David Amess

Conservative Party | Southend West

Debate on the Report from the Health Committee on Sexual Health

Mr. David Amess (Southend, West) (Con): Sex has not suddenly been invented or discovered, but one would think that it had, given the way in which some parts of the media seem to be obsessed with it at the moment. In addition, sex has been entirely trivialised, which I shall say more about later.

I concur with almost everything said by the Chairman of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) in particular, as I recall that it was her idea that we embark on this investigation. I shall not enlarge on this point, but shall say simply that the hon. Lady excelled herself in Amsterdam, and we were all the better for that.

I echo the tribute paid by the Chairman to our expert advisers, who were far more knowledgeable about the subject than we were. I understand that Professor Adler, who attended a seminar to which members of the Committee were invited, was reported as saying that MPs said:

"We never knew it was like this. We've never had a letter from a patient complaining about STIs", to which the obvious response is, "Well, you wouldn't, would you?"

A year later, we held our inquiry, which lasted seven months. MPs were eager to reveal just how much they had learned. We said in our report:

"We have been appalled by the crisis in sexual health we have heard about and witnessed during our inquiry. We do not use the word 'crisis' lightly but in this case it is appropriate. This is a major public health issue and the problems identified in this Report must be addressed immediately."

As our Chairman said, our report described waiting lists of two months in Manchester and absolutely appalling services in Bristol. We visited a condemned portakabin with fleas in the carpet from which, apparently, 400 people were being turned away each week. A week after our visit, I was told that that facility was closed down when rats were discovered in the area. The hon. Member for Romsey was right to suggest that the Health Committee should embark on the inquiry. There can be no argument about that.

The report states that the sexual health of our nation is not at all good. How have the Government reacted to that fact? They have produced a wonderful strategy, on which I shall comment in some detail. I wonder, however, if the strategy is simply a reaction to the crisis, or if it offers a failsafe solution on which we will all be able to work. I have my doubts. Even today, a headline in the Evening Standard reads, "Sex disease 'timebomb'" Everyone is more than aware of the seriousness of the situation.

I said that sex had been trivialised, and it has been. All the taboos have been broken down and we talk freely about sex. Everyone talks about sex—we are obsessed with it—but what has all that achieved? Every time one turns on the television, one finds that there is no 9 pm watershed and that sex is depicted on every channel. It is extraordinary what I see being shown on some digital channels, before quickly moving on to the next one. Sex is everywhere—even the lyrics of some music contain sexual references. We can dismiss all that as irrelevant, but I do not think that it is irrelevant; it is germane to the mess in which we find ourselves. The media, just as they have changed the mother of all Parliaments, have changed the sexual behaviour of the country.

Paragraph 1 of the report states:

"No area of public health in England has suffered a more dramatic and widespread decline in recent years than sexual health."

The statistics that I obtained from the House of Commons Library show that the number of people contracting sexually transmitted diseases has increased dramatically: new episodes of chlamydia have increased from 32,000 to 67,000; of gonorrhoea from 11,000 to 22,000; and of syphilis from 116 to 696. Those are shocking facts. The rising trend in the number of sexually transmitted infections does not look as if it will even slow down, and it certainly does not look as if it will be reversed. The situation is very worrying, so the Government were right to produce their strategy in 2001.

The Chairman of the Committee touched on the issue of sex education, which is very important. Not every human being is comfortable talking publicly, or even privately, about sex. The sex education of young people, and children in particular, is a personal matter. For my part, I am nervous and cautious about sex education at a young age. One of the tragedies of today's society is that the age of innocence is decreasing all the time. Our reaction to that sad development is to say that because very young children know all about it, we must prepare them for what lies ahead and make them wary of trusting others. I understand all that, but let there be no doubt: in the past two or three years there have been dreadful national cases of things going terribly wrong after people have been trusted with the care of children and young people. That is the nature of humanity and there is a limit to how we can control, conduct and monitor the way in which such knowledge is imparted.

I am nervous about the issue and I do not have an easy answer. However, I feel strongly that it is not for any one of us to lay down the law to parents. Parents have a huge responsibility when they bring children into the world. Decisions about sex education must be theirs and theirs alone. I understand entirely the difficulties if little Johnny is withdrawn from a sex education class: it can be embarrassing and his life may be made hell in school break. Nevertheless, the issue is important and sensitive for parents.

Mr. Hinchliffe : I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. I do not always agree with him, but I share some of his concerns. However, does he recall that during the inquiry we were told and given some fairly strong evidence to show that one in 10 girls knows nothing about menstruation when she starts her periods? That is unacceptable in this day and age, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my view. If the parents do not go along with his suggestion that it is their duty to deal with this issue—many parents still do nothing about it—who is responsible? Who should deal with that worrying situation?

Mr. Amess : The hon. Gentleman has touched on an excellent point. Many of us have children and this is not a matter that I want to personalise. However, on the specific issue that he mentioned, I would very much hope that if there was a mother and a father, the mother would take the responsibility of preparing her daughter.

Mr. Hinchliffe : What if they don't?

Mr. Amess : The hon. Gentleman challenges me to say what would happen if there was no lady to share information with the child. I understand his point—someone must take responsibility. If there was no mother, the task would, I hope, fall to someone who had responsibility for caring for the child.

Dr. Tonge : I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's sensitivity, but menstruation in girls is part of human reproduction. Should we not simply learn about it? Why is human reproduction divided from the rest of education? No one is embarrassed about teaching us how the heart works or how our eyes focus. Why should we not teach children how the reproductive system works and about the events around that?

Mr. Amess : The hon. Lady is entitled to her view, and some of her colleagues may share it, but not everyone does. There is nothing wrong with what she describes, but it is down to the individual, not to Members of Parliament, to decide what to teach their children.

John Austin : Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with the Chairman of the Committee that children have a right to know? Parents should not be entitled to deny them that knowledge. That was certainly what we were told by the young people who gave evidence to us.

Mr. Amess : I say again that it is for the parents or the individuals responsible for the child to make the decision. I hope that they would do what the hon. Member for Wakefield said and prepare their children.

John Austin : Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that many parents are themselves deficient in the knowledge that they need to impart to their children? Many have problems with their own relationships and many have hang-ups about sex, so they are not necessarily the best people to communicate the necessary information to their children.

15 Jan 2004 : Column 342WH

Mr. Amess : I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not for Members of Parliament to patronise other human beings—parents—by saying that we know best, that they are ignorant or daft, and that we have all the answers. We should listen to everyone.

I say again that deciding what to tell children is a personal matter. I would be totally against legislation that made telling a child about menstruation an absolute duty. Not every human being is the same, and such an approach would be wrong and totally undemocratic. We should be not too prescriptive in such matters, but a little more sensitive to individuals' feelings.

Joan Ruddock : I think that the hon. Gentleman fails to hear the points that colleagues are making. Even if we totally agreed that responsibility should lie with the female adult who had care of the child, we know from experience and from statistics that some parents will not and, indeed, cannot accept and execute the responsibility to pass on such information. When that happens, the consequences for the child, as the report shows, can be really dreadful. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether in this respect society should take responsibility when parental responsibility is not exercised.

Mr. Amess : I am listening—I am just not agreeing. I say to the hon. Lady that none of the three or four hon. Members who have intervened on me has come up with an acceptable solution. They have raised a point, and I agree with them, but they are have not come up with an acceptable solution to the problem of how to impart information to individuals. Their solution is that children should know everything very early on—I think that the age of six or eight was mentioned.

Dr. Tonge indicated dissent.

Sandra Gidley (Romsey) (LD) indicated dissent.

Mr. Amess : Hon. Members might grimace, but the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said that it is a mere matter of biology and should be taught in schools. I disagree. I am listening and I understand the issues, but I do not agree with the views that hon. Members have expressed.

The way in which sexual health is bandied about on television is unfortunate. I do not mind admitting that although I used to like "Coronation Street" a great deal, I am not up to speed with the present plot. However, I am advised that in the modern show young people are depicted as having sex freely. There is a character called Sarah Louise who is 16; she already has one child, and another by a different father is on the way. Some people might ask, "What does it matter?

Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): As my hon. Friend has not seen the programme recently, perhaps I can help by explaining that Sarah Louise is in a stable, loving relationship with the father-to-be of her second child.

Mr. Amess : I am very pleased to hear that. However, I am uncomfortable with the message that is being sent.

Dr. Tonge : Would the hon. Gentleman be more comfortable with the depiction of sex on television—which I deplore just as much as he does, and if I get the chance I shall tell him why—if the characters were shown to use condoms properly before having sexual intercourse, just to get the proper message over?

Mr. Amess : I am not sure about that, but some of the story lines are increasingly ridiculous. One has only to look at "EastEnders" to see that it is all happening. People might laugh, but such programmes have an impact on the way in which people behave. The wrong message is being sent, and I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) that it is not cool for a sixteen-year-old to behave in the way that Sarah Louise does, although I am happy that she is now in a loving relationship.

The report concluded that the crisis in sexual health of the United Kingdom arises from

"A failure of local NHS organisations to recognise and deal with this major public health problem . . . A lack of political pressure and leadership over many years . . . The absence of a patient voice . . . A lack of resources . . . A lack of central direction to suggest that this is a key priority . . . An absence of performance management."

The Government are very keen on targets—an enthusiasm that I do not share—and seem to think that they are the answer to anything and everything. Their national strategy for sexual health and HIV is divided into four broad themes: better prevention, better services, better commissioning and supporting change. The themes relating to better provision and better services seize on the words "targeted" and "targets", but targets are not the answer to such difficult problems. Problems can be solved only by sound policies.

The strategy includes four targets. They are, first,

"To reduce by 25 per cent. the number of newly acquired HIV infections and gonorrhoea infections by 2007";

secondly,

"By the end of 2004, all GUM clinic attendees should be offered an HIV test on their first screening for sexually transmitted infections (and subsequently according to risk) with a view to"

taking the matter further; thirdly,

"By the end of 2003 all homosexual and bisexual men attending GUM clinics should be offered hepatitis B immunisation at their first visit;" and, finally,

"From 2005, commissioners should ensure that women who meet the legal requirements have access to an abortion within 3 weeks of the first appointment with the GP or other referring doctor."

Those targets can be implemented only when the Government provide a coherent way forward. Simply stating that there is to be a 25 per cent. reduction in the number of newly acquired HIV and gonorrhoea infections by 2007 is absolutely ridiculous. Who said that that will happen? How will it happen? Yet there is the statement that it will happen, as though that were an answer to the serious situation in which we find ourselves.

Recommendations 6 and 7 of the report are crucial. I feel very strongly about recommendation 6, which is:

"Although we support the Government's drive to improve sexual health services via the Strategy, without wholesale advances in sexual health provision these targets will be tokenistic."

I shall not dwell on recommendation 7, which deals with abortion. I hope that in most circumstances, if not all, abortion can be avoided, and that given the marvellous education that we now have, no one will ever have to have one in future.
I agree with the hon. Members who intervened that better education is essential, but we badly need to do something—perhaps through a Department other than the Department of Health—about how sex in general is depicted. It is being trivialised and that damages the health of the nation. The sooner we tackle that problem, the better. Despite that, the Health Committee has, as ever, produced a wonderful and valuable report.