My Constituency has the highest teenage pregnancy rates in western Europe, and we in Nottingham are doing things to address that—for instance, by having created the teenage pregnancy taskforce, which I have the privilege of chairing.

All too often, there is an unspoken assumption that girls alone should take responsibility for avoiding unwanted pregnancy and for caring for the baby if they fail. A recent Bristol university study shows that when both the parents of a new baby are under 17, only 2 per cent. of fathers are still involved with the baby nine months after the birth. Recent research by Dr. Peter Gates suggested that most teenage mothers in Nottingham were raising their child on their own, and that relationships between teenage parents were generally unstable. This is a tragedy.

The evidence suggests that love, nurture and support from an involved young father in the brain-building early years of nought to five gives a baby much better life chances. Yet teenage fathers are themselves children. That is the central dilemma for social policy generally and the benefits system in particular. That dilemma is complicated by the dispersal of responsibilities and powers between Government Departments and agencies, especially the divide between the Department for Work and Pensions, dealing with benefits and enforcement, and the Department for Children, Schools and Families, dealing with wider policy. Perhaps even the Department for Culture, Media and Sport could think through how it could tackle the drip-feed of laddish TV and testosterone-filled films, and help promote a more respectful culture of manhood and fatherhood to give role models for young males in our society.

We need to ensure that the complex system of policy, payments and penalties gives clear encouragement to teen fathers to do the best they can for their children, not only financially but emotionally. The new Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission has the opportunity to make this agenda its own. I have had the good fortune to speak to a number of its senior people, and it is clear that it does not want to be just an enforcement agency focusing on recalcitrant fathers. Those people want to go further; they see a policy role in trying to pre-empt the problems before they begin.

Let me now take a look at the current benefits system—and compliment the Minister on the work she has done in this area during her spell at the DWP. Contrary to the stereotype, many young fathers want to be involved with their children, but some are held back by confusion or anxiety about the benefits system and its financial implications. Does the Minister think that it is true that teen parents can get more benefit separately than together, thus discouraging the creation and continuation of family units? I would like to know whether that popular perception is true. If it is not true, we need to get that message into the areas that I, like a number of colleagues in the Chamber tonight, represent.

Many young fathers also complain that the benefits system is complicated and financially burdensome. The new Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission now encourages parents to agree child maintenance arrangements directly with each other. That sounds good for people of good education—it is a sensible way to proceed, and many middle class people would use it to make good arrangements—but it is not necessarily that easy for poorer and less articulate parents, especially in areas where personal intimidation is often a way of resolving personal issues. I hope that the Minister will tell me, perhaps in writing, about the Government's plans to help that group of people—those on a lower socio-economic scale—to make the maintenance arrangements and to make them stick.

We also need to find a place for young fathers who have no chance of making payments. Our system does not yet provide the social and emotional basis for such fathers to make informed decisions, nor does it give them a set of clear incentives to stay involved with their children, even when they desperately want to. This is not just about the crudities of the benefits system; it is about the subtleties of ensuring that the right perception and opportunity exist for young teenage fathers, who often want to make a go of a relationship and raise a child in the right way.

The Government have made fantastic progress in recent times, and I am particularly delighted that they intend to allow, in the very near future, all young mothers to keep any financial maintenance from their child's father without losing any benefits. That is a long overdue, welcome and important step forward, on which I congratulate the Minister. It will deny absentee fathers the excuse, which many use, to refuse a contribution because, as they put it, "The social will only take it away." Apart from relieving family poverty, the change will also provide an opportunity for fathers to make a real difference if they wish to. Will the Minister let us know, either now or in writing to me, what research is being done by the new CMEC on how best to encourage non-resident parents, who are overwhelmingly fathers, to pay maintenance in those new circumstances? The Government have created an opportunity, and I hope that it will be seized upon.

We also need to keep the benefits system as simple as possible. Young low-income parents have to negotiate a labyrinth of websites and leaflets. Will the Minister examine the possibility of a pilot for a one-stop office for young fathers, which could offer advice and support, as well as a medium through which to make maintenance payments? We could try that in one or two areas. Very often the parents of young mothers and fathers encourage absenteeism by the father. The perception that it is always the girl in the relationship who is the wronged party may not always be true; it may well be that the teenage boy would like to play a more significant part but is driven away by the mother herself, or by relatives and the hostility that the young person encounters. By refusing access and by blatant hostility, threats and infighting, such people can deny young fathers the chance to win the trust and respect not only of the family but of the child itself.