Teenage parents to be put in 'supervised homes'

By Joe Churcher, Press Association

Tuesday, 29 September 2009

Share
Close
- Digg
- del.icio.us
- Facebook
- Reddit
- Google
- Stumble Upon
- Fark
- Newsvine
Print
Email

Teenage parents on benefits will be forced to live in "supervised homes" instead of being given council houses, Gordon Brown declared today in a bid to cut the number of pregnancies.

The Prime Minister said it was not right that a 16-year-old girl could "get pregnant, be given the keys to a council flat and be left on her own".

Instead, he told the Labour Party's annual conference in Brighton, groups of young mothers and fathers would be taught responsibility and how to raise their children "properly".

"It's time to address a problem that for too long has gone unspoken: the number of children having children," he declared.

"For it cannot be right for a girl of 16 to get pregnant, be given the keys to a council flat and be left on her own.

"From now on all 16- and 17-year-old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes.

"These shared homes will offer not just a roof over their heads, but a new start in life where they learn responsibility and how to raise their children properly.

"That's better for them, better for their babies and better for us all in the long run."

He told delegates: "We won't ever shy away from taking difficult decisions on tough social questions."

Comments

( Leave a comment )

Housing

barncactus wrote:

Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 02:49 pm (UTC)

Bit short of council houses, are we?

Link | Reply | Thread

Supervised Homes

rendevou5 wrote:

Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 02:49 pm (UTC)

It's a pity they weren't in supervised homes to begin with: if they had been, they might not have become teenage parents!

Link | Reply | Thread

dogsolitude_v2 wrote:

Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 03:09 pm (UTC)

So, rather than rearrange the benefits system so it doesn't reward teenage pregnancies any more, their answer is more surveillance and control.

Everybody happy with this?

I'm not.

Link | Reply | Thread

Whoaaa

uytruytr wrote:

Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 03:13 pm (UTC)

I just can't take this man seriously.

Link | Reply | Thread

ANOTHER FINE MESS - GORDO

caurnie1 wrote:

Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 03:42 pm (UTC)

The Labour party cheered when the PM announced that teenage mothers would be put in homes. What about teenage mothers human rights? Pregnancies take two people, what are you going to do with teenage fathers? I'm afraid this is another example of Glorious Gordo's big ideas that will never happen. He denied that the UK had a broken society when Cameron said it, so whats different now? What are the Labour parties plans to try and prevent teenage pregnancies? This is another example of shutting the stable door after the horse has gone. Will the Government now admit that their programmes to prevent teenage pregnancies haav failed?

Link | Reply | Thread

mumbogumbo wrote:

Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 04:46 pm (UTC)

Empty rhetoric, like so much that drips from this fool's mouth. Leave aside the moral arguments for a moment, where are these 'supervised homes'coming from? Have they instigated a secret building programme or will it be another five years before they are ready at the cost of billions to the taxpayer. When you consider the practicalities you begin to see how pointless and facile this man's words frequently are - nothing more than spin and hype to win back disillusioned voters.

I've got news for you Brown - your government is rotten to the core and your policies are the wishful, pie in the sky drivelings of pinko liberal nanny-stater elitists with an agenda of intrusion and control, not just of teen mothers, but of the general population. New Laba sold it's soul along time ago to the bankers and corporatists in return for status and personal gain. (Tony Blair anyone?)

Don't try and fool us now with hollow promises and don't think we're too stupid to see through you. The great tragedy for Britain is that we have no viable alternative. Your centrist opponents will prove to be just as bad when they're elected next June.

Link | Reply | Thread

A Bit of Respect....

kittyb1979 wrote:

Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 05:36 pm (UTC)

I think the wording used here is horrible. Having been a young mum at 17 and managed perfectly fine to continue at college and then uni, and look after my child 'properly', despite living in a council house for the first year, i think GB has totally misunderstood the issues here. If the aim was to provide optional support for those who are struggling then fair enough but to assume all young parents are irresponsible, cant look after their children and shouldn't be trusted on their own is a pretty ignorant viewpoint so any policy based on this is flawed in my opinion.....

Link | Reply | Thread

silly

1maia wrote:

Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 06:04 pm (UTC)

1. It's sexist and classist because only girls get pregnant and better off people will not be affected. It will also target teenagers in care who don't have families they can live with. 2. While i appreciate they don't want to be suckers for people who get pregnant in order to get money/council housing, this is a. more expensive than giving them a council housing (round the clock staffing is incredibly expensive, i used to work in care, the vast majority of costs is staffing), and b. most teenage parents i've spoken too desperately wanted a family/a child to love. You aren't going to persuade them out of it that easily therefore. In the case of people who are replacing the family they never had/not a good one with their own family, they are doing the logical thing in sorting out their emotional state first; they will not be able to focus on learning etc. until that is done. With lifelong learning and plenty of energy later, they will be able to work their way up the career ladder if they want - it's just a different order of doing it. So, they're not middle class and facing IVF at 40 - good for them. 3. Most importantly, abuse in families such as Baby P's and that girl whose mother pretended she'd gone missing and other cases usually seems to occur in families which have more children to get more money, who only see their kids that way. By definition, most teenagers are on their first child/twins; there is an equal chance of their being neglected with any other family (better off/older). Maybe the government should focus on 'problem' families, large and full of neglected children? I'm not saying they should, just that that seems more immediately reasonable.

Link | Reply | Thread

Re: silly

dudek4 wrote:

Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 09:08 pm (UTC)

The problem is that the welfare system is rewarding girls who get pregnant and you are quite right in saying that the above proposals will not change much.

The state CANNOT reward such behaviour. We are already seeing 3rd/4th generation families, passing onto their offspring the knowledge that education isnt important as the state will provide if played correctly.

My solution? Break the cycle. A council flat should not be given to anyone who presents themselves as pregnant while the parents pretend to have kicked her out. State benefit should be paid to those who have two children meaning if you are irresponsible enough to have 5/6/7 kids you wont get money for them. Harsh but with 2 years advance warning of such a policy change there are no excuses.

Simialrly those receiving JSA should commit 16 hours a week to community work with benefits cut if they fail to show. This would help to foster working ethic, pride in work and knowledge that you cannot just sit on your arse and get given ad infinitum.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

Re: silly

had_it wrote:

Wednesday, 30 September 2009 at 12:50 pm (UTC)

Classicist? Well, yes. I do not have to pay to house the better off. For the class I do pay to house, I want a return for my money.

Sexist? Are you suggesting that males should be given the same access to public housing as females with kids? PS: Society should also get some return for the money spent on housing men.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

Teenage parents to be put in supervised homes

deena_bennett wrote:

Wednesday, 30 September 2009 at 01:41 am (UTC)

It has come to this. The State must now subsidize these young families, following the logic that it is cheaper to prevent anti-social behaviour emanating from dysfunctional families, than it is to police and penalise the resulting dysfunctional youths and culprits.Now, more than ever before, society is being held hostage by irresponsiblity and complete lack of shame, (so very old fashioned, but there it is).
It is a wonder to behold where the last 30 years of "progressive" social development has taken us. What was that about "the road to perdition"? Seems as if we are well on the way!

Link | Reply | Thread

How odd from labour

had_it wrote:

Wednesday, 30 September 2009 at 12:28 pm (UTC)

A very sensible idea. If the tax payer must provide housing, let us provide it in a way that might help some of these kids. It is not a panacea, but it may get us more bang for our tax bucks than we get from just throwing them into a council house and saying: sink or swim kiddo.

Perhaps they could be required to go to college - as Kittyb1979 (see above) did on her own bat - or at least get some job training along with some parenting skills.

Link | Reply | Thread