Hansard

I welcome the speeches that have been made, with the exception of one or two. David Davidson is no longer in the chamber, but I will come back to him later.

I, too, broadly welcome the principles behind the strategy and the general approach that has been taken, although there are gaps, as will become evident at the conclusion of the consultation process. For me, the crucial aim, which other members have referred to, is to turn the aspirations in the strategy into reality. That requires everyone—no matter their gender or whether they are transgender and no matter their sexual orientation, and including young people and all school children—having the right to non-judgmental, confidential and comprehensive sex and relationships education and to linked and co-ordinated health services. Most important, it requires a commitment to core funding, with minimum and consistent standards of provision across the country.

The Executive must find the resources that are needed to make the strategy a reality. I do not understand why there should be any doubt that the policies proposed in the strategy would be cost-effective. Mary Scanlon referred to infertility. One case of untreated chlamydia could lead to a requirement of infertility treatment later at a cost of £20,000. That is just one example of the cost-effectiveness of backing up the strategy with the resources that are needed to implement it.

I welcome the strategy's acknowledgement of the negative impact of economic poverty on sexual health, which leads to the poverty of expectation that is demonstrated in the statistic—there are many statistics, but I do not have time to cite them all—that deprived young women are 10 times more likely to become teenage mothers than are young women who are not from deprived backgrounds. We should not blame such young women individually and tar them as irresponsible, as a minority of people do. I have looked after lots of those young women in my career as a midwife; they have impressed me enormously with their stoicism, maturity and commitment to their responsibility. I therefore take issue with the tone of some of the comments that Christine Grahame made. Lots of those young women show wonderful commitment in dealing with the situation in which they find themselves. Instead of blaming them and seeing them as irresponsible, we should blame the sort of society that leads a significant number of women in their teenage years to conclude that the only way for them to feel valued or important is to become a mother.

In supporting the strategy's aims, we must also understand that, without the eradication of poverty and gender inequality, our achievements will be limited. They will also be limited if we do not tackle the double standards in our society whereby sex is regarded as a matter of titillation to be sniggered at. At worst, sex can be used by men to abuse and have power over women. As members have said, every tabloid competes to have the most provocative front page, on which women are reduced to body parts, with their faces often not shown. The general portrayal of sex is that it is something that is done to women—and the younger, the better—by men. There is also the problem of the general increase in pornography.

Such attitudes to sex are a monumental problem for society. They place huge pressure on everybody, particularly the most vulnerable; they distort relationships and contribute to young people's negative experiences, to which the strategy document refers. The strategy must be based in reality. A just-say-no attitude and a religious or so-called moral perspective—which David Davidson encouraged—mean only that heads are buried in the sand. That is just not on.

I am concerned that the local consultations to which the strategy refers might lead to unequal access and provision. That must be tackled head on. Every child and person in the country, no matter what school they go to or what community they live in, should have equal access to advice and provision. Sex should be a consensual and mutually positive experience. Everyone should be respected and no one should be abused.

As I said, I believe that the Executive must commit to providing core funding, but I will refer quickly to some other specific areas of concern. The strategy refers to seamless services and how agencies can join up. We must take account of the joint future experience, both positive and negative, in planning how to achieve that. On terminations, we must eradicate the ability of individual consultants to frustrate access on the basis of their own value judgments. We must meet the target for every woman to have access to a termination within one week and we must ensure that women and staff are free from harassment. We must put terms such as "social gyn" into the dustbin where they belong. In the context of terminations, we must cater particularly for the specific needs of women who suffer domestic violence.

We must ensure access to emergency contraception. The phrase "morning-after pill" is unhelpful. I am worried about the centralisation of gynaecological services and fear that access to emergency contraception will be reduced. Such contraception must be free and we must increase its availability. I am worried about the primary medical services contract and who will fund the additional and enhanced services. Will access be increased?

We must move away from the unequal portrayal of sexual activity and relationships and recognise the rights of all to sexual well-being. We must enshrine the rights of all to comprehensive sex and sexual relationships education throughout their lives. We must deliver enough resources through core funding to deliver the strategy's objectives. Isolated, shining examples are not enough.

There are many other issues, which I do have time to cover. To turn the strategy's words into reality and to realise its objectives, we must ensure that there is adequate funding and that facilities and staff with appropriate training and skills are in place.