A YEAR on from being told to stay at home to protect the NHS and save lives, it looks like fewer new lives have been created in Scotland. The number of births reported in January and February 2021 has dropped compared to previous years. Figures from the National Records of Scotland show that just under 1000 fewer babies were reported as born here compared to the same months in the year before.
Declining birth rates are part of a longer term trend, but studies from the US and Europe suggest that the coronavirus crisis may be making this worse. Births in Italy reduced by 22% at the start of this year and in Spain by 20%. The NRS figures are the first sign that this is happening here. Speculation that lockdown might leave couples with little to do than spend time in the bedroom now seems a bit far fetched.
Has the pandemic affected fertility rates, and will this drop continue?
To understand this better, I spoke to Professor Michael Anderson who for the past 40 years has studied the population history of Scotland. I asked him about this reduction and where it fits in with what we know about the factors that influence population projections.
READ MORE LINDA BAULD: How likely are we to catch coronavirus outdoors?
Professor Anderson, working with Dr Esther Roughsedge from National Records Scotland, recently reviewed some of the data. Looking at trends back to 1855, their analysis shows that there were significant reductions in births during both world wars followed by baby booms.
Since the start of the 20th century there has been a general downward trend with some fluctuations, including a surge in births during the 1960s economic boom. The recession that began after the 2007/8 global credit crunch also affected birth rates. Separate analysis of that period across Europe found that poor economic conditions were associated with fertility declines, particularly in countries that experienced higher levels of unemployment.
It is plausible that the drop in births in Scotland over the last few months was caused by the consequences of lockdowns. Despite furlough and other efforts by governments to support families, there has been a rise in unemployment, particularly among the young. Surveys show that levels of depression and anxiety have risen, and couples considering starting a family will have felt a lot of uncertainty. For those living together, being at home with their partner on a daily basis might have been an appealing prospect at first, but less so as the weeks and months of restrictions continued.
Other factors might have contributed. Ante-and post-natal care has continued throughout the pandemic, but women may have been concerned about accessing health services. Some may have decided to delay a pregnancy on that basis. Access to fertility clinics and IVF reduced in the early months of the pandemic. Dating and forming new relationships was much more challenging. Maintaining intimacy between couples who live apart has been badly affected because we weren’t able to visit other people’s households during lockdown restrictions.
The economic, emotional and social upheaval that the coronavirus crisis have caused all suggest that the recent further decline in births may be the start of a real trend.
But Professor Anderson urges caution. One assumption – that women may have delayed a pregnancy to avoid needing to access maternal health services – isn’t reflected in recent figures. He and Dr Roughsedge obtained data from Public Health Scotland for the number of women booking for antenatal care up to November 2020. There was a small decline of between 5-10% since May that year but nothing significant.
Migration may also play a role. Over the last year, the number of non UK-born workers resident here has fallen by more than 500K based on the Labour Force Survey. Migrants particularly from Europe are often employed in the sectors that have been badly affected during the pandemic. For many, especially those who have arrived recently, the choice would have been to stay here, with no job, less or no money, and pay for relatively expensive rented accommodation or return home to family. This may have affected birth rates.
The number of births fluctuates between months and years and it would take a large and sustained drop to have a big impact on Scotland’s long term population projections. But there are things governments can do to support people in Scotland to have children. One of the main reasons why the last recession had a less damaging impact on birth rates in the UK compared to elsewhere in Europe is because the UK government slashed interest rates in the winter of 2008-2009.
They fell from 5% in the summer of 2008 to 0.5% by March 2009. This reduced mortgage payments and gave couples more confidence that they had enough funds to start a family.
READ MORE LINDA BAULD: Vaccines are giving us hope – and a cautious route out of this pandemic
A study by economists at the Bank of England found that each percentage point drop in UK interest rates increased births by 2%, resulting in an overall increase of 7.5% in the UK over the next three years. In Scotland births still declined – but to a lesser extent than the longer term trend, suggesting that these measures might have made a difference here also.
As we emerge from the pandemic we need to consider the best policies to support parents, families and children. We should protect sexual, fertility and maternal health services, and take a long term view on wider policies that will decide what happens to birth rates in Scotland. Babies born now or in the next few months won’t know about the pandemic until they are older. But they will play their part in our recovery.
Linda Bauld is Chair of Public Health at the University of Edinburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here