I know what to do.  We should create club premises which are vested in a company which the teenagers can run themselves - completely.  It would be a "Young Adult Company".  I have given such a club the name of "Concourse", to distinguish it from a conventional members club - because every teenager resident in the district would be entitled to join, upon payment of a modest fee (say, £13 a year, or 25p per week).  Every local resident between the ages of 12 and 21 would be entitled to membership, subject to only the conventional health and fire restrictions of numbers for any particular event.  Every resident would qualify for membership upon reaching the age of 13, and membership would automatically expire at the age of 21. This would not be an exclusive form of membership, which could keep anybody out.

I suggest that an adult "holding company" should take responsibility for the premises, providing them under the terms of a lease for the Concourse Company (CoCo), with the landlord retaining all major "property" responsibilities, and receiving rent for that.  While that holding company would require support, it could not itself be a charity - although it would not be able to function on a fully commercial basis, and would hold important assets, probably funded initially with public or charitable grant moneys.  It could operate as a holding company on a wide-area basis, nationally or regionally, thus strengthening its asset-base. That holding company should certainly become a "Community Interest Company" committed in perpetuity to public service - once the legislation for this new institution is introduced in 2004. 

The inter-company relationships would resemble that between a local authority making a community-centre available for management by a local Management Committee, although that is frequently undertaken without the disciplines of a full arms-length "rental/lease" relationship.  Another model is that of the University Student Union, which is often the form of a separate limited company or trust, leasing premises from the University authorities.  When I was at Cambridge I was a Committee Member (Director, effectively) of the Cambridge Union, with responsibility for its day-to-day operation - why should other teenagers not have the same opportunity?

I would like to see the principles of the relationship set out in the form of a formal lease, together with certain contractual requirements to regulate the composition and conduct of the tenant corporation.  But after that, the CoCo Directors would be be free to organise their own club, provided that CoCo paid its rent, complied with the terms of the Lease, and with all other legal requirements.

CoCo would be a registered limited company, and it might well be possible to secure its registration as a recreational charity, which would give it considerable funding and operational advantages.  The rank-and-file members would of course receive no dividend, but they would elect the Board and receive regular management reports.  No difficulty would be encountered with the election of "under-age" Directors: it is an oddity of English company law that no lower limit is set upon the age of a company Director - although there is the upper-age limit of 75 (which can be overridden...)

Running a concourse company would itself constitute marvellous training-ground for those taking up the opportunity.  It would constitute a very practical exercise in citizenship, and should be seen in that context.   The adult community would be providing, for its young adults, their own dedicated "space", entrusting to them the full responsibilities of property occupation and institutional management.

779  11 August 2003  

Health Checks for Immigrants  

The August season has brought out this nasty idea, from the Tories, and their Health Frontbencher Dr Liam Fox.  Even allowing for the Tories' desperation to capitalise on the Government's current discomfiture, this doctrine is pernicious.  It cannot and should not be allowed to be merely dismissed as midsummer madness.  The nasty case must be answered.

For to whom would these checks be applied?  And what administrative consequences would follow a failure to demonstrate a "clean bill of health", however that is to be defined?  Some 26m bug-bearing visitors enter the UK each year - are the tests to be applied to all of them?  If not, what is the point of targeting students, or asylum-seekers, or work-permit holders?  All visitors carry with them some risk of imported disease.  The SARS virus was spread rapidly by ordinary business/tourist visitors - all nations must strive to develop healthcare systems to counter the ultra-rapid transmissions of the modern world.  If a country seeks the stimulus of tourism, or foreign-students, or vital work-permit labour - the right course is for that country to make all necessary arrangements to care for the health of such incomers - whatever their health status may be.

• But there should be no question of refusing a person entry, in any category, on the grounds of ill-health or disease.  It's a matter of respect.