Clement FreudMr. Speaker, Sir:
I was about to say that I have just come across from the House of Commons and that I found this a very much more serious and quieter audience than the one that I have left there. In fact I find certain similarities about what I've just seen and the sort of Question Times which I have to endure twice a week. It is a feature of the British Parliament that the Prime Minister must appear in the House of Commons twice a week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays, at 3.15 p.m. to be cross-examined. I'm only cross-examined for 15–20 minutes, but you will get some idea of the speed with which it goes when I tell you that I manage to answer something like 15–18 questions in that time.
Of course like you, Mr. Speaker, I always refer to the Speaker if there is any difficulty about keeping order.
Now some of you will perhaps have listened to the broadcasts of the House of Commons, and what I must tell you is that this place looks very much more like the House of Lords. One of the great differences between the House of Commons and the House of Lords and how you know whether you're in the House of Lords part of the building or the House of Commons, is that everything in the House of Lords is dark red and everything in the House of Commons is green. That applies to the colour of the seats and not to the members.
Now it was, of course, a very great thrill for me when I first entered the House of Commons just over 20 years ago. But I want to tell that my great interest in it started because I took a passionate interest in what was going on in the world about me, at approximately the same age as those of you who are here deliberating today.
They were very troubled times and of course we always had problems to cope with. Now I think they are not quite as great as they used to be. But the important thing is this, we don't know what will happen in the future but by what we do we can determine it. [end p1]
So you really are extremely important and I can remember debating very hotly indeed on all of the issues of the day. Indeed I was quite a natural debater, which is a very polite way of saying that one is naturally argumentative. At any rate that's what they say about a woman, I'm not sure they always say that about a man.
Now there were one or two things that I wanted to point out to you about Parliament. We are accustomed now to having one person, one vote. In fact the first Parliament that had one person, one vote in Great Britain was the Parliament of 1950. And so we have in fact had gradually to work up to having one person, one vote. And we had a Parliamentary system many, many years before we reached that universal franchise.
You are going to speak today about the United Nations Declaration on the rights of the child. I can remember at approximately the same age as you are now reading a book which was very relevant to the times called “A Time for Greatness” . It was a book about the needs of the times and written by an American called Herbert Agar.
I remember going through that book and coming across a phrase which struck me very much indeed. It was that every single human right must have someone on the mirror side who in fact fulfils a human obligation. In other words, noone can have any rights at all unless someone else has already fulfilled a great many human obligations. In a way I suppose it is equivalent to saying you can't take any money out of the till until someone has put money into it. And it went on really to develop a theme which I've never forgotten. When you make demands upon your country remember that in the end you are your country, and that the demands which you make on your country are the demands which you are making upon yourself.
I think we have learned as we have gone through life in Parliament that we always have to have a kind of balance sheet between those who say we have all the rights, and those who say we have to fulfil the obligations. And so a human rights society in fact becomes, too, a human obligations society. [end p2]
Now you are going to debate the United Nations Declaration on the rights of the child. I have looked through the many amendments which you're proposing to make. I couldn't possibly say I agreed with them all. But that's not a generation gap in any way—it can in fact be a difference of views. You will debate them and I am very happy to see that Mr. Freud will take them to New York when he goes to visit the United Nations shortly.
In debating them you will find many, many differences of views, and you will come to know what Mr. Freud and I have come know—that while we might believe certain things passionately others believe different things. And that if we are to live together we have to come to some arrangement and agreement, to some laws between us, as to how we are going to conduct our affairs in the future.
That in a way is what Parliament is all about. And I'm very happy to come to this Young People's Parliament as a representative of the Mother of Parliaments. It's not perfect. No system of Government will ever be perfect. But so far it's the best one that we've ever learned to have in the world and it's far better for us to try to eradicate its imperfections rather than try to go to any other system.
The Year of the Child has been very, very successful indeed. But, of course, in a way every year is the year of the child and for my generation, the most important thing in our lives is the kind of world which we're helping to build for your generation. And for you in turn when you come to our age it will be the kind of world that you're helping to build for one generation on.
Yesterday I had some other much younger people than yourselves come to see me, also about the Year of the Child. They were an example of something which has characterised that year in this country. We haven't demanded great things of Governments or of other nations. It has been a great voluntary movement in this country as each person has said: ‘What can I do to help my neighbour?’ [end p3]
As I said, I had an example of it yesterday when a whole lot of Cubs came to see me; they of course have a promise they'll do a good turn every day and they'll always help fellow Cubs in other countries. And their great contribution to the Year of the Child was to fulfil obligations. They in fact had raised money for children in Nepal who otherwise would not have sufficient to eat, or not have sufficient opportunities.
In Parliament, under Mr. Speaker's direction, we debate many, many things—new laws, how to spend your money and how best to deal with international relations. We in Parliament look forward very much to hearing the results of what you people say here on this subject.
I remember when I first went out into a job in the world I seemed to encounter two sorts of adults. One was a sort, from whom I must tell you I totally recoiled, who says to young people, “never mind your views, you'll learn by the time you're my age.” I think all of us here would totally recoil from that. The other one was the sort which said to young people, “your views are likely to have a freshness which ours don't have. They're likely to have an originality which ours don't have.” We perhaps have learned to think too much in particular patterns of thought and in tram-lines; you haven't. And it is really that freshness of thought and that originality which we need to know so that we can in time incorporate it into legislation and into policy to be ready for you in the future.
May I say one word to the young women here. We haven't nearly enough of you in Parliament. Not nearly enough. And believe you me we're good in Parliament—aren't we? We're really very good. You see when I was your age there were only about 25 women in a Parliament of about 630. Today there are only about 25 women in a Parliament of about 630. And we've had generation after generation of young people in schools and in universities and not enough women coming forward to Parliament. So if you find good arguers, if you find good debaters then please I hope that this will be a springboard for you from which to come into Parliament later.