On 7 September 2026, Parliament tabled the first substantive debate about surrogacy law reform since 2015. Sadly, it neither reflected the positive steps of recent years, nor the reality of most surrogacy arrangements. Of the ten MPs who spoke in the debate, seven opposed any surrogacy reform, characterising surrogacy as the exploitation of women and the commodification of children and condemning international surrogacy in particular as coercion and trafficking.

The three MPs who spoke in favour of progressive reform (Josh Newbury MP, Rachel Taylor MP and Jess Brown-Fuller MP) were the minority voices but presented a more rational picture which better reflected the realities of surrogacy we see on the ground.

Dame Diana Johnson, responding to the debate on behalf of the government, took a neutral line, reiterating that the government recognised that surrogacy was a complex and sensitive policy issue and that, although the UK government supported surrogacy as part of a range of assisted conception options, she acknowledged the concerns raised. She said that the government was not in a position to bring forward legislation on surrogacy reform immediately, but would continue to consider options for future reform, which would seek to protect the welfare of children, safeguard those involved in surrogacy arrangements, and maintain public trust.

Why did the debate happen?

The debate was a one-off event and not part of any ongoing Parliamentary process. It was prompted by a public petition started by dads Adam Frisby and Jamie Corbett, whose daughter was born through surrogacy in the USA, and who had called for law change enabling them to be recognised as her legal parents from birth. The petition won significant public support, attracting more than 100,000 signatures which, according to Parliamentary procedure, prompts a debate on the issue.

What does this mean for surrogacy law reform?

While there is no direct impact on any current law reform process, this is a sensitive time for surrogacy law reform. The Law Commissions of England and Wales and Scotland published their recommendations (and draft Bill) in 2023 and their report is currently with the government. This type of debate is an opportunity to take the temperature of Parliament, and it may have heightened the perception that surrogacy reform proposals risk becoming a cultural conflict rather than an evidence-based, reasoned discussion.

What can we do?

Anti-surrogacy campaigners seem to have captured the narrative with alarming speed, despite their views ignoring the evidence of positive outcomes of surrogacy, and this is both disappointing and concerning to those of us who work amongst the surrogacy community every day. For instance, this recent piece from Professor Susan Golombok, one of the world’s leading academic researchers on surrogacy, offers a sense check on anti-surrogacy rhetoric, highlighting how it has disregarded research and evidence.

When the Law Commission began its work in 2018, there were no anti-surrogacy organisations in the UK nor indeed any significant voices opposing progressive reform. The direction of travel (including the inclusion of same-sex parents and then single parents, the extension of maternity leave to parents through surrogacy and the publication of government guidance supporting surrogacy) was inclusive and progressive, without ignoring safeguards for everyone involved. But now, mainstream media coverage on surrogacy increasingly reflects the sweeping judgements of the anti-surrogacy agenda, and this, now it seems, has also captured multiple outspoken voices in Parliament. We, of course, should not ignore examples of concerning cases where surrogacy is not managed properly (including several reported High Court decisions) but these cases are by far the exception rather than the norm. They often involve outlier surrogacy destinations where there is no regulation and are driven by bad actors taking advantage of the desperation of intended parents who do not have enough safe regulated options at home.

To safeguard the interests of women and children effectively we need a sensitive discussion about how to manage surrogacy well at home, and how to encourage intended parents using international surrogacy to do so responsibly. Condemning surrogacy as a whole is unjustified on the evidence, it offers no practical solutions, and it promotes stigma against people born through surrogacy and their parents.

It has never been more important to correct the narrative. If you have not already done so, please write to your MP to tell your story, to explain the positives of surrogacy and to ask them to support progressive reform. Find out how here.

Where can I find out more?

 You can read the transcript of the debate in Hansard, or watch it on YouTube.

Find out more about our longstanding campaign for surrogacy law reform.