Something interesting is happening in Westminster.
For years, fertility inequality has been one of those issues that everyone seems to agree is important, while somehow remaining remarkably difficult to shift up the political agenda. Patients have talked about the postcode lottery. Fertility professionals have talked about variation in NHS provision. Campaigners have pointed to the extraordinary differences in access between neighbouring parts of the country. And yet, for all the conversations, there has been no national strategy for fertility in England.
That may be beginning to change.
Over the past few months, fertility has been gathering political momentum. We worked hard, alongside many other leading campaigners during 2025 to establish the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fertility, chaired by Kate Osborne MP, which has brought parliamentarians together around the wider challenges facing people trying to build their families. There is now a growing focus in Parliament on the stark differences in NHS-funded IVF provision, including proposals to standardise access across Integrated Care Boards.
And this week, another piece of that picture fell into place.
Back in June, Fertility Action CEO Katie Rollings met Jess Brown-Fuller MP to talk about the inequalities that sit at the heart of fertility care in England. The conversation focused on something that can sound deceptively simple until you have experienced it yourself: the fact that the treatment available to you can depend on where you live.
Jess listened, asked questions and made clear that she wanted to support the campaign.
On 1 September, she turned that commitment into parliamentary action by tabling Early Day Motion 705, National strategy for fertility.
The motion calls on the Government to introduce a national fertility strategy for England and, crucially, to end the postcode lottery in access to fertility treatment. It points to the lack of a national strategy, reductions in NHS-funded IVF provision in some areas and the significant impact fertility problems can have on people’s health and wellbeing.
It is difficult to imagine a more timely intervention.
The latest figures from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority show that around 53,000 patients underwent IVF in the UK in 2024, resulting in more than 21,000 births. IVF now accounts for 3.2% of all births in the UK. Yet in England, only 25% of IVF cycles were NHS-funded, with considerable variation between regions.
The numbers are striking, but they don’t quite explain what the variation feels like.
For that, you need to think about the person who has finally reached the point of being offered treatment and discovers that the number of funded cycles depends on their address. Or the couple who have been told they can have one cycle, less or none at all, when people elsewhere may be offered three. Or the patient who has already spent months navigating appointments, tests and referrals and is now being asked to contemplate paying thousands of pounds in private costs if treatment doesn’t work.
This is what the phrase “postcode lottery” is really describing. Not an abstract difference between NHS policies, but a very personal difference in what happens next.
The EDM specifically highlights Sussex ICB, where the number of NHS-funded IVF cycles available to eligible patients has been reduced from three to one. For someone undergoing IVF, the difference between one opportunity and three is not a technical detail. IVF does not come with a guarantee of success, and another cycle can represent another chance after what may already have been an emotionally and financially exhausting experience.
Jess’s motion is therefore asking a much bigger question than whether one particular ICB should fund more treatment.
It asks whether England should have a national approach to fertility at all.
That question matters because fertility treatment is no longer some peripheral corner of medicine.
One in six couples experience difficulty conceiving, and infertility is recognised as a medical condition with potentially profound effects on mental health and wellbeing. The HFEA’s figures show just how many people are now relying on fertility treatment to build their families.
Yet the way we organise that care remains fragmented.
That is why the political activity we are seeing now is encouraging. There is more than one route through Parliament, and there does not need to be only one. An Early Day Motion can demonstrate parliamentary support for a national strategy. An amendment to legislation can seek to address specific inequalities in NHS-funded IVF provision. A cross-party APPG can bring parliamentarians and experts together to examine the wider fertility landscape.
These are different mechanisms, but they are all pointing in the same direction.
For Fertility Action, that direction is clear: England needs a National Fertility Strategy that tackles inequality, provides national leadership and puts patients at the centre of decisions about fertility care.
Jess Brown-Fuller’s EDM is an important part of that conversation because it gives MPs a straightforward opportunity to put their names behind the principle that access to fertility treatment should not be determined by postcode.
The next step is theirs.
MPs can sign EDM 705. They can engage with the wider parliamentary work on fertility. They can listen to patients in their constituencies and ask difficult questions about why NHS provision varies so dramatically from one area to another.
And the public can help make sure they do.
If you have experienced fertility treatment, ask your MP to support the EDM. Tell them what inconsistent access looks like in real life. If you have never needed fertility treatment yourself, you can still ask a perfectly reasonable question of your elected representative: do you believe where someone lives should determine the fertility treatment they can access through the NHS?
It feels as though the conversation is changing.
For a long time, we’ve known fertility inequality was a problem – the evidence has made that increasingly difficult to dispute.
The more interesting question now is what Parliament is going to do about it.
Jess Brown-Fuller MP has made her position clear. Other parliamentarians are putting forward their own proposals. The APPG is bringing people together.
The opportunity now is to turn that growing political interest into something that patients can actually feel: a fertility system in England that is less fragmented, more consistent and – wherever you live – much fairer.
