Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood

Debate between Diana Johnson and Rebecca Smith

Monday 7th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for his opening speech on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I am pleased to respond to this debate on the proposal, made by a petition signed by over 113,000 members of the public, to change surrogacy law to recognise intended parents from birth. I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), to his place and congratulate him on his appointment to that role.

This is a well-attended debate, and there have been many valuable contributions. The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) both spoke with great passion about the welfare of women and children, including in the international dimension of surrogacy. I wanted to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), who is no longer in his place, that I was concerned to hear his intervention about his constituents who had a very poor experience going to Mexico with a certain company. The Department is looking into the allegations about My Surrogacy Journey. As part of that assessment, the Department will consider whether it is appropriate for that company to remain on the gov.uk list of agencies.

The hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) talked about the rights of the child coming first. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) talked about the strength of motherhood and discussed the important issue of consent. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised concerns about the commercialisation of surrogacy. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) talked about his personal experience of becoming a dad. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) spoke about the personal experience of Adam and Jamie. She made a strong speech for reform and also spoke about consent. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) talked about the ethics of surrogacy and referred to the approach taken by other European countries. The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, made a typically thoughtful speech that set out the Law Commission’s report in some detail.

It is worth saying from the outset that the Government recognise that surrogacy is a complex and sensitive policy issue where detail matters to all those involved in a surrogacy arrangement. The Government always recommend that anyone considering surrogacy should have a clear understanding of what is required for parenthood to legally transfer to the intended parents and should seek specialist legal advice before beginning the process.

I am grateful for the opportunity to reflect on this area of law. The UK was, of course, one of the first countries to introduce a legislative framework for domestic surrogacy. The Government support surrogacy as part of a range of assisted conception options and recognise the important part it can play in supporting people seeking to start a family. In the Surrogacy Arrangements Act, Parliament decided that altruistic surrogacy arrangements would be legally allowed and that surrogates would be entitled to reasonable expenses. The Act was introduced to prevent surrogacy arrangements from taking place on a commercial basis.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield for his informed contribution. He and my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth set out the issues raised by the petitioners, Adam and Jamie, and shared their experience of starting a family through surrogacy and of the pathway to legal parenthood in the United Kingdom. The Government recognise the difficulties that intended parents may encounter when applying for a parental order. We are very grateful to those with lived experience of this matter who feel able to share their stories.

I will set out the current legal position on parental orders. Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, the person who gives birth to the child—in this case, the surrogate—is the legal mother when the child is born and has parental responsibility until the courts put in place a parental order. 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. Although the safeguarding assessments take time, they are necessary 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, although I note the issues raised about delays in the system.

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 acknowledge those concerns and recognise the arguments on both sides—that the law should provide greater clarity, better support and a more streamlined pathway to legal parenthood while maintaining robust safeguards for children, surrogates and intended parents.

There are many reasons why people pursue international surrogacy arrangements. It is a very complex area. The process to bring the child or children to the UK after birth can be long and complicated. Foreign Office guidance makes it clear that if people are considering surrogacy in a foreign country, they are strongly advised to seek specialist independent legal advice in the UK and the relevant country before making any arrangements.

I hear loud and clear the calls for legislative change this afternoon but, given the limited parliamentary time available, the Government are not in a position to bring forward legislation on surrogacy reform immediately. We will, however, continue to consider options for future reform, and we remain engaged with the issues raised by stakeholders, parliamentarians and families with lived experience of surrogacy.

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank the Minister for making a very thoughtful summing-up speech, as ever. Has she had any conversations with her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about providing clarity on whether the expenses that surrogate mothers receive should count towards their benefits? Under legacy benefits, they did, but under the new version of universal credit, they do not count as unearned income. That thorny issue needs to be looked at, particularly given that £25,000 can be paid to women who may be on benefits, but it does not count as income. Has the Minister had that conversation, and can she look into that?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am very happy to take that point away and write to the hon. Lady.

Any future reforms need to protect the welfare of children and safeguard those involved in surrogacy arrangements, as well as to maintain 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 Commissions consulted widely on this topic, generating a wide diversity of views. The previous Government welcomed the Law Commissions’ 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. 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 are clear that the welfare of children born through surrogacy must remain paramount. We recognise the importance of ensuring that children are protected, intended parents are supported in having families, surrogate mothers are protected and surrogacy arrangements operate within a framework that commands public confidence. I am sure that the Minister in the Lords, who has responsibility for this area, would be happy to meet hon. Members to discuss this further. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield for introducing this important debate and acknowledging the families impacted.

Autistic Adults: Employment

Debate between Diana Johnson and Rebecca Smith

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Then I will carry on, because there are a few other issues that it might be helpful for hon. Members to be aware of.

Since August this year, there have been the full-time equivalent of more than 1,000 Pathways to Work advisers in our jobcentres across England, Scotland and Wales. I wanted to highlight that because the DWP and Jobcentre Plus committed to making sure that the personalised work advice that we talked about earlier is available to individuals. We also have 700 disability employment advisers and 90 disability employment adviser leaders supporting work coaches, or customers directly, to deliver that holistic and tailored support.

[Rebecca Smith]

I seek clarification on those numbers. When I have heard them in the main Chamber during questions and statements, I have wondered whether those people are new members of staff or existing members of staff who have moved into a slightly different role. When we say that there are 1,000—or the other numbers that the Minister has just read out—are they brand-new members of staff, who previously did not work for the DWP, or are they members of staff who have changed jobs?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am happy to provide the hon. Lady with the details about that, but what is happening is that we are realigning the needs of individuals who come to jobcentres to ensure that they get a much more personalised, tailored approach. That is why the work that people do has shifted around. Some of those posts will of course be new, but other people will have been moved in. I am happy to get the details of that, but I want to recognise how important it is to have that personalised approach and specialist support.

We are going further by reforming, as I said, the employment support service into the new jobs and careers service, with much more personalised support. We have a pathfinder in Wakefield that is testing what that personalised offer would look like. Of course, the findings from the academic panel that I talked about will be a valuable addition to the evidence base available when we are looking at how we reshape the jobs and careers service for people whom we want to ensure get the support that they need.

I want to make some comments about young people, because we know that tailored support is equally important for them. Almost 1 million young people are not in education, work or training—that is more than one in eight of all young people in this country—and we expect that a significant number of those young people may be neurodivergent.

It is important that there is an effective careers education approach and programme during school and college for all young people, including those who are neurodivergent. That should particularly ensure that autistic young people gain the necessary employability skills and learn about themselves, while accessing tailored opportunities to prepare for adulthood and move into the workplace. Some excellent work is already going on in some of our special schools. In my constituency, Northcott in Hull North is an outstanding special school and does amazing work with young people in Hull and the East Riding.

We are testing and delivering eight youth guarantee trailblazers around the country for localised, tailored support for 18 to 21-year-olds. They will have the flexibility to tailor support and interventions to meet the specific needs and address the barriers faced by young people in those areas. The Chancellor announced that every eligible young person who has been on universal credit for 18 months without earning or learning will be offered guaranteed paid work. That forms part of the Government’s youth guarantee, and further details will be announced in the Budget.

To conclude, I hope I have made the case that getting more autistic adults into work is the right thing to do economically in reducing the disability employment gap and helping us to meet our long-term ambition for an 80% employment rate. Fulfilling that ambition would be a major driver for economic growth, but of course it is also the moral and right thing to do. We should never lose sight of how much this matters to every single neurodivergent person who is denied the opportunity to fulfil their potential. We all want that chance in life, and that is no different for neurodivergent people.

We have a huge challenge on our hands, but it is a great opportunity. By pressing on with the work we have begun—and by working with employers and autistic people—I have every faith we will be able to grasp it.

I will also add that many of the 1,000 individuals who I talked about earlier in my speech are existing staff but there will be additional funding to create new roles, so it will be a combination of both. The key thing is those staff are offering personalised support to groups for whom the one-size-fits-all approach of the past that I referenced at the beginning did not work.