how many have you seen that? in terms of lead in this kind of panel, what is something concrete we can do to address this issue in a more positive and constructive way? can you give us some of your wisdom? >> i am also speaking from the perspective of a parent. i have a seventh grade student.

i realize lely, as parents, we are not as cool as we think we are. -- i realized lately, as parents, we are not as cool as we think we are. i daughter teaches me that every day. at the school level, from the beginning of the school year, we have to set clear guidelines and we have to have a technology policy that students are involved in developing. most schools have pared handbooks. but it might have a very -- most schools have parent handbook. but it may have a very small technology section. the student input part is very important. we cannot frown on the students use of technology because it is here.

students find somehow or someone to sit with -- students find some how or some way to sit with 10 hours of technology usage. your student goal is student achievement and development of character. we have to find a way to know how students are achieving those goals. one is the use of technology. they hang out, socialize with friends. the second piece is messing around, where you might go to the internet and search or read newspapers or magazines. the third portion is called geeking out. [laughter] geeking out is actually a positive. this is where students can use

technology to build networks with people. students can turuse technologyto benefit their goals. we are trying to make sure that we tell kids that there is a time for hanging out and messing around. but we expect you to spend this much time on geeking out or focusing on your education. when kids understand that and you are working in their best interest, they understand that. >> i am biting at the bit because i have to put myself in

kids' shoes when i write. with texting and facebook, it gives kids a venue to be popular. if you are required person at school and you do not really talk will face to face, being on the internet, being on facebook, being on twitter allows you forum to create who you want to be paired it is very addictive -- who you want to be. it is very addicted to kids. it is very addictive to adults. one of the things that i talk to my kids about is the fact that everything you text, everything you tweet about, everything you put on facebook does not go away just because you deleted or you do not see it on the screen. its is there forever. what you preach about gets

cashched. when someone closes their account and other name still shows up on facebook, would you think that name is being held? one thing we talk about with young people is we need to give them more credit and educate them. and a lot of adults do not realize that either. what you put on the internet, what you text, would you put on facebook, even though you think -- what you put on facebook, even though you think it is deleted, it does not mean that it is gone. >> i think this is a good segue into a couple of things. just like when we say that

driving an texting is bad, similarly, i would ask you about, if you know that things on facebook will be cached forever, does it stop the person from posting whatever it is? besides geeking out, hanging out, and messing around, i think that a lot of what technology is used for is creating and maintaining and using a lot of trauma. you stole my boyfriend and now your this. you stole this. i cannot believe you are like this. people decide they will not talk to. you try to figure out why. then you figure out this person is really mad at you. but then you think they are wrong and you start all this drama. ok, so if you're in a moment did you think that somebody is doing something wrong to you and you are sitting there with the phone, then the question is what

stops you or does anything -- and anything stop you when somebody says something wrong about you, sending a picture of you that is totally embarrassing to you? what stops you from continuing the trauma? you were trying to even out the playing field. just think about that, for the audience as well. what would or it will anything stop you from contributing to drama. >> is only your conscience that can stop you. what would stop you from saying it to their face. what you say to someone will stay with them just as much as writing it on facebook for

sending it in a text message. it depends on the person. the maturity and their personality -- personally, i have put some stuff that i should not have put before. i have put things on twitter or facebook that i should not have. just as i would have said it to their face, i had to go back and think about it. in some cases, i had to apologize, just as if i had said it to the person. things that you put on facebook or twitter, they can be read two different ways. they can be read the way you set it for the way -- [laughter] >> let's talk a little bit about people sending pictures. adults are really focused on

sexting. people are really freaked out about it. principal jordan, have you dealt with this this year? >> no, i have not, not at all. a lot goes back to character development. the young lady just spoke about that. even the media use and the technology is a major issue, it goes back to what type of person the kid is. in school, my goal is to make sure that we are developing students with character. most of the time, kids will do the right thing if you explain it to them, the positives and the negatives and why you should not do certain things. >> here is my question for the kids. and then i would like the adults to contribute. if a picture goes around, do

think that the fact that there is a provocative or embarrassing affects thea student of ta overall school? jonathan. >> does it impact the school environment? yes. but it does it in a positive way and a negative way. if a picture of a girl or a guy was sent and it made its way on facebook, there are two reo types of people. some will say, go to facebook -- are two types of people. some will say, go to facebook. maybe they are naked. [laughter] but then there are a lot of

stupid to say, you know what, there is this girl and i know her personally. she is not that type of person. why are you trying to embarrass somebody. why are you try to hide behind facebook and technology? yes, it does affect the school environment. but it goes back to that maturity level. mature people will not try to embarrass somebody like that on facebook. they will not try to send those pictures or ask for the pictures. it goes to self-esteem and self- confidence. why would you put pictures out there like that? yes, it does affect the school environment. but students do a great job of supporting each other when it does happen, when somebody does make that mistake. a lot of students get behind them and say, she was really going to something and she made a mistake for he made a mistake and you should not look down on

them like that. you should be tried to uplift them. [applause] >> erin. >> i have not really observed that much of a problem in my school. from what i have seen, kids are pretty good about keeping it to themselves. even if they do send things to each other, it does not release spread around. >> adults, what would you like to say? >> the middle school environment, again, the middle school where i work at, i have been there five years and we had one case. it was the case of a young lady who sent photographs and videos that were sent to other middle schools and high schools. it was devastating. the kids nailed it. it is maturity. you're talking about 11-year- old and 12-year-old vs. high

schoolers. we probably have about a 90% cellphone use at our high school. it is a concern. it is a parent concern nationally. but we have had only one case in five years. accordings research, to what kids are telling us, at equal numbers of boys and girls are taking these pictures and sharing them. however, you have text of bullying. if it is a girl, they will forward it, not because it is a naked body, but because it destroys her reputation. girls will afford it because it is a picture of a naked girl. schools do not know what to do with these images that can now qualify as child pornography. kids are now afraid that when they get them that they will be charged with possession of child pornography. we have cases around the country

where, if you take a picture of yourself, if you are underage, you could be charged with creating child pornography. if you move it to someone else, it is distribution. when you get the police involved, it wreaks havoc everywhere. we see problems when it hits and what i am hearing here with many of the schools that we're dealing with around the country. >> do you have any questions or comments as we wrap up? >> we wanted to jump-start a a conversation on this. thank you for being such a great moderator. i am so appreciative of this great panel. these are really important topics. >> first of all, thinking to all of our panelists as well. thank you, chairman, for being here the whole time. [applause] 2 rap, i really want to

emphasize that we think that mobile technology -- there is so much that is so good about it and it helps in many ways to communicate with each other. there is no reason to be in the dark about this. i want to encourage everyone to go to the website that jane lynch talked about in the video. there are a lot of resources that we have worked on for you. i really want to challenge people. we are in a place where we need to get really concrete so that we can give you the resources, the information, the guidance that works. the adults in your community understand that technology is a wonderful thing, and innovation and amazing presence in our lives. but we need to have guns and structures so that we can engage

-- but we need to have guidelines and structures so that we can engage in a responsible way. thank you all very much for all of your attention and time. [applause] >> perfect. can everyone here? welcome back. thank you very much for those of you who were able to stay for second panel. i am a senior counsel at the

fcc. we are here to continue what i know will be a great discussion with an all-star panel that we are very lucky to have with us today. entrepreneurs, children's experts, and those from the nonprofit industry and organizations, and some leaders in academia. it is a great panel. i know many of you are watching a mine. thank you for joining us there as well. let me give you a brief introduction of our all stars your. -- all starts here. tim is responsible for making an implementing the company's interaction with policymakers. thank you for being here. hancock is the president of the internet keeps it coalition. it helps implement internet safety in family homes.

michael clark is an entrepreneur. he is the co-founder of safety web, an online service for parents that makes it easier to protect the reputation, privacy, and safety of kids online. dr. michael levine is the executive director of the gan kuni center. -- joan gane cooney center. our next guest is maureen. she has more than a decade of privacy leadership. alan simpson is the vice president of policy and common sense media who is a close

partner of the fcc. his background combined experience as an advocate for children and education issues as well as work within media organizations. it is good to see you. dane snowden is from ctia and is charged with overseeing the association's policies for efficacy in children. thank you for coming today. steven is the chief executive officer of the family all mine safety institute. his mission is to make the online world safer for kids and for their families. steven has been a very good host for the fcc may times. i guess we will get right into it, if that is okay with everyone.

if anybody in the audience has questions like to sublet, jordan or roger are here somewhere and you can get -- like to submit, jordan or roger are here somewhere and you can get your question to them. alan, when i have a young child, how do i know when to give my child a cellphone? how do i know they are ready? what should be part of that decision-making process? what do you suggest? the fcc is not in the business of telling parents what to do. we just provide information. we would like to get thought

from all of you. >> there are a lot of factors that go into it. the earlier discussion included a lot of aspects of things that can go wrong with mobile phones and mobile technology. but one of the first reasons parents think about getting a mobile phone for their kids is safety. it is an increasingly necessary tool in our lives today to keep track of our kids to make sure they can respond to parents and stay in touch. our general thinking goes in the rage of 8 to 10 to 12, depending on the kids. you saw amanda is numbers. a lot of them at 12 and 13 do get cell phones. some of them get handouts. there is no perfect age. it is more important for paris to think about doing the preparation with your children -- for parents to think about doing the preparation with your children about getting a cell phone.

most parents come to us with that question, starting with my kids are begging for a cell phone. when is the right time? what parents can do with that is establish what the rules should be. before you get a phone, we will establish that you can only use it for these purposes. you need to check in and do these other things. you can download this and not that. and parents have to give them all the ramifications of having a cell phone. it is a safety to, but it is an important tool for a lot of -- it is a safety tool, but is an important tool for a lot of other things that may not be so safe. >> everyone thinks that everyone should have a cell phone. but we think that safety first. in the united states, you have

to be 18 years old to get a cell phone. a parent can get a cell phone for a child. i do not have any kids, but i have three beautiful got daughters, 5, 8, and 10. i am the cool godfather for the 10-year-old, but not for the younger ones because i told them they are not ready. some of it is maturity. some of it is responsibility. it is critical to have the tools. many of us on this stage of providing those tools for parents, how they can begin a conversation about the things they should be asking. what they do a common sense media and others is a phenomenon to help parents and guide them through that process.

>> it does not come down to when you have the first conversation about owning a cell phone. it comes down to how you model your behavior beginning in early childhood. we're finding that there is a viral social phenomenon called the past back effect. parents of preschool children are using their mobile devices to pass them back to what is called their itots. there are specific instances during preparation for a meal, drink a car ride, at the grocery store, where these devices can scaffolding conversation about an application for communication with a loved one. there is a normative behavior that can begin with a small child and be transitioned to a

child who is 10 years old for having their own device. >> i have an 18-month-old and we are doing the abc's on my thigh pad. -- on my ipad. is that good? >> i would not suggest that you leave your 18-month-old for four hours with and ipad or smartphone. >> i am looking at 4 minutes, actually. >> sure. we're talking about an instrument that can teach a little something to an 18-month- old. but if you are a pair did you do not have a smartphone and you do not wish your child to consume "the wheels on the bus" or "

hello," that is fine. it is part of the economy and the communication pattern that is being established. it is fine in limited doses. >> a lot of studies show that you should not -- there are possible effects of putting your child to young in front of a television. we are seeing the same phenomenon. you're not saying there is a zero tolerance. there is a moderation. >> there are concerns that professionals have. the academy of pediatrics has guidelines that does not prescribe use of digital media or television before age 2, but gives a very firm guidelines on a healthy balance of use. grandma's good sense, parents, and since, as well as research -- parent's common sense, as well as research for giving a good balance.

>> you want to help to manage the screen time. as they mature, you want to manage the screen time. the two skills that are critical is that we can maintain healthy relationships and we can create positive reputations. but recognizing the role that these devices play in our personal relationship and our reputation is really key to successful use. >> as part of that, stephen, would you like to add to that? >> it also depends on what kind of phone. i was leading a discussion with six-year-old yesterday and they pointed out that their younger brothers or sisters have kid- friendly tones. and then there is -- kid- friendly phones. and then there is the smart phones. they definitely thought that

their younger brothers and sisters should not get an iphone, but they thought they were old enough for one. do you see what i mean? >> getting to the separation side of the setting -- if you do have a smartphone or any phone, i know that some of the companies or the carriers are offering settings to allow children to go some places and not other places and limit times. i do not know why my voices echoing like that. >> to better make a good point. >> yes. well, as a parent, if you give your child a phone, you cannot control where they are going, how much time they are on -- they are gone. they have their device in their pocket in a school or a different room and having a

relationship with a device that you are not necessarily a part of minute to minute. they could do things like go on facebook. i know that some would say that there is an age, 13, i think, .here you cut off an what is practical? the private-sector has come up with solutions on this. ? >> today, but there are fairy -- very few generic funds. -- phones. the carriers have done of great judge of providing parental control tools. what kinds of applications, what kind of tools. what things are appropriate.

when kids get into nine, 10, all through it the teenage years -- it is not so much about monitoring what they're doing, but making sure they are learning about what they are doing. treat them with respect. i think that is the message i got out of the first panel. the most effective way to work with kids is to respect them. the most effective tools -- this is one of the models be built -- building and empowering parents not to cut the cord, but instead encourage responsible years, because what we are talking about is generically mobile phones, but that is held every type of device, whether it is wi-fi, anything, these are all the devices we have to be

concerned about. we have to make sure they are building the right relationships. >> in the united states, it is backwards. ed the computer is your first experience of the outside world. in other places, they do not have access to computers. but they do have access to mobile funds. one of the things we looked at this summer was we became the first company on a the web to allow you to set privacy settings using your smart phone and have those settings apply everywhere come up like that at the website or on an

application. and i think that is the direction we are all heading. more and more of the features we are using to keep us standardized on various web sites or services have to move with us. in the thing that is where we are headed. -- and i think that is where we are headed. >> are you comfortable with where we are right now? do you think there is enough in the marketplace? i know we put all lot out there. maureen and i talked about some that sprint has. do parents know where to get this information? it did easily -- is it easily accessible? >> i think it is changing so fast that parents have an incredible job of keeping up with the new technologies, but

and the wacky places kids go on the internet. we emphasize tools, rules, and schools. one of the ones we used at the horizon wireless, for instance, allows you to seek not just the content, but when it attacks has been sent and received. so i was able to discover that my daughter was not one of our two texts a day kids. >> it was she paying for that? >> we work, and she was hit with a $92 phone bill. >> are you paying for the tracking? >> yes, that is $5 a month, which we think is money well spent. back to your point, i think

parents are often at a disadvantage and need a great deal more provincial education. one of the things we offer is the family safety contract, where we invite the kids and parents to sit down and make judgments about how they are going to act on mine, and also, by the way, some kids do not overreact when the kids are in trouble. >> just like when you have any conversation about anything. making sure you have the conversation. i'd bring up this fee because it is brought up u.s. allot. if the company thinks it is important and wants to help parents, what are they not doing everything to make it easy as possible and charging parents to have a suite of protection you can offer your family? do you think that is the way to go?

is that just the way the private sector works in terms of innovation? >> i think it is a combination. some services are free. some, you are paying for a service. like stephen mentioned. some filtering tools are no cost. and think what we are doing as an industry is offering every level of what parents may want to protect their child. when you look at what a 12-year- old child might need compared to be 17-year-old child, it is very different it is important that we have a suite of tools. i want to go to one of your earlier point as well. according to pew, 52% of parents are ready for this. they are aware of this as an option. parents are buying this, for

sure. we have to ensure that the other 48% of parents using filters are there for consumers. ed if you buy a computer now, you make sure you get privacy settings or macafee, what ever it might we have of varying degree of some things for free, something's not. >> do you feel like we are in a good place? are we there yet? >> one of the areas where the industry could make it easier for parents is help us it navigate when things go wrong so, you can take a certain number of hours. all those things are very

helpful. when some things go wrong, how did they get in touch with you? and also from the education community -- helping schools established development. if something happens on a mobile device in the school, how can we react in a way that is helpful rather than out of fear? one thing that we have not brought up yet but i would the leak -- really like to throw out -- for me, digital devices are and efficiency to will. -- tool. recognizing on the emotional level for you if something goes wrong they can feel pretty traumatized. in the digital environment, we become aware of things that we might not have. maybe we see it in the classroom.

it is going to open up on facebook really quickly. >> dr. levine, do you want to comment on that? >> too many michaels here. i do what you -- i do want to challenge the wireless industry to make sure these tools remain available. as i look at the industry, even the major carriers, what i have seen is less and less of that information is available. in some cases, i cannot see where there's -- where those conversations were. it will become even more difficult to see where those conversations are occurring. and that is the slice the parents are finding most useful today.

how does that figure changed? not digging into information that focusing on who those relationships are with, and the most important challenge -- the application usage. today if i am on an iphone or in an android device, blackberry, i do not know what applications by child has down loaded, what was free, what kind of data leakage there is. that data leakage can play an important role because that is private information, a private conversation that you have a blind faith in what the developer is doing behind the scenes. -- private information, a private conversation -- private information, private conversation. >> information value is also a

close touch. marketers perhaps over zealously market in application, things that you usually look at mobile devices as educational without an independent assertion, methods and research. we did a study a couple years back and took a look at 228 digital products. two of them had educational value. i am not arguing that everything needs to be educational. it is fine for part of the day. but in terms of thinking about learning and development, we need to put these together with a substantial balance. the drive for word is moving in this direction. we need industry-wide standards to help meet the educational

value of the different applications. -- rate the educational value of the different applications. >> and went to go back to a couple of points. parents need simplicity to do monitoring. as dane mentioned, many services are free and add-ons have cost. sprint launched in november at one site where parents can go, already customers new to the know to go to sprint.com, and it will walk you through how to set up monitoring, inappropriate some numbers to your child may be permitted to call.

it shows parents how to do that, which is in bonds with the other 42% of parents are not already using these controls, because it can be difficult if it is not what through. the other point that michael made about linking up safety with facilities controls is also important, control from carrier sites. sprint has a partnership with -- is a sorry -- i am sorry, a group of coalitions. the national education association and others for a net safety. it is very important to see in one place, a one-stop shop -- >> what we're seeing is leaning

more clarity for parents and ease of access for this information so that parents can know if they wanted, -- if they want it, so they can get it. >> it is trying to make that information more accessible. most parents' first interaction with a product is and when they go purchase it. advances can be done there as well. i want to pick up on one of the other things, the biggest problem area in the use of mobile devices it isapps. -- is apps. not just is it educational, but what age group is it appropriate for? >> do you have a way to categorize that that's what we are actually working on that

right now. that is the process, that, as you know, members of the audience may not know -- we work in the commission do not control the apps. you can make one in your garage ended up on a network and start selling it. there is something wonderful about the app world and the systems that we have, but we are trying to augment what we have already done in our industry. we want to make sure parents do not have to learn something over and over again. >> it seems another theme is giving information to parents. ease of access, but also what

the information is, where they are getting it, as allen said, point of sale. add there is so much coming at all of us these days -- there is so much coming at all of us these days. we do not know what to believe or what is safe. even as a parent, what to believe. you do not know what is marketing in what is your information. p -- ure -- pure information. when you put something on the internet, how do you retrace it, get rid of it? and also specifically, tell us more about parental controls for facebook and the automatic app on facebook that allows you to see where your friends are or where your child is. i guess this is the tracing application?

>> there is all lots -- >> when you delete something, there were some misstatements earlier. but i think people are rightfully saying, if you put something up on the internet, if you send a text, it could be out there forever. that is true. but when you delete something on facebook, it is deleted. that does not mean you should not be careful. there are a bunch of you out in the audience. i have to tell you -- facebook is a privilege and not our right. many do something inappropriate, we reserve the right to take away your account. i know that is a big punishment. i have a 16-year-old brother-in- law, and his parents have taken away his facebook rights for a week. he feels his world has ended. he is cut off from his friends.

he feels like he is not really a person anymore. when you delete something on facebook, it is really deleted, however. that is different from deactivating your account. that means you have to be cautious, because when you share with someone else, you share a photo, a comment. even if you deleted in your account, it is still on their account, right? because they have access. think twice, sometimes three times before you say something to somebody, react in anger or even with a joke, because you do not know how someone would see that later on. i urge caution. secondly, parental tools -- we do not offer an app for that. all of the apps on our side are

built by third-party developers. we do encourage every minor to frantic your parents. if you are apparent out there, -- a parent out there, we urge you to make your child friend you. i think that is central. that should be part of the relationship you have. >> on the location-based information come to whether or not you can see what someone is doing -- what about telling where the art? this is a developing field. i see this all the time. parents are concerned. it is wonderful. the use of zero lots -- they use it a lot. if you call 911, this is a wonderful aspect of this. there are lots of possibilities.

is there a restaurant nearby. on the flip side, people are concerned about stoking issues or tracing issues. does anybody want to speak to that? >> i will take it. there is a principle -- notice and consent. when you are on your smart phone, and you see something that pops up and says "we want to identify your location." you choose. the phone companies and usually know where you are. they can figure out where you wore on in case of an emergency. our general principle is we want to make sure there is clear notice and consent for all users of these devices. that is if you are 40-year-old -- 40-some years old like ibm

or a teenager. >> if i were a student, and you saw something on your fund that asked permission to track your location, what is most important is to think about the use of that application. but why are they collecting the information? and not every app is a trustworthy or friendly app. you have to think yourself, gee, is this an app i'd want to track me? on the other hand, for parents, parents has a family locator. other services have others. those can be tremendously helpful and soothing to apparent. where you have two working parents and the gel is picked up by professionals -- and the

child is picked up by professionals. it locates where they are moving to outside of school hours. it can be very helpful. >> i think the principle that dane express is the right one. i do not think you are seeing that used appropriately. there are dbs aspects that are not fully revealed when people use it. there will be dangers. it has real benefits for parents, for kids, for anyone. i do not think anyone is getting enough information about how these work, in getting that is a shared responsibility. james lynch mentioned this at the beginning. i think we all need to be responsible with this technology. a think pointing to the third

party company as the one who does notthat' app relieve the carrier or anyone else from making that information more clear. >> to that point, being responsible -- tim, i know you mentioned facebook, you can wipe it clean. it is hard to wipe it out completely. obviously, another major topic out there is cyber bullying or sexting. there is consistently a friend of mine who has been in new york times piece is lately. what can parents do about this? is there more information we can get? should a parent be able to monitor? what are the solutions here? >> one of the things that is important for parents to

recognize is all the general communication is not private. the fact that i actually could help them to recognize -- dino, -- you know, everything i post is public. since we get confused with privacy settings versus and scripted. they are not in correcting anything i put on facebook. it could be shared through some type of technology. i am a firm believer in letting kids know the truth. you do not have to soften it. they just have to understand that once you put those ones and zeroes images out there, there is no way to 100% retract them. >> the positive verification you

talk about, how do you build that relationship? >> sometimes the texting it's almost compulsive, where they are trying to problem solve. helping kids to bed denies that and how to respond to that is an important -- helping kids to recognize that and how to respond to that is an important skill. >> tim said to make sure that you are at your child's first friend on facebook, but also make sure we're not building platforms that allow for anonymous usage. things in the industry that are very abusive environments where there is no accountability. you have to build this up legitimate relationship, and the same way that you build them offline.

if we are just talking about location, i think there is something for all of us, whether we are working on applications for building the infrastructure to accommodate them, the more we make actions implicit, the more things are going to happen. we see so much growth in vacation data being shared. three years ago, if i wanted to share my vacation, that was three separate e-mail's, three separate interactions. today, it is one click. i am not thinking about it. it is because i accepted that application at one point. as the industry, we have to make sure we are being the shepherds. we have to empower parents with the ability to stay ahead of the

data. >> is the private sector coming up with applications to help parents here? we were in california and there seemed to be tremendous growth and innovators, the garage and surveyors -- roger innovators pete -- garage innovators. >> that is where they stepped up and really said, we are taking a direction that will change security in the industry. everything we have done any industry is focused on protecting devices, chips. the future security model has to shift and be more about starting with the% and working out word -- starting with the person and working out words. it is my reputation. it is my privacy it is my

identity. all of that combined is wrapped in view -- wrapped into safety. >> in terms of the protection and education of children -- it is aligning the expectation for kids of how the caring adults in their lives interact. it is my view that there is something of demotes between the home environments and the school environment. lots of good reasons for that. all the sorts of things that help people rights journalistic accounts. if we can begin in early childhood to align as expectations said there is a behavior set the children are comfortable with, we will make more progress here. >> dane, i believe he wanted to comment on the cyber bullying

and seexting? -- sexting? >> the industry, paris, and schools have a role. there are schools, as we saw, that bar cellular phones in schools. we have to bring technology into the classroom and siege of digital literacy. it is digital literacy, not just students teaching students. teachers teaching parents and helping everyone understand how do we do this together? not just one individual group. it is everyone working together. figuring out how we do with as an advanced bowl. >> we're in the school year.

i heard the bell. >> i think we are in an historical stage right now. we had analog childhoods, right? in the digital world has happened to us as adults. our kids live in the digital world. i a hollywood star to open up the show for us. they recently did a program on a bullying. "modern family" had its debt or the family had to give up the internet to one or two days. it was a very interesting teaching moment for us sitting on the couch. i wonder if we could do that. the answer came back, do not

even try. as much as we say that it has to be done in the schools, the government has a role, hollywood and the story brought -- the storytellers have a role, too. >> that is a great way to end. this will not be solved overnight, but it is very important. to help parents do what they think is right and have the tools they need, that is why we are here today. i want to thank mckinley for hosting this. it was a terrific day. take care. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> coming up shortly, the supreme court case to decide whether in arizona school tax credit violates the separation of church and state.

the lighting of christmas tree at the capitol and outside the white house. a little bit later, a look at the history of presidential debate, including the first ever televised debate. michael dukakis and charlie gibson taket. sally quinn will join us on ""washington journal." >> in november, the supreme court told -- occurred -- court arguments. the case involves an arizona law that allows residents to give up to $1,000 that they would pay in taxes to a nonprofit organization. the organization then gives scholarships to students to attend private and religious schools. the court will decide it this cape violate -- case violates the separation of church and state.

>> for the 13 years, arizona has permitted private sick -- private citizens to contribute money and has let those organizations use that money toward scholarships when individuals apply for them. the taxpayer plaintiffs. this lawsuit fails each of the three necessary elements. point is this, that not a cent of the respondents money goes to find religion. if you place an electronic path to track and monitor each cent that the respondent -- responded plaintiffs pay in tax, not a cent would go to any religious schools. >> their point is that this tax money does belong to the state. money does belong to the state. it is money that even at by the

new engine and then says, either you pay it to the state or you use its purpose. it is the state's money and it is giving you the right to be directed. that is their argument. they can sustain their claim. >> there are two problems. with respect to injury, our point is that as you track the taxpayers, it does not fund any religious program. their complaint is not that the government was spending money that the tax payers -- that has been extracted and spent of the taxpayers, but that someone else's money is not being extracted and spend enough. the relevant language says for

taxpayers standing to occur, it is his tax money that must be extracted and spent. that is not occurring. with respect to the other argument, it is specter of a tip as to whether or not that chain of events would tap -- would actually happen. >> here is what the system will be. they will be able to check a box and the check that they sent to the irs, that check is cashed by an official and the cash is given to the local priest to say prayers.

in your view, and there is no one that can challenge that. >> that is not all that different than what we have to date with deductions. >> the difference is that in the one case, it is a deduction. in this case, you are paying 100%. i understand that. i am interested in conceptually, does the government think that there is no one that can challenge this? >> i do not think that any taxpayer could challenge that. depending on the hypothetical, i am not sure if the government is specifying which religious organizations might be eligible for the check box. if the government is doing -- is only giving tax credits to one set of religious organizations, that is -- >> let's go back to history. it could have been the case that as long as they were fair

to every religion, the first congress could have funded prayers' throughout the nation in churches for anyone to go and pray. that would not have violated the establishment. nobody could have challenged it. talking about standing. if the government funded only religious organizations, i do think that other organizations would have standing. not as a taxpayer, but other organizations would have texas monthly's standing. >> does anyone have standing to challenge this? >> no. that accords with this court's

general reluctance to convert taxpayers standing in this area. >> if we leave out the fine points that you were discussing , the establishment clause will be unenforceable unless we recognize taxpayers standing. >> i do not see that to -- i think it is a very narrow exception for when someone's dollars are being taken out of their pocket and spent by the government on religion. i do not think that is happening here. >> it is gone. there is nothing more because it just happens and nobody thought it was a system at the time. >> biden not think it is done at all. -- i do not think it is done it -- it is gone at all.

>> all you have to do to get around it is to create what we have here. >> that can get around it in some circumstances. at the end of the day, if that is the result, that is the result for every other clause in the constitution. taxpayers standing is the most narrow exception. >> there is a plaintiff -- we have a bill of rights. we have plaintiffs who are hurting. this one does not have. it is in the constitution. i thought that was what the problem was. >> i do not see that. be that as it may, at this court in valley forge was very clear to say that added that the ended the day, you cannot find a

plaintive withstanding, that is not an excuse to relax the general requirements. if you grant the plaintive standing, what you would be granting is for the first time, a tax credit which is a complaint about someone else's money not being spent. >> the court is without authority to decide? the court to is without authority to decide any of those cases? nobody on the court recognized that fact. they participated in each of those cases. >> i do think it is very much -- he had to deal with this exact problem. the court had to convert taxpayers standing case after taxpayers standing case.

i do think that this court's decision reiterated some of the fundamental principles and limits. i think the courts has made it clear that it would go no further than the grand standing here. you have to depart from what it is about. take the money out of someone's pocket to find religion. >> you said the answer is yes. you agreed with her criticism of those cases and you said, yes, she is right. those cases are wrongly decided. >> they could redid the results could have been the same. -- they could have been the same. the bottom-line decision would have been the same, but the way in which the court got there --

>> there would be no standing in those cases. >> no taxpayers standing. >> i do not remember whether the government participated in this case when it came up under the tax injunction act. >> we did. >> there was no word from the government's about -- >> we did knowledge the fact that standing had not been published. i had knowledge that in the wake should another case arise, the government will acknowledge the standing defects. >> our point on redress ability is not simply that the cost of the program is speculative. is that the release -- the

relief that the plaintiffs are seeking in this case will not address the problem. you give the plaintiff is everything they are asking for, the very same religious schools will continue to be funded. the very same religious groups will continue to be funded because they will leave the tax deduction in place. it would still be in government revenue being spent in favor of these religious groups under their program. i do not think that satisfies their problem. i do not think james madison would be satisfied if madison mark told, you will not be taxed threepence, you'll be taxed one pence. the principle is what matters. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. chief justice, may please

the court, arizonas tuition tax credit does not violate the establishment clause because it is a neutral law that results in scholarship programs of private choice. it is neutral because, like the tax deduction, it is one of many tax saving devices, including 26 other credits that are available to arizona taxpayers on a neutral basis. >> good to explain something to me? could you tell me why arizona adopted this sort of scheme rather than the more typical tuition voucher? it gives the voucher -- this is so much more complicated and complex and unusual. but left me wondering why it was chosen.

or what the state thinks the advantages are of it now. >> yes, justice. one of the things that is true in arizona that is not true in ohio is that an american constitution, any direct aid to private schools is prohibited. the other thing about the tax credit program is that it does not -- it encourages contributions not only from parents, but from the community at large. this provides money for lower income students. >> let the record show the extent to which there are donations by people who do not have students. does the records show the extent to which there are these additional donations? additional donations? >> your honor, what the records

shows is that there is some reports, studies that have been done that show that there has been some children who have switched from public schools to private schools as a result of the program. many of the scholarship programs provide scholarships based on financial need. >> i do not think you've answered his question. is there anything in the record that shows whether any of the money that is involved here comes not from parents, but rather from others who can contribute to the program? >> what the record shows is that there have been -- there is a large amount of contribution. there is $55 million. we have arizonas department of

revenue reports that lists the number of contributors and to contributes -- not the individuals to contribute. it does not specifically lined out to the contributor is are, whether they are parents or whether they're not parents. >> give some of the contributions are considerable, like a billion dollars, that could be just a parent, right? >> are their contributions? >> again, the record does not show what the size of the contributions are. it shows the number of contributions and the total amount of contributions. >> if you give a million dollars, you still only get a $500 tax credit, right? >> that is correct. the programs are programs of private choice because any aid that reaches religious schools

the so only after at least four levels of private decision making. arizona said of the neutral rules for this tax credit and after that, a private individuals and organizations take over. anyone can form a school tuition organization. the increase in the number of. -- and diversity over the 13 years of the tax credit has been in existence demonstrates that in existence demonstrates that this is free for everyone. >> arizona spends billions of dollars on public schools. i do not know what the exact amount is. 30 or 40% of that. we will spend it on this program on religious schools. imagine that happening.

would people get into considerable discussion about what qualifies, whether it is just teaching religion and what the rules and regulations are. how is arizona dealing with this problem? by saying there are no regulations? is there a system for dealing with the legitimacy and the circumstances under which a particular religion schools qualify for this program? to decide? >> under the tax credit program, the schools have to be qualified private schools. in order to participate in this. >> that must be a set of regulations and rules. >> primarily, at private schools in arizona satisfy the compulsory education block as long as they meet the requirements that the public schools have in terms of qualitatively subject matter

that the public schools -- >> those standards have nothing to do with this program. they are standards that any private school must meet in order to satisfy the education requirement. >> winded a peak -- when they teach the religious part of their program? when does a private school -- normally, i am not an expert, but what you have to do to be a school is a very complex thing. you have all kinds of requirements that eat up a lot of the day. i just wonder how the religion part fits in. has there turned out to be no problem? did they teach religion at 6:00 in the morning? does it matter if the person is qualified? i once had a case on this and the case turned out to be surprisingly complex. surprisingly complex. i just wondered how it there is

turned out to be any problems at all in arizona. >> the record does not reflect that. i am not aware of any problems. >> supposed an sto discriminated on the basis of race. suppose there is no federal statute on it, no state statute prohibiting it. would there be a constitutional violation? >> if it was a private institution -- >> it is an sto. >> that is a private institution. institution. >> as long as there was not a

federal law -- >> the hypothetical is that there is no federal statute. >> unless the discrimination could be attributed. >> the state has all kinds of roles. it provides the mechanism for the credit for the funding. i assume that there is a tax deduction for contributions to churches. >> yes, your honor. >> many churches discriminate on the basis of religion, don't they? >> yes, they do. >> does that pose a constitutional problem? >> what about the answer to my question?

>> you are saying that sto's are sufficiently private. >> bob jones discriminated on the basis of race. the question was whether they could have a tax exempt status so that could -- so that they could be donors. do you remember that? >> yes, your honor. the court held that the department of revenue could preclude the university from having tax-exempt status because that violated public policy and therefore, they were not therefore, they were not entitled to 501c3 status.

they would not be able to discriminate based on race. >> i am assuming that you would agree that if this was just a straight tuition voucher program, the state could not give tuition vouchers on the basis of religion. they could not say, if you catholic, you do not get these tuition vouchers. but the state has done here, apparently, is to set up a scheme that uses intermediaries. if you are a catholic, you did not give scholarships. the question is, why should the state be able to do that? if the state cannot do it itself and providing tuition vouchers, why should the state be able to set up a system he is an intermediary that exist for no other reason than to administer this program that can make those distinctions. >> your honor, at the state is

not -- the state is not making those decisions. it is a private organization. school tuition organizations that support solely secular schools are in existence and there has been no problems setting those up. tove of the top 10 sto's provide scholarships to any school of the parents choosing. >> the plaintiffs contend that there are organizations that make these distinctions that would be impermissible at the state administers the program. these are not pre-existing charitable organizations. they are entities set up solely for the purpose of administering this program. the state is saying that it can make distinctions that the state

itself cannot. >> there was once school tuition organization that pre-existing the tax credit. the private schools that participated did exist before the school tuition organization. what this program allows private organizations to do and allow parents to get together with private schools, and form organizations -- >> you said there was an sto before this program? it did not did the benefits from tax payers. that money went to arizona, not to the sto. >> before the scheme was created, they would've gotten a tax deduction instead of a tax

credit. there is not a significant difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction in terms of constitutionality. the only difference between a tax deduction is for purposes of a tax deduction, it depends -- the value of the depend on the tax bracket of the taxpayer. a tax credit, the value depends -- is equal for all taxpayers that the taxes. this court has never made a this court has never made a distinction between tax credits or tax exemptions. any money that the government does not take and what did be the equivalent of state money. the equivalent of state money. that would then undermine the

corporate -- the corporations and all sort of charitable organizations. when arizona decided to put a tax credit for this, it was thinking -- is this a worthy public purpose to not take in certain moneys that state would normally be entitled to? it is not a question -- that type of purpose has been upheld by this court t. there is not a basis for distinguishing here between what arizona is doing and other organizations that have been able to enjoy the benefits of tax savings, a tax benefit.

>> thank you, counsel. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. i would like to start with his statement that if we win this case, this much money would go into religious education. that show he does not understand our claim. our claim is not that money -- that state money is going to religious schools. our claim is that state money is being given to the beneficiaries of a state spending program on the basis of religion. it is a claim about discrimination in the distribution of these state funds. >> the school that seems to get

the most money on dullest does not appear to be a religious hool at all -- on the list does not appear to be a religious school at all. it does not favor religion at >> i did not say that it favored or disfavored religion. >> what is your problem under the establishment? >> government benefits and a government benefit programs cannot constitutionally be given to the beneficiaries of the program on the basis of their religion. if a parent comes to one of these -- >> can you have to go to a program -- certain organizations provide hospital services. it would be unconstitutional and that included organizations,

religious organizations? you must positively disfavor religion. >> you must give the people -- you must give the money to the benefit -- beneficiaries without taking religion into account. >> how does this take the beneficiaries religion into account? the programmers exactly the same way if it is a nonreligious school. >> the sto are giving not government funds. >> i do not think that was myqu. how is it discriminating on the basis of religion if the government money does not care whether it goes to religious school or not? >> most money is giving out -- >> the state does not care whether it goes to religious sto

or a secular sto. >> it does not matter. >> when you have the decision being made by a private entity, whether to use the money to go to religious school, that does not violate the constitution because the decision is not made by the state. >> i believe the court held the opposite. the decision t use the money for religious purposes -- purposes was made by the grantee and not the government. grantees were giving funds to -- the courts held although the program was constitutional on its face because it was not nstitutional because religious organizations could participate as grantees, it would be unconstitutional if those organizations distributed the benefie program on the basis of religion.

think about the headstart program. suppose the government set up 50 had starts programs. they're all run by private organizations. >> just to get back, the entities that were distributing the funds could be private or religious? >> same as here. >> the entities are not identified, the recipients were not identified as religious or not? >> i do not understand. >> i do not understand. i think the court held that if the grantees were to give out their services on the basis of religion, that would violate the establishment clause. >> do we know that these religious schools do not admit people of a certain religion?

>> i think we do know that. the complaint alleges that, but that is not the point. do. point is what the sto's they are government grantees and are disturbing government funds. the constitution prohibits organizations the district government funds and do it on the basis of religion. >> any money that the government does not take from me because it is the deduction is government money. >> this is money that the government takes some people. >> this money has never been in the government's coffers. the government has declined to take this. >> it is money that is raised by the state's income tax. >> it has to be paid to the government as income tax court to an sto. >> i will give you credit in your brief.

there is no standing and no violation. i have some difficulty that any money that the government does not take from me is still the government's money. if you reach a certain age and can get a card and go to certain restaurants and they give you 10% credit. i think it would be rather expensive for the cashier to say, be careful how you spend my money. [laughter] >> with respect, at the money that is involved in this case is money that is generated by imposition of the state's income tax. if there were no state income tax -- >> would you say the same thing about a tax deduction?

that is the government's money? >> no. i would not say that. >> their kind enough to give the taxpayer a deduction for certain contributions. >> when a taxpayer makes a charitable deduction, that deduction is made from the taxpayers' money. the taxpayer can do anything he wants without money. that is not true of this tax credit. at the time this tax credit is taken, the taxpayer owes the income taxes.,000 in state you've got to pay that 5000. it is not your money. you cannot keep it. this $5,000 that you owe the government as income tax is the government's money. >> why isn't this true of the tax deduction also? this is a very modest tax deduction. deduction. >> it does not turn on whether

it is valuable are not. it turns on when the taxpayer makes the payment. owned money or money that the taxpayer owes the government. that is not money that you go to the government. you have to figure out your taxes. this credit does not come into play until you figure out your taxes. >> i completely do not understand this. it is december 31. they figure out how much tax they will have to pay for that year. they can know exactly what their taxes will be. if they make a deduction, it will be x - y. what is the difference? >> the difference is that the tax deduction is given for charitable contributions.

i think the court would decide that it is constitutional for the government to support private charity. if the government is going to support private charity by letting you deduct charitable contributions, you cannot leave religious charities out of this program. if you believe that charitable deduction is federal income-tax and it is a constitutional thing for the government to do, to support private charity, you have to give the deduction to people to contribute to religion. so yes, there is a government support for that private charitable contribution. the money in this case is not a charitable contribution on. he said that it is not the government's money. whose money is it? it's the taxpayers' money?

if you do not take my word for it, look at what they say on their website about this program. one of them says, you can give charity with someone else's money. it is a miracle. another one says, it will not cost you anything. you can give charity with other people's money. >> what difference does it make what they say on their website? there is a very important philosophical point here. you think that all the money belongs to the government. except to the extent that it deigns to allow private people to keep some of it. >> i do not. >> that is what your whole argument is based on. >> if the government imposes an income-tax and people all the government a certain amount of money and income taxes due, and the government says, you do not have to pay to less, you can pay it to an sto, that is a payment

of government funds. >> they do not owe it to the government if they have made this contribution. they do not of the tax to the extent they have given money to one of these institutions. that is not true. >> i disagree with that. >> if you look at the arizona income-tax form, it says, here is your income. apply the tax rate. here are your taxes due. $5,000. you may pay that in part by giving $1,000 to an sto. when taxpayers take this $1,000, that is the problem. >> that is the problem, they need to revise their form. >> this is a major lawsuit? " this is a government spending program. is there any doubt about that.

the money in this program is not private. >> i see your argument. the government cannot have a spending program. what they did is that the government spent money in the form of vouchers to be given to private individuals to use for such education that and that certain standards, including religious schools. what is the difference between the program here and the one that was held? >> the difference is that the money went to the parents without any religious discrimination. religion was not involved in the distribution of the money. the parents got funds based on their financial needs. and the fact that their children went to school in

cleveland, which was a failing school district. based on their financial needs, the program was to get them a voucher. in giving the parent of voucher, nobody said to the parent, what is your religion? are you going to send your child to a religious school? the court say as clearly as it could, that would be unconstitutional. unconstitutional. >> they give a scholarship only to catholics? >> exactly. >> the government money is the contributor. it has failed to give to the government what is the government's money. now that decision about whether to give the money to win a seat belt or not, whether to give it to -- sto or not, that is in the hands of a private individual.

>> that is true. >> there is no religious discrimination. >> let me put it to you this way. suppose the government in this case gave the money to the sto's. they gave up -- they gave out a scholarship sprayed with a constitutional for them to say to a parent, are you catholic? if you are not, we will not give you a scholarship. >> you have been intervening parent or contributor. it is that person who is making the decision of whether to give it to a religious or non religious organization. it is not the government making that decision. >> it is not a parent, by the way. parents, under this program, are not allowed to give contributions for scholarships to their own children. the people who gets -- who can claim the tax credits -- the

person against the scholarship cannot be a dependent. >> we will give you tuition if you otherwise qualify for your child to go to the school that you wish to go to. if you are jewish or protestant and you want to go to st. joseph's catholic school, that is fine. they will not keep you out. in your opinion comment that would then be constitutional. >> the only thing you are challenging is the rule that they will not give the scholarship to a protestant to go to a catholic school. >> we alleged that the sto they give up the majority of the funds, about 70% of the funds, only did the funds to parents who will send their child to a

religious school. >> that is different. you were complaining about -- i am jewish. i want my child to go to st. joseph's. thank you qualified or not? >> that depends on where you go to. >> your complaint is only with wouldn't let me send the child. >> i want to make sure i understand your complaint. your complaints was that the sto's were giving scholarships based on the students religion? i thought another part of the complaint was that they were given just to the religious schools. >> they do not give scholarships to religious schools. they give scholarships to parent. >> to attend tchools. the essence of your complaint is

that some of the groups are equiring that the recipient child be of a particular religion? >> that, and some of them are requiring that in order to get a scholarship, the parent will agree to send the child to a particular religious school. >> that does not get you there. >> you are saying both of those. do you understand the beneficiaries of this program? has the state said who the beneficiaries of the program are? are they the parents or the general taxpayers? >> the beneficiaries are the parents and children. that is what this program is for. the set -- the state set up a

program to help parents send their children to nonpublic schools. to do that, they will get the scholarship money is. >> the beneficiaries are the parent and the parents have to be treated equally. >> that is right. exactly. the scholarships have to be available to parents on a religiously neutral basis. the scholarships are not allowed to be made available to parents according to their religion or according to whether they will send a child to a religious school. but that those kinds of discrimination are going on here. >> can i go back to your point you were making about the distinction between taxpayers making a charitable donation, whether that taxpayer as a whole universe to spend it on, buying clothes, gambling, this jury,

that charity. this contributor does not have the universe to pack -- pick. you either give it to the government or you give it to the sto. >> exactly. it is not the taxpayers' money. it is confusing. my clients,g about who are general taxpayers. we're talking about the taxpayers to take the tax credits. >> @ arizona -- if arizona gave a deduction only individuals who made charitable contributions to educational institutions, there would be a problem there. >> it would be constitutional if it said, you get a deduction for making a charitable

contribution to educational organization and that can include a religious educational constant -- institution. you cannot that a program that gives you a deduction, but not to a religious organization. that would be unconstitutional. but you're going to support private charities, you have to support religious charity. >> the difference between this and the federal tax deductions was that the federal tax deduction is available for a broad range of charities whereas this is available only for a very narrow range. >> and may have misunderstood the question. at the time, the taxpayer makes the charitable contributions, he will take a deduction for it, that he can do anything he wants with that money. he can take a vacation. he can give it to a charity.

it is a completely open system. nobody tells the taxpayer what he has t do. in this case, when the taxpayer in this case, when the taxpayer rights that check, -- writes that check, he has to pay it to the state. >> the same thing is true of charitable deductions. when you take a charitable deduction, you do not have the money anymore. you have given it to a charitable organization. you are allowed to give it to a particular religion, a particular church, and there seems to be nothing unconstitutional about that, right? what is unconstitutional hear all about the private decision to give a benefits to an

organization that only supports a particular school and only supports people of a particular religion to god that school? >> there is nothing unconstitutional about the taxpayers' spending the money. if they did not discriminate on the basis of religion in giving that money out, there would be no on constitutionality. >> charges discriminate on the basis of religion. that church discriminates on the basis of religion. that is okay. >> you can pay your taxes to a church. the church gave its benefits only to people of a certain religion. >> it really is just out line -- just that line in the tax form that you are concerned about. the only thing you really need is a change in the tax form.

>> it is the difference between charity and paying your taxes. when you make a contribution, it costs you money. in arizona, if you make a charitable contribution of $1,000, it costs you $950. in arizona, if you take this tax credit, it costs you nothing. it is not charity. >> just to follow up, if this system set up exactly as it was now, contributions are deductible. you would have no problem? [inaudible] >> we would not have a problem. >> the only difference is that arizona set up this system where you get a tax credit instead of the tax deduction. but of course.

>> it would be true even at the top marginal rate was 90%. that is never going to happen in arizona. [laughter] >> the federal rate has been up. >> i understand. that is still charity. it the top rate is 90%, when you give that money, it is your money. even if you are in the 90% bracket, you are giving some of your own money. you are engaging in charity. the constitution permits the government to subsidize private charity. if the government is going to subsidize private charity, it cannot leave religious charities out. that is the dividing line. in this case, the government is not subsidizing private charity. it is not private charity. >> if this is government money, why would it be constitutional,

in your view, for this scheme to exist if the sto's did not discriminate at all? >> it is perfectly acceptable to use government money. that is a somewhat different tax credit because when you buy the heater, you get something for the money. this tax credit is a very strange kind of tax credit. this is a tax credit that is only used to pay your taxes. >> we will only give scholarships for religiously affiliated schools, but we will not discriminate on the basis of the students religion. if this is the government's money, you think that would not be an establishment clause. >> if they discriminate by saying we only give to people of

a certain religion or we do not give to people of another religion or by saying, we will only give you a scholarship to peace and your kids to a religious school that we designate. >> you said the opposite earlier. >> i hope i did not. >> i am sure you did. >> thank you for correcting me. >> suppose that the government gives its money to put a cat scans and hospitals. it has certain beneficiaries. one group is the associated of catholic hospitals. another is the association of jewish hospitals. it gives the tax credit to all three. of course the catholic group is going to give it to catholic hospitals and so forth. what is wrong with that? >> i do not get your hypothetical. >> they have government money and they say, we are going to give its to some umbrella

organization and we expect them to distribute it. they will, of course, distributed to those who are their members. what is the difference between that and what happens here? >> it depends on who the beneficiaries are. >> it will be catholic hospitals because they are the one who belong to the catholic hospital association. money will also go to the secular hospital association. as a -- i do not see that part. >> i am not clear on your program. if it is a government program to benefit hospitals, the benefits have to go to hospitals on a

religiously neutral basis. >> the government says that it does give the money away on religiously neutral basis. it gives it too hospital associations. some of those are supposed to give it to their members, all of them will be religiously affiliated. >> but the hospitals are the beneficiaries. that is the difference. >> the beneficiaries here are not the sto's. the beneficiaries here ar parents. the constitution requires that the benefits of the government spending program go to the beneficiaries on a religiously neutral basis. the beneficiaries for the parents. the badgers had to go to them. >> i do not understand the answer. his question was, you give it to a hospital equipment and that gives it to hospitals on a religiously discriminatory

basis. why are to hospitals the beneficiaries of that program? >> at the hospitals are the beneficiaries, the hospitals have get the money on a religiously neutral basis. >> the analogy would be that the patient are the beneficiaries of the program. it gives money to various hospitals. if one of those hospital says, we only treat catholic cancer patients, that it's unconstitutional. >> that is the other issue. we are trying to separates in your argument the issue that some of these organizations are religiously affiliated from the argument that they will only give the money to individuals of a particular religion. i understand your argument for the latter. i must say that i do not

understand your argument for the former. >> if i go to get a scholarship from an organization and then say, where are you going to send your child? i say, i've not made that decision yet. we will only give you a scholarship a decent your child to a jewish school which teaches people how to pray in the way jewish people pray and its education is the jewish religious education, that is religious discrimination. >> thank you. you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you. we are talking about my clients this money is being used to fund this program. it recognized a special solicitude for taxpayers when money is taken out of their pockets and used to fund