Why UK Youth Parliament tender is doomed to fail

Leaving aside the derisory offer of £16,666 to each of the nations to support their youth engagement with the UK Youth Parliament, it needs to be considered that there are 149 UK Youth Parliament constituencies in England, supporting a total of 411 MYPs. 

To put this in context an MP’s basic salary is £81,932 without expenses, a sum which under the DCMS’s current costings would fund 66 local authority constituencies engagement with the UKYP. 

In 2004, the then Labour government appointed the Office of Public Management (OPM) to undertake a review of the running of the UKYP and make recommendations to continue its growth and success. 

The OPM costed the basic running costs of the parliament at £600,000. Like many youth organisations over the last 10 years, the UKYP has been running on a shoestring and goodwill. 

Friends of UKYP believes that DCMS is setting any organisation bidding for this tender up to fail, for the following three reasons: 

1. A one-year contract is not sustainable. Even if a charitable organisation or community interest company does bid for it, it doesn't give them enough time to raise additional funds from other sources. The average turnaround time for a grant application is about six months, and there is no guarantee of course that a grant application will be approved. 

2. While the government may want the UKYP to seek corporate sponsorship, the biggest attraction for a corporate sponsor is the annual debate in parliament, and parliament won't allow any corporate logos displayed at the event. Young people cannot even wear a t-shirt which for example, supports an environmental campaign. 

3. A corporate sponsor also runs the risk of compromising the impartiality of the UKYP, and/or requiring members of the UKYP not to speak out on issues that a sponsor may have another financial interest in. 

The clear lack of understanding of the costs of running the UKYP shown by this invitation to tender for a one-year contract by the DCMS is indicative of the government’s poor understanding of the youth sector in general, and is reflective of the lack of vision and strategy for the role that youth organisations should play in supporting young people not only to have a voice, but to be given the opportunities to engage in positive activities for the benefit of wider society. 

The question must be asked, if this tender is anything to go by, will there be any youth organisations left to deliver the support and opportunities that young people need in order to reach that potential?

Kate Parish is chair of Friends of the UK Youth Parliament.