Westminster Hall Debate: Teenage Pregnancies (29 January 2008)

Speech by Annette Brooke MP on Tue 29th Jan 2008

Annette Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). This has been an interesting debate and I have not heard anything in hon. Members' speeches that I disagree with.

The United Kingdom had the highest level of teenage pregnancy in western Europe in 1998 and, as far as there are up-to-date comparable statistics, we are still in the same position. However, the Government have to be praised for having the first teenage pregnancy strategy, which is attempting to co-ordinate and tackle both the causes and the consequences of teenage pregnancy. Teenage conception rates have fallen to their lowest level for 20 years. This morning, we have heard about some excellent projects, but-there is a big "but"-back in February 2007, the Office for National Statistics issued figures on teenage conception rates in England for 2005, which showed very little improvement on the previous year, and even a rise in the number of under-16s becoming pregnant.

The big question for the Minister is whether the strategy's targets will be achieved. They are to halve the under-18 conception rate by 2010; to get a downward trend in the under-16 rate; to increase the proportion of teenage parents in education, training or employment by 60 per cent. by 2010; and to reduce their risk of long-term social exclusion. There must be general agreement that progress towards those targets must accelerate.

It is interesting to note the variations between local authorities, and it makes sense for the Government to work with what might be perceived to be the worst-performing local authorities in terms of targets, because it is sensible to share good practice, but there must obviously be respect for the particular needs of local communities. I remember the figures for my area being announced in 1998 and the feeling of great shock at the figures for the whole of Dorset because, unexpectedly, they were relatively high.

Much work has been undertaken in my area, and Bournemouth and Poole primary care trust has made steady progress in reducing under-18 conception rates. I asked the PCT what were its most effective measures. The first was outreach work to target young people at risk-for example, women with chaotic lifestyles, looked-after children, and known sex workers. The second was condom distribution in particular settings, such as youth centres and Connexions centres, and-I emphasise this-where a trained professional was on hand. An additional measure was working with a group of local pharmacists who issue morning-after pills. They have been trained by the PCT, and do follow-up work and monitoring. If the user gives permission, they can be referred to a specialist nurse.

Chris Bryant: In my constituency, if the morning-after pill is obtained from a chemist rather than a family planning clinic, it costs £23.80, and for many young girls that is simply not an option. A scheme has been introduced whereby the chemist provides the pill free and the cost is refunded. Would the hon. Lady like that scheme to be extended more widely?

Annette Brooke: We must face up to the problem. The idea of the morning-after pill is unpalatable to many people in the wide world, but when we hear about binge drinking and its consequences, we must find practical solutions as well as changing the long-term situation. Local tots-to-teens programmes are rather good in changing or influencing attitudes.

The Government have identified key factors for reducing teenage pregnancy. For example, the active engagement of all the key mainstream delivery partners is important, as are a strong senior champion, effective sexual health advice services and the prioritisation of sex and relationships education. The Minister will not be surprised that I want to home in on that point for a few moments, because I have taken every opportunity since coming to the House to raise the subject of compulsory sex and relationships education, which must be appropriate for the age group and for both males and females. That is really important, especially relationships education.

In a survey of 20,000 teenagers conducted by the UK Youth Parliament, more than half rated the teaching of sex education in school as poor, very poor or merely average, while only a quarter said that it was good. Furthermore, nearly half of those questioned said that they had never been taught about the effects of teenage pregnancy and would not know where to find their local sexual health clinic. The survey also revealed that 55 per cent. of all 12 to 15-year-olds and 57 per cent. of girls aged between 16 and 17 had not been taught how to use a condom. Of all those who took part in the survey, 43 per cent. said that they had not been taught about personal, social relationships at school. We should also note the rise in sexually transmitted diseases. The study by the Government's teenage pregnancy unit cited poor sex and relationships education as a reason for high levels of teenage pregnancy in general.

Not so long ago, Davina McCall hosted a television programme in which she went to Holland with teenagers and teachers to look at what happens there. Sex and relationships education was very up front, and we know that it has not led to rising teenage conception rates. The Minister was interviewed for that programme, and I hope that she will be more positive about considering whether to make that important subject compulsory.

Another reason for arguing that such education should be compulsory is my concern about child abuse. If a seven-year-old is being abused at home or within the family, how can they know what is normal behaviour unless they are taught that at school? It is vital that such education is undertaken by qualified professionals and I agree with the Government that it must be of high quality. Currently, we are not equipping young people to make health decisions about their lives. We must offer them better opportunities, so that education must be compulsory, but it is important that relationships and parenting, as well as sex education, are included. Only then can we hope to support young people effectively.

I agree that parents need support in talking to their children, and that point also came out in the television programme. That has always been a focus of mine, for a number of reasons. However, a multi-faceted approach, as well as education, is important. We know that we must have action because of the poorer outcomes that teenage parents and their children experience, and we have heard about that clearly this morning. When considering the factors for our high teenage pregnancy rate, we see the early alienation from school and education. We must ask why. Are girls being offered the right sort of courses, and do we still have gender stereotypes? I recently met a young girl with the YWCA. She said that at school she had wanted to do car mechanics, but she was laughed at. That is still happening now. She is now settled with her two-year-old, and she has started her car mechanics course, but why could that not have been available at school? It was what she wanted to do.

I agree with the many hon. Members who have said that having a child when a teenager can be a positive experience, and we must work towards that. Teenage mothers who have a positive experience may have an extended family or a positive partner relationship and they may be in employment or are supported in education. That is what we must aim for. On the other hand, we must think about those teenage mothers who end up receiving means-tested benefits, being locked into the system, and not having any qualifications or incentive to take up extra hours' work. We must be clear that teenage pregnancy accompanies social exclusion, but does not need to cause it, and that much more can be done.

I want to highlight one or two points that the YWCA has made. It identified the excellent care-to-learn scheme, which supports teenage parents in work, but it is worried about the age at which the support is cut off. A teenage mother may not necessarily get her act together and be back in education by the age of 20. It may take longer, so why cannot the care-to-learn scheme be extended?

Similarly, when supporting young people into work, child care is all important. The Education and Skills Bill will present many challenges, but the role of teenage mothers must be considered. Given that they will be among the cohort, it may be more appropriate for them to re-enter education or training at a slightly older age, and I hope that flexibility to enable that will be built in.