Fertility inequality: How single women are facing IVF discrimination and financial strain

Published

1 year ago

October 30, 2023

admin

Nicole Collarbone never thought she would be a single mother, but as she neared her 40th birthday, she knew she no longer wanted to wait to meet a partner to have a baby.

She decided to have IVF with a sperm donor, but with the steep price of fertility treatment, and no one to share the costs with, Nicole hoped she could get at least part of it on the NHS.

But she was told that because she was single, she didn’t qualify for any fertility treatment on the health service.

“I was gutted,” she said. “It was just such a definitive no. And I had expected maybe something, you know, that we’d explore it a little bit more. There’d be more explanation around the funding, but it was just a no.”

Nicole borrowed money from her family and is now pregnant with her first child.

“I was so dependent on them being able to contribute that if they couldn’t, then I wouldn’t have been able to go down this route.”

She is among a rising number of single women choosing solo motherhood, with a 44% increase in women with no partner doing IVF between 2019 and 2021 according to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

But those who cannot afford private treatment have to tackle barriers in the health service which, according to one legal expert, discriminate against them.

Over half of NHS England integrated care boards, which decide on who can get fertility treatment locally, don’t include single women in IVF policies at all.

The rest require them to spend thousands of pounds to prove infertility, by paying privately for between three and 12 cycles of artificial insemination.

It is a less invasive fertility treatment that is about a third as effective as IVF, where a cycle costs between £700 and £1,600.

If that fails, a single woman can be considered for IVF on the NHS.

In comparison, heterosexual couples are asked if they have been trying to conceive for two years.

Female same sex couples also have to prove infertility, but the government has committed to fund artificial insemination for them as part of the Women’s Health Strategy, created in part to level up access to IVF.

There’s no such commitment for single women though, who will still have to pay, creating an unlevel playing field according Atina Krajewska, professor in human rights law at Birmingham University.

“In my view, single women should be treated similarly to same sex couples, because inevitably they are in a similar situation when it comes to their ability to conceive,” she said.

“I would see this as a discriminatory treatment based on international human rights provisions.

“Those who can afford private treatment will be affected, but not to the same extent, eventually they might just decide that they want to self-fund the treatment and then try to get access to IVF.

“For women who are from more economically disadvantaged backgrounds, this is impossible. It’s a question of equity.”

For Georgie, the issue wasn’t just the cost, but also the time it would take to do six rounds of artificial insemination in order to qualify for just one round of IVF on the NHS in her area.

She was 38 when she decided to try for a baby alone, so she spent much of her savings to go straight to the most effective treatment.

“It is quite daunting in many ways to find out how much I ended up spending but in total with six rounds of IVF I spent in the region of £40,000.

“If you’d told me that at the start, I mean who knows what I would have actually said, but I think there’s a big part of me that would have said that there’s no way I can find that sort of money. I don’t see how I can start this journey.”

Her treatment worked and she recently gave birth to a daughter, though the spiralling cost nearly made her give up.

She considered adoption but her desire to carry and give birth to a baby was overwhelming.

Campaigners acknowledge that NHS finances are under pressure, but say single women are a fraction of those doing IVF, totalling just over 2,800 in 2021 according to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, so funding them wouldn’t break the bank.

“Single women who want to become parents and haven’t got any other options but to seek help from fertility services, are as deserving of help as anybody else,” said Dr Catherine Hill, CEO of Fertility Network UK.

“If you’re funding six or 12 cycles (of artificial insemination) you’re talking about thousands and thousands of pounds.

“And that’s just financially crippling, it’s a massive financial hurdle. That means it’s practically impossible for most single women to access NHS fertility treatment.”

In exceptional cases the NHS can refer single women to IVF without artificial insemination.

This is what happened to Jennifer Lon-Ho-Kee, after a long and confusing journey navigating the system.

“From the time when I went to my GP initially, just to get some exploratory tests, it’s actually been eight years to the point of getting IVF, which is a hell of a long time. And it was like pulling teeth at every stage,” she said.

She was initially told she could not get fertility treatment because she was single, but when she asked again a few years later she was put on the waiting list.

Because of delays to appointments, she was nearing the age cut-off for fertility treatment in her area and was given IVF just days before breaching it.

The round did not result in a pregnancy, and Jennifer is now spending thousands on fertility treatment abroad.

The financial strain for single women should not be harder than for couples, according to Mel Johnson, a solo motherhood coach.

“Some people spend all their savings, even go into debt to pay for the treatment, which makes the starting point of becoming a parent challenging from a financial point of view,” she said.

“For me the main thing is it will be equitable with everybody else.”

The government told Sky News that local health services in England follow guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and a review of those guidelines is expected to be published in 2024.

UK

Chelsea fans condemn ‘unethical’ ticket resale site – which club chairman invests in

Published

2 hours ago

April 21, 2025

admin

Chelsea fans condemn 'unethical' ticket resale site - which club chairman invests in

Premier League match tickets at Chelsea have been selling for more than twice the price of a season ticket on an American exchange website with a familiar director and investor to supporters – club chairman Todd Boehly.

Amid growing fan fury, Sky News was able to access the Vivid Seats platform on different devices last week from London – and saw tickets for the visit of Liverpool on 4 May, priced by Chelsea at a maximum of £80, being sold for between £537 and £2,666.

Some tickets were listed as being sold by traders.

Chelsea’s official website appeared to show no availability for this premium fixture, with the Blues battling for Champions League qualification and Liverpool potentially celebrating being crowned Premier League winners.

The most expensive Stamford Bridge season ticket for this campaign was £1,015.

Vivid is listed by the Premier League among “unauthorised ticket websites” with a message: “We would urge fans to exercise extreme caution when dealing with these websites.”

The Chelsea Supporters’ Trust has written to the Premier League to ask that Vivid – given its ties with a club’s shareholder – “ceases facilitating the sale of tickets for significantly above face value”.

Mr Boehly – part of the consortium that replaced Roman Abramovich as owner in 2022 – has not addressed accusations of a “conflict of interest” or claims he is undermining efforts to combat ticket touting.

There are anti-touting warnings on signs in the streets approaching the stadium.

An official Chelsea Ticket Exchange allows season ticket holders to sell their tickets “at the pro-rata price of season tickets” to a club member “in a safe, secure environment”.

While Chelsea’s website says to only buy tickets in the UK from official sellers, it adds: “Many of the websites that advertise and sell tickets online are not within the jurisdiction of UK law.

“This means, while we report these sites when we see Chelsea tickets on them, there is little we can do to shut down the sites.”

On Vivid, we did see warnings telling visiting users not to buy seats in the home sections and a pop-up eventually appeared after browsing the availability, saying: “Tickets for the EPL matches are not currently available for purchase in your location.”

No attempt was made by us to buy tickets. But should we have been able to see the listings at all?

Sky News first asked for comment from Vivid last Monday and continued to see ticket listings with variable prices in pounds during the week. It took until Friday night for any form of response.

“Vivid Seats respectfully adheres to the laws that are in place in the United Kingdom and is not in violation of any regulations around EPL tickets,” the email read in part. “As such, Vivid Seats’ policy restricts the sale and marketing of EPL tickets in the United Kingdom.”

When Sky News checked the website again on Saturday the listings for Premier League matches were no longer visible as they are from outside of Britain.

Asked if they were no longer visible after our inquiries, Vivid’s official replied: “The conclusions that you are drawing are factually incorrect.

“We understand that people will try to find ways to circumvent technology and as such, we have validation protocols in place in order to restrict the sale and marketing of EPL tickets in the United Kingdom.”

Again, Vivid insisted it adheres to laws and regulations in Britain.

But the same official did not respond to an email detailing how we were able to view the tickets listings from London on separate days, without using VPN software that can make your browser seem as if it’s accessing the internet from another country.

‘It’s the only way I was going to get here’

Ticket exchange websites can be the only way for some fans overseas to come to matches.

When Ipswich played at Stamford Bridge on 13 April, Baz Gillespie was able to watch after 20 years living in Cyprus by paying a vastly-inflated £300 for two tickets on a website other than Vivid.

“The only way I was going to get here was that way,” he said, remembering the days he could just queue up and pay a fiver for a ticket.

The same match was Martin van Dijk’s first-ever game at the Bridge, having come from the Netherlands after paying €150 (£128) on another exchange website after initially trying through Vivid.

“If there’s no other option, and you want to visit, it’s the only way, but I’d rather get it through like the normal way,” he said.

‘An absolute disgrace’

It is the “normal way” that so many supporters want to protect and are aghast at Mr Boehly’s links to Vivid, predating his purchase of a stake in Chelsea.

“It’s an absolute disgrace,” supporter Ben Grey said. “He shouldn’t be involved in Chelsea and a reselling website. It’s unethical from a basic perspective.

“The club are coming out with communication saying that they’re against ticket reselling and our semi-majority shareholder [has a website] reselling tickets to our games.”

Asked what the Premier League should do, he replied: “I’m a massive Chelsea fan, I don’t want Chelsea to be hit hard by anything.

“But the fact of the matter is they need to sort that out and if they’re allowing there to be an owner of a club who’s reselling tickets, it’s a disgrace.”

‘Not a very good look’

Another fan, Rich Still, called it “21st century greed”.

The issue is resonating with young children.

Rhys Edwards, watching with his father, said: “It doesn’t look too good on Chelsea and their owners to be fair.

“Saying that [the website] is not authorised by the league they’re playing in isn’t a very good look.”

Officials with Chelsea, the Premier League and Mr Boehly declined to comment.

The Vivid statement to Sky News stressed: “It is important to note that Vivid Seats does not set the base price for tickets sold on its marketplace or receive any revenue from that base price; only the seller sets and receives the base ticket price.”

‘It’s like the Wild West’

Vivid highlighted to Sky News its “long-standing partnership”, including being a backer of a 2023 summer tour of the United States.

Chelsea’s website featured a quote saying: “We are pleased to join with a company committed to becoming the ultimate partner for connecting fans to the live events, teams and artists they love.”

The government has launched a consultation to prevent people from being ripped off in Britain by the resale of tickets.

The limit could range from the cost of the original ticket to a 30% uplift to stop the public being “fleeced” by professional touts.

Labour MP for Ealing Central and Acton, Rupa Huq, has separately proposed a change to the law to improve pricing transparency on secondary ticketing sites.

“It’s an unregulated market,” she told Sky News. “It’s like the Wild West. It needs getting back into control.”

UK

Woman stabbed to death in Enfield, north London

Published

2 hours ago

April 21, 2025

admin

Woman stabbed to death in Enfield, north London

A murder investigation is under way after a woman was stabbed to death in north London.

Police were called to an address in Ayley Croft, Enfield, around 7pm on Saturday following reports of a stabbing.

Emergency workers treated a 45-year-old woman but she died at the scene, the Metropolitan Police said.

The victim’s next of kin has been informed and is being supported by specialist officers.

No one has been arrested in connection with her death.

Police have been seen focusing on Gainsborough House, a high-rise block on the estate.

An officer was spotted at the window on the fifth floor. Patrols have also been seen outside.

Detective Chief Inspector Neil John said: “Our thoughts are with the victim’s family at this difficult time.

“As our investigation continues, there will be an increased police presence in the area, and a crime scene remains in place.

“We understand this will be very distressing to the local community and anyone who has concerns can speak to local officers.”

Police are appealing for dashcam footage from anyone who was driving through Ayley Croft between 6.30pm and 7.30pm on Saturday.

UK

Ranked: Britain’s 10 worst airports for flight delays

Published

2 hours ago

April 21, 2025

admin

Ranked: Britain's 10 worst airports for flight delays

Gatwick is the UK’s worst airport for flight delays for the second year running, according to new data from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

After suffering from continued air traffic control (ATC) disruptions, departures from the West Sussex airport were delayed by more than 23 minutes on average in 2024.

In 2023, its flights were delayed by nearly 27 minutes – so the airport, which is the UK’s second busiest, has seen an improvement.

A spokesperson said the airport had a “robust plan” to improve things further in 2025, including a new method to separate arriving aircraft, and trialling the co-ordination of connecting jet bridges to planes remotely.

They said Gatwick remains “the world’s most efficient single-runway airport, with flights departing or arriving every 55 seconds”.

Gatwick was badly impacted by ATC staff shortages both in Europe and in its own control tower last year, which a 2024 report by the Royal Aeronautical Society suggested may be in part due to the pandemic.

It said staffing was reduced because of a downturn in traffic during lockdowns, and recruiting and training new ATC workers can take up to three years.

Julia Lo Bue-Said, chief executive of Advantage Travel Partnership, a network of independent travel agents, said passengers should expect better than “stuck in terminals” for hours “with little information or support”.

UK’s top ten worst airports for delays – ranked

10 – Cardiff Airport

Cardiff had average delays of 17 minutes and 36 seconds.

9 – Luton Airport

Luton recorded average delays of 17 minutes and 42 seconds in 2024.

That was an improvement on the year before, with the airport recording delays of nearly 23 minutes in 2023.

8 – Bournemouth Airport

Bournemouth also saw an improvement.

Despite recording average delays of 17 minutes and 48 seconds, it saw around a two-and-a-half minute improvement on the year before.

7 – Edinburgh Airport

Scotland’s busiest airport had average delays of 18 minutes and six seconds in 2024.

That was an improvement of nearly three-and-a-half minutes from the 12 months previous.

6 – Exeter Airport

Exeter, on the other hand, saw growing delays in 2024.

Last year’s data showed average delays of 15 minutes and 42 seconds at the airport.

In 2024, that figure jumped to 19 minutes.

5 – Teesside International Airport

Teesside also recorded longer delays of around two minutes on average.

In 2024, its departing flights were delayed by an average of 19 minutes and six seconds.

4 – Stansted Airport

Stansted recorded average delays of 19 minutes and 36 seconds in 2024, a 30-second increase on the previous year.

3 – Manchester Airport

The UK’s third-busiest airport came third on the list with average delays of 20 minutes last year.

In 2023, its delays were longer by nearly two minutes.

2 – Birmingham Airport

Birmingham saw delays of 21 minutes and 18 seconds.

Despite moving up the list, it improved its delay time by 12 seconds on the year before.

1 – Gatwick Airport

Gatwick Airport recorded delays of 23 minutes and 18 seconds, an improvement of over three minutes and 36 seconds.

At the other end of the table…

Belfast City airport recorded the best punctuality in the UK for the second year in a row.

Its typical delay per flight was less than 12 minutes.

The average delay for flights from major UK airports was 18 minutes and 24 seconds in 2024, down from 20 minutes and 42 seconds in 2023.

“Aviation continues to recover from the pandemic, and operates in an extremely busy, global environment with resilience challenges,” said a spokesperson for trade body AirportsUK.

“It is therefore positive that the data shows delays continue to come down as everyone in aviation works together to provide the best possible service to passengers.”