Guest Blog by Natalie Sutherland, Partner and Surrogacy Solicitor at The International Family Law Group LLP
On 7 September 2026, surrogacy law will be debated in Parliament. This debate has not, however, come about following the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission’s report and draft Bill on surrogacy which was published on 29 March 2023, but because Influencers, Adam Frisby and Jamie Corbett started a Petition following their US surrogacy. Their Petition was published on 10 April 2026 and by 28 April 2026 had reached the 100,000-signature threshold triggering a Parliamentary debate, indicating that there is public appetite for surrogacy law reform.
The Government responded to the petition on 20 May 2026 reiterating that it supports surrogacy as a family building option and welcomed the Law Commissions’ report, but that they do not intend to take the Bill further due to lack of Parliamentary time to introduce new legislation. This has been the Government’s position since 8 November 2023. The Government has still not published its final response to the report and draft legislation but in a letter from Baroness Merron on 10 April 2025, stated that this would be published “as time allows and will look to consider this issue in the future”. Surrogacy law reform has, therefore, been deprioritised.
Why does surrogacy law need to be reformed?
As Adam and Jamie discovered during their US surrogacy journey, even though they are considered their child’s legal parents in the US and have a US birth certificate naming them as legal parents, our law does not recognise their legal parentage. As their child was born via surrogacy, UK law considers the surrogate as the child’s legal mother (and her husband as the legal father), wherever in the world she conceives (so this covers surrogacy abroad and surrogacy in the UK) and even if she has no biological connection to the child.
All intended parents, therefore, need to go through a post-birth court process to obtain a Parental Order which then removes the legal parentage of the surrogate and her spouse and gives it to the intended parents. They then acquire a British birth certificate which names them as Parent and Parent.
Until they receive this Parental Order, which could take between 8 and 12 months to be made, a child is living with its intended parents where (in most cases) neither parent has Parental Responsibility. This can impact on decisions that need to be made for the child, such as emergency medical decisions which will need the surrogate’s consent. This legal
limbo for children is not in their best interests. The Parental Order process is also costly and involves Cafcass, which are the court appointed social workers, who need to prepare a report for the court, a process which intended parents view as invasive and unnecessary
What does the Law Commissions’ surrogacy law reform proposals say?
Among other things, the Law Commissions’ report proposes a new pathway to parenthood for children born through surrogacy where intended parents will be recognised as the legal parents from birth. This will mean that intended parents will not need to go through this post-birth court process because they will already be legal parents and will be named on the birth certificate. To be eligible for this pathway certain pre-conception checks and procedures (such as enhanced criminal records checks, implications counselling, medical checks and independent legal advice) will need to be followed and then confirmed by a Regulated Surrogacy Organisation. The welfare of the child assessment takes place before conception under the proposals, rather than after birth as it does now.
This new pathway, however, does not apply to international surrogacy journeys, so even if these proposals were taken forward and our law amended, intended parents in Adam and Jamie’s situation would still need to apply for a Parental Order.
Why is it important that this debate is happening?
For the last 3 years the Government has done nothing with the Law Commissions’ proposals and so our law remains out of touch, with real life implications for intended parents and their children.
As a professional working in the surrogacy space, I am hugely grateful to Adam and Jamie for using their personal experience to get surrogacy law reform on the Government agenda. However, whilst time has been found for the debate, that does not mean that law reform will happen. This is just the beginning.
What we do know, however, is that the anti-surrogacy voices are loud and they are organised. I have no doubt that they have already made a concerted effort to brief any MPs who have indicated their opposition to surrogacy in order that they are present and vocal during the debate.
There may be some MPs who are supportive of altruistic surrogacy like we have in the UK, but who are against international surrogacy and therefore could use this debate to try and push the agenda for banning British intended parents from engaging in surrogacy overseas (this has happened in other countries such as Italy, some Australian states and Hong Kong).
We cannot, therefore, be complacent.
What can you do?
If you are supportive of surrogacy as a legitimate method of family building and want to see surrogacy law reformed, if you are an intended parent through surrogacy, you are or have been a surrogate or you are a surrogacy professional, I urge you to write to your MP to tell them of your experiences and to ask them to attend the debate in support of surrogacy law reform. With less than 3 weeks to go until the debate, we need to do this now.
If you do not know who your MP is, you can find out here by putting in your post code. When writing to your MP please ensure you include your full name and your address, as otherwise your email won’t be actioned.
Natalie Sutherland is a Partner and Surrogacy Solicitor at The International Family Law Group LLP. The views expressed in this article are her own and are provided for general information only and do not constitute legal advice.
