Kent IVF Cuts: “Class Warfare” Row After Reform Councillor Says Poor People Shouldn’t Have Babies
shepwayvox
NHS Kent and Medway cut funded IVF as births fall and Kent ages. Then a Reform UK councillor said people on low incomes shouldn’t have babies and called IVF a “lifestyle choice” — exposing a deeper row over class, fertility and who can still afford the chance to become a parent.
Kent is not having too many babies. It’s having fewer of them. Across Kent and Medway, live births fell from 21,031 in 2016 to 18,708 in 2025 — 2,323 fewer births, down about 11%. So when NHS Kent and Medway cuts funded fertility treatment, this isn’t happening in a county overflowing with prams. It’s happening in a county whose next generation is already shrinking.
That should frame the whole row. This isn’t about turning children into economic units. A baby isn’t a future spreadsheet with a rattle. But an ageing Kent will need workers, carers, nurses, teachers, taxpayers and neighbours. If the county is having fewer babies, every child matters — and making it harder for people with fertility problems to have them looks less like prudence and more like a public-policy own goal.
For some families, that won’t be a policy change. It’ll be a missing child. At Kent County Council’s Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Cllr Alex Ricketts said his daughter had woken him at 3am and “wouldn’t have been able to do that” under the new rules, because she was born after “a successful second embryo transfer to a woman over 38 years of age”. There, in one sentence, was the whole story.
NHS Kent and Medway’s Deputy Chief Commissioning Officer, Dominic Cox, told councillors the decision was based on clinical evidence around “age of patients, number of cycles, and number of embryo transfers”. Then he apologised. Communication with HOSC before the decision “was planned” but “didn’t happen”, he said. It “should have happened, was planned to happen, and didn’t happen”. In plain English, Kent’s NHS changed the rules first and brought scrutiny in afterwards.
Becky Fox, speaking for the NHS, made the key clinical point. “This change takes us away from NICE guidance,” she said, before explaining that IVF success declines with age, that average use of the second funded cycle had been 1.3, and that embryo-transfer success had improved because of better embryo selection and freezing. That is the ICB’s case: age matters, technology has improved, resources are finite, and commissioners must focus money where they think outcomes are strongest.
Nobody serious says age is irrelevant to IVF. But a lower chance is not no chance. When the committee heard that success at 40 was around 20%, one councillor put the human point better than any policy paper: if a woman wants a child and is offered a 20% chance, “she’s going to bite your hand off”. What may look marginal in a spreadsheet can look enormous to someone without a private-treatment cheque book in the drawer.
Then came the question the NHS should have expected: how much money does the cut save? The answer was not available in the room. Cllr Antony Hook later put it bluntly: if the justification is saving money, it was shocking that NHS representatives didn’t know how much would be saved. If a public body cuts chances to have children and calls it “value for money”, the public is entitled to know the value, the money and the trade-off.
Ricketts also challenged the thinness of the scrutiny paper, calling “a three page report, eight days after a decision is implemented” not good enough. He questioned the claimed cliff-edge at 37, saying the ICB had shown 40% success at 35 and 20% at 40, but had not demonstrated a sharp drop at 37. Without the underlying data in the paper, councillors could not properly test the line being drawn.
Cllr Shane Mochrie-Cox cut to the same problem from another direction. If age was the core clinical issue, why cut cycles and transfers as well? That remains the killer question. If the evidence says IVF becomes less effective with age, explain the age rule. But if the same policy also strips out second cycles and reduces embryo-transfer chances for people still inside the new age limit, it starts to look less like a clinical boundary and more like a savings measure in a white coat.
Then the meeting blew past NHS-speak and into raw politics. Cllr Bridget Porter, Reform UK councillor for Dover North, said one cycle of IVF and two embryo transfers were adequate for taxpayers to fund. Then she said: “If people are on a low income they should not be bringing babies into the world if they can’t afford them.” She also described IVF as “not health necessities” and “lifestyle choices”, and later compared it with cosmetic procedures including “butt lifts” and breast enhancement or reduction.
That was not a sideshow. It was the class argument walking into the room without a disguise. If the NHS funds fewer attempts, wealthier couples can buy another chance. Poorer couples cannot. The private clinic door does not close when the NHS door narrows; it simply waits outside with an invoice.
Cllr Stuart Jeffery said he was appalled by “the idea that poor people should not be able to have children” and called the remarks “revolting”. Hook said he was shocked and called on KCC leader Linden Kemkaran and Reform UK to denounce them. Cllr Rob Yates, representing Cliftonville in Thanet, said the ICB was telling residents “their future children are not value for money”, calling the cuts cruel “given falling birth rates” and “class warfare”.
Healthwatch asked whether NHS Kent and Medway had carried out formal consultation or engagement. The answer was clear: it was engagement, “not a formal consultation”. Public engagement is not a referendum. But if feedback supported keeping provision, scrutiny was told late, and the saving could not be stated in the room, residents are entitled to ask what kind of listening exercise this was. A stethoscope held to the public, perhaps, but with the earpieces removed.
By the end, HOSC refused to act as the NHS’s after-sales complaints desk. The committee voted 12 to three to ask the Secretary of State to call in the decision. That does not restore the old IVF offer, give back the second funded cycle, or stop a woman approaching 38 from watching the deadline run towards her like a train timetable written by Kafka. But it does say the decision now deserves proper scrutiny.
NHS Kent and Medway should publish the missing arithmetic. How much does the decision save? How many people are hit by the age cut, the cycle cut and the embryo-transfer cut? How many babies born under the old rules would probably not be born under the new ones? And what did the equality and health-inequalities analysis say about deprived communities, same-sex couples and those unable to pay privately?
Kent’s falling births won’t be solved by IVF alone. Nobody sensible is claiming that. But an ageing county with fewer babies should not be making it harder for people with fertility problems to have children without showing the evidence, the saving and the human cost.
The ICB says the policy is based on evidence and sustainability. Fine. Show us the evidence. Show us the saving. Show us who loses. Show us why scrutiny came too late. Then explain, in plain English, why Kent and Medway has moved further away from national fertility guidance at the very moment Kent needs its next generation more than ever.
Seen something the public should know about? Send tips, documents or concerns to TheShepwayVoxTeam(at)proton(dot)me. You can contact us in confidence, speak off the record in the first instance, and help us follow the evidence where it leads.
