04/11/2012 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Anton Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland. Thousands of young people

here cannot find a job, we are asking why a scheme that helps them

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2060 seconds

Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics. 24,000 young people here

are out of work and that is the highest in the UK. Reducing this

figure is a priority for the Executive but it is planning to

change a scheme that encourages young people to stay in education.

Student representatives say any cuts would be catastrophic. We ask

the employment Minister if the Executive is failing our young

people. You can do it in Argentina, Brazil and even the Isle of Man, so

should 16 year-olds be able to vote. 16 year-olds can buy a lot of

tickets and joined the Army. We are looking ahead to the US election

and we are joined by two fresh- faced politicians.

The Education Maintenance Allowance allows up to �30 per week to

encourage 16 to 19 year-olds to stay in school. Proposed changes

would reduce the grants that are targeted at low-income families.

Student groups are opposed and say it will lead to massive numbers of

young people dropping out of education. Stephen Farry is with me

now. Thank you for joining us. Youth unemployment is its huge

problem, far worse than it is in the rest of the UK, why are you

proposing such wholesale changes to a scheme which helps young people

stay off the unemployment register and in education? Let us break this

down. First of all, youth unemployment is clearly an issue in

Northern Ireland. In some respects we are better than in the situation

in the Republic of Ireland and in the European Union, but this is a

major challenge for society. Youth unemployment here is 23.5%. When

you look at that, it does not equate to one in four people being

unemployed, that equates to people looking for work. We have a higher

participation rate in higher education in Northern Ireland, so

in practice one in seven young people is out of work. That is a

major challenge and that is why we have introduce the youth employment

scheme. We are now investing more than any other part of the UK in

helping a young people stay close to the labour market and to find

opportunities for them to get work experience and to get that chance

to compete with other workers. These people are not in employment

or education or training and they need help. They do. We are

investing in resources for them. The investment is investing �40

million in youth unemployment and that is a bigger package than is

available in any other part of the UK. Let us focus on the Education

Maintenance Allowance. There are a number of options. People who work

with students and represent them say that this will be catastrophic.

That is overdoing it. That is the dramatic language they're using. In

practice, they are engaging with us and they responded to our

consultation. We're open to alternative ideas, but the reality

is we have to find some savings and we are doing other investments for

young people so this must be taken in the round. Why do you have to

find savings? You got �13.8 million of money for a youth employment

scheme. Why are you getting extra money in one bit of your budget but

losing money in another? We have to spend scarce resources where they

will make the biggest difference in helping young people. The reality

is that this game, the evidence shows it is not effective in

keeping young people in education, almost two-thirds of young people

say it does not make any difference. A survey was carried out which

disagreed. I have the statistics. It suggests it does keep young

people in education and encourage them to stay there and it helps

them. We can argue over the precise scale of the statistics, but we are

not seeking to abolish the scheme, it has been abolished in England,

in Scotland and Wales they have reformed it. We're talking about a

minimal changes compared to elsewhere. We want to keep it and

make sure it applies to the young people for whom it makes a

difference and remove it for those for whom it does not make a

difference. Do you accept that there will be young people

currently in receipt of the allowance who will lose it are

having scaled back and that that potentially will have an impact on

them? It should not. If the scheme is reformed correctly, it will

focus on those for whom it makes a difference. We will remove the dead

weight from the system. What does that mean? Where we are spending

money, where it is not making a difference, there is other things

we can do with those resources. Look at what we are doing regarding

tuition fees. We have frozen them in Northern Ireland and that makes

a huge difference to young people. We have a new widening access

strategy insuring that people from disadvantaged backgrounds have a

chance to access and gain from an education. We have extended and new

training allowance, for those people who are or on a European

Social Fund type schemes. We're the only part of the UK that has a

training allowance for those on training for success. We do a lot

more regarding this allowance been other parts of the UK. Can you give

me a profile of the student currently and receipt of the

alliance he will lose that and not be in some way affected? There are

three different thresholds. Per week that is. We are looking at

various options for reform, the five options in the consultation

which closed last Friday, we will seek to look at those options and

see how the public have responded to those and we will look at other

ideas that come through and to see how we can actually target the

available resources were it will have the biggest impact. It is for

those young people who do needed as an incentive to stay on in

education, it will be there. For those for whom it is not making a

difference, we want to address that. We understand that. I am sure

everyone would support that part of the plan. The difficulty is those

individuals who are going to Lusaka, they may feel that they are losing

out and they may choose to leave the courses they are on because

they feel they cannot afford to stay. If that happens, you will

have got this wrong. The that could be a by-product of your action.

Before the allowance was introduced, Northern Ireland had the highest

participation rates in education and we still have those rates and I

expect that will remain the case. The evidence shows from the survey

we conducted, it was an independent body, which shows that almost two-

thirds of young people, this is not making a difference. We want to

focus at on those who find it does make a difference. Have you got

reservations about the tinkering about his proposed or are you

relaxed about them getting it right? And I am comfortable with

this because there were recent statistics that showed a huge bulk

of people who were in receipt of this allowance, it was spent on

social activities. The idea that this allowance, if it was reformed

and fewer people were getting it, that this would be a catastrophic

blow that would discourage young people from stain on in education...

It is a waste of public resources? I think it is dead weight in the

system. The resources can be targeted more effectively to Jenny

Wyley encourage people who do find barriers in the wake to their

education to stay on in education. I come from a working-class family

and I was encouraged to stay on in education, I did not need a state

handout to encourage me to stay on. There are people out there who do

encounter obstacles... You could be in the child with many siblings.

do have many siblings. There are families were there may be a number

of children in a household and parents cannot give the kind of

support to several children that they bite be able to give to one.

have two sisters and a brother and I came from a family were we were

all encouraged to continue in education. I do not necessarily

think that a blanket handing out of taxpayers' money in the way that

the system is currently weighted represents good value for money.

you have reservations? No, I support the retention of the

allowance. I think there is a clear link between social disadvantage

and educate -- educational attainment. There is a need for

intervention of some sort to encourage young people and give an

incentive to stay on in education particularly in these economic

times. It is important for young people to get qualifications to

make them more employable. Your colleague is working closely with

Stephen Farry to negotiate a path through this change. If the change

to the allowance targeted those in most need and left out are those

who do not need it, that would be better, we Det? Like every scheme

are there has to be a review to see how effective it is. The students

that I have talked who are worried about the changes and are confused

about what will happen and it is important that we have that

incentive for people. I know that Sinn Fein are in favour of it and I

have yet to be convinced that any of the options in the consultation

will be better. She is yet to be convinced. Yes, we will have to

review what comes back from the consultation. We do have to find

savings across a range of different programmes. We have to shift

resources from weather been used inefficiently to where they can

make a difference. When savings are found, they will be reinvested in

young people, they will not be put into another area of government

activity. This is about investing in young people and we're doing

more than anywhere else in the UK on this issue. Stay with us. Thank

you. We are going to move on to another issue, should 16 euros get

the vote? In Scotland it will get the opportunity to vote in the

independence referendum. Sinn Fein and the Green Party think the time

is right to lower the voting age here and have raised the issue. We

caught up with some young people on a visit to Stormont this week to

see what they thought. I do not think there is any difference.

There is no difference in maturity levels. What is the difference?

do not believe that 16 year-olds have the responsibility to make an

informed decision about who should represent them because I think

they're more likely to be swayed by things like fashion or how they

appear and will not look into the candidates. I think it would bring

a more into education and people would know more about it. You can

buy a lottery ticket and joined the army so why should she not be able

to vote? They should have the right to voice their opinion. It is a

difficult enough question it occurs some people are more mature than

others. It raises issues of quality. Ageism is a huge thing right now.

It is reverse ageism. Reverse ageism. There you go. The Assembly

motion is in fact signed in your name. It is due to be discussed on

Tuesday. Why do you think 16 euros here should be voting? I think it

is about giving young people a voice, giving them the ability to

take part in the democratic process and have at the right to vote. We

have an opportunity to send out a message that young people, their

voice matters, and it is as relevant as anyone else's. There is

as serious issue of apathy among young people that has to be

addressed. By lowering the voting age we conspire in interest and may

be grounds for future political engagement which is essential for

the future. A what is wrong with that? Statistics show that the

lowest turnout at election time is amongst people aged between 18 and

25. The argument that is being put forward is that if we lower it,

that will in some way address apathy and increase turnout. If the

people two years older are not voting, why would the people

younger than that be more inclined to vote? Perhaps they feel that

they're not being taken seriously and if you say that we do care we

think and let 16 year-olds boat, they would feel that they are being

listened to and that people want to hear their voice and they would go

out to vote. You were politically active when you were a teenager.

think that that is a challenge for political parties to demonstrate

that they take young people seriously and certainly my own

party, my experience has been that every young person comes forward

who has interest and talent they will be encouraged. So why not let

them vote early? I think that there is a false premise on which the

argument that reducing the age to 16 will in some way inspire young

people or increase turnout, I do not see that based on strong

evidence. Is there evidence for it? He is right when he says the 18 to

25 year olds are generally do tend to be pretty apathetic. In parts of

Austria were you can vote at 16, the turnout has been a lot higher.

My whole issue with this is that there should be a vote of

confidence in young people. Young people are mature enough and

informed enough and articulate and smart enough to make informed

decisions. Politicians deal with issues, we have just discussed the

Education Maintenance Allowance, issues are being discussed that

affect young people so why should they not have a say and a vote is

one of the best ways that anyone can influence what happens. Your

party is broadly supportive of this? The Liberal Democrats are

supportive as well. We should be supporting the motion on Tuesday.

We have a crisis of democracy at the moment were young people are

not voting at the same volumes as their older peers. I do not see any

difficulty in extending the franchise if it encourages young

people to participate at an earlier stage, that is a good thing. We're

looking at a whole range of issues that affect young people, it is

important that they have their say, they can pay taxes at that age,

they can marry, they can have children, they can join the armed

forces... Can I say on that, one of the younger people there raised an

idea, I think we should have an increased role of citizenship

classes in schools, whereby people understand the value of the vote

and the way it can make a difference. That is interesting.

Thank you. Now it was half-term at Stormont

but even though there was no business in the chamber, our

politicians were busy. Here is our correspondent at the political wick

macro. -- Week in 60 Seconds. In the Commons, the Prime Minister

paid tribute to the army medic killed in Afghanistan. I think you

stroke -- e spoke strongly and movingly on it and I think he is

right that those in the medical regiment do a fantastic job. It has

been an honour and privilege for me to meet some of them. Also at West

Minister the government to, as rebels joined Labour to vote down

the EU budget. They were helped by the DUP who hailed it as historic.

In Belfast and you play opened based on the life of a new

firebrand preacher politician called Ian Paisley. This city of

culture gets a makeover. Hundreds of thousands of pounds even in the

course of this year, for their heritage buildings, the listed

buildings that so fully define the character of this great city.

The tragedy of the past week of course it was the murder of David

Black. That United local politicians in condemnation. It did

more than unite politicians, it united the whole community. They

are determined that these criminals will not be allowed to drag

Northern Ireland backwards. Too many people have lived through the

violence in the past and we do not want to go back to that. The war

you pleased to see Martin McGuinness standing with Peter

Robinson condemning what happened. Absolutely. My heart goes out to

them. It is important that we stand shoulder to shoulder with each

other and show that there is no appetite in society for this.

you. One final subject for us, the American presidential election is

on Tuesday, the campaign was suspended as Super Storm Sandy

wreaked havoc. According to polls, it is a close call, but no matter

who it is, Northern Ireland is certainly not on the political

radar on the way it used to be. Let us look back at a time when trips

across the Atlantic were And so I ask you to build on the

opportunity you have before you, to believe that the future can be

better than the past, to work together because you have so much

more to gain by working together I welcome you here. I congratulate

you for seizing the moment and That certainly brings back memories,

it will probably not be like that anymore. You are a big fan of Mitt

Romney, so I can say you are a Republican. A You are absolutely

right. The election, any person who says they know how what will go is

telling you lies. It is neck and neck. I think there are poles all

over the place and I think it is a genuine cliffhanger and I do not

know how it will go. One do you think that is? I think the

circumstances are or, people in 2008 were prepared to give hope and

change a real chance and over the course of the past four years and

of a lot of people who thought there would be hope and changed

think it has been more of the same and feel are disillusioned. It is a

bit like 2004, you have an incumbent president who is not

entirely popular, but you have an opponent whose huge chunk of the

electorate are not persuaded on and it is then into genuine neck and

neck territory in that regard. depends how many people bother to

turn out and of course Super Storm Sandy could impact on that. Do you

have a hunch if you have to plump one way or another? I am of the

opinion that it is up to the American people to -- at who they

decide on. President Obama's policies are more progressive, but

it is up to the American people. Sinn Fein have had a good

relationship with all the administrations and we hope we can

continue the work with the peace process and encourage investment in

Ireland. To come back to young people, do you think of that them

of voting would have a big bearing? When you take Ohio, there are so

many people here who are undecided that at this stage it will come

down to what actually happens on the day President Obama I think so.

Young people tend to have more liberal views so that might have an