Jayne Dowle:Teenage mothers are turning the clock back

This Government study concludes that about half of these teenage mothers have chosen to keep their babies. So why are so many girls having babies so young? My conclusion is simple. Having babies is what women always did, before feminism got in the way.

Some people blame the rise in teenage pregnancies – and Britain's is the highest rate in Western Europe – on increasingly liberal sex education in schools.

They argue that telling teenagers too much about contraception makes them want to have sex. But surely knowing about contraception would mean you were less likely to get pregnant, unless you actually wanted to.

There has never been as much support on preventing pregnancy, from the over-the-counter morning-after pill to confidential advice. So why do so many appear to ignore it?

Other experts point to early sexualisation – pop stars, actresses, reality TV stars – who dress and act provocatively and inspire the littlest of girls to follow their lead.

Look closer though, and you will see that although many of these icons, such as the pop star Lady Gaga, prance around in their underwear, they preach independence.

Young girls admire them for that. And to be honest, they might crack whips, but you rarely hear them bragging publicly about their sexual exploits.

And then of course, there are the boys. One family values campaigner argues that because contraceptive advice is so easily available, it makes it harder for girls to "resist the advances of their boyfriends".

Sounds rather quaint, doesn't it? But beneath this apparently archaic comment lies a web of complex contemporary values; having a baby can be a way of gaining respect among your peers, of proving that you are an adult.

Teenagers who live with one parent, who have been eligible for free school meals and have GCSEs at D to G grades are more likely to get pregnant than others. It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you feel you haven't much else going for you, having a baby gives meaning to your life. The problem, of course, is that if you are in this situation, you are far less likely to be emotionally and practically ready to become a responsible parent. And to be honest, it is fair to argue that today's 18-year-olds, for all their sophistications, are not likely to be as mature and resourceful as those of several generations ago, who had most likely left school at 15 and were used to standing on their own two feet.

My own generation, born in the 1960s, learned at our mother's knee that having a baby before you sorted out your life was a bad move. The mantra was get an education, get a career, and the babies can wait. That's why so many women started to put off pregnancy until their 30s and even 40s. I was 34 when I had my son, and almost 38 when I had my daughter. A "geriatric mother" it said on my notes. And when you think about the potentially costly health problems I could have had – on the NHS – would it have been morally right for me to criticise a fit and healthy young woman half my age for getting pregnant before me?

And when you think of all the hand-wringing and the guilt and the arguments over working vs staying at home which plague us lot, is it any surprise that young women say, "no thanks, I'd rather get on with it now"? And of course, when they see just how difficult it appears to be, they see a choice. And the choice is to do what their grandmothers and great-grandmothers did; have a baby and just be a mother.

You can blame easy access to contraception, live sex on reality TV and bras for seven-year-olds. But in my view, the rise in teenage pregnancy is less to do with the temptations of the modern world, and more to do with turning the clock back on a massive scale. But there is one major difference, a difference which costs us millions of pounds in benefits every year and raises questions over all kinds of social issues. In the past, young women who wanted to raise a family found a husband first. Then they stayed at home with the children, and he provided for them. You don't need me to tell you how much this doesn't happen any more. Or how much single mothers are blamed for all the ills of society.

So what we have is a situation, Mr Cameron. What we have are legions of young women doing exactly what your party's traditionalists would want; following family values, staying at home, and bringing up babies. Except for a but. And it is a very big but – the family isn't there. Now whose responsibility is it to sort that out – theirs, or the State's? You're the daddy. Is there anything you can do about it?