Brighton and Hove’s fertility rate has dropped below 1 for the first time, leaving it with the third lowest fertility rate in England and Wales.
Newly published figures show the total fertility rate in the city last year was just 0.98 – with only the City of London (0.55) and Cambridge (0.91).
This is a calculation of the average number of live children that a group of women would bear, based on age-specific fertility rates.
However, although the number has fallen, Brighton’s rate compared to other places has remained much the same over the last 20 years, rarely falling out of the top ten – and having fallen from second lowest last year.
Meanwhile, the falling number of children in the city is seriously affecting school finances, with primary schools being forced to slash intakes and secondaries warned they will also need to follow suit in the coming years.
The total fertility rate across England and Wales dropped to a new record low last year, while the number of live births fell to the lowest in nearly five decades.
While fertility rates across the two nations have been in overall decline since 2010, the rate in 2023 fell to 1.44 children per woman, which the Office for National Statistics said is the lowest value since records began in 1938.
The rate was down from an average of 1.49 children per woman over their lifetime in 2022, and has decreased most among women aged 20 to 24 – down 79% from 181.6 live births per 1,000 women of this age group in 1964 to 38.6 in 2023.
The average age of mothers remained stable at 30.9, while fathers’ average age increased slightly from 33.7 in 2022 to 33.8 last year.
In 2023, the number of live births (591,072) in England and Wales fell to the lowest since 1977 when there were 569,259.
Greg Ceely, head of population health monitoring at the ONS, said: “The annual number of births in England and Wales continues its recent decline, with 2023 recording the lowest number of live births seen since 1977.
“Total fertility rates declined in 2023, a trend we have seen since 2010. Looking in more detail at fertility rates among women of different ages, the decline in fertility rates has been the most dramatic in the 20-24 and 25-29 age groups.”
Who cares. Humans are like a plaque on the earth.
Whoah, don’t bite down too hard on that idea! Sure, humans can sometimes be a bit of a pain in the gums of the Earth, but with the right floss-ophy, we can keep things clean and healthy.
Who can afford to have kids?
People in benefits.
It’s a bit of a misconception to think that people on benefits are in a financially easier position to have children. While benefits systems are designed to provide essential support, the amount people receive typically covers only basic living costs. Research shows that raising a child is a significant financial undertaking, often stretching even middle-income families. Families on benefits face real financial challenges, especially in areas with high living costs, limited access to affordable childcare, and essential expenses like housing and utilities.
Or the wealthy. People in the middle, proper “working people” can’t as squeezed in all directions.
Well this is interesting, but is it based on the ability of women to have children, or is it based on decisions made by them and their partners?
Has the need for IVF treatment risen?
Or are single women and couples choosing to have less children, or deciding to wait longer before they start a family?
Obviously, while we are in the middle of a recession – the one nobody is talking about – then spiralling housing costs and other inflationary living costs mean that having children is an even more expensive prospect, particularly in our area. It also feels like we are living in unpredictable times, and that affects how comfortable and stable we feel in our own homes.
It would be interesting to hear if there’s a study linking fertility rates to disposable income.
There have been quite a few studies on this topic, actually, and the link is often clear – generally, as disposable income increases, fertility rates tend to drop. Higher disposable income tends to correlate with better education, career opportunities, and access to family planning—all factors that lead people to delay having children or choose to have fewer.
In lower-income contexts, by contrast, children are often seen as essential for family support, especially in places without strong social safety nets. But it’s not a straightforward relationship everywhere, government policies, cultural expectations, and economic stability also play big roles.
Unfortunately young families are telling us that they are moving out of Brighton, due to the high cost of housing & a lack of houses (particularly in the city centre), with certain councillors just nodding through blocks of flats to be built. Whilst families can of course live in flats – the choice of a small flat in Brighton & Hove or a starter home elsewhere in Sussex – it’s generally a no brainer!
I agree with you Councillor. Specifically, there’s a real shortage of three-bedroom townhouses. You often hear Brighton described as London prices without the wage uplift.
The lack of regulation around Airbnb and holiday lets density is a notable pressure on supply, the right-to-buy scheme having no quantity limitation is another, and a general lack of building affordable housing is a third. These are all elements I hope will be focused on over the next couple of years.
Brighton also has a reputation for begging, drug use and crime, more reasons to not raise families here. We are losing our diversity in some respects.
https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2024/01/20/number-of-student-homes-reaches-new-high-in-brighton-and-hove/
The new accommodation on Lewes road or near Colddean (?) might help. But it’s excessive. I know students (as we did) enjoy the house experience, but this has a negative knock on effect.
We need less student houses. In Roundhill we have three students houses – quite noisy – on our street. But this could be three families living here. Same elsewhere in the City. That’s one of your problems.
Not sure of the figures, but the universities have been building accommodation. However I am not sure if that has been offset by increases in student numbers.
From what I’ve been reading, the universities have generally needed more student accommodation to reduce the amount of spill over into the private sector.
Its not ‘Fertility Rate’ it ‘Birth Rate’ …
The first is the ability to have children the latter is the instance of having children.
Good point Rostrum. The difference is quite relevant in this discussion.
The fertility rate is defined as the average number of live children a group of women would have if they experienced the age-specific fertility rates throughout their childbearing life, and it’s the correct term to use in this context, which does not look at actual number of births.
The joys of semantics, right?