Westminster Hall
Monday 7th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 4 hours, 25 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
16:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
On surrogacy. The petition calls for a change in the law so that intended parents of babies born through surrogacy move that this house has considered. E-petition 763161 relating to UK law can be considered the legal parents from the moment of their child's birth. Under current law, that isn't possible and intended parents must go through a month months long process in the courts and are visited by a social worker before they're considered parents to the children in the eyes of the law.
Ahead of this debate, I met with the petition creator Adam and his fiance Jamie, and their daughter, who was born 11, who was born via surrogacy in Connecticut. I'm pleased to say that Adam and Jamie have joined us in the public gallery today, and we'll be. Levin hasn't joined them. She did make a cameo appearance on our call ahead of this debate. Adam and Jamie are listed as Levin's parents on her birth certificate in the US. But more than six months after her birth, they still aren't recognised as her legal parents here at home in the UK.
That's what prompted Adam to create this petition. And as he said when we met, we're changing Levin's nappies. Were putting her to bed. We are her parents, we are bringing her up. And yet, he says, babies like her are in a legal limbo under current legislation. My role today is to introduce this petition by setting out the petitioners views and framing the debate that is to follow, and it is really good to see so much interest from members across the House in today's debate and in preparation, as well as meeting Adam, I've drawn on the expertise of a range of organisations and individuals, and with the expert support of the petitions team, who often are not thanked enough, I feel.
So I'd like to place on record my thanks to the entire petitioners team for their support in preparing for the debate, and some of the groups that we met were surrogacy, concern and surrogacy. Now brilliant beginnings. Doctor Hirji Marwah of the University of Birmingham, who's the founding chairperson of Ethics Committee of Surrogacy in the UK. We also met with professor Nick Hopkins of UCL, a former law commissioner for England, Wales and Professor Gillian Black of the Scottish Law Commission in Edinburgh University, who together authored the Joint Law Commission report on surrogacy reform, which was published in 2023.
And I do want to start there with the current state of the law and the proposed reforms from that Law Commission report. When a child is born to parents via via surrogacy, whether in this country or abroad, like Baby Levin was, the surrogate mother is considered the legal mother at birth under UK law, if she is married or in a civil partnership, her partner will automatically be the second parent on the birth certificate, irrespective of the genetics of that child.
And there are children out there today who both of their parents, as considered under UK law, have no genetic relationship to the child at all. And that's because in UK law, the person who gives birth to a baby and no one else is considered the mother. That's led to a complicated reality in today's world, where a growing share of babies are not born by natural conception. If you give birth using a donor egg, you consider the mother of your child in the eyes of the law.
But if you cannot carry a baby, you and your partner have an embryo which is biologically yours, carried by a surrogate. You are not considered legal parents when your child is born. Instead, parents and their surrogates can draft a surrogacy agreement setting out how they want parental rights to be arranged for the child. But these. These documents have no legal standing in the UK to become legal, parents intended. Parents must apply for a parental order through the courts.
They have to make that application between six weeks and six months after the baby's birth, and organizes organisations specialising in assisted intending parents say the process normally takes between 6 and 12 months to complete. In that time, the baby will almost invariably be living with the intended parents, but legally they are strangers to that child. I will, of course.
Ahead of this debate, I met with the petition creator Adam and his fiance Jamie, and their daughter, who was born 11, who was born via surrogacy in Connecticut. I'm pleased to say that Adam and Jamie have joined us in the public gallery today, and we'll be. Levin hasn't joined them. She did make a cameo appearance on our call ahead of this debate. Adam and Jamie are listed as Levin's parents on her birth certificate in the US. But more than six months after her birth, they still aren't recognised as her legal parents here at home in the UK.
That's what prompted Adam to create this petition. And as he said when we met, we're changing Levin's nappies. Were putting her to bed. We are her parents, we are bringing her up. And yet, he says, babies like her are in a legal limbo under current legislation. My role today is to introduce this petition by setting out the petitioners views and framing the debate that is to follow, and it is really good to see so much interest from members across the House in today's debate and in preparation, as well as meeting Adam, I've drawn on the expertise of a range of organisations and individuals, and with the expert support of the petitions team, who often are not thanked enough, I feel.
So I'd like to place on record my thanks to the entire petitioners team for their support in preparing for the debate, and some of the groups that we met were surrogacy, concern and surrogacy. Now brilliant beginnings. Doctor Hirji Marwah of the University of Birmingham, who's the founding chairperson of Ethics Committee of Surrogacy in the UK. We also met with professor Nick Hopkins of UCL, a former law commissioner for England, Wales and Professor Gillian Black of the Scottish Law Commission in Edinburgh University, who together authored the Joint Law Commission report on surrogacy reform, which was published in 2023.
And I do want to start there with the current state of the law and the proposed reforms from that Law Commission report. When a child is born to parents via via surrogacy, whether in this country or abroad, like Baby Levin was, the surrogate mother is considered the legal mother at birth under UK law, if she is married or in a civil partnership, her partner will automatically be the second parent on the birth certificate, irrespective of the genetics of that child.
And there are children out there today who both of their parents, as considered under UK law, have no genetic relationship to the child at all. And that's because in UK law, the person who gives birth to a baby and no one else is considered the mother. That's led to a complicated reality in today's world, where a growing share of babies are not born by natural conception. If you give birth using a donor egg, you consider the mother of your child in the eyes of the law.
But if you cannot carry a baby, you and your partner have an embryo which is biologically yours, carried by a surrogate. You are not considered legal parents when your child is born. Instead, parents and their surrogates can draft a surrogacy agreement setting out how they want parental rights to be arranged for the child. But these. These documents have no legal standing in the UK to become legal, parents intended. Parents must apply for a parental order through the courts.
They have to make that application between six weeks and six months after the baby's birth, and organizes organisations specialising in assisted intending parents say the process normally takes between 6 and 12 months to complete. In that time, the baby will almost invariably be living with the intended parents, but legally they are strangers to that child. I will, of course.
16:33
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Mr. Chairman, the honourable gentleman is putting forward the case very, very well. But they're also very, very practical hurdles to registering the child with the GP. It's a medical circumstance of the child as well. And it's also even a plan for a passport. The whole thing is illogical. The practicalities add to the timescale and it really is time that perhaps, maybe the minister in government got the hands and got the alongside and address this issue.
16:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I thank the honourable member for his intervention. It's always a pleasure to see the honourable member for Strangford in his place in this room. I'm actually going to touch on some things around health later on, so I will just ask him to to hold fire shortly. And there are some things that I'm going to touch on. I will, of course, give way.
16:34
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
With this intervention. I very much appreciate it. And I share as he do, and I'm sure everyone across the House would. The desire for there to be strict rules and the prevention of any kind of abuse. But I wanted to to raise one specific point relevant to Scotland, which is that in England intended parents the suitability as assessed by the courts and through a publicly funded system. But in Scotland it is funded privately, which means that intended parents potentially have to pay two £3,000 extra of their own money to go through the process.
I wonder if you join with me in calling on the Scottish Government to find a reform to fix that system.
I wonder if you join with me in calling on the Scottish Government to find a reform to fix that system.
16:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Again, he's right to raise the the the the issue of finance around this. And again, I will be touching on that briefly. So I will ask him to just bear with me as I as I get through that part of the of my speech. If we go back to that parental order process, opponents of that of that process say that it is really complex. The document intended parents have to submit is 200 pages long, meaning that many will seek legal advice.
And Adam and Jamie say that they expect legal fees for their parental order to sit in excess of ten zero zero £0. Now, we've just heard from my hon. Friend that actually, that can be even more costly in other parts of the United Kingdom. And it is that is very, very, very real money and very, very, very real financial difficulties which face intended parents. And simultaneously, going back to the honourable member for Strangford points, that process can cause real practical problems.
And in fact, I've heard of cases where surrogates have had to dial in to medical appointments for their child in the US for months and months and months after birth, because the hospital at home is unable to recognize the intended parents as responsible for their child's health decisions. But experts say that in their in their experience, the most distressing part of the process for most intended parents is the court mandated social workers visit. Supporters of that current arrangement.
Compare this to the visit of a health visitor. But opponents say that there is no comparison there. Kafka's, which is the agency that advises the courts on children's welfare in the vast majority of cases because it's believed to be at risk. But in the case of surrogacy, it's cafcass who are involved and their assessment involved criminal checks, child protection reports, home visits with parents and a full, detailed report on a parental order.
Whilst it is incredibly rare to see Cafcass reports unintended parents that are anything but wholly positive, but for those parents , it is extremely distressing to be questioned and scrutinised in a way that parents can see without the need for a surrogate. Just simply do not experience many of these difficulties, is why, in 2008, a previous government asked the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission to jointly consider reforms to UK surrogacy law.
Their report was published in 2003. So a significant piece of work and that report recommended a new pathway to legal parent parenthood in surrogacy cases so that that screening of intended parents could take place before birth, and then they would be recognised as legal parents from birth. And those proposed pre-birth arrangements included an agreement between the surrogate and the intended parents, with independent legal advice provided to all parties, a preconception assessment of the welfare of the child, an agreement of a regulated surrogacy organisation to recognise the surrogacy agreement and following on from that, if surrogates, then surrogates then withdrew consent, the existing parental order process would apply and if the surrogate changed their mind before the birth, they would be the legal parent at birth.
And if they changed their mind in the six weeks following birth, they would be able to apply for that parental order. The report's authors strongly felt that this struck a balance between protecting all parties the surrogate, the parents and the children, but, crucially, with the child's welfare as their central concern. Having said that, I do think it's really important to bring in the voices of Professor Hopkins and Black, who made very clear ahead of this debate that they never intended that part of their proposal to be carved out and delivered in isolation.
There were a wider package of package of reforms that they were proposing, which they say need to form part of a comprehensive solution. And whilst there are some who advocate changes to surrogacy law, argue that the issue of parental orders can be dealt with as a quick win, and the views of the professors were that it should be addressed as that wider package. These include, for example, creating a mandatory surrogacy register so that children born in this way could find out more about their birth mother and with their consent, her family, if they wish to.
It's also important to note that the Law Commission's proposal for a new pathway to legal parenthood for intended parents would only apply to surrogacy arrangements here in the UK, where babies are born abroad via surrogacy. The existing parental order system was proposed to continue to apply. The Law Commission report concluded that it would be impossible to ensure that laws abroad are in line with what we would consider UK norms. This is a particular concern flagged by some of the groups that oppose surrogacy arrangements as the second most popular destination for international surrogacy in the UK is Nigeria, a country that is currently subject to special restrictions when it comes to adopting a child due to child welfare concerns.
In the course of preparing for this debate, I heard worrying reports of surrogate mothers, often living in real poverty abroad, being pressured to sign legal agreements under extreme time propecia without independent legal advice. And that is far from the case, from being sorry. That is far from being the case everywhere. But it can never be acceptable, and we should make sure that there are proper legal safeguards in place. The Law Commission's hope is that by maintaining the UK's altruistic approach to surrogacy, that is keeping it not for profit and updating the law so that more intended parents will be able to pursue surrogacy here in the UK and make use of a new parental pathway to be recognised as legal parents from birth.
So this petition focuses on a specific part of surrogacy law, but it feeds into a much wider debate. There are some quite stark divisions on the issue, which is understandably very emotive for a large number of people. But what seems clear is that the current law on surrogacy is no longer working, that a wider conversation about how we should change that legislation in this area would be welcome. And I know the government has said that it will look at this issue in future as time and capacity allows, but I'd be very interested to hear more from the minister about what that looked like, might look like, and when we might be able to expect it.
Thank you, Mr. Pritchard.
And Adam and Jamie say that they expect legal fees for their parental order to sit in excess of ten zero zero £0. Now, we've just heard from my hon. Friend that actually, that can be even more costly in other parts of the United Kingdom. And it is that is very, very, very real money and very, very, very real financial difficulties which face intended parents. And simultaneously, going back to the honourable member for Strangford points, that process can cause real practical problems.
And in fact, I've heard of cases where surrogates have had to dial in to medical appointments for their child in the US for months and months and months after birth, because the hospital at home is unable to recognize the intended parents as responsible for their child's health decisions. But experts say that in their in their experience, the most distressing part of the process for most intended parents is the court mandated social workers visit. Supporters of that current arrangement.
Compare this to the visit of a health visitor. But opponents say that there is no comparison there. Kafka's, which is the agency that advises the courts on children's welfare in the vast majority of cases because it's believed to be at risk. But in the case of surrogacy, it's cafcass who are involved and their assessment involved criminal checks, child protection reports, home visits with parents and a full, detailed report on a parental order.
Whilst it is incredibly rare to see Cafcass reports unintended parents that are anything but wholly positive, but for those parents , it is extremely distressing to be questioned and scrutinised in a way that parents can see without the need for a surrogate. Just simply do not experience many of these difficulties, is why, in 2008, a previous government asked the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission to jointly consider reforms to UK surrogacy law.
Their report was published in 2003. So a significant piece of work and that report recommended a new pathway to legal parent parenthood in surrogacy cases so that that screening of intended parents could take place before birth, and then they would be recognised as legal parents from birth. And those proposed pre-birth arrangements included an agreement between the surrogate and the intended parents, with independent legal advice provided to all parties, a preconception assessment of the welfare of the child, an agreement of a regulated surrogacy organisation to recognise the surrogacy agreement and following on from that, if surrogates, then surrogates then withdrew consent, the existing parental order process would apply and if the surrogate changed their mind before the birth, they would be the legal parent at birth.
And if they changed their mind in the six weeks following birth, they would be able to apply for that parental order. The report's authors strongly felt that this struck a balance between protecting all parties the surrogate, the parents and the children, but, crucially, with the child's welfare as their central concern. Having said that, I do think it's really important to bring in the voices of Professor Hopkins and Black, who made very clear ahead of this debate that they never intended that part of their proposal to be carved out and delivered in isolation.
There were a wider package of package of reforms that they were proposing, which they say need to form part of a comprehensive solution. And whilst there are some who advocate changes to surrogacy law, argue that the issue of parental orders can be dealt with as a quick win, and the views of the professors were that it should be addressed as that wider package. These include, for example, creating a mandatory surrogacy register so that children born in this way could find out more about their birth mother and with their consent, her family, if they wish to.
It's also important to note that the Law Commission's proposal for a new pathway to legal parenthood for intended parents would only apply to surrogacy arrangements here in the UK, where babies are born abroad via surrogacy. The existing parental order system was proposed to continue to apply. The Law Commission report concluded that it would be impossible to ensure that laws abroad are in line with what we would consider UK norms. This is a particular concern flagged by some of the groups that oppose surrogacy arrangements as the second most popular destination for international surrogacy in the UK is Nigeria, a country that is currently subject to special restrictions when it comes to adopting a child due to child welfare concerns.
In the course of preparing for this debate, I heard worrying reports of surrogate mothers, often living in real poverty abroad, being pressured to sign legal agreements under extreme time propecia without independent legal advice. And that is far from the case, from being sorry. That is far from being the case everywhere. But it can never be acceptable, and we should make sure that there are proper legal safeguards in place. The Law Commission's hope is that by maintaining the UK's altruistic approach to surrogacy, that is keeping it not for profit and updating the law so that more intended parents will be able to pursue surrogacy here in the UK and make use of a new parental pathway to be recognised as legal parents from birth.
So this petition focuses on a specific part of surrogacy law, but it feeds into a much wider debate. There are some quite stark divisions on the issue, which is understandably very emotive for a large number of people. But what seems clear is that the current law on surrogacy is no longer working, that a wider conversation about how we should change that legislation in this area would be welcome. And I know the government has said that it will look at this issue in future as time and capacity allows, but I'd be very interested to hear more from the minister about what that looked like, might look like, and when we might be able to expect it.
Thank you, Mr. Pritchard.
16:40
16:41
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Pritchard and I welcome this debate this afternoon. Now, as we know, this petition is asking for parental orders to be permitted at birth. I believe members of this House should approach this proposal with extreme caution. The number of people who have signed this petition, over 113,000, including 226 of my own constituents, is clearly testament to the strength of feeling on the issues.
But the petitioners framed the parental order process as an obstacle to parental rights. But this is fundamentally misleading. This legal process provides important protections for surrogate women and the children that they carry. Currently, intended parents can only apply for parental orders six weeks after the birth, and they must usually do so within six months. And this cooling off period provides a vital safeguard for the surrogate mother, and is not one that we should dispense of lightly.
Now, I believe, chair, that we need to take a step back and remember why this House has historically approached surrogacy with so much caution. It is now undeniable that we have moved well beyond the purposes originally used to justify IVF and assisted reproductive technologies, IVF was initially intended to help a childless couple have a child, not to create a contractual market out of pregnancy. This sense of mission creep is also evident when we look at the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985.
The Warnock committee, whose report led to the act, did not regard surrogacy as simply another form of fertility treatment. But now, over 40 years later, surrogacy has become just another one of the services routinely offered at clinics across the country. Technology allows us to separate genetic parenthood, gestational motherhood and social parenthood. But this does not mean mean. These relationships are interchangeable. Technology may give us choices, but it does not absolve us from making ethical judgments about those choices.
It is worth noting that the UK is an outlier in allowing any form of surrogacy at all. Surrogacy is much more strictly limited or even completely prohibited in countries including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. And some of those countries we know are particularly liberal on other areas. So the fact that they're strong on this, I think, gives us reason to to question why they are in that position. This reflects the serious ethical questions that arise when a child is intentionally separated from the woman who carried them in the womb.
Commercial surrogacy is illegal across the EU, where it is classed as a form of child trafficking. Indeed, the the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls has recommended the global abolition of surrogacy. Last year, she described surrogacy as characterised by exploitation against women and children, including girls. In any future reforms of surrogacy legislation, the welfare and safety of women and children should remain our paramount concern. Now I acknowledge that the desire for many people who turn to surrogacy is for a child, and that is a profound need within them.
And I think that this is something we are all able to agree on. Some women face infertility or repeated pregnancy loss, some face medical conditions that make it impossible or even unsafe for them to carry a pregnancy themselves. For some people, surrogacy may seem to be the only path to having a child with a genetic connection to them, and I do not question the deep desire of this, nor do I underestimate the pain that can come from wanting a child and being unable to have one.
That said, compassion for those experiences cannot require us to overlook the women and children who are affected by surrogacy. By its very nature, surrogacy involves a woman's body becoming a means to an end. She is carrying a child for the benefit of another family, and my concern is that our efforts to help people become parents, we risk constructing a system in which women's reproductive capacity becomes merely a resource for others to use. Sorry. One of my main concerns with this petition is that it implies that surrogacy is closer to natural conception than to adoption, and I believe, again, that this is misguided.
With adoption, we do not pretend that the birth mother is irrelevant simply because she is not going to raise the child herself. This woman has already nurtured the child for nine months in her womb, and the law rightly recognises that her role matters. The original birth record remains in existence, and adopted adults can access it later in life if they wish. Similarly, a surrogate may not intend to raise the child she carries, but that does not mean that her role should simply be legally obliterated at birth.
We should also consider the needs of the child. A baby bonds with their mother in utero, regardless of whether the surrogate uses her own egg in the pregnancy. The child's birth mother is an important person in the child's story, and the law should therefore recognise the birth mother's indispensable contribution in bringing new life into the world. I also have concerns about financial incentives in this country. A surrogate mother cannot simply be paid a fee for producing a baby.
She may receive reasonable expenses, including things such as maternity, clothing, travel and loss of earnings. But typical reimbursements now reach as much as £25,000, which I think we would all agree is quite a substantial sum, and this should give us pause for thought. There is an important distinction between reimbursement and income is if a woman is compensated for genuine expenses, that is one thing. But if pregnancy becomes a source of substantial financial benefit, we need to ask whether we're still talking about altruism or whether we are creating a market in all but name.
Pregnancy is not risk free. It can involve serious medical complications. However, to be putting it into that perspective of having that, is this an expense or is this a fee? I think clouds the situation now. We cannot discuss this issue without considering the wider international picture. Most parental orders for UK parents now involve commercial surrogacy abroad, and we've already heard quite a lot of that in the earlier speeches. International surrogacy takes place in jurisdictions where the economic circumstances of surrogate mothers are very different from those in Britain, and that should concern all of us.
If wealthy countries normalise the commissioning of pregnancies, there will inevitably be markets that meet that demand, and in most cases, the women with the least economic power become the people expected to take the greatest physical risks. So I want to finish by reiterating that I have enormous sympathy for people who want children and cannot have them. Naturally, their longing is real, but true compassion must extend to everyone involved, including the women whose bodies bear the burdens of pregnancy and childbirth and the children that they bear.
Does the government remain committed to the parental order process and the safeguards that it provides? These safeguards are not outdated, as the petition suggests. Indeed, they are needed now more than ever, especially given the international surrogacy arrangements are now becoming the norm for intended parents in the UK. The parental order process exists to ensure that a child's welfare comes first, and that a surrogate mother's consent is freely given. Any reform should strengthen these protections for women and children, not diminish them.
But the petitioners framed the parental order process as an obstacle to parental rights. But this is fundamentally misleading. This legal process provides important protections for surrogate women and the children that they carry. Currently, intended parents can only apply for parental orders six weeks after the birth, and they must usually do so within six months. And this cooling off period provides a vital safeguard for the surrogate mother, and is not one that we should dispense of lightly.
Now, I believe, chair, that we need to take a step back and remember why this House has historically approached surrogacy with so much caution. It is now undeniable that we have moved well beyond the purposes originally used to justify IVF and assisted reproductive technologies, IVF was initially intended to help a childless couple have a child, not to create a contractual market out of pregnancy. This sense of mission creep is also evident when we look at the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985.
The Warnock committee, whose report led to the act, did not regard surrogacy as simply another form of fertility treatment. But now, over 40 years later, surrogacy has become just another one of the services routinely offered at clinics across the country. Technology allows us to separate genetic parenthood, gestational motherhood and social parenthood. But this does not mean mean. These relationships are interchangeable. Technology may give us choices, but it does not absolve us from making ethical judgments about those choices.
It is worth noting that the UK is an outlier in allowing any form of surrogacy at all. Surrogacy is much more strictly limited or even completely prohibited in countries including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. And some of those countries we know are particularly liberal on other areas. So the fact that they're strong on this, I think, gives us reason to to question why they are in that position. This reflects the serious ethical questions that arise when a child is intentionally separated from the woman who carried them in the womb.
Commercial surrogacy is illegal across the EU, where it is classed as a form of child trafficking. Indeed, the the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls has recommended the global abolition of surrogacy. Last year, she described surrogacy as characterised by exploitation against women and children, including girls. In any future reforms of surrogacy legislation, the welfare and safety of women and children should remain our paramount concern. Now I acknowledge that the desire for many people who turn to surrogacy is for a child, and that is a profound need within them.
And I think that this is something we are all able to agree on. Some women face infertility or repeated pregnancy loss, some face medical conditions that make it impossible or even unsafe for them to carry a pregnancy themselves. For some people, surrogacy may seem to be the only path to having a child with a genetic connection to them, and I do not question the deep desire of this, nor do I underestimate the pain that can come from wanting a child and being unable to have one.
That said, compassion for those experiences cannot require us to overlook the women and children who are affected by surrogacy. By its very nature, surrogacy involves a woman's body becoming a means to an end. She is carrying a child for the benefit of another family, and my concern is that our efforts to help people become parents, we risk constructing a system in which women's reproductive capacity becomes merely a resource for others to use. Sorry. One of my main concerns with this petition is that it implies that surrogacy is closer to natural conception than to adoption, and I believe, again, that this is misguided.
With adoption, we do not pretend that the birth mother is irrelevant simply because she is not going to raise the child herself. This woman has already nurtured the child for nine months in her womb, and the law rightly recognises that her role matters. The original birth record remains in existence, and adopted adults can access it later in life if they wish. Similarly, a surrogate may not intend to raise the child she carries, but that does not mean that her role should simply be legally obliterated at birth.
We should also consider the needs of the child. A baby bonds with their mother in utero, regardless of whether the surrogate uses her own egg in the pregnancy. The child's birth mother is an important person in the child's story, and the law should therefore recognise the birth mother's indispensable contribution in bringing new life into the world. I also have concerns about financial incentives in this country. A surrogate mother cannot simply be paid a fee for producing a baby.
She may receive reasonable expenses, including things such as maternity, clothing, travel and loss of earnings. But typical reimbursements now reach as much as £25,000, which I think we would all agree is quite a substantial sum, and this should give us pause for thought. There is an important distinction between reimbursement and income is if a woman is compensated for genuine expenses, that is one thing. But if pregnancy becomes a source of substantial financial benefit, we need to ask whether we're still talking about altruism or whether we are creating a market in all but name.
Pregnancy is not risk free. It can involve serious medical complications. However, to be putting it into that perspective of having that, is this an expense or is this a fee? I think clouds the situation now. We cannot discuss this issue without considering the wider international picture. Most parental orders for UK parents now involve commercial surrogacy abroad, and we've already heard quite a lot of that in the earlier speeches. International surrogacy takes place in jurisdictions where the economic circumstances of surrogate mothers are very different from those in Britain, and that should concern all of us.
If wealthy countries normalise the commissioning of pregnancies, there will inevitably be markets that meet that demand, and in most cases, the women with the least economic power become the people expected to take the greatest physical risks. So I want to finish by reiterating that I have enormous sympathy for people who want children and cannot have them. Naturally, their longing is real, but true compassion must extend to everyone involved, including the women whose bodies bear the burdens of pregnancy and childbirth and the children that they bear.
Does the government remain committed to the parental order process and the safeguards that it provides? These safeguards are not outdated, as the petition suggests. Indeed, they are needed now more than ever, especially given the international surrogacy arrangements are now becoming the norm for intended parents in the UK. The parental order process exists to ensure that a child's welfare comes first, and that a surrogate mother's consent is freely given. Any reform should strengthen these protections for women and children, not diminish them.
16:48
16:48
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Mr. Pritchard, in the years since the passage of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985, the number of babies born as a result of surrogacy has increased and the nature of surrogacy arrangements has evolved. And as I look through Hansard, it appears that in spite of this change, surrogacy has seldom been debated in this place. Therefore, I welcome this debate today, although I do not agree with its framing, I do believe that this debate is long overdue.
This debate is critical as there are fundamental human rights at stake. Firstly, the rights of women as parents to be protected, to have the very best care and to have no outside pressure on the decisions relating to their healthcare and their bodies, and to ensure the protection of women living in poverty, in war zones or in vulnerable situations, both here in the UK and across the globe. Not to be forced or coerced or trafficked to service the growing demand for surrogates.
Secondly, there is the rights of children, as set out in the United Nations Convention on the rights of the child, which states their rights to know where they came from, to have a nationality and to be cared for by their parents and not separated from them where possible. Today I will focus on the rights of women because based on the Law Commission's previously published proposals, they recommend tipping the balance of power away from the rights of the birth mother.
That is clearly stated in the introduction of the report published by the Commission, which states, and I quote, our reforms respect the autonomy of the surrogate. If she withdraws her consent, the courts will make the final decision on the parental status. Mr. Pritchard, if we were to put these proposals on the statute books, a woman who was using her own egg as part of a surrogacy agreement then gave birth to her child, then changed her mind, would end up in a court battle where the judge would decide who the parent or parents of that child are.
At present, a parental order cannot be made if a surrogate withholds her consent and she would remain the legal parent. However, under the commission's preferred model, a birth mother's name would be removed from the birth certificate altogether and a judge would be forced to consider the living arrangements of that child . Up until the court proceedings were concluded, the commission's proposals would shift the balance of rights to the intended parents. As legislators, it is important that we consider the bigger picture.
There is likely to be an economic imbalance between the surrogate mother and the intended commissioning parents. By the very definition, they are commissioning a child. At present, the expenses being paid to the surrogates far exceeds what was anticipated at the time of the act in 1985. Although the Law Commission's proposals claim to provide clarity on expenses, it could still result in commissioning parents paying tens of thousands of pounds to a surrogate, which could include a payment for holidays and gifts.
When such an economic power imbalance exists, it begs the question is it ever free choice for a surrogate to decide whether to enter into a surrogacy agreement or not? Before concluding, Mr. Pritchard, I do want to reference the international impact of surrogacy. Analysis by Stop Surrogacy now suggests that in most years since 2013, over 60% of parental order applications in England and Wales relate to surrogacy arrangements where the child was born abroad.
It is false hope to think that these proposals will stop the demand for the. From the UK on international surrogacy. I will give you.
This debate is critical as there are fundamental human rights at stake. Firstly, the rights of women as parents to be protected, to have the very best care and to have no outside pressure on the decisions relating to their healthcare and their bodies, and to ensure the protection of women living in poverty, in war zones or in vulnerable situations, both here in the UK and across the globe. Not to be forced or coerced or trafficked to service the growing demand for surrogates.
Secondly, there is the rights of children, as set out in the United Nations Convention on the rights of the child, which states their rights to know where they came from, to have a nationality and to be cared for by their parents and not separated from them where possible. Today I will focus on the rights of women because based on the Law Commission's previously published proposals, they recommend tipping the balance of power away from the rights of the birth mother.
That is clearly stated in the introduction of the report published by the Commission, which states, and I quote, our reforms respect the autonomy of the surrogate. If she withdraws her consent, the courts will make the final decision on the parental status. Mr. Pritchard, if we were to put these proposals on the statute books, a woman who was using her own egg as part of a surrogacy agreement then gave birth to her child, then changed her mind, would end up in a court battle where the judge would decide who the parent or parents of that child are.
At present, a parental order cannot be made if a surrogate withholds her consent and she would remain the legal parent. However, under the commission's preferred model, a birth mother's name would be removed from the birth certificate altogether and a judge would be forced to consider the living arrangements of that child . Up until the court proceedings were concluded, the commission's proposals would shift the balance of rights to the intended parents. As legislators, it is important that we consider the bigger picture.
There is likely to be an economic imbalance between the surrogate mother and the intended commissioning parents. By the very definition, they are commissioning a child. At present, the expenses being paid to the surrogates far exceeds what was anticipated at the time of the act in 1985. Although the Law Commission's proposals claim to provide clarity on expenses, it could still result in commissioning parents paying tens of thousands of pounds to a surrogate, which could include a payment for holidays and gifts.
When such an economic power imbalance exists, it begs the question is it ever free choice for a surrogate to decide whether to enter into a surrogacy agreement or not? Before concluding, Mr. Pritchard, I do want to reference the international impact of surrogacy. Analysis by Stop Surrogacy now suggests that in most years since 2013, over 60% of parental order applications in England and Wales relate to surrogacy arrangements where the child was born abroad.
It is false hope to think that these proposals will stop the demand for the. From the UK on international surrogacy. I will give you.
16:51
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Giving away. Two of my constituents recently travelled to Mexico where their children were born by surrogacy and those birds were facilitated by a company called My Surrogacy Journey, which is listed on the gov.uk website. Whilst in Mexico , they underwent repeated traumatic experiences with that company, including around insurance for their children, accusations of bullying towards staff and repeated efforts to silence any constructive criticism. And I understand that other members of this House have received similar complaints.
Given the severity of these matters, does she agree with me that the government should take down my surrogacy journey? From the gov.uk website, pending a review by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
Given the severity of these matters, does she agree with me that the government should take down my surrogacy journey? From the gov.uk website, pending a review by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
16:52
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I find my honourable friend for his intervention and yes, I do agree with him and I'll come on to some of those matters just shortly in my in my speech, Mr. Pritchard, the international surrogacy industry is estimated to be worth over $200 billion by 2032. The decisions that we take in relation to surrogacy in the UK can help to protect vulnerable women and girls in war torn countries like Ukraine, as my friend has spoken about as well, and in low income countries like Nigeria, from being forced, coerced and trafficked to service this growing demand, I do appreciate the time and consideration that the Law Commission gave to this area.
They heard directly from women who had acted as surrogates, who were left displaced and had received inadequate medical care. The Law Commission found that women who had been used as surrogates had not even been told about the genetic parentage, make up of the embryos that had been transferred into their bodies. As a result, the surrogate had no information on any inherited conditions that could affect the pregnancy and might put her or the baby at risk.
I also welcome the spotlight document, published in the last few days by the independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, who makes clear that women in the UK are not only at risk of forced surrogacy, but are already being identified. I have called on a wider debate on surrogacy, with women at risk of forced surrogacy and their children to be held at the heart of that debate. In conclusion, Mr. Pritchard, the government must fully reject the Law Commission's proposals.
The Scottish Government has already drafted guidance in preparation for the Law Commission's proposals being put forward onto the statute book until they rejected by the UK government. Such preparation will continue, Mr. Pritchard, and the time given, I hope I have evidenced why we must have a much wider debate on surrogacy. 50% of responses to Law Commission's consultation call for a total ban on surrogacy in the UK. I fully support that ban, but do believe that this should be based on a wider debate, based on evidence and reducing harm.
In the interim, the government must immediately recognise the harm and risk that is being inflicted on women and children through international surrogacy, and take steps to cut off the UK's growing demand for international surrogacy, as that is the only way to play our part and end in the coercion and trafficking of women and children to end. I understand the desire for people to become parents, but fundamentally this. This desire should not take priority over the rights of a child.
Surrogacy asks all of us to answer these very difficult questions, but to answer them we must.
They heard directly from women who had acted as surrogates, who were left displaced and had received inadequate medical care. The Law Commission found that women who had been used as surrogates had not even been told about the genetic parentage, make up of the embryos that had been transferred into their bodies. As a result, the surrogate had no information on any inherited conditions that could affect the pregnancy and might put her or the baby at risk.
I also welcome the spotlight document, published in the last few days by the independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, who makes clear that women in the UK are not only at risk of forced surrogacy, but are already being identified. I have called on a wider debate on surrogacy, with women at risk of forced surrogacy and their children to be held at the heart of that debate. In conclusion, Mr. Pritchard, the government must fully reject the Law Commission's proposals.
The Scottish Government has already drafted guidance in preparation for the Law Commission's proposals being put forward onto the statute book until they rejected by the UK government. Such preparation will continue, Mr. Pritchard, and the time given, I hope I have evidenced why we must have a much wider debate on surrogacy. 50% of responses to Law Commission's consultation call for a total ban on surrogacy in the UK. I fully support that ban, but do believe that this should be based on a wider debate, based on evidence and reducing harm.
In the interim, the government must immediately recognise the harm and risk that is being inflicted on women and children through international surrogacy, and take steps to cut off the UK's growing demand for international surrogacy, as that is the only way to play our part and end in the coercion and trafficking of women and children to end. I understand the desire for people to become parents, but fundamentally this. This desire should not take priority over the rights of a child.
Surrogacy asks all of us to answer these very difficult questions, but to answer them we must.
16:54
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The topic of this debate is a matter of great sensitivity, but it is one that I do not support. I oppose this proposal because automatically recognising intended parents as legal parents from birth could remove important safeguards at precisely the moment when a child is most vulnerable. We should begin with the most important person in this debate the child. A child cannot consent to a surrogacy arrangement.
They cannot understand the promises adults have made. They cannot know what might happen if circumstances change. But circumstances can change. We have seen cases where arrangements that began with everyone in agreement have broken down during the course of pregnancy. In 2023, the Court of Appeal dealt with a case where a parental order was set aside and the surrogate mother was ultimately awarded contact with a child four times a year.
That was a child conceived using the surrogates own egg. She had to fight for that contact against the wishes of the commissioning parents. So when we are told that everything is agreed before birth, we have to ask what happens when it isn't? The current law recognises that possibility. A parental order cannot be applied for until six weeks after birth, and the surrogate has to confirm that she is willingly giving up her parental rights.
That six week period is not a pointless delay. It is a breathing space. It is a safeguard. It recognises that giving birth to a child is not simply the completion of a contract. It is a profound physical and emotional event, and the law should allow time for circumstances and feelings to be properly considered. The current system also provides scrutiny through the Family Court and Cafcass social workers.
If we remove that oversight, we are not simply removing paperwork. We are removing an independent layer of protection around a child, and we need to understand how much this matters. Because surrogacy is growing rapidly, parental order applications increase from just 117 in 20 11 to 530 7 in 2025, and the majority of those applications now involve international surrogacy. That should make us more cautious, not less, because when a child is born through an international arrangement, there can be questions about consent, identity, immigration, the circumstances of the surrogate and whether proper safeguards were followed.
Indeed, as recently as 2025, the High Court dealt with a case where they intended parents had never met the surrogate carrying the child, and did not even have information about her identity. The case took more than 15 months and involved four court hearings. That case shows us why proper scrutiny is necessary. Compassion must never mean abandoning scrutiny because when adults disagree, it is a child who has to live with the consequences. And that is why I cannot support automatic legal parenthood from birth.
The child must come first. Thank you.
They cannot understand the promises adults have made. They cannot know what might happen if circumstances change. But circumstances can change. We have seen cases where arrangements that began with everyone in agreement have broken down during the course of pregnancy. In 2023, the Court of Appeal dealt with a case where a parental order was set aside and the surrogate mother was ultimately awarded contact with a child four times a year.
That was a child conceived using the surrogates own egg. She had to fight for that contact against the wishes of the commissioning parents. So when we are told that everything is agreed before birth, we have to ask what happens when it isn't? The current law recognises that possibility. A parental order cannot be applied for until six weeks after birth, and the surrogate has to confirm that she is willingly giving up her parental rights.
That six week period is not a pointless delay. It is a breathing space. It is a safeguard. It recognises that giving birth to a child is not simply the completion of a contract. It is a profound physical and emotional event, and the law should allow time for circumstances and feelings to be properly considered. The current system also provides scrutiny through the Family Court and Cafcass social workers.
If we remove that oversight, we are not simply removing paperwork. We are removing an independent layer of protection around a child, and we need to understand how much this matters. Because surrogacy is growing rapidly, parental order applications increase from just 117 in 20 11 to 530 7 in 2025, and the majority of those applications now involve international surrogacy. That should make us more cautious, not less, because when a child is born through an international arrangement, there can be questions about consent, identity, immigration, the circumstances of the surrogate and whether proper safeguards were followed.
Indeed, as recently as 2025, the High Court dealt with a case where they intended parents had never met the surrogate carrying the child, and did not even have information about her identity. The case took more than 15 months and involved four court hearings. That case shows us why proper scrutiny is necessary. Compassion must never mean abandoning scrutiny because when adults disagree, it is a child who has to live with the consequences. And that is why I cannot support automatic legal parenthood from birth.
The child must come first. Thank you.
16:58
16:58
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Pritchard, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I want to begin by recognizing the very understandable motivation behind this petition. People who pursue surrogacy do so, I believe, because they desperately want a family. And nobody should doubt the love that intended parents have for the children that they raise. But I cannot support the change that is proposed by this petition.
The question before us is not whether intended parents are real parents, nor whether they should ultimately receive legal recognition. The question is whether the woman who has carried and given birth to a child should lose her legal status as that child's mother from the moment of birth. And I do not believe that she should. There are things in our society, Mr. Pritchard, which I believe should never be reduced to questions around contract and individual choice or intention.
And I'm certain that motherhood is one of those. Pregnancy cannot simply be a service provided by one person for another. A woman's body cannot merely be the means by which someone else's parental intentions are fulfilled. And the relationships created through nine months of pregnancy and childbirth cannot be written off because an agreement was reached beforehand. And our present law recognizes that reality. The woman who carries and gives birth to a child is the legal mother.
Intended parents can subsequently acquire legal parenthood through a parental order. And crucially, that process cannot normally begin until after six weeks from birth, and the mother's consent is required. Some will describe that as an outdated and difficult bureaucracy. I would describe it as a safeguard because we cannot know with certainty before conception how a woman will feel after pregnancy and birth. And holding the baby that she has carried for the first time.
Consent matters enormously. But genuine consent must also include that ability to change one's mind when the reality is fundamentally different from anything that could have been understood beforehand. And so consent given before pregnancy cannot simply become irrevocable consent after childbirth. It is also, I believe, an important question of independent oversight. Parental orders allow the courts to consider the circumstances of the arrangement, to require the mother's consent and provide for Cafcass involvement.
And that protection becomes particularly important when we consider that international dimension of surrogacy that other members have mentioned already . In the first 11 months of 2025, there were 139 parental order applications involving babies born through surrogacy in the UK, compared with 357 involving babies born abroad. And we should therefore, I think, think very carefully before weakening those safeguards in our own law. And if parental orders take too long, well, let's consider making them quicker.
If intended parents face practical difficulties, let's try to address them. We can make the system work better without changing the principle at its heart. Family, motherhood, and childhood can't be understood through this language of intention and contract. And there's something particularly important, I think, about the law continuing to recognise the reality of motherhood at the moment of birth. I think a woman who has carried and given birth to a child should not find that her legal relationship with the child has already been extinguished.
So I cannot support recognising intended parents automatically as the legal parents from birth. The six week period. The mother's consent, an independent judicial oversight are not antiquated obstacles to modern families. They are protections for women and children. And, Mr. Pritchard, I believe that they are safeguards important and worth keeping.
The question before us is not whether intended parents are real parents, nor whether they should ultimately receive legal recognition. The question is whether the woman who has carried and given birth to a child should lose her legal status as that child's mother from the moment of birth. And I do not believe that she should. There are things in our society, Mr. Pritchard, which I believe should never be reduced to questions around contract and individual choice or intention.
And I'm certain that motherhood is one of those. Pregnancy cannot simply be a service provided by one person for another. A woman's body cannot merely be the means by which someone else's parental intentions are fulfilled. And the relationships created through nine months of pregnancy and childbirth cannot be written off because an agreement was reached beforehand. And our present law recognizes that reality. The woman who carries and gives birth to a child is the legal mother.
Intended parents can subsequently acquire legal parenthood through a parental order. And crucially, that process cannot normally begin until after six weeks from birth, and the mother's consent is required. Some will describe that as an outdated and difficult bureaucracy. I would describe it as a safeguard because we cannot know with certainty before conception how a woman will feel after pregnancy and birth. And holding the baby that she has carried for the first time.
Consent matters enormously. But genuine consent must also include that ability to change one's mind when the reality is fundamentally different from anything that could have been understood beforehand. And so consent given before pregnancy cannot simply become irrevocable consent after childbirth. It is also, I believe, an important question of independent oversight. Parental orders allow the courts to consider the circumstances of the arrangement, to require the mother's consent and provide for Cafcass involvement.
And that protection becomes particularly important when we consider that international dimension of surrogacy that other members have mentioned already . In the first 11 months of 2025, there were 139 parental order applications involving babies born through surrogacy in the UK, compared with 357 involving babies born abroad. And we should therefore, I think, think very carefully before weakening those safeguards in our own law. And if parental orders take too long, well, let's consider making them quicker.
If intended parents face practical difficulties, let's try to address them. We can make the system work better without changing the principle at its heart. Family, motherhood, and childhood can't be understood through this language of intention and contract. And there's something particularly important, I think, about the law continuing to recognise the reality of motherhood at the moment of birth. I think a woman who has carried and given birth to a child should not find that her legal relationship with the child has already been extinguished.
So I cannot support recognising intended parents automatically as the legal parents from birth. The six week period. The mother's consent, an independent judicial oversight are not antiquated obstacles to modern families. They are protections for women and children. And, Mr. Pritchard, I believe that they are safeguards important and worth keeping.
17:03
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And a big thank you to the honourable gentleman for Litchfield for introducing the petition debate today and for raising an issue on behalf of the Petitions Committee directly. As the DUP spokesperson for health, I'm particularly interested in advocating for the protection of women and children at the heart of this process. I'm sure I can say is a reserved matter. Whilst health and social care are devolved, a policy is decided by Westminster. I suppose the thrust of my concern and contribution to this will be that there's more that we're urging caution to ensure that whilst we do need to legislate for these new scenarios that we now have in the modern life that we are, that there is protection in place in the legislation as thoroughly considered.
And I think that would reflect the opinion of most of us who are putting forward points on this. I recognise very much that surrogacy can be a lifeline for those struggling with infertility, or unable to have children themselves, and Cherkassy can no doubt represent an extraordinary act of kindness. Where a woman chooses to help a friend or a family member to fulfil their dream of becoming a parent. However, I must stress I have significant concerns about the increasing commercialisation of surrogacy.
I think I've spoken this before in Westminster Hall in a separate debate, and I want to maybe reiterate those concerns if I can. Sir Mark, there's an important distinction which must be made between the women who voluntarily, voluntarily agreed to carry a child for someone they know with perhaps a reasonable expenses being covered, whilst a wholly exploitative system where a woman's womb becomes a service that can be bought, and that would concern me greatly in the background information that we got from the library.
And we always thank the library for their contributions, the international and regional human rights relevant refers to the right to respect for family life, the rights of the child, the woman's rights, right to equality and non-discrimination, right to dignity and protection from human trafficking. So there are a number of issues that have been outlined in in relation to to the library background that we've got. And I believe that we must tread very carefully so as not to contribute to a market which preys on the financially vulnerable and pressurises them to use their bodies for the benefit of others.
Compensation for genuine expenses of carrying a baby is one thing. Paying a woman for carrying a baby is quite another. Distinction becomes increasingly blurred, and I think the honourable ladies on this side are both contributed to that, and I would echo that. When parents payments for carrying a child are disguised as so-called expenses, there must be no room for ambiguity here in this process. I should have welcomed the minister to her place and wish her well in the role that she now plays, and we look forward to her responses to our concerns and the introduction by the member for Lichfield.
I referred to the practical issues, practical hurdles. I think it was referred to registering the child with a GP, making critical medical decisions on a child that may have some complex medical needs. Applying for a passport. And this prolonged uncertainty is not in the best interest of the child. Nor is it fair to the families who have planned for, prayed for and loved this baby from the very beginning and does remember. Does the minister, perhaps, maybe at the end, not agree that access to these scientific advances means we must regulate well for them, and that's me.
So what I'm going to try and put forward, I must also raise my wider concerns about the rapidly growing fertility market, as young women are being encouraged to donate their eggs in return for compensation. As such, in fact, instead, as the clinics themselves who profit most substantially from the donation, and really the clinics who take advantage. I say this with respect take advantage of of those who perhaps maybe are in financial difficulties or are or need the money.
I would argue that sufficient information has not been provided to these women. As to the potential long term health consequences of egg retrieval. I am. Mr. chairman, I am deeply grieved at any idea that promotes the marketability of fertility as something that can be bought and sold. That's wrong. And I would put that on record as a concern that I have outlined become even more significant.
When we looked at internationally, commercial surrogacy is illegal in the UK. However, permitted in some countries abroad, leading to many UK couples to circumvent the law by using a surrogate abroad. And this leaves the room for the exploitation. And as a UK government cannot control, the protections available to these surrogate mothers. Could I ask, perhaps the Minister, what has been done to to close these loopholes? Legislate, if necessary, to ensure that the protection is in place and will any action by government extend towards Northern Ireland? I understand that it will, because as a devolved matter from Westminster.
So therefore, if government takes a decision here, it will apply to us, but I would be keen to to have that confirmed. This brings me to the petition. This petition calls for the intended parents to become the legal parents of the child from birth, rather than having to go through a parental order order process. 131 people from Strangford constituency signed this petition, and they did it for a simple reason, because these people have have concerns over what has been proposed, and I want to reflect the opinion, Mr.
Chairman, of their opinion in this process. I can understand why some families may want to simplify the process. And there is a perhaps a balance to be achieved. However, does the minister agree that any reforms cannot be allowed to come at the expense of safeguards to surrogate mothers and the children themselves? I know the minister's a compassionate lady. I say that in all honesty, and I know that to be the case. And and my dealings with the honourable lady over the years I've found her always to be of that opinion.
But we do need some reassurance in relation to that. I conclude with this, Mr. Chairman. Surrogacy should remain an incredible act of generosity. It can't be anything else, not a commercial transaction that risks exploiting vulnerable women and commodifying their children. That can never happen. With that in mind, I look forward to the answers. Thank you.
And I think that would reflect the opinion of most of us who are putting forward points on this. I recognise very much that surrogacy can be a lifeline for those struggling with infertility, or unable to have children themselves, and Cherkassy can no doubt represent an extraordinary act of kindness. Where a woman chooses to help a friend or a family member to fulfil their dream of becoming a parent. However, I must stress I have significant concerns about the increasing commercialisation of surrogacy.
I think I've spoken this before in Westminster Hall in a separate debate, and I want to maybe reiterate those concerns if I can. Sir Mark, there's an important distinction which must be made between the women who voluntarily, voluntarily agreed to carry a child for someone they know with perhaps a reasonable expenses being covered, whilst a wholly exploitative system where a woman's womb becomes a service that can be bought, and that would concern me greatly in the background information that we got from the library.
And we always thank the library for their contributions, the international and regional human rights relevant refers to the right to respect for family life, the rights of the child, the woman's rights, right to equality and non-discrimination, right to dignity and protection from human trafficking. So there are a number of issues that have been outlined in in relation to to the library background that we've got. And I believe that we must tread very carefully so as not to contribute to a market which preys on the financially vulnerable and pressurises them to use their bodies for the benefit of others.
Compensation for genuine expenses of carrying a baby is one thing. Paying a woman for carrying a baby is quite another. Distinction becomes increasingly blurred, and I think the honourable ladies on this side are both contributed to that, and I would echo that. When parents payments for carrying a child are disguised as so-called expenses, there must be no room for ambiguity here in this process. I should have welcomed the minister to her place and wish her well in the role that she now plays, and we look forward to her responses to our concerns and the introduction by the member for Lichfield.
I referred to the practical issues, practical hurdles. I think it was referred to registering the child with a GP, making critical medical decisions on a child that may have some complex medical needs. Applying for a passport. And this prolonged uncertainty is not in the best interest of the child. Nor is it fair to the families who have planned for, prayed for and loved this baby from the very beginning and does remember. Does the minister, perhaps, maybe at the end, not agree that access to these scientific advances means we must regulate well for them, and that's me.
So what I'm going to try and put forward, I must also raise my wider concerns about the rapidly growing fertility market, as young women are being encouraged to donate their eggs in return for compensation. As such, in fact, instead, as the clinics themselves who profit most substantially from the donation, and really the clinics who take advantage. I say this with respect take advantage of of those who perhaps maybe are in financial difficulties or are or need the money.
I would argue that sufficient information has not been provided to these women. As to the potential long term health consequences of egg retrieval. I am. Mr. chairman, I am deeply grieved at any idea that promotes the marketability of fertility as something that can be bought and sold. That's wrong. And I would put that on record as a concern that I have outlined become even more significant.
When we looked at internationally, commercial surrogacy is illegal in the UK. However, permitted in some countries abroad, leading to many UK couples to circumvent the law by using a surrogate abroad. And this leaves the room for the exploitation. And as a UK government cannot control, the protections available to these surrogate mothers. Could I ask, perhaps the Minister, what has been done to to close these loopholes? Legislate, if necessary, to ensure that the protection is in place and will any action by government extend towards Northern Ireland? I understand that it will, because as a devolved matter from Westminster.
So therefore, if government takes a decision here, it will apply to us, but I would be keen to to have that confirmed. This brings me to the petition. This petition calls for the intended parents to become the legal parents of the child from birth, rather than having to go through a parental order order process. 131 people from Strangford constituency signed this petition, and they did it for a simple reason, because these people have have concerns over what has been proposed, and I want to reflect the opinion, Mr.
Chairman, of their opinion in this process. I can understand why some families may want to simplify the process. And there is a perhaps a balance to be achieved. However, does the minister agree that any reforms cannot be allowed to come at the expense of safeguards to surrogate mothers and the children themselves? I know the minister's a compassionate lady. I say that in all honesty, and I know that to be the case. And and my dealings with the honourable lady over the years I've found her always to be of that opinion.
But we do need some reassurance in relation to that. I conclude with this, Mr. Chairman. Surrogacy should remain an incredible act of generosity. It can't be anything else, not a commercial transaction that risks exploiting vulnerable women and commodifying their children. That can never happen. With that in mind, I look forward to the answers. Thank you.
17:10
17:10
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the member for Lichfield, for opening this debate so thoroughly and thoughtfully. When I read Adam's petition, I was taken aback to the moment that I became a dad myself. My husband and I fostered and then adopted our children. And I remember holding my daughter and son for the first time like it was yesterday. In those moments, there was no question in my mind that I wanted to be their dad, and that is what I am.
That's why I was struck by Adam's description of the moment he and his partner first saw their baby. They became dads in that moment to. But as my hon. Friend set out, the law does not recognise that reality. I understand, Mr. Pritchard, why the current system came about. The rights and autonomy of surrogates. The need to safeguard children should never be brushed aside.
Judicial oversight is also important, and reform should not mean removing protections for surrogate or child. But I do think that we should ask whether the current system gets that balance right. We now have a situation where almost 1000 children were born through surrogacy in 2025, roughly double the number a decade earlier. For families who choose surrogacy, the journey for having a child has often already been extraordinarily long. So once that child is born and is being cared for by their intended parents, I think it's reasonable to ask whether the law should leave their legal parenthood unresolved for months, and the practical implications that stem from that which I remember from my time fostering, like not being able to give consent for something as simple as a vaccination or a blood test.
And, Mr. Pritchard, there's a practical point here about our courts. We rightly ask our family courts to deal with cases where there is a genuine dispute, where a child's welfare needs judicial consideration, or where someone's rights need to be protected. But if a surrogacy arrangement that's been properly assessed before the birth, if the intended parents have undergone the appropriate checks, if the surrogate has had any independent advice and counselling that she may need, and if the necessary safeguards are in place, do we really need to go through a court process to establish legal parenthood? I'm not suggesting yes, I will.
That's why I was struck by Adam's description of the moment he and his partner first saw their baby. They became dads in that moment to. But as my hon. Friend set out, the law does not recognise that reality. I understand, Mr. Pritchard, why the current system came about. The rights and autonomy of surrogates. The need to safeguard children should never be brushed aside.
Judicial oversight is also important, and reform should not mean removing protections for surrogate or child. But I do think that we should ask whether the current system gets that balance right. We now have a situation where almost 1000 children were born through surrogacy in 2025, roughly double the number a decade earlier. For families who choose surrogacy, the journey for having a child has often already been extraordinarily long. So once that child is born and is being cared for by their intended parents, I think it's reasonable to ask whether the law should leave their legal parenthood unresolved for months, and the practical implications that stem from that which I remember from my time fostering, like not being able to give consent for something as simple as a vaccination or a blood test.
And, Mr. Pritchard, there's a practical point here about our courts. We rightly ask our family courts to deal with cases where there is a genuine dispute, where a child's welfare needs judicial consideration, or where someone's rights need to be protected. But if a surrogacy arrangement that's been properly assessed before the birth, if the intended parents have undergone the appropriate checks, if the surrogate has had any independent advice and counselling that she may need, and if the necessary safeguards are in place, do we really need to go through a court process to establish legal parenthood? I'm not suggesting yes, I will.
17:12
17:12
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Absolutely. I'm making the case that where everybody involved, of course, the mother is, you know, paramount in that is happy with the arrangement and wants to go ahead with it, then that could happen ahead of time. But of course, I mean, I my personal belief is that there should be a cooling off period. Nonetheless, even after there was a reform to ensure that there was space for mothers to change their mind. But I'm making the point that I think the system could be far more efficient.
And I'm not suggesting that we remove the courts from the process altogether. They should be there absolutely when needed. But a properly regulated system could allow straightforward cases to be dealt with before birth, while retaining a route to the courts where there's disagreement, a safeguarding concern, consent changes or where judicial oversight is required that wouldn't weaken safeguards. It would actually allow the courts to focus their time and attention on the cases where their intervention matters most.
Yes, I will.
And I'm not suggesting that we remove the courts from the process altogether. They should be there absolutely when needed. But a properly regulated system could allow straightforward cases to be dealt with before birth, while retaining a route to the courts where there's disagreement, a safeguarding concern, consent changes or where judicial oversight is required that wouldn't weaken safeguards. It would actually allow the courts to focus their time and attention on the cases where their intervention matters most.
Yes, I will.
17:13
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank the honourable member, and he and I have great shared interest in fostering and adoption, and I know we've spoken on these issues a lot in the past together. But just to clarify, what he's been saying is the point that you're making to say that you think that there should still be a six week gap from the point of birth to the parental order being signed, or that actually there shouldn't, but that if there was a problem, the courts can still get involved afterwards, because that strikes me as clouding the water even more.
And I appreciate where he's coming from, but it just didn't quite make sense, or at least wasn't 100% clear what he was saying.
And I appreciate where he's coming from, but it just didn't quite make sense, or at least wasn't 100% clear what he was saying.
17:14
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Well, Mr. Pritchard, I'm not a legal expert and I don't intend to insert myself into that particular legal debate. But my perspective is that if arrangements are made beforehand and then perhaps a birth mother changes her mind, there should be a route back to the court and that should be built into the system. Obviously, we have the six week window now, which requires that allows that time for reflection. But I do believe that there is a way, in the vast majority of cases where everybody will be quite happy with the arrangements to go forward, the intended family to be able to move on with their lives for that not to, you know, have to go to court necessarily, unless there's a change of heart.
Yeah. Good question.
Yeah. Good question.
17:14
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I thank the gentleman for giving way, and I feel it's worth putting on the record that the Law Commission report in 2023 suggested that it could be that if everything was decided before the birth, that the legal parents would have the rights from day one, but the biological or the surrogate mother would have a chance to go against that in the first six weeks of the baby's life. So is he agreeing with the Law Commission report that it still has that fundamental safeguard, but it also recognises that the intended parents are the parents from day one?
17:15
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Well, I think, Mr. Pritchard, that the honourable lady and I were very much on the same wavelength that I was just about to move on to that. I believe that the really carefully formulated proposals that the Law Commission came forward with. I feel they've been through that debate and they've struck a fair balance there. They, of course, recommended a new regulated pathway under which intended parents could become legal parents from birth, but with screening and safeguards, whilst retaining parental orders for cases where court involvement is still necessary.
As we've been hearing. And I would just like to acknowledge and thank the 268 of my constituents who signed this petition, the highest number of signatures in the West Midlands. I don't know the individual circumstances of those signatories. Some may have experienced infertility. Some may be part of the LGBT community. Some may simply believe that our laws should better reflect the reality of modern families. But I do think the signatures of our constituents right across the country show us that this touches many more lives than we may realize.
So I welcome the government's recognition that the current pathway and delay to legal parenthood can cause some uncertainty. My ask is simply that we move the conversation and this debate forward. Could the minister tell us where the discussions are taking place, about how we might be able to modernise the system and make sure our courts are dealing with the cases that genuinely require their time, whilst also retaining the safeguards that matter to surrogates and children.
Call me naive, Mr. Pritchard, but I believe we can do both, and I hope this rich debate can be a step towards getting that balance right.
As we've been hearing. And I would just like to acknowledge and thank the 268 of my constituents who signed this petition, the highest number of signatures in the West Midlands. I don't know the individual circumstances of those signatories. Some may have experienced infertility. Some may be part of the LGBT community. Some may simply believe that our laws should better reflect the reality of modern families. But I do think the signatures of our constituents right across the country show us that this touches many more lives than we may realize.
So I welcome the government's recognition that the current pathway and delay to legal parenthood can cause some uncertainty. My ask is simply that we move the conversation and this debate forward. Could the minister tell us where the discussions are taking place, about how we might be able to modernise the system and make sure our courts are dealing with the cases that genuinely require their time, whilst also retaining the safeguards that matter to surrogates and children.
Call me naive, Mr. Pritchard, but I believe we can do both, and I hope this rich debate can be a step towards getting that balance right.
17:16
17:17
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Pritchard, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And I'd I'd like to to pay credit to all of the members who have participated in this debate in, in a thoughtful and constructive manner, and particularly for my honourable friend, the member for Litchfield, for for leading this this difficult and sensitive debate. I'd also like to thank Adam and Jamie for starting this petition. And the more than 113,000 people who've who've signed it.
Many of my constituents asked me to attend the debate today, and I'm proud to do so to stand up for families created through surrogacy. When Adam and Jamie's daughter was born, they became her dad's. At the moment they held her. They'd chosen to become parents. They'd prepared for their daughter's arrival. They had so much love to give her, but the law didn't recognise them as her parents.
Often parents have to go to court to prove that they were the parents of the child they were already loving and caring for. That just isn't right. It isn't right for the parents. It isn't right for the surrogates. But more importantly, it isn't right for the children. And it doesn't reflect the reality of the families involved. It creates unnecessary stress and anguish at an already difficult time raising a newborn child.
And I think to suggest that the concept of consent can be questioned after consent has been given is a very dangerous one for us to look at. Nobody, as a surrogate mother enters into this relationship lightly. It is something that women would consider very carefully. I've spoken to my friends who would happily be surrogate mums for other families to enable them to have children because they enjoyed the experience of pregnancy.
They would be happy to to help in that way, but they would be consenting to that in the knowledge that they would not be that child's mum. They would expect that child to have another mother or mothers or other fathers, and that is the basis on which they are giving their consent. If we look at the concepts of consent in legal arguments, we look at when people are making wills, vulnerable people, many of the time they're elderly people.
There's always questions of whether they were put under undue influence, but there are legal mechanisms to check that that wasn't the case. Similarly, when we're looking at whether a woman gave consent for sexual intercourse, for example, there are mechanisms for us to check whether that consent has been given. And I do believe that we need to strengthen the the area of checking that consent in surrogacy relationships. But I think we can't have a situation where somebody can give consent that that's been adequately checked and monitored, and then afterwards consent can be withdrawn.
We have to be very careful about challenging that nature and goes to the very root of consent, and I think it's dangerous to do so. I'd like to make some progress. And I think the the honourable lady has made a number of points in her own speech and in in other interventions for same sex couples, or perhaps disabled mums or mums who simply cannot have children. They've gone through an incredibly demanding process to start a family, and their family is treated somehow differently.
From the moment their child is born. They can be left in limbo for months. While social workers carry out assessments and family courts with already massively long delays, consider their application for a parental order, leaving them in limbo if their child is ill or taken into hospital, or if they start nursery school or any number of things. Meanwhile, they're changing nappies, comforting their baby through all the sleepless nights and making every decision about their care.
Families shouldn't be penalised because of the gender or sexuality of the people who love and raise that child. Our surrogacy laws are more than 40 years old. Families have changed. Society has changed. The law must now change too. And that's why the Law Commission's proposals are so important. They set out a new pathway through which intended parents could be recognised as legal parents from birth, rather than waiting for months to obtain a parental order.
The work has been done, the evidence has been gathered. A draft bill has already been produced. I asked the minister to listen to the families who have shared their experiences, published the government's full response to the Law Commission's report and set out a clear timetable for reform. Adam and Jamie became dads the moment they held their daughter. It's time the law recognised that reality from birth. Yeah.
Many of my constituents asked me to attend the debate today, and I'm proud to do so to stand up for families created through surrogacy. When Adam and Jamie's daughter was born, they became her dad's. At the moment they held her. They'd chosen to become parents. They'd prepared for their daughter's arrival. They had so much love to give her, but the law didn't recognise them as her parents.
Often parents have to go to court to prove that they were the parents of the child they were already loving and caring for. That just isn't right. It isn't right for the parents. It isn't right for the surrogates. But more importantly, it isn't right for the children. And it doesn't reflect the reality of the families involved. It creates unnecessary stress and anguish at an already difficult time raising a newborn child.
And I think to suggest that the concept of consent can be questioned after consent has been given is a very dangerous one for us to look at. Nobody, as a surrogate mother enters into this relationship lightly. It is something that women would consider very carefully. I've spoken to my friends who would happily be surrogate mums for other families to enable them to have children because they enjoyed the experience of pregnancy.
They would be happy to to help in that way, but they would be consenting to that in the knowledge that they would not be that child's mum. They would expect that child to have another mother or mothers or other fathers, and that is the basis on which they are giving their consent. If we look at the concepts of consent in legal arguments, we look at when people are making wills, vulnerable people, many of the time they're elderly people.
There's always questions of whether they were put under undue influence, but there are legal mechanisms to check that that wasn't the case. Similarly, when we're looking at whether a woman gave consent for sexual intercourse, for example, there are mechanisms for us to check whether that consent has been given. And I do believe that we need to strengthen the the area of checking that consent in surrogacy relationships. But I think we can't have a situation where somebody can give consent that that's been adequately checked and monitored, and then afterwards consent can be withdrawn.
We have to be very careful about challenging that nature and goes to the very root of consent, and I think it's dangerous to do so. I'd like to make some progress. And I think the the honourable lady has made a number of points in her own speech and in in other interventions for same sex couples, or perhaps disabled mums or mums who simply cannot have children. They've gone through an incredibly demanding process to start a family, and their family is treated somehow differently.
From the moment their child is born. They can be left in limbo for months. While social workers carry out assessments and family courts with already massively long delays, consider their application for a parental order, leaving them in limbo if their child is ill or taken into hospital, or if they start nursery school or any number of things. Meanwhile, they're changing nappies, comforting their baby through all the sleepless nights and making every decision about their care.
Families shouldn't be penalised because of the gender or sexuality of the people who love and raise that child. Our surrogacy laws are more than 40 years old. Families have changed. Society has changed. The law must now change too. And that's why the Law Commission's proposals are so important. They set out a new pathway through which intended parents could be recognised as legal parents from birth, rather than waiting for months to obtain a parental order.
The work has been done, the evidence has been gathered. A draft bill has already been produced. I asked the minister to listen to the families who have shared their experiences, published the government's full response to the Law Commission's report and set out a clear timetable for reform. Adam and Jamie became dads the moment they held their daughter. It's time the law recognised that reality from birth. Yeah.
17:22
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Pritchard. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. However good the intentions of those bringing this petition or affected parents. And I do not question them. I believe any loosening of the laws around surrogacy would be a very serious mistake. If we look at the text of this petition, it says that current law is outdated because the woman giving birth to the child is recognised as the legal mother.
Quote, even with no biological connection or intention to parent the child. Just think about those words and how cold and clinical they are. No biological connection when this is the woman which carried that child in their body and brought that child into this world. This is the commodification of women's bodies. To carry a child for nine months, to share your body, feel new life kicking inside you, and endure the trauma and joy of childbirth.
These experiences create a profound, undeniable biological connection. And what of intention? The principle behind this petition is that the matter of parenthood would be settled in favour of the commissioning parents, according to an intention formed before the child was born. But we all know that an emotional bond grows as the pregnancy develops. Indeed a physical bond. New mothers will tell you that they feel a bond with their newborn that they have never felt before in their life, and they often do not want to spend a moment away from their baby when it is born.
This petition asks the law to privilege an arrangement made before pregnancy and birth over the women who actually give birth, many of whom go on to deeply regret their role as a surrogate mother, I will.
Quote, even with no biological connection or intention to parent the child. Just think about those words and how cold and clinical they are. No biological connection when this is the woman which carried that child in their body and brought that child into this world. This is the commodification of women's bodies. To carry a child for nine months, to share your body, feel new life kicking inside you, and endure the trauma and joy of childbirth.
These experiences create a profound, undeniable biological connection. And what of intention? The principle behind this petition is that the matter of parenthood would be settled in favour of the commissioning parents, according to an intention formed before the child was born. But we all know that an emotional bond grows as the pregnancy develops. Indeed a physical bond. New mothers will tell you that they feel a bond with their newborn that they have never felt before in their life, and they often do not want to spend a moment away from their baby when it is born.
This petition asks the law to privilege an arrangement made before pregnancy and birth over the women who actually give birth, many of whom go on to deeply regret their role as a surrogate mother, I will.
17:24
17:24
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I can't answer that specific question, but I will. I will reference the case later on. And I have personally met such mothers here in Parliament. But pregnant women are not factories. Babies are not goods to be ordered. I believe this is crossing an ethical line where human life is treated as a business transaction. The child must have the right to know where it has come from, how it came to be.
In this world. When a newborn is handed over not because of a tragedy, but because that separation was arranged before the child was even conceived. Conceived, sorry, that child has become a commodity that it should never be. These children are removed from their birth mothers. It is simply wrong to treat children in this way. Mr. Pritchard, implementing the demands of this petition would seal the commodification of mothers and babies through surrogacy.
And we only need look at the global surrogacy industry to see where that leads. Wealthy couples exploiting desperate women, international human trafficking rings, exploitation and erasure. That is the end destination when you start from the principles implied in this petition. Even in Britain, where commercial surrogacy is banned, women suffer the consequences. Marianne, a surrogate mother, told her story at a conference in Brighton. She recalls the chilling moment after she gave birth.
They had the baby, they were happy. They didn't need me anymore, so they told me to go home. She describes doing a handover in a hospital car park and she describes the impact on her life, saying I've been diagnosed with complex PTSD. I have a deep fear of hospitals, children and babies. The damage done to me will never be repaired. So to conclude, France, Germany, Spain, Italy have all banned surrogacy outright.
As President Emmanuel Macron said, surrogacy is not compatible with the dignity of women. So I conclude by urging colleagues to reject the commodification of babies and mothers implied by this petition, and reject the loosening of surrogacy laws in Britain. Thank you.
In this world. When a newborn is handed over not because of a tragedy, but because that separation was arranged before the child was even conceived. Conceived, sorry, that child has become a commodity that it should never be. These children are removed from their birth mothers. It is simply wrong to treat children in this way. Mr. Pritchard, implementing the demands of this petition would seal the commodification of mothers and babies through surrogacy.
And we only need look at the global surrogacy industry to see where that leads. Wealthy couples exploiting desperate women, international human trafficking rings, exploitation and erasure. That is the end destination when you start from the principles implied in this petition. Even in Britain, where commercial surrogacy is banned, women suffer the consequences. Marianne, a surrogate mother, told her story at a conference in Brighton. She recalls the chilling moment after she gave birth.
They had the baby, they were happy. They didn't need me anymore, so they told me to go home. She describes doing a handover in a hospital car park and she describes the impact on her life, saying I've been diagnosed with complex PTSD. I have a deep fear of hospitals, children and babies. The damage done to me will never be repaired. So to conclude, France, Germany, Spain, Italy have all banned surrogacy outright.
As President Emmanuel Macron said, surrogacy is not compatible with the dignity of women. So I conclude by urging colleagues to reject the commodification of babies and mothers implied by this petition, and reject the loosening of surrogacy laws in Britain. Thank you.
17:26
17:26
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Pritchard. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I pay tribute to the honourable member for Litchfield for opening the debate and laying out both sides so, so thoughtfully that have been well exercised here today. Being able to start a family is one of life's greatest privileges. But for many families that are either struggling with infertility or in same sex relationships, or have health issues that would prevent them from having a safe pregnancy, surrogacy has become an option for them and allows them to start a family.
The landscape of surrogacy has changed in the years since. The first known surrogate baby was born in 1984, and surrogacy is now being widely recognised as a pathway to parenthood. With 67 parental order applications received by the family courts in 2008, which had risen to 514 in 2025. Although I recognise that there's been many different numbers that have been suggested today, I'll happily give way to the honourable member.
The landscape of surrogacy has changed in the years since. The first known surrogate baby was born in 1984, and surrogacy is now being widely recognised as a pathway to parenthood. With 67 parental order applications received by the family courts in 2008, which had risen to 514 in 2025. Although I recognise that there's been many different numbers that have been suggested today, I'll happily give way to the honourable member.
17:27
17:27
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
To pick up on that point that you made about health care of women and where women aren't able to carry a pregnancy. It's my honourable friend, aware of the health risk to other women carrying embryos that aren't their own, and the additional risks to surrogate mothers that come through being a surrogate.
17:28
17:28
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
He is well informed of the risks that they are taking in growing life over nine months, which is no mean feat. Since 2018, there have been 350 parental order applications from couples in a same sex relationship, according to brilliant beginnings for Adam and Jamie, who brought this petition to the house today, choosing to go abroad to the US was because in the US they were recognized as Levin's parents from day one. So I am sure it would have come as a shock to them to discover before Levin was born that their home, the UK, does not recognise them as Levin's legal parents under UK law, until the parental order is completed, which can take anywhere between 6 and 12 months.
And I commend their. I'll happily give way.
And I commend their. I'll happily give way.
17:28
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Already for giving, for giving away Ian Stewart to constituents of mine in Horsham. Welcome their daughter through surrogacy last October. Ian is the biological father, but at birth it was the surrogate mother and remarkably, her partner as well, who were named as the child's parents, not Ian. Typically, it takes 9 to 12 months, as she has said, to correct the record. In such cases, Ian understands why surrogates need legal protection.
But there must be a better way to do this. The Law Commission's 2023 report set out a simple, proportionate fix a new pathway to recognising at least one parent where genetically related to the child. As a legal parent from birth, does the honourable member agree that the government should now make a response to this report?
But there must be a better way to do this. The Law Commission's 2023 report set out a simple, proportionate fix a new pathway to recognising at least one parent where genetically related to the child. As a legal parent from birth, does the honourable member agree that the government should now make a response to this report?
17:29
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank the honourable member for his intervention and he pre-empts what I will go on to say in my speech, but he also raises a really important point, which is if I chose to be a surrogate for a friend or a family member, I think my husband would be pretty shocked at being named as the as the father on a birth certificate when it was my decision to be a surrogate. And that I think regardless of where you sit in this argument, doesn't make any sense.
I think we can all agree with that. So I commend Adam and Jamie's bravery for sharing their journey to parenthood and the additional challenges that they've been faced with in securing the rights they already are recognised to have in the US as their daughters parents. And the journey they took is more common today. So around 500 babies are born through surrogacy to UK parents every year. Nearly three quarters are now born through international surrogacy.
The most popular destination is the USA, with the other quarter spread over countries including Canada, Colombia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Nigeria and Ukraine. And it is legitimate to raise concerns around surrogacy practices in countries, especially where it is not regulated, including the risk of trafficking and exploitation, which is why the subject needs to be handled with such sensitivity, because we must ensure that the rights of the surrogate, the baby and the intended parents are at the heart of everything we do, and that legislation reflects this.
The recommendations of the Law Commission's report into surrogacy law, published in 2023, attempted to address many of these issues, and this report was requested by the UK government of the day. It sought to create a new pathway to parenthood for UK surrogacy, with intended parents recorded on their child's birth certificate, provided the surrogate does not change her mind. It also called for regulation of non-profit UK surrogacy organisations to oversee the new pathway, including requirements for a written surrogacy agreement, screening, legal advice and counselling, as well as tighter categorisation of permitted payments to UK surrogates.
And the honourable member for Strangford highlighted that there should be no doubt between payments and legitimate expenses and I and I agree with him. The Law Commission's report found that there is a lack of clarity about what payments can be made by the intended parents to the surrogate, which makes the law difficult to apply in practice. We need a law that can be clearly and fairly applied to ensure that families and surrogates alike understand their rights and responsibilities.
But the Law Commission report has not formally had a response from government, even though it was published three years ago. Nor has any time been made by this House to debate the wider conversation around surrogacy. So so we can reflect the changing environment. A call that was made by honourable members across the House. This is why it needs to be looked at as a matter of urgency. So I would ask the Minister today to explain what work is being done to improve clarity on this issue and whether we can expect legislation to address it.
As the honourable member said, there is a bill ready to go. We in the Liberal Democrats recognise that the current system can create long delays as intended. Parents apply for a parental order after birth, and we recognise the distress that these delays can cause to those involved. It's clear that these delays can also cause practical issues for parents who have caring responsibilities but lack legal security, which creates problems around registering. I'll happily give way to honourable lady.
I
I think we can all agree with that. So I commend Adam and Jamie's bravery for sharing their journey to parenthood and the additional challenges that they've been faced with in securing the rights they already are recognised to have in the US as their daughters parents. And the journey they took is more common today. So around 500 babies are born through surrogacy to UK parents every year. Nearly three quarters are now born through international surrogacy.
The most popular destination is the USA, with the other quarter spread over countries including Canada, Colombia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Nigeria and Ukraine. And it is legitimate to raise concerns around surrogacy practices in countries, especially where it is not regulated, including the risk of trafficking and exploitation, which is why the subject needs to be handled with such sensitivity, because we must ensure that the rights of the surrogate, the baby and the intended parents are at the heart of everything we do, and that legislation reflects this.
The recommendations of the Law Commission's report into surrogacy law, published in 2023, attempted to address many of these issues, and this report was requested by the UK government of the day. It sought to create a new pathway to parenthood for UK surrogacy, with intended parents recorded on their child's birth certificate, provided the surrogate does not change her mind. It also called for regulation of non-profit UK surrogacy organisations to oversee the new pathway, including requirements for a written surrogacy agreement, screening, legal advice and counselling, as well as tighter categorisation of permitted payments to UK surrogates.
And the honourable member for Strangford highlighted that there should be no doubt between payments and legitimate expenses and I and I agree with him. The Law Commission's report found that there is a lack of clarity about what payments can be made by the intended parents to the surrogate, which makes the law difficult to apply in practice. We need a law that can be clearly and fairly applied to ensure that families and surrogates alike understand their rights and responsibilities.
But the Law Commission report has not formally had a response from government, even though it was published three years ago. Nor has any time been made by this House to debate the wider conversation around surrogacy. So so we can reflect the changing environment. A call that was made by honourable members across the House. This is why it needs to be looked at as a matter of urgency. So I would ask the Minister today to explain what work is being done to improve clarity on this issue and whether we can expect legislation to address it.
As the honourable member said, there is a bill ready to go. We in the Liberal Democrats recognise that the current system can create long delays as intended. Parents apply for a parental order after birth, and we recognise the distress that these delays can cause to those involved. It's clear that these delays can also cause practical issues for parents who have caring responsibilities but lack legal security, which creates problems around registering. I'll happily give way to honourable lady.
I
17:33
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
thank the honourable lady for giving way, and there's been a couple of mentions made about this amount of time. That has to be that has to pass before you get this order. But when we look at the adoption system in the UK, you have equally long, often much longer waits to take on that parental right of that child. And I feel like we're in danger here of creating two separate systems where if you're putting in your order for a child through a surrogate, you get to have a quick, quick option to become the parent.
But if you're going through the care system and you've potentially fostered or adopted or you've, you know, gone through a long adoption process, we're making it a lot harder for those people. And I wonder if we're inadvertently here suggesting that there should be a two tier system. And I wonder what her thoughts are on that, because I know she's another member of this place who is a big advocate of of fostering and adoption like I am.
But if you're going through the care system and you've potentially fostered or adopted or you've, you know, gone through a long adoption process, we're making it a lot harder for those people. And I wonder if we're inadvertently here suggesting that there should be a two tier system. And I wonder what her thoughts are on that, because I know she's another member of this place who is a big advocate of of fostering and adoption like I am.
17:33
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank the honourable lady for her contribution. And I'm in no way suggesting that we create a two tier system. I think a separate debate would be actually how long the adoption process can take, especially for those that have had fostering responsibilities and then transitioning into adopting those children and how arduous that process can be, including making sure that those children have up to date health records, etc.. And we are very clearly talking about health services as well.
If a child is born that has a health concern, the intended parents that are providing that day to day care should have the facility to be able to act in on behalf of that child, to make sure that they are well looked after. I think it's worth pointing out at this point as well, that if a heterosexual couple presented in a hospital with a child that was poorly, it's very unlikely that a health professional would say, can you please prove that you are the legal parents? But for same sex couples, it is more likely that a health professional will say, are you the legal parent? And so we are creating a two tier system for heterosexual couples who choose surrogacy and homosexual couples, same sex couples who choose surrogacy.
And I'm not in favour of a two tier system at all. The Liberal Democrats also believe, as with all the issues raised in this debate, that any decisions regarding the legal parenthood of a new baby must ensure that the rights and well-being of all those are balanced and respected. So I ask the minister today, when the government intends to respond to the report in full, and whether it intends to bring forward any legislation for Parliament to consider on this issue, because although this is Adam and Jamie's debate, they represent a much wider group of people.
And I'll just finish by saying, so few people have touch points with our Parliament and our political system, and passing that threshold. To have your issue debated in Parliament is no mean feat. But it shouldn't be the end of the story, so I'd be helpful if it would be helpful if the minister could lay out what the next steps would be to to ensure that this conversation continues. Thank you.
If a child is born that has a health concern, the intended parents that are providing that day to day care should have the facility to be able to act in on behalf of that child, to make sure that they are well looked after. I think it's worth pointing out at this point as well, that if a heterosexual couple presented in a hospital with a child that was poorly, it's very unlikely that a health professional would say, can you please prove that you are the legal parents? But for same sex couples, it is more likely that a health professional will say, are you the legal parent? And so we are creating a two tier system for heterosexual couples who choose surrogacy and homosexual couples, same sex couples who choose surrogacy.
And I'm not in favour of a two tier system at all. The Liberal Democrats also believe, as with all the issues raised in this debate, that any decisions regarding the legal parenthood of a new baby must ensure that the rights and well-being of all those are balanced and respected. So I ask the minister today, when the government intends to respond to the report in full, and whether it intends to bring forward any legislation for Parliament to consider on this issue, because although this is Adam and Jamie's debate, they represent a much wider group of people.
And I'll just finish by saying, so few people have touch points with our Parliament and our political system, and passing that threshold. To have your issue debated in Parliament is no mean feat. But it shouldn't be the end of the story, so I'd be helpful if it would be helpful if the minister could lay out what the next steps would be to to ensure that this conversation continues. Thank you.
17:35
17:35
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you very much, Mr. Pritchard, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. And I should start by declaring an interest in this particular debate. As a former member of the appeals panel of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, I would like to also pay tribute to the honourable member for Lichfield for the tone in which he has opened this debate, and to recognise the more than 130 000 people who have signed this particular petition.
Behind many of those signatures will be personal experiences of infertility, loss and a long held wish to start a family. For intended parents, surrogacy is not simply a legal process, it is about getting a family they never thought they could have. In many cases, it comes at the end of a long and difficult journey. Nobody doubts the love those parents have for their children. Families formed through surrogacy deserve dignity, certainty and respect.
Our job in this house, however, is to consider more than the wishes of the adults involved. We must also speak for the child who cannot speak for his or herself, and protect the woman who carries and gives birth to that child. The issue before us is whether legal parenthood should pass automatically at birth, before the state has considered the child's welfare, the surrogate mother's consent and the circumstances in which the arrangement was made . As a starting point, any reform to this legislation must do three things.
Firstly, and most importantly, it must protect the child. Secondly, it must preserve the free and continuing consent of the woman who gives birth. And thirdly, it must address the safeguarding concerns arising from the increase in international commercial surrogacy. Turning to the first to protect the child, the petition describes the upset and strain of months of court proceedings and visits from social service workers before intended parents are legally recognised. I understand why that may feel intrusive and unsettling.
Intended parents have planned for the child, cared for them from birth and already see themselves as a family. But a parental order is not merely words on a piece of paper. It is the legal means by which parenthood transfers from one person to another. That is a serious act with lifelong consequences for the child. The process, as it currently stands, allows a court to consider the child's welfare, establish that the surrogate mother has freely consented, examine any payments that have been made, either through expenses or cash, and consider the circumstances in which the child will be raised.
Cafcass provides an independent assessment so that the decision is not based only on what the adults expected or agreed before the child was born. Now, it is argued by some that those checks are unnecessary because the overwhelming majority of applications are improved. I simply do not accept that the fact that a system usually finds everything is in order does not mean that the checks serve no purpose at all. Their existence helps to ensure that proper standards are followed.
If the process is too cumbersome, it should be made more intuitive. If families receive inconsistent advice, that advice should be clearer if courts or cafcass lack the resources to deal with applications promptly, the government should address that delays should be reduced, but it does not warrant the underlying protections being diminished. And so I therefore ask the minister whether the government remains committed to the parental order process and what it will do to reduce unnecessary delays, whilst simultaneously retaining independent welfare assessments.
My second point concerns the woman who gives birth under the present law. The woman who carries and gives birth to a child is the child's legal mother. Legal parenthood is transferred only after she has given valid consent following the birth. It would be ill judged to dismiss that as an outdated legal technicality. It recognises the physical, medical and emotional consequences of pregnancy and childbirth. The law normally prevents consent from being given until six weeks after the child is born, and that period of time is necessary.
A decision made before childbirth cannot fully account for the experience of giving birth, the mother's health afterwards, or how she may feel when the child is born. If intended, parents become legal parents automatically that protection would be reversed. The woman who carried the child and delivered it would instead have to take legal action if she wished to withdraw her consent or assert her own rights. That should concern all of us, particularly where there is a financial or social imbalance between the surrogate mother and the intended parents, a system that depends upon someone having the knowledge, confidence and money to begin legal proceedings may offer very little protection.
In practice, compassion for intended parents cannot require parliament to treat the woman who gives birth as a temporary party to somebody else's story. Nor should this be presented as a contest between traditional and modern families. Recognising different kinds of family does not require us to reduce the rights of the woman who carries the child. If the government is considering recognising intended parents from birth, I ask the minister to set out what protection would remain for a surrogate mother who changed her mind after giving birth.
The third issue is the one of growing concern the increase in international commercial surrogacy. The majority of parental order applications now concern children born overseas. Applications relating to children born internationally reportedly raised from 215 in 2021 to 509 in 2025. In that same year, there were 150 applications relating to children born in the United Kingdom. That marks a significant change in surrogacy in this country. International arrangements may involve large differences in wealth and power.
They may include commercial contracts that would not be enforceable here, complicated payment arrangements made through intermediaries, and serious doubts about whether consent was properly informed and freely given. I will give way.
Behind many of those signatures will be personal experiences of infertility, loss and a long held wish to start a family. For intended parents, surrogacy is not simply a legal process, it is about getting a family they never thought they could have. In many cases, it comes at the end of a long and difficult journey. Nobody doubts the love those parents have for their children. Families formed through surrogacy deserve dignity, certainty and respect.
Our job in this house, however, is to consider more than the wishes of the adults involved. We must also speak for the child who cannot speak for his or herself, and protect the woman who carries and gives birth to that child. The issue before us is whether legal parenthood should pass automatically at birth, before the state has considered the child's welfare, the surrogate mother's consent and the circumstances in which the arrangement was made . As a starting point, any reform to this legislation must do three things.
Firstly, and most importantly, it must protect the child. Secondly, it must preserve the free and continuing consent of the woman who gives birth. And thirdly, it must address the safeguarding concerns arising from the increase in international commercial surrogacy. Turning to the first to protect the child, the petition describes the upset and strain of months of court proceedings and visits from social service workers before intended parents are legally recognised. I understand why that may feel intrusive and unsettling.
Intended parents have planned for the child, cared for them from birth and already see themselves as a family. But a parental order is not merely words on a piece of paper. It is the legal means by which parenthood transfers from one person to another. That is a serious act with lifelong consequences for the child. The process, as it currently stands, allows a court to consider the child's welfare, establish that the surrogate mother has freely consented, examine any payments that have been made, either through expenses or cash, and consider the circumstances in which the child will be raised.
Cafcass provides an independent assessment so that the decision is not based only on what the adults expected or agreed before the child was born. Now, it is argued by some that those checks are unnecessary because the overwhelming majority of applications are improved. I simply do not accept that the fact that a system usually finds everything is in order does not mean that the checks serve no purpose at all. Their existence helps to ensure that proper standards are followed.
If the process is too cumbersome, it should be made more intuitive. If families receive inconsistent advice, that advice should be clearer if courts or cafcass lack the resources to deal with applications promptly, the government should address that delays should be reduced, but it does not warrant the underlying protections being diminished. And so I therefore ask the minister whether the government remains committed to the parental order process and what it will do to reduce unnecessary delays, whilst simultaneously retaining independent welfare assessments.
My second point concerns the woman who gives birth under the present law. The woman who carries and gives birth to a child is the child's legal mother. Legal parenthood is transferred only after she has given valid consent following the birth. It would be ill judged to dismiss that as an outdated legal technicality. It recognises the physical, medical and emotional consequences of pregnancy and childbirth. The law normally prevents consent from being given until six weeks after the child is born, and that period of time is necessary.
A decision made before childbirth cannot fully account for the experience of giving birth, the mother's health afterwards, or how she may feel when the child is born. If intended, parents become legal parents automatically that protection would be reversed. The woman who carried the child and delivered it would instead have to take legal action if she wished to withdraw her consent or assert her own rights. That should concern all of us, particularly where there is a financial or social imbalance between the surrogate mother and the intended parents, a system that depends upon someone having the knowledge, confidence and money to begin legal proceedings may offer very little protection.
In practice, compassion for intended parents cannot require parliament to treat the woman who gives birth as a temporary party to somebody else's story. Nor should this be presented as a contest between traditional and modern families. Recognising different kinds of family does not require us to reduce the rights of the woman who carries the child. If the government is considering recognising intended parents from birth, I ask the minister to set out what protection would remain for a surrogate mother who changed her mind after giving birth.
The third issue is the one of growing concern the increase in international commercial surrogacy. The majority of parental order applications now concern children born overseas. Applications relating to children born internationally reportedly raised from 215 in 2021 to 509 in 2025. In that same year, there were 150 applications relating to children born in the United Kingdom. That marks a significant change in surrogacy in this country. International arrangements may involve large differences in wealth and power.
They may include commercial contracts that would not be enforceable here, complicated payment arrangements made through intermediaries, and serious doubts about whether consent was properly informed and freely given. I will give way.
17:42
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
To, if I can, and I should have said it earlier on in my contribution and the library contribution, it says on page 31. It refers to sometimes the physical circumstances, which I think are really incredibly important. It's the Canadian population based study that they did. And I quote this sentence, and that's all I'm going to do. Mr. chairman, some researchers suggest that using an egg from a relative may reduce these risks.
The risks that come out through that, that particular medical assessment that was done. And does the honourable gentleman agree when it comes to looking at that, we need to consider the Canadian perspective and the surrogacy study that they did.
The risks that come out through that, that particular medical assessment that was done. And does the honourable gentleman agree when it comes to looking at that, we need to consider the Canadian perspective and the surrogacy study that they did.
17:42
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
I'm very grateful to the honourable gentleman for his intervention. He always comes to these debates well prepared and well briefed. And I think the point he is making that we can all agree on is this is an incredibly complex area, and it is not one that we can rush to legislate on and to, to seek to water down the clear protections that currently exist in. I will take a brief intervention.
17:43
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
My point is that in the UK now we prohibit commercial arrangements in this country, and yet we allow intended parents to travel overseas to exploit that type of purely commercial arrangement. I'm interested to know if the shadow minister thinks that is a morally coherent position, and whether we should be looking again at the rights of UK citizens to exploit commercial surrogacy overseas.
17:43
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Very grateful to the honourable gentleman. It's almost as though he can read my mind, because I was going to say there's a clear inconsistency in prohibiting the practice here in the UK, but allowing such arrangements to be made abroad. Of course, intended parents may also encounter immigration and nationality problems that they are aware of before entering the arrangement. If those arrangements take place overseas and in some cases, a British court may have difficulty locating the surrogate mother when deciding whether valid consent has been provided.
That results in a parental order process and a cafcass arrangement being the only independent scrutiny carried out in this country. The government's overseas surrogacy guidance was last updated by the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in 2022. Given the rise in international cases, it needs to be updated. It should deal clearly with safeguarding consent payments, independent legal advice, immigration and nationality. And with that in mind, will the Minister commit to reviewing the international surrogacy arrangements and publishing updated guidance? Some will say that the law is updated.
I understand the frustrations behind that argument. There is a case for a quicker process, for clearer guidance and greater consistency, but making a process easier for one party does not necessarily make the law better. Reforming the law must also protect those with less power and ensure that the child's interests are the main consideration. Of course, families formed through surrogacy deserve our support. However, the child whose future is being decided also deserves independent protection.
The woman who gives birth should not lose her rights before she knows how the experience of childbirth has affected her. We can shorten needless delays and give families greater certainty without discarding the principles on which the current system rests. Legal parenthood should be transferred only after the child's welfare has been properly considered. The surrogates mother's consent has been confirmed and the arrangement has been received has received the necessary independent scrutiny. In surrogacy, as in every other part of family law, the wishes of adults are important, but the welfare of children must always come First Minister.
That results in a parental order process and a cafcass arrangement being the only independent scrutiny carried out in this country. The government's overseas surrogacy guidance was last updated by the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in 2022. Given the rise in international cases, it needs to be updated. It should deal clearly with safeguarding consent payments, independent legal advice, immigration and nationality. And with that in mind, will the Minister commit to reviewing the international surrogacy arrangements and publishing updated guidance? Some will say that the law is updated.
I understand the frustrations behind that argument. There is a case for a quicker process, for clearer guidance and greater consistency, but making a process easier for one party does not necessarily make the law better. Reforming the law must also protect those with less power and ensure that the child's interests are the main consideration. Of course, families formed through surrogacy deserve our support. However, the child whose future is being decided also deserves independent protection.
The woman who gives birth should not lose her rights before she knows how the experience of childbirth has affected her. We can shorten needless delays and give families greater certainty without discarding the principles on which the current system rests. Legal parenthood should be transferred only after the child's welfare has been properly considered. The surrogates mother's consent has been confirmed and the arrangement has been received has received the necessary independent scrutiny. In surrogacy, as in every other part of family law, the wishes of adults are important, but the welfare of children must always come First Minister.
17:46
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Pritchard, and it's always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I'd like to start, of course, by thanking the honourable member for Lichfield for his opening speech as a member of the Petitions Committee, and I am pleased to respond to this debate. Proposing a change to surrogacy law to recognise intended parents from birth. As a result of that public petition signed by over 113 000 members of the public.
Now, I'd also like to welcome the shadow Minister to his place, and I congratulate him on his appointment to this role. I think this has been a really well attended debate, and there have been very many valuable contributions. This afternoon, the honourable member for South West Devon and my honourable friend for Edinburgh, North and Leith both spoke with great passion about the welfare of women and children, including the international dimension to surrogacy.
And I also just wanted to say to my hon. Friend the member for Bolton West, who I don't think is in his place any longer, but I was very concerned to hear the comment that the intervention that he made about his constituents, who had had a very poor experience going to Mexico with a certain company, and I wanted to say to him that the department are looking into those allegations about the my surrogacy journey, and will consider whether it is appropriate for the company to remain listed on the government UK list of agencies.
As part of that assessment, my. The honourable member for Leicester East talked again about the rights of the child coming first and the hon. My hon. Friend the member for Mansfield talked about the strength of motherhood and discussed the very important issue of consent. The honourable member for Strangford raised concerns about the commercialisation of surrogacy and my honourable friend for Cannock Chase and my hon. Friend for North Warwickshire and Bedworth.
My hon. Friend for Cannock Chase talked about the personal experience of becoming a dad and my hon. Friend for North Warwickshire and Bedworth spoke about the experience, the personal experience of Adam and Jamie and made a very strong speech for reform and again spoke about the issue of consent. My hon. Friend for Pendle and Clitheroe talked about the ethics of surrogacy and also referred to the approach taken by other European countries and the Honourable Lady for Chichester, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, I thought made a typically thoughtful speech setting out the Law Commission's report in some detail.
Now, I think it's worth saying that from the outset, the government recognises that surrogacy is a very complex and sensitive policy issue, where detail matters to all those involved in the surrogacy arrangement. I would like to also state that the government would always recommend that any, anyone considering surrogacy to ensure that they have a clear understanding of what is required for parenthood to legally transfer to intended parents, and to seek that specialist legal advice before beginning the process.
I'm grateful for the opportunity to reflect on this area of the law with the UK, of course, being one of the first countries to introduce a legislative framework for domestic surrogacy. The government supports surrogacy as part of a range of assisted conception options and recognises the important part it can play in supporting people seeking to start a family. The Surrogacy Arrangements Act was first introduced in 1985, through which parliament decided that altruistic surrogacy arrangements would be legally allowed to take place, with surrogates entitled to reasonable expenses.
The Surrogacy Arrangements Act was introduced to prevent surrogacy arrangements from taking place on a commercial basis, and I am grateful for the honourable member for Lichfield for his informed contribution to this debate, setting out the issues raised by the petitioners by Adam and Jamie, alongside my hon. Friend for Warwickshire and Bedworth. Sharing their experience of starting a family through surrogacy and the pathway to that legal parenthood in the United Kingdom. This government recognises the difficulties intended parents may encounter when applying for a parental order, and we are very grateful for those who feel able to share their stories and have had that lived experience on this matter.
Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. I just want to set out the current legal position on parental orders. The person who gives birth to the child, as we've been hearing this afternoon, in this case, the surrogate is the legal mother. When the child is born and has parental responsibility until a parental order has been put in place by the courts, a parental order makes the intended parents the legal parents and permanently removes the surrogate's legal motherhood. We recognise that the application process for a parental order can be a difficult period for intended parents.
However, the safeguarding assessments are necessary and do take time in order to support the court's considerations of parental order applications. Each application is carefully considered by the Family Court on the facts of the individual case, but I do note the issues raised about delays in the system this afternoon. The debate has highlighted broader questions about whether the current legal framework in the UK continues to reflect modern family formation and contemporary surrogacy practice.
The government acknowledges these concerns and recognises the arguments on both sides that the law should provide greater clarity, better support and a more streamlined pathway to legal parenthood, whilst maintaining robust safeguards for children, surrogates and intended parents in relation to international surrogacy. We know that there are many reasons why people pursue international surrogacy arrangements, and that this is a very complex area. The process to bring a child or children to the UK after birth can be long and complicated.
Foreign office guidance makes it clear that if people are considering considering surrogacy in a foreign country, they are strongly advised to seek specialist, independent legal advice both in the UK and in the relevant country, before making any arrangements. Now I hear loud and clear and note the calls for legislative change this afternoon, but given the limited parliamentary time available, the government are not in a position to bring forward immediate legislation on surrogacy reform.
The government will, however, continue to consider options for future reform and remain engaged with the issues raised by stakeholders, parliamentarians and families with lived experience of surrogacy. Any. Yes, I'm happy to give way. Yeah.
Now, I'd also like to welcome the shadow Minister to his place, and I congratulate him on his appointment to this role. I think this has been a really well attended debate, and there have been very many valuable contributions. This afternoon, the honourable member for South West Devon and my honourable friend for Edinburgh, North and Leith both spoke with great passion about the welfare of women and children, including the international dimension to surrogacy.
And I also just wanted to say to my hon. Friend the member for Bolton West, who I don't think is in his place any longer, but I was very concerned to hear the comment that the intervention that he made about his constituents, who had had a very poor experience going to Mexico with a certain company, and I wanted to say to him that the department are looking into those allegations about the my surrogacy journey, and will consider whether it is appropriate for the company to remain listed on the government UK list of agencies.
As part of that assessment, my. The honourable member for Leicester East talked again about the rights of the child coming first and the hon. My hon. Friend the member for Mansfield talked about the strength of motherhood and discussed the very important issue of consent. The honourable member for Strangford raised concerns about the commercialisation of surrogacy and my honourable friend for Cannock Chase and my hon. Friend for North Warwickshire and Bedworth.
My hon. Friend for Cannock Chase talked about the personal experience of becoming a dad and my hon. Friend for North Warwickshire and Bedworth spoke about the experience, the personal experience of Adam and Jamie and made a very strong speech for reform and again spoke about the issue of consent. My hon. Friend for Pendle and Clitheroe talked about the ethics of surrogacy and also referred to the approach taken by other European countries and the Honourable Lady for Chichester, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, I thought made a typically thoughtful speech setting out the Law Commission's report in some detail.
Now, I think it's worth saying that from the outset, the government recognises that surrogacy is a very complex and sensitive policy issue, where detail matters to all those involved in the surrogacy arrangement. I would like to also state that the government would always recommend that any, anyone considering surrogacy to ensure that they have a clear understanding of what is required for parenthood to legally transfer to intended parents, and to seek that specialist legal advice before beginning the process.
I'm grateful for the opportunity to reflect on this area of the law with the UK, of course, being one of the first countries to introduce a legislative framework for domestic surrogacy. The government supports surrogacy as part of a range of assisted conception options and recognises the important part it can play in supporting people seeking to start a family. The Surrogacy Arrangements Act was first introduced in 1985, through which parliament decided that altruistic surrogacy arrangements would be legally allowed to take place, with surrogates entitled to reasonable expenses.
The Surrogacy Arrangements Act was introduced to prevent surrogacy arrangements from taking place on a commercial basis, and I am grateful for the honourable member for Lichfield for his informed contribution to this debate, setting out the issues raised by the petitioners by Adam and Jamie, alongside my hon. Friend for Warwickshire and Bedworth. Sharing their experience of starting a family through surrogacy and the pathway to that legal parenthood in the United Kingdom. This government recognises the difficulties intended parents may encounter when applying for a parental order, and we are very grateful for those who feel able to share their stories and have had that lived experience on this matter.
Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. I just want to set out the current legal position on parental orders. The person who gives birth to the child, as we've been hearing this afternoon, in this case, the surrogate is the legal mother. When the child is born and has parental responsibility until a parental order has been put in place by the courts, a parental order makes the intended parents the legal parents and permanently removes the surrogate's legal motherhood. We recognise that the application process for a parental order can be a difficult period for intended parents.
However, the safeguarding assessments are necessary and do take time in order to support the court's considerations of parental order applications. Each application is carefully considered by the Family Court on the facts of the individual case, but I do note the issues raised about delays in the system this afternoon. The debate has highlighted broader questions about whether the current legal framework in the UK continues to reflect modern family formation and contemporary surrogacy practice.
The government acknowledges these concerns and recognises the arguments on both sides that the law should provide greater clarity, better support and a more streamlined pathway to legal parenthood, whilst maintaining robust safeguards for children, surrogates and intended parents in relation to international surrogacy. We know that there are many reasons why people pursue international surrogacy arrangements, and that this is a very complex area. The process to bring a child or children to the UK after birth can be long and complicated.
Foreign office guidance makes it clear that if people are considering considering surrogacy in a foreign country, they are strongly advised to seek specialist, independent legal advice both in the UK and in the relevant country, before making any arrangements. Now I hear loud and clear and note the calls for legislative change this afternoon, but given the limited parliamentary time available, the government are not in a position to bring forward immediate legislation on surrogacy reform.
The government will, however, continue to consider options for future reform and remain engaged with the issues raised by stakeholders, parliamentarians and families with lived experience of surrogacy. Any. Yes, I'm happy to give way. Yeah.
17:53
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Way and thank her for her very thoughtful summing up speech. As ever. I just wonder, though, if she's had any conversations with her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions around the clarity on whether or not expenses that surrogate mothers can receive count towards their benefits, because under legacy benefits they did, and under the the new version of Universal Credit, it doesn't count as a as unearned income. So we've actually got a particularly thorny issue there that is going to need some looking at, particularly given these figures around, you know, £25,000 being paid to women who may well be on benefits as well, but it doesn't actually count as income.
Is that a conversation she's had and something she could look into?
Is that a conversation she's had and something she could look into?
17:54
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
I'm very happy to take that point away and write to the The Honourable lady, as I was saying, any future reforms? Of course, we need to protect the welfare of children and safeguard those involved in surrogacy arrangements, as well as maintaining public trust. As noted throughout the debate, the department supported the Joint Project of the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission to review the current surrogacy regime. The Law Commission has consulted widely on this topic, generating a wide diversity of views.
The previous government welcomed the Law Commission's 2023 report on surrogacy reform, and this government will respond in due course as time allows. I am very grateful to all those who have contributed to both sides of the debate this afternoon. The contributions made today have highlighted, again both the strengths of the current surrogacy framework and the challenges that may be faced when navigating it. The government is clear that the welfare of children born through surrogacy must remain paramount.
We recognise the importance of ensuring that children are protected and that intended parents are supported in having families, surrogate mothers are protected and that surrogacy arrangements operate within a framework that commands public confidence. And my honourable friend the Minister has responsibility for this area, and I am sure she would be very happy to meet and to meet honourable members to discuss this further. So I once again thank honourable members, the honourable member for Lichfield for raising this important debate and acknowledging the families impacted.
The previous government welcomed the Law Commission's 2023 report on surrogacy reform, and this government will respond in due course as time allows. I am very grateful to all those who have contributed to both sides of the debate this afternoon. The contributions made today have highlighted, again both the strengths of the current surrogacy framework and the challenges that may be faced when navigating it. The government is clear that the welfare of children born through surrogacy must remain paramount.
We recognise the importance of ensuring that children are protected and that intended parents are supported in having families, surrogate mothers are protected and that surrogacy arrangements operate within a framework that commands public confidence. And my honourable friend the Minister has responsibility for this area, and I am sure she would be very happy to meet and to meet honourable members to discuss this further. So I once again thank honourable members, the honourable member for Lichfield for raising this important debate and acknowledging the families impacted.
17:56
17:56
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you again, Mr. Pritchard. Always a pleasure to be able to sum up these debates and to thank honourable members and right honourable members for their contributions. The members for South West Devon and Leicester East, my hon. Friends for Edinburgh North and Leith, Mansfield, Pendle and Clitheroe really bringing to to the table today points around the balance of rights between the different parties involved and how disagreements between intended parents and surrogates can be worked through the importance of surrogates rights, but also raising the legal complexities around devolution.
We've heard that from a number of members, particularly to Holyrood and Stormont, but I'm sure that's also the case for for Cardiff and also their focus on the rights of the child. So my honourable friends for Cannock Chase, North Warwickshire and Bedworth and I will always say that's how it should be pronounced. And for highlighting the difficulties faced by intended parents and families navigating through what is a very complex process, the importance of consent as we navigate through the process, and also raising the value of surrogacy to families, and finding a way for families to be able to to start using this process.
Great. Also to hear from the honourable members for Horsham, Glasgow South and Bolton West in their contributions, but also to the party spokespersons, the honourable member for Strangford, the Liberal Democrats, the conservatives and the honourable members for Chichester, the member for Solihull West and Shirley, and obviously the Minister. The Right Honourable member for Hull North. It's very clear from the debate that we've had today that this is an incredibly complex and incredibly detailed debate, and one which needs to be considered absolutely, fully.
And whilst I'm sure the petitioners would have preferred to hear a further update from the minister today, the minister was very, very, very clear, as well as outlining the current legal position and the current advice from the government around surrogacy, but also saying that the government is staying exactly where they are, that they will they will get to this when time allows, which is probably the the very paraphrased conclusion to the minister's speech. But thank you to everybody for your time today, and especially to you, Mr.
Pritchard, for chairing.
We've heard that from a number of members, particularly to Holyrood and Stormont, but I'm sure that's also the case for for Cardiff and also their focus on the rights of the child. So my honourable friends for Cannock Chase, North Warwickshire and Bedworth and I will always say that's how it should be pronounced. And for highlighting the difficulties faced by intended parents and families navigating through what is a very complex process, the importance of consent as we navigate through the process, and also raising the value of surrogacy to families, and finding a way for families to be able to to start using this process.
Great. Also to hear from the honourable members for Horsham, Glasgow South and Bolton West in their contributions, but also to the party spokespersons, the honourable member for Strangford, the Liberal Democrats, the conservatives and the honourable members for Chichester, the member for Solihull West and Shirley, and obviously the Minister. The Right Honourable member for Hull North. It's very clear from the debate that we've had today that this is an incredibly complex and incredibly detailed debate, and one which needs to be considered absolutely, fully.
And whilst I'm sure the petitioners would have preferred to hear a further update from the minister today, the minister was very, very, very clear, as well as outlining the current legal position and the current advice from the government around surrogacy, but also saying that the government is staying exactly where they are, that they will they will get to this when time allows, which is probably the the very paraphrased conclusion to the minister's speech. But thank you to everybody for your time today, and especially to you, Mr.
Pritchard, for chairing.
17:58
17:59
17:59
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you, Sir Edward. I beg to move that this House has considered E-petition 746640. Entitled legislate crimes motivated by misogyny are hate crimes fund and support trading. It's always a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, sir Edward. In February this year, Amara Ralph wrote an excellent blog post that was called Students Need Misogyny to be Recognised as a Hate Crime. And this is how it started. When we began our roles as sabbatical officers, one priority was clear improving student safety.
Very quickly, it became apparent that while serious sexual offences can carry severe sentences, the everyday behaviours that shape women's lives catcalling, groping, sexually suggestive comments and harassment are too often minimised, overlooked or left entirely unpunished. Sexual harassment as its own category is rarely criminalised in practice and as a result, many students are left asking a difficult question why report something when it feels unlikely that anything will be done? And she says this the lack of consequence not only enables harmful behaviour but also actively discourages reporting.
This is why we, Lily, Amara and Holly have launched a petition calling for misogyny to be recognised as a hate crime. Sir Edward, First of all, I want to thank Amara, Lily and Holly for this petition, which has attracted 114,927 signatures, including 123 from my own constituency of Folkestone and Hythe. Amara and her colleagues also commissioned a survey among Russell Group universities, which found that 67% of students would be more likely to report their experiences if misogyny were treated as a hate crime.
And Amara argues that legal change alone won't shift deeply ingrained attitudes. But without it, cultural change becomes even harder to achieve. Sir Edward The ingrained attitudes the petitioner is talking about are reflected in the fact that, according to the ONS, 23% of women aged 16 to 24 and 16% of those aged 25 to 34 have reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment in the previous year, compared to around 5% of those aged 35 and older.
So it is clear that younger women are bearing the brunt of this sexual harassment epidemic. The petitioner is right that the law needs to change. Take the criminal offence of harassment, which is broadly unwanted conduct that causes a person harassment, alarm or distress. Now, if the person, the perpetrator of that harassment was motivated by hostility to the victim's religion, that is a statutory aggravating factor, which in practice means the offender sentence is made more severe.
But if it was motivated instead by hostility to the victim's sex or gender, that is not currently an aggravating factor, which is, in my view, wrong. Misogyny is not currently a centrally monitored hate crime characteristic in England and Wales, and so data is not currently collected about offending with a misogynistic element specifically. But I am pleased to say that we are seeing positive change with this Labour government following an amendment tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill by my honourable friend the member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, the Minister agreed to bring forward a government amendment in the Lords, and the resulting clause on aggravated offences is now section 145 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which will extend the racially and religiously aggravated offences in sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which includes offences like assault, harassment and criminal damage, will also cover hostility based on sex as well as disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity , so that the higher maximum penalties available already for race and religion are available in those cases too.
I strongly support this change because tackling misogyny needs to be embedded in the government's approach to hate crime more generally, and also so the hostility based on misogyny is centrally recorded, so we can finally have a true national picture of the scale of this problem. The petitioner has also called for tougher laws against online abuse and to tackle anti-feminist hate groups that target and radicalise young people online. And as she said in her article, and I quote, for students, the online dimension is inescapable.
Group chats where women are rated and degraded, anonymous platforms where harassment flourishes, social media pylons. The algorithmically driven spread of the manosphere content means that young men are being radicalized into misogynistic worldviews at scale, and women students are experiencing the consequences in their daily seminars, in their societies and in their relationships. Now, last October, Ofcom did issue guidance to tech firms requesting that online platforms do introduce measures like usability testing, timeouts for repeat offenders, easier mass blocking tools and demonetizing misogynistic content.
Now I support these measures and they all sound good in theory, but the fact that this is voluntary guidance means that it is unclear, at least to me, how these platforms will be forced to act. And as the End Violence Against Women Coalition told the Women and Equalities Select Committee last year, nothing less than a binding vawg code of practice is required for us to stand a chance of turning the tide against this wave of online misogyny that we are seeing.
And then there is the capacity of the criminal justice system to sensitively and effectively respond to victims who are brave enough to raise a complaint. The Equality and Human Rights Commission's tracker notes that there is currently no compulsory training for existing police officers on responding to rape and sexual offences. Only new recruits are covered. The UN Committee Against Torture has specifically recommended the UK provide mandatory training on the prosecution of gender based violence to all justice officials and law enforcement personnel, and not just new recruits, and extending mandatory refresher and specialist training to service serving officers, which would close this gap.
Women's aid has also called for specialist domestic abuse training to be provided to all judges, not just those in jurisdictions that frequently see vawg cases. I certainly see in the case load that I have in my constituency of folks in higher than Romney Marsh, that tackling domestic abuse and violence against women does prevent system level challenges. I pay tribute to the brilliant local organisations like Rising Sun, Domestic Violence and abuse Service, Home-start, Shepway and Beach House, as well as a local police force for everything they do to support victims in our community.
But there is always further that we can go and the need for better specialist training is underlined by evidence given by the Women and Equalities Select Committee last year, suggesting that police and safeguarding professionals don't often, often don't recognise manosphere links, misogyny or incel ideology as a warning sign in the same way that they would with other radicalization indicators. And so training gaps here often mean that genuinely concerning behaviours may not meet intervention thresholds, such as the prevent programme, because it's seen as misogynistic rather than linked to a proscribed organisation.
I think the petitioner is right to hope, Sir Edward, that stronger criminal laws, stronger awareness among criminal justice and safeguarding professionals, stronger support for victims and stronger online protections may help and are needed to help turn the tide of misogyny. But this is a whole of society effort which requires everyone, and particularly men, to demonstrate what healthy attitudes to women look like. In conclusion, the petitioner has made a compelling case. Misogyny constrains women's daily freedom, safety and willingness to participate fully in education, work and public life, and I welcome the important progress made by section 145 of the crime, Crime and Policing Act.
Legislation must equally be matched by proper training, properly trained police, prosecutors and safeguarding professionals and judges, meaningful support for those who come forward, and enforceable action by online platforms against the abuse and radicalisation they too often enable. We, of course, cannot wait until hatred escalates into the most serious offences before we act. We must recognise misogyny where it is present, challenge it wherever it appears , and make clear to every woman and girl that the law is on her side.
I hope the Minister will set out how the government will build on this important legislative framework so that women and girls, including students in Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh, can live and study and participate in a public life free from harassment, intimidation and misogynist abuse. I will.
Very quickly, it became apparent that while serious sexual offences can carry severe sentences, the everyday behaviours that shape women's lives catcalling, groping, sexually suggestive comments and harassment are too often minimised, overlooked or left entirely unpunished. Sexual harassment as its own category is rarely criminalised in practice and as a result, many students are left asking a difficult question why report something when it feels unlikely that anything will be done? And she says this the lack of consequence not only enables harmful behaviour but also actively discourages reporting.
This is why we, Lily, Amara and Holly have launched a petition calling for misogyny to be recognised as a hate crime. Sir Edward, First of all, I want to thank Amara, Lily and Holly for this petition, which has attracted 114,927 signatures, including 123 from my own constituency of Folkestone and Hythe. Amara and her colleagues also commissioned a survey among Russell Group universities, which found that 67% of students would be more likely to report their experiences if misogyny were treated as a hate crime.
And Amara argues that legal change alone won't shift deeply ingrained attitudes. But without it, cultural change becomes even harder to achieve. Sir Edward The ingrained attitudes the petitioner is talking about are reflected in the fact that, according to the ONS, 23% of women aged 16 to 24 and 16% of those aged 25 to 34 have reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment in the previous year, compared to around 5% of those aged 35 and older.
So it is clear that younger women are bearing the brunt of this sexual harassment epidemic. The petitioner is right that the law needs to change. Take the criminal offence of harassment, which is broadly unwanted conduct that causes a person harassment, alarm or distress. Now, if the person, the perpetrator of that harassment was motivated by hostility to the victim's religion, that is a statutory aggravating factor, which in practice means the offender sentence is made more severe.
But if it was motivated instead by hostility to the victim's sex or gender, that is not currently an aggravating factor, which is, in my view, wrong. Misogyny is not currently a centrally monitored hate crime characteristic in England and Wales, and so data is not currently collected about offending with a misogynistic element specifically. But I am pleased to say that we are seeing positive change with this Labour government following an amendment tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill by my honourable friend the member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, the Minister agreed to bring forward a government amendment in the Lords, and the resulting clause on aggravated offences is now section 145 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which will extend the racially and religiously aggravated offences in sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which includes offences like assault, harassment and criminal damage, will also cover hostility based on sex as well as disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity , so that the higher maximum penalties available already for race and religion are available in those cases too.
I strongly support this change because tackling misogyny needs to be embedded in the government's approach to hate crime more generally, and also so the hostility based on misogyny is centrally recorded, so we can finally have a true national picture of the scale of this problem. The petitioner has also called for tougher laws against online abuse and to tackle anti-feminist hate groups that target and radicalise young people online. And as she said in her article, and I quote, for students, the online dimension is inescapable.
Group chats where women are rated and degraded, anonymous platforms where harassment flourishes, social media pylons. The algorithmically driven spread of the manosphere content means that young men are being radicalized into misogynistic worldviews at scale, and women students are experiencing the consequences in their daily seminars, in their societies and in their relationships. Now, last October, Ofcom did issue guidance to tech firms requesting that online platforms do introduce measures like usability testing, timeouts for repeat offenders, easier mass blocking tools and demonetizing misogynistic content.
Now I support these measures and they all sound good in theory, but the fact that this is voluntary guidance means that it is unclear, at least to me, how these platforms will be forced to act. And as the End Violence Against Women Coalition told the Women and Equalities Select Committee last year, nothing less than a binding vawg code of practice is required for us to stand a chance of turning the tide against this wave of online misogyny that we are seeing.
And then there is the capacity of the criminal justice system to sensitively and effectively respond to victims who are brave enough to raise a complaint. The Equality and Human Rights Commission's tracker notes that there is currently no compulsory training for existing police officers on responding to rape and sexual offences. Only new recruits are covered. The UN Committee Against Torture has specifically recommended the UK provide mandatory training on the prosecution of gender based violence to all justice officials and law enforcement personnel, and not just new recruits, and extending mandatory refresher and specialist training to service serving officers, which would close this gap.
Women's aid has also called for specialist domestic abuse training to be provided to all judges, not just those in jurisdictions that frequently see vawg cases. I certainly see in the case load that I have in my constituency of folks in higher than Romney Marsh, that tackling domestic abuse and violence against women does prevent system level challenges. I pay tribute to the brilliant local organisations like Rising Sun, Domestic Violence and abuse Service, Home-start, Shepway and Beach House, as well as a local police force for everything they do to support victims in our community.
But there is always further that we can go and the need for better specialist training is underlined by evidence given by the Women and Equalities Select Committee last year, suggesting that police and safeguarding professionals don't often, often don't recognise manosphere links, misogyny or incel ideology as a warning sign in the same way that they would with other radicalization indicators. And so training gaps here often mean that genuinely concerning behaviours may not meet intervention thresholds, such as the prevent programme, because it's seen as misogynistic rather than linked to a proscribed organisation.
I think the petitioner is right to hope, Sir Edward, that stronger criminal laws, stronger awareness among criminal justice and safeguarding professionals, stronger support for victims and stronger online protections may help and are needed to help turn the tide of misogyny. But this is a whole of society effort which requires everyone, and particularly men, to demonstrate what healthy attitudes to women look like. In conclusion, the petitioner has made a compelling case. Misogyny constrains women's daily freedom, safety and willingness to participate fully in education, work and public life, and I welcome the important progress made by section 145 of the crime, Crime and Policing Act.
Legislation must equally be matched by proper training, properly trained police, prosecutors and safeguarding professionals and judges, meaningful support for those who come forward, and enforceable action by online platforms against the abuse and radicalisation they too often enable. We, of course, cannot wait until hatred escalates into the most serious offences before we act. We must recognise misogyny where it is present, challenge it wherever it appears , and make clear to every woman and girl that the law is on her side.
I hope the Minister will set out how the government will build on this important legislative framework so that women and girls, including students in Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh, can live and study and participate in a public life free from harassment, intimidation and misogynist abuse. I will.
18:09
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank him for giving way and I thank him for making it an excellent speech, which I agree with wholeheartedly. Just before he finishes, would he agree with me that it's also important we reflect on the intersection intersectional nature of hate crime, and that women will experience hate crime for lots of different reasons, including being a woman who is gay or a woman who is Bame, and would he just say a little about that and the importance of it?
18:09
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
I thank my hon. Friend for intervening. I defer to and pay tribute to the work that she has done in this area over many years, and it really is is very, very important that she has raised this issue because it's something that the petitioners themselves wrote about in their article that led to the petition and led to this debate, because the way that discrimination and prejudice operates is not compartmentalised by protected characteristics in the Equality Act, and quite often a number of those characteristics are present at the same time.
And so it is so important that you have a system that understands that, first and foremost, that can ensure that the way that victims are dealt with within the system actually takes account of those different needs, so that we don't necessarily treat everyone the same, but we treat them in the way that they need to be treated, having regard to their protected characteristics. I do thank her for raising that point. In summing up in her in her speech. I wonder if the minister would in particular address these questions.
The first is when section 145 of the 2026 act is planned to be commenced. I understand it isn't yet in force. Secondly, what assessment has the government made of the merits of introducing sex as an aggravating factor in respect of all offending, not just Crime and Disorder Act offences, which is, I think, the the ask of the petitioners. And finally, does the government have any plans to require existing police officers to undergo training on gender based violence? Given that currently it's only those who are who are being brought into the system.
But I look forward to hearing from her. Thank you.
And so it is so important that you have a system that understands that, first and foremost, that can ensure that the way that victims are dealt with within the system actually takes account of those different needs, so that we don't necessarily treat everyone the same, but we treat them in the way that they need to be treated, having regard to their protected characteristics. I do thank her for raising that point. In summing up in her in her speech. I wonder if the minister would in particular address these questions.
The first is when section 145 of the 2026 act is planned to be commenced. I understand it isn't yet in force. Secondly, what assessment has the government made of the merits of introducing sex as an aggravating factor in respect of all offending, not just Crime and Disorder Act offences, which is, I think, the the ask of the petitioners. And finally, does the government have any plans to require existing police officers to undergo training on gender based violence? Given that currently it's only those who are who are being brought into the system.
But I look forward to hearing from her. Thank you.
18:11
18:11
18:11
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
in the chair, and I congratulate the honourable member for Folkestone and Hythe for introducing this debate so thoughtfully. For months now I have been campaigning for legislation to combat the alarming trend of night life filming. Women are being filmed in public without their knowledge or consent, with this footage then shared online for millions to view. Collectively, this content has been viewed more than 3 billion times in just three years. Algorithms are not neutral.
They elevate with what captures attention, and that is often what is extreme, polarising or degrading. These nighttime nightlife videos are accompanied by misogynistic comments and abuse, driving engagement and generating profits for the video's creator. This means misogynistic content is not just present, it is incentivised and rewarded. For the victims. The impact is devastating. They are ridiculed, humiliated, face reputational damage and left fearing for their safety in public.
And yet, once again, the law is scrambling to catch up to emerging forms of misogynistic abuse. I saw this during my campaign to make the disgusting act of upskirting a criminal offence, which led to the Virus Act 2019. At the time, there was a clear gap in the law and an urgent need to act, but even then it was obvious that we were responding to one manifestation of a much wider problem. Today, we are seeing increasingly sophisticated forms of online abuse, from AI generated deepfake imagery to coordinated harassment campaigns.
On that point, I'm happy to give way. I
They elevate with what captures attention, and that is often what is extreme, polarising or degrading. These nighttime nightlife videos are accompanied by misogynistic comments and abuse, driving engagement and generating profits for the video's creator. This means misogynistic content is not just present, it is incentivised and rewarded. For the victims. The impact is devastating. They are ridiculed, humiliated, face reputational damage and left fearing for their safety in public.
And yet, once again, the law is scrambling to catch up to emerging forms of misogynistic abuse. I saw this during my campaign to make the disgusting act of upskirting a criminal offence, which led to the Virus Act 2019. At the time, there was a clear gap in the law and an urgent need to act, but even then it was obvious that we were responding to one manifestation of a much wider problem. Today, we are seeing increasingly sophisticated forms of online abuse, from AI generated deepfake imagery to coordinated harassment campaigns.
On that point, I'm happy to give way. I
18:13
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
thank my honourable friend for giving way on that point. She talks about coordinated campaigns of harassment. One of the things that I saw over the weekend, like many people will have done, will be the female protester at reform conference and the manhandling of her and some of the horrendous comments about that individual on social media. Does she agree with me that this is completely unacceptable and we should condemn it? And it's shameful that other members from other political parties aren't here to talk up the violence against women and girls and misogyny in all its forms.
18:13
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Well, I thank him for bringing up this disgusting footage. And in fact, the events that led up to then the videos that were being made. But all of that reinforces the message. People act with impunity because they think that's the way they can behave towards women. And this is what making misogyny a hate crime would ultimately, at its root, stop. It won't change everything, but it will at least challenge the attitudes that some some people, members of the public, still display towards women or or minority groups.
But sex based harassment and violence. He's absolutely right. And I thank him for raising this. This is happening at pace and scale that we have not seen before. Technology has made it easier to commit. These acts and social media platforms have made it easier for them to spread. But the underlying issue has not changed. As I've just said, violence against women and girls is an epidemic in the UK.
And to be quite honest, not just in the UK. It spans countries and continents. 1 in 4 women in England and Wales will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. 1 in 4 have been raped or sexually assaulted since the age of 16. These are not isolated crimes. They are part of a wider pattern and we always sort of use these numbers and each time it as a tragedy. It's a it's a something that ruins our life.
In December, the government published its new Violence Against Women and Girls strategy. It's focused on prevention, education, and early intervention is welcome and long overdue. The strategy must remain a priority for the new government. The government's amendment to the Crime and Policing Act, which has already been mentioned today . The Crime and Policing Act 2026, to recognise misogyny as an aggravating factor in some crimes is a welcome step in the right direction, but it must go further.
This means amending the Sentencing Act 2020 so that all crimes motivated by misogyny are classed as hate crimes. Not long ago, following the rape and murder of Sarah Everard, there was strong political momentum behind doing exactly that. Labour themselves committed to making misogyny a hate crime. Yet now that they're in government, they have sort of gone quiet. Instead, we are left legislating against each new form of technology facilitated abuse as it emerges, without addressing the hostility towards women that underpins them.
All misogyny must be recognised within hate crime legislation. This matters for three reasons. First, it would help us properly understand the scale of the problem without consistent, consistent recording, misogyny remains largely invisible in official data, despite being a common factor in many forms of abuse. Second, it would improve accountability where crimes are motivated by hostility towards women. That should be reflected in how they're investigated and prosecuted, just as it is for other forms of hate crime.
And third, it would recognise that many women many women already know that these experiences are not random. They are rooted in attitudes towards women that continue to shape behaviour both offline and online. Recognising misogyny as a hate crime will not, on its own end violence against women and girls, but it would be an important step towards treating this as a connected problem rather than a series of unrelated offences. If we are serious about prevention, Sir Edward, we cannot ignore the role misogyny plays.
If we continue to avoid naming it, we will remain stuck in a cycle of reacting to harm rather than preventing it. Thank you.
But sex based harassment and violence. He's absolutely right. And I thank him for raising this. This is happening at pace and scale that we have not seen before. Technology has made it easier to commit. These acts and social media platforms have made it easier for them to spread. But the underlying issue has not changed. As I've just said, violence against women and girls is an epidemic in the UK.
And to be quite honest, not just in the UK. It spans countries and continents. 1 in 4 women in England and Wales will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. 1 in 4 have been raped or sexually assaulted since the age of 16. These are not isolated crimes. They are part of a wider pattern and we always sort of use these numbers and each time it as a tragedy. It's a it's a something that ruins our life.
In December, the government published its new Violence Against Women and Girls strategy. It's focused on prevention, education, and early intervention is welcome and long overdue. The strategy must remain a priority for the new government. The government's amendment to the Crime and Policing Act, which has already been mentioned today . The Crime and Policing Act 2026, to recognise misogyny as an aggravating factor in some crimes is a welcome step in the right direction, but it must go further.
This means amending the Sentencing Act 2020 so that all crimes motivated by misogyny are classed as hate crimes. Not long ago, following the rape and murder of Sarah Everard, there was strong political momentum behind doing exactly that. Labour themselves committed to making misogyny a hate crime. Yet now that they're in government, they have sort of gone quiet. Instead, we are left legislating against each new form of technology facilitated abuse as it emerges, without addressing the hostility towards women that underpins them.
All misogyny must be recognised within hate crime legislation. This matters for three reasons. First, it would help us properly understand the scale of the problem without consistent, consistent recording, misogyny remains largely invisible in official data, despite being a common factor in many forms of abuse. Second, it would improve accountability where crimes are motivated by hostility towards women. That should be reflected in how they're investigated and prosecuted, just as it is for other forms of hate crime.
And third, it would recognise that many women many women already know that these experiences are not random. They are rooted in attitudes towards women that continue to shape behaviour both offline and online. Recognising misogyny as a hate crime will not, on its own end violence against women and girls, but it would be an important step towards treating this as a connected problem rather than a series of unrelated offences. If we are serious about prevention, Sir Edward, we cannot ignore the role misogyny plays.
If we continue to avoid naming it, we will remain stuck in a cycle of reacting to harm rather than preventing it. Thank you.
18:17
18:17
18:17
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Thank you, Sir Edward. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the member for Folkestone and Hythe for introducing the debate. I'm grateful to the petitioners for bringing this really important issue before the House and to the more than 114,000 people who've signed the petition, including over 100 from my constituency. And might I say, as a former sabbatical officer myself, this is yet more evidence that the phrase student politics should be seen as a compliment in this place, rather than a criticism.
Misogyny and violence against women and girls are not inevitable, and they should not be dismissed as something that women and girls simply have to put up with, whether on the street or in the workplace or in school or increasingly online. As the honourable lady says. And I've spoken in this place before about the scourge of deepfakes and AI enabled abuse. And in the spirit of cross-party collaboration, can I also commend the work of Baroness Owen in this regard as well.
I therefore welcome the government's commitment to tackle violence against women and girls and halve it within a decade. Prevention and early intervention and relentless pursuit of the perpetrators and proper support for victims are foundations that we absolutely need, and so we need to deal with the attitudes and behaviours that allow violence and abuse to develop in the first place. That's particularly important when we consider the growth of misogynistic material online. Young people can now be exposed very quickly to content which presents contempt for women as normal and glorifies control and abuse, and which can draw boys and young men into increasingly extreme communities.
And that is why the government is right, I think, to put prevention at the heart of its strategy, including through schools and colleges and universities, and to recognise the particular challenge posed by online misogyny. But there is much more to do, and the petition is here, I think, are right to ask us to recognise misogyny as a hate crime. The fact is that hate crime framework has developed unevenly. Now we have seen some progress, as we've heard from the previous two members, that the Crime and Policing Act does add sex to the characteristics covered by aggravated offences, and this is a significant step forward.
But the petition here raises the wider question about consistency. And so I hope the minister will look carefully at whether hostility on the basis of sex or gender should also be reflected consistently across the wider sentencing framework. There's also the question of stirring up hatred as well, and the Law Commission has previously recommended extending those offences to cover sex or gender, in part because of the growth of extremist misogynistic ideologies and the potential for those ideologies to contribute to serious offending.
I have heard today from some of the organisations working on the front line in my constituency, and what they told me should be part of this debate as well. So my sister's place supports women experiencing domestic abuse across Teesside. We have had some progress recently in the form of domestic abuse specialists , now embedded in the 909 control centre at Cleveland Police, something the government promised to do in its manifesto and is now starting to deliver.
This is a positive step forward, but one of the issues that my sister's place raised with me is that there are simply not enough refuge spaces or suitable move on housing locally within Middlesbrough. And so a woman who makes the extraordinarily difficult decision to leave an abusive relationship then faces the question where is safe to go? And so I'd welcome the minister saying a little about how the government intends to improve the availability of safe accommodation and, crucially, the route from emergency refuge provision into decent and permanent housing.
I will.
Misogyny and violence against women and girls are not inevitable, and they should not be dismissed as something that women and girls simply have to put up with, whether on the street or in the workplace or in school or increasingly online. As the honourable lady says. And I've spoken in this place before about the scourge of deepfakes and AI enabled abuse. And in the spirit of cross-party collaboration, can I also commend the work of Baroness Owen in this regard as well.
I therefore welcome the government's commitment to tackle violence against women and girls and halve it within a decade. Prevention and early intervention and relentless pursuit of the perpetrators and proper support for victims are foundations that we absolutely need, and so we need to deal with the attitudes and behaviours that allow violence and abuse to develop in the first place. That's particularly important when we consider the growth of misogynistic material online. Young people can now be exposed very quickly to content which presents contempt for women as normal and glorifies control and abuse, and which can draw boys and young men into increasingly extreme communities.
And that is why the government is right, I think, to put prevention at the heart of its strategy, including through schools and colleges and universities, and to recognise the particular challenge posed by online misogyny. But there is much more to do, and the petition is here, I think, are right to ask us to recognise misogyny as a hate crime. The fact is that hate crime framework has developed unevenly. Now we have seen some progress, as we've heard from the previous two members, that the Crime and Policing Act does add sex to the characteristics covered by aggravated offences, and this is a significant step forward.
But the petition here raises the wider question about consistency. And so I hope the minister will look carefully at whether hostility on the basis of sex or gender should also be reflected consistently across the wider sentencing framework. There's also the question of stirring up hatred as well, and the Law Commission has previously recommended extending those offences to cover sex or gender, in part because of the growth of extremist misogynistic ideologies and the potential for those ideologies to contribute to serious offending.
I have heard today from some of the organisations working on the front line in my constituency, and what they told me should be part of this debate as well. So my sister's place supports women experiencing domestic abuse across Teesside. We have had some progress recently in the form of domestic abuse specialists , now embedded in the 909 control centre at Cleveland Police, something the government promised to do in its manifesto and is now starting to deliver.
This is a positive step forward, but one of the issues that my sister's place raised with me is that there are simply not enough refuge spaces or suitable move on housing locally within Middlesbrough. And so a woman who makes the extraordinarily difficult decision to leave an abusive relationship then faces the question where is safe to go? And so I'd welcome the minister saying a little about how the government intends to improve the availability of safe accommodation and, crucially, the route from emergency refuge provision into decent and permanent housing.
I will.
18:21
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
I thank him for mentioning, actually, women who are fleeing domestic abuse in that recovery. For women, fleeing domestic abuse should also be a longer term strategy. It's not just finding a crisis. Accommodation. Often women face their abusers for many, many years and they don't get any support in that. And does he not agree that we need to also look at the longer term, longer term effects?
18:21
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Well, I think if we're making this point, I absolutely do agree. And it comes onto I think the next point I was about to raise from the second specialist organisation I spoke to today from Teesside Arch, Teesside, who do vital work supporting victims and survivors of sexual violence and preventing harm before situations escalate. And they put in that wraparound support around an individual. But they raised with me today a practical concern about what happens to prevention funding in the future, particularly when police and crime commissioners are abolished from 2028.
These are often one of the main sources of funding for local specialist violence against women and girls organisations. And so they are concerned that when those structures change, the need for the services will not change. And so they don't know where the certainty is for the funding that currently is held by PCCs. Organisations such as Arch need to be able to plan ahead and retain specialist staff and know what the funding framework is that they will be working with.
So I'd be grateful if the minister could give some reassurance that specialist local services will not lose dedicated prevention funding, as those responsibilities move away from PCCs. And tell us a little bit about the clarity that organisations will receive about that future framework into which they'll need to bid. Happy to. Yeah.
These are often one of the main sources of funding for local specialist violence against women and girls organisations. And so they are concerned that when those structures change, the need for the services will not change. And so they don't know where the certainty is for the funding that currently is held by PCCs. Organisations such as Arch need to be able to plan ahead and retain specialist staff and know what the funding framework is that they will be working with.
So I'd be grateful if the minister could give some reassurance that specialist local services will not lose dedicated prevention funding, as those responsibilities move away from PCCs. And tell us a little bit about the clarity that organisations will receive about that future framework into which they'll need to bid. Happy to. Yeah.
18:23
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way. He makes a really important point about about the certainty about funding as well. And some of the organisations that I've spoken to in my constituency of Chelmsford, where they're dealing with victims of domestic abuse, point out to me that often the funding is about project based stuff. It's not about what they've tried before and they've proven to work and want to continue with. It's that, oh yes, but we're starting this new project now, and so therefore, we're only accepting bids for new projects, things that haven't been done before, and forgetting about all the great work that's come before.
Does he agree with me that actually, we're always going to be chasing our tails that way? And actually, nobody is really going to be very well served for that. What we need is certainty for funding, for things that are proven to work as well as trialling new stuff. Does he agree with me on that point?
Does he agree with me that actually, we're always going to be chasing our tails that way? And actually, nobody is really going to be very well served for that. What we need is certainty for funding, for things that are proven to work as well as trialling new stuff. Does he agree with me on that point?
18:23
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
I do agree with the honourable lady and slightly tangential to this debate, I apologise, but when I was in local government, we set up a specialist exploitation team to work with families and young people at risk of exploitation, and we gave them that sort of focus to give them a long term focus and give them the freedom to approach things in a range of different ways, rather than giving them that time limited, you know, three month funding before that closes because that chopping and changing can be very disruptive for families.
It's exactly the same here. I'll just conclude by saying, Sir Edward, that I think the petitioners are right to ask Parliament to take misogyny more seriously. The government have taken some important steps and I welcome them, but I hope it will now build on that work. Look carefully at the remaining gaps in the law and above all, make sure that the ambition of halving violence against women and girls is matched by what women experience in communities such as mine.
Thank you. Sarah
It's exactly the same here. I'll just conclude by saying, Sir Edward, that I think the petitioners are right to ask Parliament to take misogyny more seriously. The government have taken some important steps and I welcome them, but I hope it will now build on that work. Look carefully at the remaining gaps in the law and above all, make sure that the ambition of halving violence against women and girls is matched by what women experience in communities such as mine.
Thank you. Sarah
18:24
18:24
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Thank you. It is an honour to serve under your chairship, and I wanted to also thank everybody who signed this petition. And I know a number of members have equally thanked those in their constituencies. It's incredibly important that we hear from them in that manner, and I wanted to thank the member for Folkestone and Hythe for opening this debate and setting out so clearly why it is important and the breadth of this issue now. The government's landmark Violence against Women and Girls strategy was published last December, and it stressed a whole of society approach to prevention, which all of us have a responsibility to call out harmful behaviors and also to role model those positive behaviors.
And this responsibility cuts right across the public sphere, in our shared spaces, in the workplace, our institutions, and of course, online now online influencers, they hold a unique position in the public sphere, and their reach often goes further than that of our newspapers and our broadcasters. And yet their content is far less regulated. And this is concerning given how social media platforms work. The influencers profit financially from the engagement of this incentivised content that amplifies shocking images, awful videos and abuse.
And then this shapes the attitudes of impressionable young people. But it is also the platforms too. They profit. They make huge sums of money from this. Now, according to the government figures, in 2025, 95% of young people had heard of Andrew Tate. 95% of all young people had heard of Andrew Tate. That's unbelievable. It gets worse, though, because 40% of young men in that figure had a positive impression of this individual.
This is somebody with allegations of sex trafficking and all manner of horrendous crimes. It is deeply concerning that the impression that the online sphere has given these young people is that this is a good thing, that this person is somebody to emulate or to look up to. Now, the exposure to the content driven by this toxic masculinity starts very early, with 83% of teachers reporting concerns about their students holding these extreme views on gender, and a quarter reporting instances of misogynistic abuse in their own classrooms.
And I've heard this from my teachers in Tamworth how worried they are, how difficult it is to deal with it, how much these phones that many young people carry with them and have in the classroom is impacting their ability to see how many of us would wish the world really was, rather than the world in which they are seeing through this lens. This is harming women and girls by normalising this rhetoric and behaviours, and it's also harming boys through distorting their view of the world and their perception of what a healthy relationship is with women and girls.
And as a female MP, I can attest to the sheer avalanche of abuse on a daily basis that I receive and many of my colleagues receive. Now, children are not born with misogynistic views. These are learnt through socialisation. Now, sadly, sometimes that does come from parents and sometimes it's from peers. But increasingly and as we all fear, it is through the exposure to the manosphere. And this is ever so much on online, I will.
And this responsibility cuts right across the public sphere, in our shared spaces, in the workplace, our institutions, and of course, online now online influencers, they hold a unique position in the public sphere, and their reach often goes further than that of our newspapers and our broadcasters. And yet their content is far less regulated. And this is concerning given how social media platforms work. The influencers profit financially from the engagement of this incentivised content that amplifies shocking images, awful videos and abuse.
And then this shapes the attitudes of impressionable young people. But it is also the platforms too. They profit. They make huge sums of money from this. Now, according to the government figures, in 2025, 95% of young people had heard of Andrew Tate. 95% of all young people had heard of Andrew Tate. That's unbelievable. It gets worse, though, because 40% of young men in that figure had a positive impression of this individual.
This is somebody with allegations of sex trafficking and all manner of horrendous crimes. It is deeply concerning that the impression that the online sphere has given these young people is that this is a good thing, that this person is somebody to emulate or to look up to. Now, the exposure to the content driven by this toxic masculinity starts very early, with 83% of teachers reporting concerns about their students holding these extreme views on gender, and a quarter reporting instances of misogynistic abuse in their own classrooms.
And I've heard this from my teachers in Tamworth how worried they are, how difficult it is to deal with it, how much these phones that many young people carry with them and have in the classroom is impacting their ability to see how many of us would wish the world really was, rather than the world in which they are seeing through this lens. This is harming women and girls by normalising this rhetoric and behaviours, and it's also harming boys through distorting their view of the world and their perception of what a healthy relationship is with women and girls.
And as a female MP, I can attest to the sheer avalanche of abuse on a daily basis that I receive and many of my colleagues receive. Now, children are not born with misogynistic views. These are learnt through socialisation. Now, sadly, sometimes that does come from parents and sometimes it's from peers. But increasingly and as we all fear, it is through the exposure to the manosphere. And this is ever so much on online, I will.
18:28
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
I think it is pretty clear that obviously young people fall into all sorts of traps, and we don't want to have our prisons full of young offenders because they have displayed misogynistic behaviours and attitudes. But sometimes the law can act as a regulator towards this type of behaviour. Does she not agree that therefore, changing the law is a powerful tool in our tool kit box for changing behaviour altogether?
18:28
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
I absolutely agree with the honourable member, and I'm going to go on later to extol the virtues of what many people are calling for. It is imperative that there is real clarity on this, so that people take it more seriously than I think they do, and that we are extremely clear about what is and is not accepted, because there is this creep right across society that as soon as you hear it online, it becomes okay and the more it is repeated.
So we really do have to make sure that that law reinforces that it is not okay, and we have to stop this from happening. So children, they're not born with these misogynistic views. They are learnt through this socialisation. And many parents, they hope to instill in their their children the values of good society. But they can't do this if they're constantly being undermined by all of these posts. And these individuals, such as Andrew Tate, the law must recognise this disproportionate influence.
And if an individual or an organisation profits from this engagement of a larger audience, then they must fulfil a duty to that audience to make sure that that content is actually fully reflective of including being lawful. And I hope that when we change the law, content will have to change as a result of that. Now, classifying misogyny as a hate crime, I think, and many others may agree, would raise the degree of that legal and social scrutiny of these influences.
And to support this new framework, I'd like to add that I think as scrutiny must be proportionate also to the size of somebody's followers, with influencers who maybe have tens of thousands giving an enshrined duty of care to their audience. And I'd advocate that even those with 500 or more followers, they still are influential and they need to recognise that. And so we do need to have in some way this supported in the way that legislation tackles online individuals and the way in which they communicate with their audiences.
And I think that this would bring regulation of the new media more in line with that of traditional sources, because social media
So we really do have to make sure that that law reinforces that it is not okay, and we have to stop this from happening. So children, they're not born with these misogynistic views. They are learnt through this socialisation. And many parents, they hope to instill in their their children the values of good society. But they can't do this if they're constantly being undermined by all of these posts. And these individuals, such as Andrew Tate, the law must recognise this disproportionate influence.
And if an individual or an organisation profits from this engagement of a larger audience, then they must fulfil a duty to that audience to make sure that that content is actually fully reflective of including being lawful. And I hope that when we change the law, content will have to change as a result of that. Now, classifying misogyny as a hate crime, I think, and many others may agree, would raise the degree of that legal and social scrutiny of these influences.
And to support this new framework, I'd like to add that I think as scrutiny must be proportionate also to the size of somebody's followers, with influencers who maybe have tens of thousands giving an enshrined duty of care to their audience. And I'd advocate that even those with 500 or more followers, they still are influential and they need to recognise that. And so we do need to have in some way this supported in the way that legislation tackles online individuals and the way in which they communicate with their audiences.
And I think that this would bring regulation of the new media more in line with that of traditional sources, because social media
18:30
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
The new media more in line with that of traditional sources, because social media outlets, they too must be held responsible for the algorithms that they push and the weighting that they give to the information that ultimately they're distributing. Now, over 20 years ago, Ofcom was created in recognition of the power that our broadcasters over the culture and norms of our country. And now, in the 2020s, I think that Parliament must bring forward a new framework that is fit for this new media landscape.
And I hope that the minister will have some good news on how we're going to be able to tackle these new outlets and these platforms, where a huge number of people now get their so-called news from. And I also agree with the calls for making binding codes of practice rather than simply guidance. I think that's really important. And I hope that the minister may be able to outline some of the thinking and the trajectory for that, and how we're going to scale up our efforts to protect women and girls from violence and hatred.
And so to finish, I support these calls for the government to amend the Sentencing Act of 2000 to record crimes motivated by misogyny as hate crimes, to introduce tougher laws for online abuse. And again, as I've already stated, this should apply both, I think, to the individual and the platform much more forcefully. And I think, as previously been mentioned, you know, funding the training of police officers and prosecutors so they're better able to handle this and understand their response, because I do believe that the future of our country depends on a much tougher stance being taken, particularly on this subject.
But also, I really fear. I really do for the future if we don't do this. Thank you.
And I hope that the minister will have some good news on how we're going to be able to tackle these new outlets and these platforms, where a huge number of people now get their so-called news from. And I also agree with the calls for making binding codes of practice rather than simply guidance. I think that's really important. And I hope that the minister may be able to outline some of the thinking and the trajectory for that, and how we're going to scale up our efforts to protect women and girls from violence and hatred.
And so to finish, I support these calls for the government to amend the Sentencing Act of 2000 to record crimes motivated by misogyny as hate crimes, to introduce tougher laws for online abuse. And again, as I've already stated, this should apply both, I think, to the individual and the platform much more forcefully. And I think, as previously been mentioned, you know, funding the training of police officers and prosecutors so they're better able to handle this and understand their response, because I do believe that the future of our country depends on a much tougher stance being taken, particularly on this subject.
But also, I really fear. I really do for the future if we don't do this. Thank you.
18:32
18:32
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you, Sir Edward, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair. I thank those across the country who have signed this petition to ensure that we have this really important debate today. Violence against women and girls is a national emergency. As others have said before me, I think it's really important that we underline that it is an emergency. This is a whole generation that is affecting, and I am terrified for what that means for society going forward if we do not deal with it now.
Liberal Democrats have long called for misogyny, misogyny to be made a hate crime. So whilst we very much welcomed the government's amendment to extend the list of aggravated offences under hate crime legislation to cover sex or presumed sex, and I was proud to sponsor the amendment, which extended this to LGBT people and disabled people. In the last parliamentary session. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I agree with the petitioners that ministers should go further and amend the Sentencing Act 2020 to ensure that all crimes motivated by misogyny are classed as hate crimes.
I also want to highlight that the extension of aggravated offences to cover sex, disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity has not yet been brought into force. So I hope to hear a timeline from the minister today on when this will be brought forward by the required secondary legislation. Hatred is just as unacceptable, no matter its type, and that means there must be zero tolerance for misogyny. As the petitioners noted, misogyny can fuel crimes, including sexual violence.
Indeed, the need to make misogyny a hate crime and the importance of tackling it early on is borne out by the data. Studies have confirmed what women know to be true from our own experiences, and those of our friends, that large majorities of us have at some point encountered some form of abuse in outdoor spaces, and that this is so commonplace that very few ever even bother to report such incidents to the police. That is why, in a similarly themed Westminster Hall debate at the start of this year, I pressed the government to accept and begin implementing all 13 recommendations of part two of the Angiolini inquiry, set up after Sarah Everard's murder.
This has not happened. I'm sad to say. One such recommendation to immediately improve the national data collection and sharing on sexually motivated crimes against women in public spaces still has yet to be taken up. The inquiry found that data is fragmented and inconsistently documented around police across police forces. Given that making misogyny an aggravated offence under hate crime legislation should allow for greater information gathering, I asked the minister here today how does she anticipate to make use of this data if data on more serious sexual violence isn't being effectively collected right now? The petitioners also called on the government to act on anti-feminist hate groups and the harassment and online abuse that they perpetrate.
Now there is an abbreviation, which I'm sure many of us are aware of its IR meaning in real life, which differentiates between the online space and in person, so-called real spaces. However, there is increasingly less of a distinction with what is happening IRL, and instead a blurring of boundaries between our digital and in-person experiences. Both cross over into the other's realms with relative ease. And that is why it is as important as ever to take decisive action to tackle misogyny wherever it originates.
And as other members have said, including online, from cyberflashing to sharing intimate images without consent or the more recent development of AI generated sexual images, it is crucial that the government does all it can to keep pace with the rapid technological changes that pose particular harm to women and girls, and I would add that we need legislation that actually tackles it in advance of it happening, that we are a bit more prescient as to what might come next, rather than constantly playing catch up, because when we're playing catch up, the harm has already been done.
Now, as an example, 98% of deepfake intimate images reported to the revenge porn helpline are of women. As organisations like Internet Matters have underlined, given not every case I've just mentioned reaches the hate crime threshold. Taking strong measures against them is crucial to ensure that misogynistic attitudes are dealt with early, and the tools that misogynists may use against women and girls are disrupted. Research by Internet Matters has found that a shocking 14% of children aged between 13 and 16 years old had experienced some form of intimate image abuse and harassment, such as cyberflashing, or having a non-consensual image shared with them.
The organization states that, and I quote, these behaviours are becoming normalised now. Those of us who grew up a few decades ago, it's maybe not gone into it too much, but that was not the norm back then. Things are changing. They are changing rapidly and we must must recognise that. On this note, when the Violence Against Women and Girls strategy was announced to Parliament in December of last year, I pressed the then minister to tackle harmful, misogynistic content online content, highlighting that Ofcom's official guidance was only voluntary and that waiting until 2027 to strengthen it was far too late.
Now, tomorrow marks the deadline which the previous minister had set for tech companies to implement on device safety measures to protect children from taking, receiving or viewing nude images exactly the kind of harm that internet matters found children are increasingly being exposed to. I would therefore be grateful if the minister could confirm whether the government will uphold the previous Prime Minister's deadline to Big Tech, and, if not, whether and by which date they will be taking action on this matter.
Liberal Democrats are clear the government's first duty must be to tackle online harms and misogyny, not prioritise the profits of big tech more broadly. I know I and members across the House would very much welcome a recommitment from the Minister to the Violence Against Women and Girls strategy, which was published at the end of last year. In particular, the goal of halving violence against women and girls within a decade, which we very much welcome. I know members across the House have been welcoming, too, with data showing that more than 4 in 10 people arrested during the 2024 riots had previously been reported for domestic abuse.
Taking on violence against women and girls is not a standalone aim. It is inherently linked to facing down the normalisation of extremist far right rhetoric and policies. We cannot allow this vawg strategy to fail where others have before. It must be a top priority for this government. We must not accept a world that tells women and girls to expect violence and abuse. I again thank all of those who brought forward and signed this petition, and I expect the government to consider their calls very, very carefully and most of all recognise and indeed take confidence in the strength of feeling and the breadth of public support that exists for tackling violence against women and girls.
Thank you.
Liberal Democrats have long called for misogyny, misogyny to be made a hate crime. So whilst we very much welcomed the government's amendment to extend the list of aggravated offences under hate crime legislation to cover sex or presumed sex, and I was proud to sponsor the amendment, which extended this to LGBT people and disabled people. In the last parliamentary session. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I agree with the petitioners that ministers should go further and amend the Sentencing Act 2020 to ensure that all crimes motivated by misogyny are classed as hate crimes.
I also want to highlight that the extension of aggravated offences to cover sex, disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity has not yet been brought into force. So I hope to hear a timeline from the minister today on when this will be brought forward by the required secondary legislation. Hatred is just as unacceptable, no matter its type, and that means there must be zero tolerance for misogyny. As the petitioners noted, misogyny can fuel crimes, including sexual violence.
Indeed, the need to make misogyny a hate crime and the importance of tackling it early on is borne out by the data. Studies have confirmed what women know to be true from our own experiences, and those of our friends, that large majorities of us have at some point encountered some form of abuse in outdoor spaces, and that this is so commonplace that very few ever even bother to report such incidents to the police. That is why, in a similarly themed Westminster Hall debate at the start of this year, I pressed the government to accept and begin implementing all 13 recommendations of part two of the Angiolini inquiry, set up after Sarah Everard's murder.
This has not happened. I'm sad to say. One such recommendation to immediately improve the national data collection and sharing on sexually motivated crimes against women in public spaces still has yet to be taken up. The inquiry found that data is fragmented and inconsistently documented around police across police forces. Given that making misogyny an aggravated offence under hate crime legislation should allow for greater information gathering, I asked the minister here today how does she anticipate to make use of this data if data on more serious sexual violence isn't being effectively collected right now? The petitioners also called on the government to act on anti-feminist hate groups and the harassment and online abuse that they perpetrate.
Now there is an abbreviation, which I'm sure many of us are aware of its IR meaning in real life, which differentiates between the online space and in person, so-called real spaces. However, there is increasingly less of a distinction with what is happening IRL, and instead a blurring of boundaries between our digital and in-person experiences. Both cross over into the other's realms with relative ease. And that is why it is as important as ever to take decisive action to tackle misogyny wherever it originates.
And as other members have said, including online, from cyberflashing to sharing intimate images without consent or the more recent development of AI generated sexual images, it is crucial that the government does all it can to keep pace with the rapid technological changes that pose particular harm to women and girls, and I would add that we need legislation that actually tackles it in advance of it happening, that we are a bit more prescient as to what might come next, rather than constantly playing catch up, because when we're playing catch up, the harm has already been done.
Now, as an example, 98% of deepfake intimate images reported to the revenge porn helpline are of women. As organisations like Internet Matters have underlined, given not every case I've just mentioned reaches the hate crime threshold. Taking strong measures against them is crucial to ensure that misogynistic attitudes are dealt with early, and the tools that misogynists may use against women and girls are disrupted. Research by Internet Matters has found that a shocking 14% of children aged between 13 and 16 years old had experienced some form of intimate image abuse and harassment, such as cyberflashing, or having a non-consensual image shared with them.
The organization states that, and I quote, these behaviours are becoming normalised now. Those of us who grew up a few decades ago, it's maybe not gone into it too much, but that was not the norm back then. Things are changing. They are changing rapidly and we must must recognise that. On this note, when the Violence Against Women and Girls strategy was announced to Parliament in December of last year, I pressed the then minister to tackle harmful, misogynistic content online content, highlighting that Ofcom's official guidance was only voluntary and that waiting until 2027 to strengthen it was far too late.
Now, tomorrow marks the deadline which the previous minister had set for tech companies to implement on device safety measures to protect children from taking, receiving or viewing nude images exactly the kind of harm that internet matters found children are increasingly being exposed to. I would therefore be grateful if the minister could confirm whether the government will uphold the previous Prime Minister's deadline to Big Tech, and, if not, whether and by which date they will be taking action on this matter.
Liberal Democrats are clear the government's first duty must be to tackle online harms and misogyny, not prioritise the profits of big tech more broadly. I know I and members across the House would very much welcome a recommitment from the Minister to the Violence Against Women and Girls strategy, which was published at the end of last year. In particular, the goal of halving violence against women and girls within a decade, which we very much welcome. I know members across the House have been welcoming, too, with data showing that more than 4 in 10 people arrested during the 2024 riots had previously been reported for domestic abuse.
Taking on violence against women and girls is not a standalone aim. It is inherently linked to facing down the normalisation of extremist far right rhetoric and policies. We cannot allow this vawg strategy to fail where others have before. It must be a top priority for this government. We must not accept a world that tells women and girls to expect violence and abuse. I again thank all of those who brought forward and signed this petition, and I expect the government to consider their calls very, very carefully and most of all recognise and indeed take confidence in the strength of feeling and the breadth of public support that exists for tackling violence against women and girls.
Thank you.
18:39
18:39
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
Thank you very much, Sir Edward, for chairing this debate. And can I thank all honourable members for their very good contributions this afternoon, and also thank the petitioners for securing this debate with so many signatures on that important petition. The practice of misogyny, a hatred of prejudicial attitudes towards women is one of the most disgusting behaviours in our society. As a member of a party who wants to treat people in their actions based on the decisions of that individual, crimes committed against someone because of their sex are clearly reprehensible and deserve to face the full weight of the law.
Female members across this House will be acutely aware of the abuse and terrible attitudes directed towards women. There are almost too many statistics that could be used that illustrate how so many people experience abuse and crimes directed at them merely because they are women. Not to pre-empt the minister's response in any way, I'm aware the government may point to the changes implemented through the amendments in the Crime and Policing Act, which made changes to the Crime and Disorder Act.
I noted the government's response to the petition, made it clear that it believed this change responds to many of the concerns addressed alongside other measures in its in its taking in the Violence Against Women and girls strategy. In addition, I understand that the independent review of police, public order and hate crime will feed into considerations of whether there are further steps to be taken. While there are interesting and worthwhile conversations to be had about the legislative elements of this challenge, I believe it's important to discuss an even more fundamental element.
That is what the best approach is to take the to take to stop these crimes from occurring in the first place. It must be an approach rooted in achieving the most effective results for women and girls. Using the laws we have more effectively and increasing enforcement. The targets set out by government on violence against women and girls are clearly essential. In the spirit of the Prime Minister's call for working cross-party and illustrating the importance of tackling crimes motivated by misogyny.
I'd refer back to the very first oral question asked by the former shadow Home Secretary after the 2024 election. This question was about the government's commitment to halving violence against women and girls, and what needed to be done to increase arrest rates in response. There was some political points scored by the former Home Secretary, which I'm sure the minister will refrain from today, but I believe the overall question still stands what can be done to increase enforcement? One of the elements inexorably tied to enforcement, which I believe is paramount, is ensuring that there are sufficient numbers of officers.
The minister will know that there has been a fall of just under 2000 over the period of this government. Can the Minister provide assurances that this decrease is not adversely impacted the ability of the police to respond to the crimes discussed today, and are clearly motivated by a hatred of women? Also, I think we must consider the decisions associated with government policy, especially those made in relation to the early release scheme. While I will not relitigate debates held in held at other points in this House, I hope the Minister can acknowledge how damaging this decision will be for women who have been victims of crimes such as domestic violence and rape.
This is a view reiterated by numerous organisations who work to stop these crimes. Women's Aid said when talking about certain funding to aid victims in a statement, and I quote, it cannot be. It cannot eradicate the impacts, including the increased danger that they will face and the responsibility for managing this rests with statutory services. Close quote. And to preempt any comment that we have had early release schemes before, I'd point to comments made by the CEO of Rape Crisis England who stated, and I quote, we are in uncharted territory with the new early release scheme and so remain extremely concerned about its impact on survivors and specialist sexual violence services like rape crisis centres.
Close quote. We know this is tied to today's debate because these crimes so often fall upon women, and the release of those individuals only puts them further at risk. Would the minister be able to explain what conversations they've had with police forces about taking steps to mitigate the impact of this and supporting the victims of those crimes, whose perpetrators will be back on the streets at the same time, the contributions today have been right to recognise the underlying importance of the internet as a tool for misogyny, and the necessity of ensuring that the next generation of young men do not grow up with distorted views.
Our party's efforts to push for social media bans for younger people are precisely about ensuring that when someone grows up, it is their family, their education and our society more broadly that can shape their future, not some of the repugnant content online, which seeks to monetise young people, presenting them with ideas which, if embraced, make misogynistic traits more likely. On this issue early this year, the shadow safeguarding minister asked the government about whether the police were using their powers to their fullest extent under the Serious Crime Act 2007, part two, sections 44 to 49, which sets out the existing offence of encouraging or assisting crime.
The opening part of this section sets out the criteria for an offence, and how it could be utilised to stop those who encourage the raping of women and girls. While this question was focused on the tape, brothers, which I know the honourable lady mentioned in her very good speech and who are clearly engulfed in a range of other legal matters, I think the question still applies, considering there's been reporting about websites and forums that in fact encourage sexual assault.
Does the minister see the police using these existing laws to stop crimes clearly promoted as clearly prompted by a complete disregard of the autonomy of women? Because if we are to tackle these crimes, we must be utilising the tools that we already have available to us. Also, while I appreciate that this is not solely the purview of the minister, I'd like to ask about the evidence gap and what we can do to improve it. Some of the more troubling data about young people and misogyny in the last year was released by the Youth Justice Board.
However, their specific section on misogynistic attitudes stated that there were evidence gaps in the UK on matters that included providing a causal pathway for misogynistic attitudes in childhood to sexual violence and abuse, as well as non-sexual violence. Misogynistic attitudes among children under 18 in England and Wales, as most evidence is from young adults and studies conducted in the USA, and evidence on how algorithmic exposure to misogynistic and sexual content translates into offline abuse. Members today have rightly talked about the online sphere, and it is something addressed specifically by the petition.
However, this suggests there is a knowledge gap in how we can deal with it if we are lacking some pretty essential evidence, how can we do? What can we do better to understand these links between those attitudes and criminal behaviour? We must all work to support female survivors of crime, whether that means giving them the answers they deserve through inquiries such as the grooming gangs, or working harder to enforce the law to stop people becoming victims to begin with.
Thank you, Chair Minister.
Female members across this House will be acutely aware of the abuse and terrible attitudes directed towards women. There are almost too many statistics that could be used that illustrate how so many people experience abuse and crimes directed at them merely because they are women. Not to pre-empt the minister's response in any way, I'm aware the government may point to the changes implemented through the amendments in the Crime and Policing Act, which made changes to the Crime and Disorder Act.
I noted the government's response to the petition, made it clear that it believed this change responds to many of the concerns addressed alongside other measures in its in its taking in the Violence Against Women and girls strategy. In addition, I understand that the independent review of police, public order and hate crime will feed into considerations of whether there are further steps to be taken. While there are interesting and worthwhile conversations to be had about the legislative elements of this challenge, I believe it's important to discuss an even more fundamental element.
That is what the best approach is to take the to take to stop these crimes from occurring in the first place. It must be an approach rooted in achieving the most effective results for women and girls. Using the laws we have more effectively and increasing enforcement. The targets set out by government on violence against women and girls are clearly essential. In the spirit of the Prime Minister's call for working cross-party and illustrating the importance of tackling crimes motivated by misogyny.
I'd refer back to the very first oral question asked by the former shadow Home Secretary after the 2024 election. This question was about the government's commitment to halving violence against women and girls, and what needed to be done to increase arrest rates in response. There was some political points scored by the former Home Secretary, which I'm sure the minister will refrain from today, but I believe the overall question still stands what can be done to increase enforcement? One of the elements inexorably tied to enforcement, which I believe is paramount, is ensuring that there are sufficient numbers of officers.
The minister will know that there has been a fall of just under 2000 over the period of this government. Can the Minister provide assurances that this decrease is not adversely impacted the ability of the police to respond to the crimes discussed today, and are clearly motivated by a hatred of women? Also, I think we must consider the decisions associated with government policy, especially those made in relation to the early release scheme. While I will not relitigate debates held in held at other points in this House, I hope the Minister can acknowledge how damaging this decision will be for women who have been victims of crimes such as domestic violence and rape.
This is a view reiterated by numerous organisations who work to stop these crimes. Women's Aid said when talking about certain funding to aid victims in a statement, and I quote, it cannot be. It cannot eradicate the impacts, including the increased danger that they will face and the responsibility for managing this rests with statutory services. Close quote. And to preempt any comment that we have had early release schemes before, I'd point to comments made by the CEO of Rape Crisis England who stated, and I quote, we are in uncharted territory with the new early release scheme and so remain extremely concerned about its impact on survivors and specialist sexual violence services like rape crisis centres.
Close quote. We know this is tied to today's debate because these crimes so often fall upon women, and the release of those individuals only puts them further at risk. Would the minister be able to explain what conversations they've had with police forces about taking steps to mitigate the impact of this and supporting the victims of those crimes, whose perpetrators will be back on the streets at the same time, the contributions today have been right to recognise the underlying importance of the internet as a tool for misogyny, and the necessity of ensuring that the next generation of young men do not grow up with distorted views.
Our party's efforts to push for social media bans for younger people are precisely about ensuring that when someone grows up, it is their family, their education and our society more broadly that can shape their future, not some of the repugnant content online, which seeks to monetise young people, presenting them with ideas which, if embraced, make misogynistic traits more likely. On this issue early this year, the shadow safeguarding minister asked the government about whether the police were using their powers to their fullest extent under the Serious Crime Act 2007, part two, sections 44 to 49, which sets out the existing offence of encouraging or assisting crime.
The opening part of this section sets out the criteria for an offence, and how it could be utilised to stop those who encourage the raping of women and girls. While this question was focused on the tape, brothers, which I know the honourable lady mentioned in her very good speech and who are clearly engulfed in a range of other legal matters, I think the question still applies, considering there's been reporting about websites and forums that in fact encourage sexual assault.
Does the minister see the police using these existing laws to stop crimes clearly promoted as clearly prompted by a complete disregard of the autonomy of women? Because if we are to tackle these crimes, we must be utilising the tools that we already have available to us. Also, while I appreciate that this is not solely the purview of the minister, I'd like to ask about the evidence gap and what we can do to improve it. Some of the more troubling data about young people and misogyny in the last year was released by the Youth Justice Board.
However, their specific section on misogynistic attitudes stated that there were evidence gaps in the UK on matters that included providing a causal pathway for misogynistic attitudes in childhood to sexual violence and abuse, as well as non-sexual violence. Misogynistic attitudes among children under 18 in England and Wales, as most evidence is from young adults and studies conducted in the USA, and evidence on how algorithmic exposure to misogynistic and sexual content translates into offline abuse. Members today have rightly talked about the online sphere, and it is something addressed specifically by the petition.
However, this suggests there is a knowledge gap in how we can deal with it if we are lacking some pretty essential evidence, how can we do? What can we do better to understand these links between those attitudes and criminal behaviour? We must all work to support female survivors of crime, whether that means giving them the answers they deserve through inquiries such as the grooming gangs, or working harder to enforce the law to stop people becoming victims to begin with.
Thank you, Chair Minister.
18:46
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the member for Folkestone and Hythe for opening this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I want to pay tribute to the petition organisers, in particular spanning several student unions whose commitment and hard work have helped ensure this important issue receives the attention it deserves. Their report, which highlights the scale of the problem, is sadly only reinforced by other surveys and research.
We know that people aged between 16 and 24 are more likely to be victims of sexual assault. We know those aged 16 to 19 experience higher levels of harassment than any other age group, and as mentioned, we also know that non-contact abuse strongly leads to contact abuse. We also know that behind every statistic is a daughter, niece, friend, colleague and loved one. To the petition organisers, to those that have signed the petition and to the women and girls who experience says lie behind it.
I want to be clear misogyny, harassment and violence against women and girls have no place in our homes, on our streets, where we study, where we work, anywhere in our society. And tackling this is and will remain a government priority. And of course, the member has my personal commitment to the violence against women and girls strategy and everything it seeks to deliver. And for me, particularly, a focus it has on prevention. The petition calls for misogyny to be considered within hate crime legislative framework, alongside wider action against harassment, assault and online abuse of women and girls.
I recognise that for many of those who signed this petition, this debate is about so much more than legislative frameworks. It is about whether women and girls feel safe, whether their experiences are taken seriously, and whether the law adequately recognises the harm caused by misogynistic behaviour and abuse. Like too many women, I personally have experienced it and I am determined to do all I can to ensure my daughter doesn't grow up in a world where feeling unsafe or being harassed purely because you're a woman is the norm.
As members will know, this government has already legislated, as has been said, to recognise safe sex based hostility within the Aggravated Offences framework, and we are taking action to tackle violence against women and girls. I will take each of those in turn before addressing the petitions calls directly responding to questions raised throughout the debate. As members will know when talking about hate crime legislation in England and Wales, we are not referring to a single act, but a framework.
Therefore, calls to recognise misogyny as a hate crime may, as a result, refer to different parts of the framework, each of which covers different protected characteristics and serves a distinct legal purpose. Broadly speaking, the framework operates through three main mechanisms aggravated offences, enhanced sentencing provision and offences which criminalise the stirring of hatred against particular groups. As mentioned throughout this debate through the recent Crime and Policing Act 2026, this government has legislated to extend the aggravated offensive framework part to cover sex and presume sex alongside disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity.
Under this legislation, offences motivated by hostility towards those characteristics will be treated on the same basis as those involving race or religion, which I know the member for reading has has subsequently less, but it is all interconnected. This will mean that for the first time, the courts will be able to recognise hostility based on sex and reflect the additional harm caused when someone is targeted because of their sex. The new legislation also targets new defecation tools, and I know this was raised by others, including the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, which will use artificial intelligence to generate intimate images of individuals without their consent.
It criminalizes. It criminalizes the making, adapting, supplying or offering to supply tools, helping to tackle a growing form of online abuse that disproportionately affects women and girls, as mentioned throughout this debate. These measures build on wider action to combat image based abuse and ensure that those who create or facilitate this harmful content can be held to account. This is in addition to this government commencing the commencing the protect from Sex based Harassment in Public Act, which has already seen perpetrators brought to justice.
In response to the question around the commencement of the Crime and Policing Act, I want to reassure members that raised it that the government is going as quickly as possible working across governments, particularly with the Ministry of Justice, and hopefully we can get that through as quickly as possible. Of course.
We know that people aged between 16 and 24 are more likely to be victims of sexual assault. We know those aged 16 to 19 experience higher levels of harassment than any other age group, and as mentioned, we also know that non-contact abuse strongly leads to contact abuse. We also know that behind every statistic is a daughter, niece, friend, colleague and loved one. To the petition organisers, to those that have signed the petition and to the women and girls who experience says lie behind it.
I want to be clear misogyny, harassment and violence against women and girls have no place in our homes, on our streets, where we study, where we work, anywhere in our society. And tackling this is and will remain a government priority. And of course, the member has my personal commitment to the violence against women and girls strategy and everything it seeks to deliver. And for me, particularly, a focus it has on prevention. The petition calls for misogyny to be considered within hate crime legislative framework, alongside wider action against harassment, assault and online abuse of women and girls.
I recognise that for many of those who signed this petition, this debate is about so much more than legislative frameworks. It is about whether women and girls feel safe, whether their experiences are taken seriously, and whether the law adequately recognises the harm caused by misogynistic behaviour and abuse. Like too many women, I personally have experienced it and I am determined to do all I can to ensure my daughter doesn't grow up in a world where feeling unsafe or being harassed purely because you're a woman is the norm.
As members will know, this government has already legislated, as has been said, to recognise safe sex based hostility within the Aggravated Offences framework, and we are taking action to tackle violence against women and girls. I will take each of those in turn before addressing the petitions calls directly responding to questions raised throughout the debate. As members will know when talking about hate crime legislation in England and Wales, we are not referring to a single act, but a framework.
Therefore, calls to recognise misogyny as a hate crime may, as a result, refer to different parts of the framework, each of which covers different protected characteristics and serves a distinct legal purpose. Broadly speaking, the framework operates through three main mechanisms aggravated offences, enhanced sentencing provision and offences which criminalise the stirring of hatred against particular groups. As mentioned throughout this debate through the recent Crime and Policing Act 2026, this government has legislated to extend the aggravated offensive framework part to cover sex and presume sex alongside disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity.
Under this legislation, offences motivated by hostility towards those characteristics will be treated on the same basis as those involving race or religion, which I know the member for reading has has subsequently less, but it is all interconnected. This will mean that for the first time, the courts will be able to recognise hostility based on sex and reflect the additional harm caused when someone is targeted because of their sex. The new legislation also targets new defecation tools, and I know this was raised by others, including the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, which will use artificial intelligence to generate intimate images of individuals without their consent.
It criminalizes. It criminalizes the making, adapting, supplying or offering to supply tools, helping to tackle a growing form of online abuse that disproportionately affects women and girls, as mentioned throughout this debate. These measures build on wider action to combat image based abuse and ensure that those who create or facilitate this harmful content can be held to account. This is in addition to this government commencing the commencing the protect from Sex based Harassment in Public Act, which has already seen perpetrators brought to justice.
In response to the question around the commencement of the Crime and Policing Act, I want to reassure members that raised it that the government is going as quickly as possible working across governments, particularly with the Ministry of Justice, and hopefully we can get that through as quickly as possible. Of course.
18:52
18:52
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
I faked them? I thank the member for our intervention. As I mentioned beforehand, I thought it was useful for members to understand the context of what is already happening and how we'll build to that. Before I directly address the call from the petition, thank you. To further support our collective efforts, this government's cross-Government Violence Against Women and Girls strategy was published in December 2025. Actions include making the UK one of the hardest places for children to access harmful online content and misogynistic influences.
We are doing this through our online safety regime and by banning under 16 seconds from major social media platforms, backed by one of the toughest enforcement regimes in the world. We will seek to always go further where we can, focused on preventing rather than just reacting. The Ministry of Justice will launch a call for evidence to better understand online misogynistic, image based abuse. In addition, the Department for education has updated relationship, sex and health education curriculums and is now includes teaching on online safety and awareness, healthy relationships, and positive role models.
I know the member beforehand talked about how societal shift, and it's so important that we do really focus on the prevention space. So I really welcome this moving forward. It will also provide guidance and resources to help support hard working teachers to recognise the signs of ideological ideologies so that we can intervene swiftly and effectively. The higher education regulator has introduced strict new requirements that will ensure every university works to prevent, address and investigate any incidences of sexual harassment and abuse affecting their students.
To help address the issue of many people engaging in harmful behaviour, not always recognising their actions as abusive, we have developed a cross-government behaviour change campaign called enough. A few members mentioned. Not recognising what is and isn't okay, but also the evidence gap and reporting. And it's really important that this campaign does actually explicitly help people recognise in all different walks of life what is and isn't acceptable, both for victims but also for perpetrators to address directly.
The Petition's calls for misogyny to be recognised more broadly within the hate crime framework. Beyond the changes already made through the Crime and Policing Act 2026. While I cannot commit the government to such changes today, we must always ensure the hate crime framework is fit for purpose. It is right to mention alternative views such as from the Law Commission's 2021 review, which concluded that adding sex or gender to the existing hate crime framework would not necessarily provide the most effective response in tackling violence against women and girls, and caution that reform in this area could have unintended consequences.
Since this, honourable members will also be aware that the Home Secretary has commissioned Lord MacDonald in October 2025 to undertake an independent review, as mentioned, to consider whether public order and hate crime legislation more widely remains effective. The review engage extensively with stakeholders from across civil society, academia and community organisations to ensure a wide range of perspectives informed its conclusions. Lord MacDonald has submitted his final report, which the government is currently considering, with a response to follow in due course.
It is right and fitting, therefore, the review's conclusions help underpin any decision making on any further changes to the hate crime framework, and how best to protect women and girls. On the broader call from petitioners on tackling violence against women and girls more broadly, we know legislation is an important part, but still only one part of the solution, and on its own, cannot tackle violence against women and girls. We must also prevent offending, challenge harmful attitudes, support victims and improve criminal justice response.
We want women and girls to have the confidence to come forward and report crimes, knowing that they will be taken seriously, treated with respect and supported to secure justice. This government is meeting the Petition's request of funding support for victims and training to support to support this. I know a few members also mentioned training and funding to reassure members. Training is being expanded and specialist Vawg teams are being rolled out to all local police forces, and that the deadline for that was brought forward by the Prime Minister only a couple of weeks ago.
The Home Secretary, I mean, the Home Office is investing over 13.9 million this year to the National Centre for Vawg and Public Protection to help ensure that all victims receive the right response. This is part of government's wider investment of over £1 billion to support victims of org. This includes nearly 500 million into local authorities to provide support in safe accommodation to victims of domestic abuse in places like Middlesbrough and across the country.
Thank you for raising that. Over 550 million across justice to pay for counselling, court guidance and children's services to support victims. Up to £50 million. Investment in therapeutic support for children, victims of sexual abuse and a further 5 million to support victims of Vawg.
We are doing this through our online safety regime and by banning under 16 seconds from major social media platforms, backed by one of the toughest enforcement regimes in the world. We will seek to always go further where we can, focused on preventing rather than just reacting. The Ministry of Justice will launch a call for evidence to better understand online misogynistic, image based abuse. In addition, the Department for education has updated relationship, sex and health education curriculums and is now includes teaching on online safety and awareness, healthy relationships, and positive role models.
I know the member beforehand talked about how societal shift, and it's so important that we do really focus on the prevention space. So I really welcome this moving forward. It will also provide guidance and resources to help support hard working teachers to recognise the signs of ideological ideologies so that we can intervene swiftly and effectively. The higher education regulator has introduced strict new requirements that will ensure every university works to prevent, address and investigate any incidences of sexual harassment and abuse affecting their students.
To help address the issue of many people engaging in harmful behaviour, not always recognising their actions as abusive, we have developed a cross-government behaviour change campaign called enough. A few members mentioned. Not recognising what is and isn't okay, but also the evidence gap and reporting. And it's really important that this campaign does actually explicitly help people recognise in all different walks of life what is and isn't acceptable, both for victims but also for perpetrators to address directly.
The Petition's calls for misogyny to be recognised more broadly within the hate crime framework. Beyond the changes already made through the Crime and Policing Act 2026. While I cannot commit the government to such changes today, we must always ensure the hate crime framework is fit for purpose. It is right to mention alternative views such as from the Law Commission's 2021 review, which concluded that adding sex or gender to the existing hate crime framework would not necessarily provide the most effective response in tackling violence against women and girls, and caution that reform in this area could have unintended consequences.
Since this, honourable members will also be aware that the Home Secretary has commissioned Lord MacDonald in October 2025 to undertake an independent review, as mentioned, to consider whether public order and hate crime legislation more widely remains effective. The review engage extensively with stakeholders from across civil society, academia and community organisations to ensure a wide range of perspectives informed its conclusions. Lord MacDonald has submitted his final report, which the government is currently considering, with a response to follow in due course.
It is right and fitting, therefore, the review's conclusions help underpin any decision making on any further changes to the hate crime framework, and how best to protect women and girls. On the broader call from petitioners on tackling violence against women and girls more broadly, we know legislation is an important part, but still only one part of the solution, and on its own, cannot tackle violence against women and girls. We must also prevent offending, challenge harmful attitudes, support victims and improve criminal justice response.
We want women and girls to have the confidence to come forward and report crimes, knowing that they will be taken seriously, treated with respect and supported to secure justice. This government is meeting the Petition's request of funding support for victims and training to support to support this. I know a few members also mentioned training and funding to reassure members. Training is being expanded and specialist Vawg teams are being rolled out to all local police forces, and that the deadline for that was brought forward by the Prime Minister only a couple of weeks ago.
The Home Secretary, I mean, the Home Office is investing over 13.9 million this year to the National Centre for Vawg and Public Protection to help ensure that all victims receive the right response. This is part of government's wider investment of over £1 billion to support victims of org. This includes nearly 500 million into local authorities to provide support in safe accommodation to victims of domestic abuse in places like Middlesbrough and across the country.
Thank you for raising that. Over 550 million across justice to pay for counselling, court guidance and children's services to support victims. Up to £50 million. Investment in therapeutic support for children, victims of sexual abuse and a further 5 million to support victims of Vawg.
18:58
18:58
18:58
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
I just want to be absolutely clear, if I may, the honourable member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland earlier made a really interesting point about the funding that organisations receive through their Police and Crime Commissioner. Would the Minister confirm that once police and Crime commissioners now disappear from our framework, that that same funding or more perhaps will be available to those organisations? And if so, how will they receive that money?
18:59
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
Thank you for that intervention. As a Home Secretary, during her statement made to the House last week, this should form part of the policing reform currently happening, which naturally will have an impact on how regional areas or local areas are funded. And I think that's right and proper to cover. Yeah. Of course.
18:59
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank you for giving me on that point. PCCs will be abolished in 2028, and of course, the reforms will take much longer than that in many parts of the country. The PCC role will transfer easily over to a mayoral role. But that's not the case in Cleveland, where the boundary of the police isn't coterminous with the combined authority. She mentioned one of my councils, which is very advanced in this work.
I wonder whether the minister could take away the proposal for some of this funding and powers to go straight to the local authority level, where there are these kinds of tensions between different government boundaries and bodies.
I wonder whether the minister could take away the proposal for some of this funding and powers to go straight to the local authority level, where there are these kinds of tensions between different government boundaries and bodies.
19:00
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
Thank you for that intervention. I I'm more than happy to arrange a meeting with the relevant minister on policing to ensure that that's explored fully. Thank you very much. Just to cover off, before I conclude, Sir Edward, on any other points mentioned on data gaps and reporting, just to highlight, again the enough campaign that is bearing fruit. But obviously there's a big piece of work, and also the specialist vawg teams that are going into local areas are part of their role is ensuring that local police forces, working with local communities, that there is a there is an uptick on on reporting, and it's taken more seriously to help address data gaps as well, because we know that's an ongoing concern.
There was a question asked around conversations with police forces. Those are ongoing. That's been addressed. Apologies, your chairman. The member has since left. But on the female protester from the reform conference, of course, it's disgusting, unacceptable. And I know the police are encouraging the victim to come forward. And I feel as though we should all do that to to ensure that justice is found.
And from my understanding, I have covered. Oh, no. Of course I've probably forgotten something.
There was a question asked around conversations with police forces. Those are ongoing. That's been addressed. Apologies, your chairman. The member has since left. But on the female protester from the reform conference, of course, it's disgusting, unacceptable. And I know the police are encouraging the victim to come forward. And I feel as though we should all do that to to ensure that justice is found.
And from my understanding, I have covered. Oh, no. Of course I've probably forgotten something.
19:01
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
It was just that the point raised by my hon. Friend the honourable member for Tamworth, about the question of cracking down on platforms which facilitate misogynistic abuse. And forgive me if you covered it, but there was this point about the fact that you have voluntary guidance that Ofcom has come out with, that are coming up with various mechanisms that providers can follow. But ultimately, if they're not mandatory requirements, in the same way that Ofcom's amended codes of practice are, how how is that going to ever force these platforms into stopping the monetisation of misogyny and these sorts of practices, which are leading to the mass indoctrination of our young people? I just wondered if there was anything the minister could say about how we might be tightening that up.
19:02
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
On, on online abuse and online harm. I think it's right in fitting that we work with tech companies, but fundamentally we've got a responsibility and where they're failing to come forward. The backstop always has to be legislation. Of course, legislation isn't the solution and answer to everything. Working proactively should always be the first step, but always ensure that we we do use any levers we've got possible. And the Vawg strategy makes absolutely clear that we will continue to do that.
To conclude, I want to thank all members who have participated today and the government shares the determination behind this petition. As I have set out, the government has already taken significant action in this area through the Crime and Policing Act 2026. Any further changes to hate crime legislation will be informed by the findings of Lord MacDonald's independent review on public order and hate crime legislation. More broadly, our work to tackle violence against women and girls continues at pace.
The Vawg strategy for me sets out a blueprint, and this government is determined to deliver on its mission, as am I. Tackling violence against women and girls is everyone's business and one of the biggest challenges of our time. Government recognises it is far too serious and important an issue not to act firmly, and we will continue to do so until women and girls, whoever you are, wherever they live, feel safe and can live free from fear.
Thank you.
To conclude, I want to thank all members who have participated today and the government shares the determination behind this petition. As I have set out, the government has already taken significant action in this area through the Crime and Policing Act 2026. Any further changes to hate crime legislation will be informed by the findings of Lord MacDonald's independent review on public order and hate crime legislation. More broadly, our work to tackle violence against women and girls continues at pace.
The Vawg strategy for me sets out a blueprint, and this government is determined to deliver on its mission, as am I. Tackling violence against women and girls is everyone's business and one of the biggest challenges of our time. Government recognises it is far too serious and important an issue not to act firmly, and we will continue to do so until women and girls, whoever you are, wherever they live, feel safe and can live free from fear.
Thank you.
19:04
19:04
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you. I'd like to thank Amara, Lily, and Holly for your petition, which has resulted in this debate today and has resulted in the opportunity to ask the minister a lot of important questions about this vitally important issue. And I also thank all honourable members, speaking at today's debate, all supported the legislative tightening up of the current laws through the amendment to the 2026 act. The online dimension to this problem came across particularly strongly in the contributions.
On the one hand, we had the honourable member for bath talking about the horrendous practice of night life videos that we are seeing. On the other, we have the honourable member for Tamworth rightly underlining the critical importance of cracking down on platforms which facilitate and promote online misogyny. And as the minister says, non-contact abuse does lead to contact abuse, which is why that's particularly insidious. The honourable member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland rightly raised the important issues about how we ensure that support is available for victims as the systems change.
I thank the Minister for all of her remarks. To the petitioners, you've heard it, Lord MacDonald, former Director of Public Prosecutions. He knows the system. I don't know what he's what is recommended, and neither does anyone else, perhaps apart from the minister. But that will contain the answer to your petition regarding misogyny as an aggravating feature in all cases. It's important, as I said, that law change has the intended effect. And I think that's the thing which is really has to be looked at carefully.
It was encouraging to to hear from the minister that there is expanded specialist training for police officers, and that the Prime Minister has recently speeded that up, which I think is very, very encouraging. So, again, I thank the petitioners for your petition, for everyone who's attended, and I thank the Minister and the government for the significant and strong range of measures that we are taking to tackle Vawg. There is always more that we have to do. We have to go faster.
We have to go further, really to address this. As the minister says, one of the most important issues is our time, and we owe it to the young people that are here and are listening across the country that we succeed.
On the one hand, we had the honourable member for bath talking about the horrendous practice of night life videos that we are seeing. On the other, we have the honourable member for Tamworth rightly underlining the critical importance of cracking down on platforms which facilitate and promote online misogyny. And as the minister says, non-contact abuse does lead to contact abuse, which is why that's particularly insidious. The honourable member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland rightly raised the important issues about how we ensure that support is available for victims as the systems change.
I thank the Minister for all of her remarks. To the petitioners, you've heard it, Lord MacDonald, former Director of Public Prosecutions. He knows the system. I don't know what he's what is recommended, and neither does anyone else, perhaps apart from the minister. But that will contain the answer to your petition regarding misogyny as an aggravating feature in all cases. It's important, as I said, that law change has the intended effect. And I think that's the thing which is really has to be looked at carefully.
It was encouraging to to hear from the minister that there is expanded specialist training for police officers, and that the Prime Minister has recently speeded that up, which I think is very, very encouraging. So, again, I thank the petitioners for your petition, for everyone who's attended, and I thank the Minister and the government for the significant and strong range of measures that we are taking to tackle Vawg. There is always more that we have to do. We have to go faster.
We have to go further, really to address this. As the minister says, one of the most important issues is our time, and we owe it to the young people that are here and are listening across the country that we succeed.