Apricity Fertility Closure

Question

15:25:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the closure of Apricity Fertility on 1 January on the patients who were undertaking treatment with them.

My Lords, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority advised the department about the closure of Apricity in December. Apricity did not fall under the HFEA’s regulatory remit, as it was only a digital service. I urge anyone seeking fertility treatment to check that the clinic they are using is HFEA licensed. I advise affected patients in this case to check their consumer rights and engage with trading standards, if needed. More broadly, the HFEA is helpfully providing advice.

My Lords, Apricity Fertility advertised itself as: “The UK’s Top Virtual IVF Clinic”. As the Minister pointed out, it was not regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which by law can regulate only UK-licensed fertility clinics, which are the premises where treatments take place. Will the Minister commit to a review of the HFEA’s powers to ensure they are appropriate for digital services?

As the noble Baroness will be aware, in November 2023 the HFEA published Modernising Fertility Law, in which it made a number of recommendations for urgent change, including around its regulatory powers. I will meet the HFEA chair and CEO tomorrow, and we will further discuss the regulatory challenges that the HFEA faces. I assure the noble Baroness that the Government are currently considering the HFEA’s priorities, including its role with digital clinics such as the one referred to, should an opportunity for legislative reform arise.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, asks a most important Question, and I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for answering it at least partially. I argue that much more of an answer is needed. Apricity advertised a success rate that was literally impossible; indeed, it was more than double the national success rate. Again and again, patients are being sucked into in vitro fertilisation—which may not always be the best treatment for them, just because they are infertile—because they think they will have a better chance of success than they actually have. It is time to be much more rigorous. As my noble friend the Minister is seeing the HFEA chair tomorrow, will she ask her how well the HFEA feels it is auditing the results it gets from clinics? In my view, many clinics are exaggerating, in all sorts of ways, what the success rate is.

My noble friend raises an extremely important point, which I will of course cover in my meeting tomorrow. It may be of interest to know that the Advertising Standards Authority and the HFEA issued a joint enforcement notice in 2021 to ensure that fertility clinics and others were aware of the advertising rules and were treating consumers fairly. That remains in place. The ASA periodically reviews compliance with its rules. Its recent review in the fertility sector found far fewer absolute claims than it had found previously and that the level of compliance is good. That is not to say that it is good in all cases, and I agree with my noble friend’s point.

My Lords, the law governing human fertilisation and embryology in this country built on the outstanding work of Baroness Warnock. It was carefully crafted so that it rests on principles that endure, but it was designed in such a way that it could be regularly updated to deal with advances in scientific knowledge and changes in society. Does the Minister agree that this is an indication that we have come to a point where that legislation needs to be reviewed? In order to do that, will the Government commit to beginning the process of consultation that must take place before any legislative review comes to this Chamber?

I agree with the noble Baroness’s observations. The legislation goes back to 1990. We are in 2025, and there has been an advent of many new technologies, techniques and business models—for example, the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, referred to Apricity—that were never imagined just a few years ago, let alone in 1990. The majority of clinics are privately owned. Many are part of large groups with external finance. Elements of fertility care and associated treatments are increasingly offered online or outside HFEA regulation. There is a huge challenge here. That is why we are in discussion with the HFEA, and we will be in discussion tomorrow.

My Lords, the Minister will recall that in 2022 the previous Government published the 10-year Women’s Health Strategy for England. During the consultation process, it came out that access to fertility services differs greatly across the country—possibly one of the reasons that many women went to Apricity in the first place. Part of the solution that was proposed to tackle these disparities was a target to establish women’s health hubs. I understand that the current Government have decided not to go ahead with these women’s health hubs. My question is not why, but how the Government envisage tackling these disparities without women’s health hubs. What is the strategy for doing that?

Women’s health hubs—which are a huge success and we continue to support and promote them, without any shadow of a doubt—do not deal with fertility treatment in the way this Question is discussing. I gently point out to the noble Lord that, as he rightly said, commitments were made to improve access to fertility services, which is very variable across the country. They were made under the last Government’s women’s health strategy but, regrettably, were not delivered. It now falls to us to look at how we can improve both availability and quality, and to equalise what is available, which is a huge challenge. This continues to concern me.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of the HFEA. The problem the Minister has referred to is increasing commercialisation. Vulnerable patients are more or less captured by clinics—for example, by being charged ever-increasing amounts for the storage of their embryos. How can the Government get to grips with the market element in an area that is largely private? Can they encourage the NHS? I know the difficulty of taking on more. What legislation can there be to control this commercialisation and the huge amount earned by the private doctors?

The noble Baroness and other noble Lords are quite right in what they are reporting on the change. Fertility treatment is now overwhelmingly obtained through private means. It is in a very different place from the rest of healthcare in our country. On the point the noble Baroness made—I am grateful for her contribution in view of her previous service in this area—there are many claims made, for example, about egg freezing. It is crucial that anyone considering freezing their eggs understands that there is an optimum age for freezing, that it is a serious medical procedure and that the risks should be taken into account. That chimes with the point made by my noble friend Lord Winston. The market has changed—it has very much become a market. The demand is huge and has multiplied many times over the decades. We are not in a situation where we have either the regulation or the NHS provision to deal with that. I assure your Lordships’ House that we are working with NHS England, particularly on the variability up and down the country.

My Lords, the Minister is right that the market has changed, but the legislation has not been kept up to date; nor has it kept up to date with patient expectations, developments and the way those services are being provided for some of these women. Often, some of these women are vulnerable. Can the Minister say exactly what the Government will do to update not only the regulations but the law?

In my discussions, I will consider the publication Modernising Fertility Law, which, as I said, the HFEA put forward in November 2023. In it there are a number of recommendations for urgent change, which I am taking extremely seriously. Most patients are funding their own treatment, which is why we have to make a shift. In 2022, 27% of IVF cycles were funded by the NHS; that figure fell from 40% in 2012. That gives some idea of the scale of the challenge. I consider it unacceptable that access to NHS-funded fertility services is so variable across the country.