IVF Egg Donation: Young Women

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate at short notice from the Backbench Business Committee. I am a member of that Committee but did not take part in the decision on this debate.

As ever, the hon. Member has spoken about his concerns with eloquence and passion, statistics and attention to detail. I think we may all have found some of the things that have been said shocking and harrowing. It is important that parliamentarians air these issues, because over recent years, although steps have certainly been taken in the right direction and some of the shame around talking about fertility and reproductive health has lessened, there are undoubtedly still barriers for many women. Our Parliament sets an important example. If collectively as a society we are unable to speak about these issues, that is an obstacle to achieving better health outcomes. That must be our unifying purpose: no matter what our stance on the broader philosophical question of IVF, health outcomes should always be in our mind.

I do not oppose egg donation or IVF. Friends of mine have had very happy outcomes after having treatment, and problems before that for many years. I want to focus on women’s health and to ask the Minister about the broader view the Department holds on donors. Any woman who decides to donate her eggs should, as a minimum, know all the risks associated with the procedure. Some of the things the hon. Member outlined shows why that is so important.

Our understanding of the long-term effects of fertility drugs is totally insufficient and although there are no recent studies that draw a causal link between egg donation and cancer risk, several experts have argued that a longitudinal assessment of donor health outcomes is under-explored. No known long-term issues is totally different from there being no long-term adverse impacts.

Doctors from Cromwell hospital in the UK and doctors in the United States are just some of the medical professionals who have raised concerns over the years about anecdotal cancer cases and how little we know about cancer’s relationship with ovarian stimulations. Will the Minister note what discussions she has had with the HFEA on these issues? Will the Government commit to conducting systematic research on the medical and psychological health of donors over time? That must be tracked over a long period. I urge the Government to ramp up our understanding without further delay.

Secondly, I want to speak about last year’s decision to increase the compensation for egg donation and the impact that could have on the donor demographic. That is worth tracking, especially in the light of some of the figures that the hon. Member highlighted from across our nations. It was the first uplift since 2011, from £750 to £986, which reflected the impact of price rises.

As we all know, the cost of living over recent years has soared, placing immense pressure on so many people of all ages. My fear is that young women see this invasive procedure and the pain and discomfort it can generate as a way to help them make ends meet.

We want to have confidence that people are donating because they want to, not because they have no other option or have seen adverts that do not give them enough information about what looks like easy money. How little do they know? What information does the Department hold on the demographic of egg donors, and what impact has the rising compensation figure had on donation behaviour? I hope the House can agree that more must be done to ensure that those who wish to donate have to give full, informed consent and nothing less, and that those who make the decision to do so are not pushed into it for any reason, especially financial hardship.