“Youth are not just the leaders of tomorrow; they are the catalysts for change today.” Panha Vorng
Only a few weeks after starting at JPIT, I went to Birmingham to attend 3Generate, the annual Methodist gathering for children and young people, alongside my fellow JPIT intern Noah.
JPIT coordinated the Town Hall, a space where young people could explore justice issues and express what mattered to them. Alongside facilitated sessions, we invited young people to respond to polling questions about colonial justice, social media and AI, participation and democracy, and social justice.
This was not intended to be statistically representative research. Nevertheless, clear themes emerged over the weekend. Young people were enthusiastic about sharing their opinions, particularly when questions related directly to their everyday lives. Mental health, the cost of living, social media and political participation were not abstract to them. They were issues shaping their relationships, opportunities and hopes for the future.
Shortly before 3Generate, it was announced that the UK Youth Parliament was at risk of being discontinued. While the Government has presented this as an opportunity to redesign youth participation and improve representation, there are understandable fears that, at a time of spending constraints, it could instead lead to the erosion of young people’s representation at a national level.[1]
This possibility made the conversations at 3Generate feel even more timely. If established spaces for youth participation are disappearing, we must ask where young people will be heard, who will take their views seriously, and how their insights will influence the decisions that shape their lives.
Panha Vorng’s words challenge us not simply to prepare young people to lead in the future, but to recognise the contribution they are already making.
Three subjects felt especially significant in our current political context: mental health, the proposed social media ban for under-16s, and lowering the voting age.
Mental health
One of our polling questions asked:
What social justice issue do you care most about?
Young people could choose from several options, including refugee rights, mental health, the cost of living, climate justice, disability rights, peacebuilding and education reform. Mental health received the most responses, closely followed by the cost of living and climate justice. These results have something to say about the pressures young people are experiencing and the world in which they are growing up in.
The week after 3Generate, the Government published the Fonagy Review into mental health conditions, ADHD and autism in England.[2] Some of the subsequent media coverage focused on the supposed “over-diagnosis” of ADHD and autism or revived the familiar narrative of a – “snowflake generation” .
Yet the Review presents a different picture. Rising diagnosis partly represents a necessary correction to historic underdiagnosis, but it also reflects genuine distress and underlying systemic issues. Economic uncertainty, housing insecurity, post-pandemic loneliness, educational pressure and the effects of social media all shape young people’s mental health.
One quotation from the Review felt especially relevant to what we heard at 3Generate:
“I am in awe of their courage. Young people are contending with more powerful forces that I ever faced. They are not fragile. They are outnumbered”
Every person, young and old, is made in the image of God and so we must take young people’s experiences seriously. Their fears about the future are not secondary concerns to be considered once they become adults. If young people tell us that mental health is their most pressing justice concern, our first response should not be scepticism but attention: listening to what lies beneath that concern and asking what must change.
Social media ban for under 16s
We also asked:
Should social media be banned for under-16s?
The responses were mixed. Of around 200 votes, approximately 85 said yes, 100 said no, and 18 were unsure. These are approximate figures rather than formal research findings, but the lack of a decisive majority reflected the complexity of the conversations we had.
In June, the Government announced plans for a social media ban for under 16s, with full enforcement expected in spring 2027. The proposal followed the Growing up in the Online World consultation and is to be modelled partly on measures introduced in Australia.[3]
During a Town Hall session on social media and social justice, I found myself challenged by the young people’s reflections. As adults, it is easy to begin with an automatically negative view of social media, focusing on its dangers without recognising all the ways young people use online spaces.
The young people reminded me that social media can also be a space for campaigning, community and youth activism. Their comments made me reflect on my own experience. I first became involved in campaigning and political engagement through Instagram when I was 17. It gave me an accessible first experience of activism and helped me to see that politics was not something reserved for experts.
This does not mean ignoring the real risks associated with social media. Young people deserve meaningful protection, but protection should not be confused with exclusion, and young people should not be made solely responsible for the harms created by some of the world’s most powerful technology companies.
A commitment to justice means examining where power lies and holding those with the greatest power to account.
Voting at 16
Voting was one of the most contested subjects at 3Generate, but also one of the most timely. The Government has announced plans to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote at the next general election.
We asked:
If you were eligible to vote tomorrow, how likely would you be to vote?
The majority indicated that they would vote. Significantly, many of those who said they would not vote explained that they did not yet feel able to make an informed decision, rather than a desire to not vote.
We also asked:
Should the voting age be lowered to 16?
More than 300 young people responded. Approximately 190 said yes, 105 said no, and 8 were unsure. Again, these figures are indicative rather than representative, but they reveal a substantial appetite for participation, alongside genuine uncertainty and disagreement.
Discussions about lowering the voting age often begin by questioning young people’s ability to make political decisions. Yet research suggests that most 16-year-olds demonstrate similar decision-making abilities to adults. There is also evidence that voting from an earlier age can help establish a lifelong habit of civic participation.
However, lowering the voting age must be accompanied by good-quality political education. Not every young person has adults who can explain registration, electoral systems or political institutions. Schools therefore have a vital role in ensuring that political knowledge is not determined by someone’s background.
Young people should not simply be handed a vote and left to navigate the system alone. Expanding participation must include accessible information and the opportunity to develop the knowledge and confidence needed to use that vote.
Listening must lead to change
Across these conversations, young people demonstrated thoughtfulness, disagreement, uncertainty and conviction. What stood out was their willingness to engage and their desire to be taken seriously.
Panha Vorng’s words stayed with me throughout the weekend. Young people are not simply leaders in waiting. They are already speaking, campaigning and calling for change. With the future of the UK Youth Parliament uncertain, it is increasingly important that the Church and society does not just invite young people into the room, it must mean allowing their views to shape decisions.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evaluation-of-the-uk-youth-parliament/evaluation-of-the-uk-youth-parliament
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-into-mental-health-conditions-adhd-and-autism-final-report
[3] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10468/