Two Vasectomy Pathways FOIs Later: Will NHS Thames Valley ICB Finally Show the Evidence?

Why am I asking about NHS-funded vasectomy again?

This follows directly from my previous investigation into the difference between access to male and female permanent contraception.

I discovered that NHS-funded vasectomy services can be delivered through private or independent providers and that direct-access or self-referral arrangements have existed or been developed for men.

At the same time, women seeking permanent contraception have faced a very different history of restrictions, approval requirements and contraceptive gatekeeping.

I wanted to know how that difference had been commissioned, governed and equality-assessed.

You can read the full background here:

What happened to the first vasectomy FOI?

My first request, TV-2607-192, was deliberately broad because I wanted to understand the commissioning history, providers, referral pathways, safeguards and equality assessment surrounding NHS-funded vasectomy.

NHS Thames Valley ICB refused it under Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act, saying the work required would exceed the statutory cost limit.

I then asked the ICB to fulfil its duty under Section 16 and help me formulate a narrower request that it could answer.

I dramatically reduced what I was asking for.

The ICB nevertheless said it could identify no meaningful refinement.

So I did the refining myself.

How narrow is the second FOI?

On 3 September 2026, I submitted a completely new Freedom of Information request.

I expressly removed:

• historic and expired vasectomy arrangements;
• previous providers;
• historical pathway versions;
• procurement history;
• historic correspondence;
• the original search back to 2017;
• and any request for the ICB to create a new analysis.

I am now asking for only two categories of existing records.

First: the current documents showing how patients presently access NHS-funded vasectomy under relevant former BOB ICB arrangements that remain operative, and any genuinely new Thames Valley-wide arrangements.

Second: the current or most recent recorded evidence showing how equality duties were considered when those arrangements were commissioned, continued or adopted.

That includes NHS-funded services delivered through private or independent providers.

If no equality evidence exists, I have simply asked the ICB to say so.

Why does the equality evidence matter?

Because this is not just a question about where men book a vasectomy.

The underlying question is whether NHS Thames Valley ICB has properly considered the difference between how men and women access permanent contraception.

If men can receive NHS-funded permanent contraception through comparatively straightforward private-provider pathways while women have historically been subjected to substantially more gatekeeping, then I want to see the evidence showing how that difference was assessed.

Not another reassurance.

The records.

Even the acknowledgement had to be chased

The new request was submitted on 3 September 2026.

Seven days later, on 10 September 2026, I still had no acknowledgement and no reference number.

So I chased it.

On 12 September 2026, NHS Thames Valley ICB finally confirmed that the request had been logged and gave it the reference:

The late acknowledgement does not restart the statutory clock.

The request was submitted on 3 September.

When does NHS Thames Valley ICB have to respond?

Under the Freedom of Information Act, public authorities ordinarily have to respond promptly and no later than the twentieth working day following receipt of a valid request.

For this request, that gives NHS Thames Valley ICB a statutory deadline of:

So what am I waiting to see?

At this point, the test is very simple.

I want to see whether NHS Thames Valley ICB will:

1. meet the statutory deadline;
2. provide the current vasectomy pathway documents;
3. provide the equality evidence it holds;
4. clearly confirm if particular records do not exist;
5. and provide a substantive response rather than creating another transparency battle.

The original request was broad.

This one is not.

I have reduced it to the records that should be closest to hand if NHS Thames Valley ICB is currently commissioning, funding or administering these services.

So this time, I am leaving the question here publicly before the deadline passes.

What happens next?

I am not going to keep expanding this post every time another email arrives.

This is simply a marker of where the investigation stands now.

When NHS Thames Valley ICB responds — or if the statutory deadline passes without a lawful response — I will publish the next part separately.

That way, there is a clear public record of what I asked, when I asked it and what the ICB was required to do next.

You can follow the wider chronology on The Timeline, and the underlying correspondence is available through my Evidence Folder.