Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood

Debate between Jess Brown-Fuller and Jonathan Hinder

Monday 7th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. However good the intentions of those bringing forward this petition for affected parents are, and I do not question them, any loosening of the surrogacy laws would be a serious mistake. The text of the petition says that the current law is “outdated” because the woman giving birth to the child is recognised as the legal mother

“even with no biological connection or intention to parent the child.”

Just think about how cold and clinical those words are: “no biological connection”, when that woman carried that child in their body and brought that child into this world. That is the commodification of women’s bodies. To carry a child for nine months, share your body, feel new life kicking inside you and endure the trauma and joy of childbirth—those are experiences that create a profound, undeniable biological connection.

What of intention? The principle behind the 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, and indeed a physical one, grows as the pregnancy develops. New mothers say that they feel a bond with their newborn that they have never felt before. They often do not want to spend a moment away from their baby when it is born.

The 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.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The hon. Member says “many” go on to deeply regret the decision to be a surrogate. What does the data show? How many end up regretting their decision, in terms of a percentage of the surrogates in the UK?

[Jonathan Hinder]

I cannot answer that specific question, but I will reference a case later on, and I have personally met such mothers here in Parliament.

Pregnant women are not factories, and 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 and 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, that child has become a commodity, which it should never be. These children are removed from their birth mothers, and it is simply wrong to treat children in this way.

Implementing the demands of the petition would seal the commodification of mothers and babies through surrogacy, and we need only look at the global surrogacy industry to see where that leads: wealthy couples exploiting desperate women; international human trafficking rings; and exportation and erasure. That is the end destination when we start from the principles implied in the petition.

Even in Britain, where commercial surrogacy is banned, women suffer the consequences. Marie Anne, a surrogate mother, told her story at a conference in Brighton. Recalling the chilling moment after she gave birth, she said:

“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. She also describes the impact on her life, saying:

“I have been diagnosed with complex PTSD…I have a deep fear of hospitals, children and babies…The damage done to me will never be repaired.”

France, Germany, Spain and Italy have all banned surrogacy outright. As President Emmanuel Macron said, surrogacy is

“not compatible with the dignity of women”.

I therefore conclude by urging colleagues to reject both the commodification of babies and mothers implied by the petition and the loosening of surrogacy laws in Britain.

IVF Egg Donation: Young Women

Debate between Jess Brown-Fuller and Jonathan Hinder

Thursday 26th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate on an issue that affects so many. Although his focus was on egg retrieval, he also identified the value of IVF to families across the UK. Like other Members present, I have family and friends who have struggled with fertility. The pain it causes, and the emotional toll it can take on families, is immense and harrowing to watch. Modern medicine has eased those struggles through IVF, which is remarkable and a credit to the many scientists and medical professionals who have worked tirelessly to develop it. If you do not mind, Mr Efford, I will selfishly mention my best friend Lottie and her husband Marvin. They were both IVF babies nearly 40 years ago, and two years ago they managed to have their little baby boy Luca without any fertility struggles. What a gift he is.

Sadly, there is currently a postcode lottery for IVF and fertility services, which undermines the generosity of those who donate eggs and shatters the hopes and family lives of many couples. In much of the country, couples are entitled to just one round of IVF on the NHS, while in other areas, people can receive up to three rounds. It is crucial that people can expect high-quality treatment wherever they live, rather than being priced out of having children simply because of their postcode. Can the Minister therefore set out what steps the Government are taking to reduce that inequality of access to these life-changing reproductive health services?

A specific inequality still exists for the LGBTQ+ community. In England, NHS-funded access to IVF is available only to women who have not conceived after two years of regular unprotected intercourse or 12 cycles of artificial insemination. In practice, that requires all lesbian couples to pay for artificial insemination cycles before becoming eligible for NHS-funded IVF. That is an insurmountable financial barrier for many of those couples, given that cycles can cost thousands of pounds. Although the Government’s 2022 women’s health strategy pledged to remove that requirement for lesbian couples, the roll-out of that new policy has been painfully slow. As of April 2024, only four of the 42 integrated care boards in England have implemented it. The Liberal Democrats are pushing for all integrated care boards to make that change a priority to ensure equitable access to IVF for all lesbian couples who are looking to start a family. What work is the Department undertaking to ensure that the requirement is removed across all ICBs?

It is important to recognise the immense contribution that egg donors make to the IVF process. The lives of couples and families across the country have been transformed by the generosity and support of those who donate eggs or sperm to help them have children. Becoming an egg donor is a complex decision, and as highlighted by hon. Members’ contributions, it can have lifelong implications, especially considering that donors can consent to have their eggs stored for up to 55 years, and children who were born through a donation and who have turned 18 may contact the donor. Added to that, donors must undergo rigorous medical screening. They are brave, selfless individuals who perform acts of love for family members, friends and strangers alike. It is absolutely right that eggs are donated rather than bought or sold, and that there are rigorous protections in place to ensure that.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady not think that the fact that payments are given, whether they are badged as compensation or fees, means that we cannot actually say at the moment that donations are being given for purely altruistic reasons?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

That is exactly why the hon. Member for Strangford brought forward this debate, and we share his concerns that any attempt to create a market for egg donation could lead to perverse outcomes. Advertising for egg donors to come forward should reflect that, stressing the benefits to others rather than attempting to frame compensation as a primary motivation to donate. We must ensure that women donating eggs do so willingly, not out of financial necessity, and are provided with appropriate support throughout the process.

It is right that the donors clinic is required by law to offer counselling, but the Government should investigate whether additional steps are needed to ensure proper medical regulation of that counselling, beyond what is already provided by the Professional Standards Authority. Is the Minister satisfied that the Advertising Standards Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority are adequately resourced and have sufficient capacity to uphold essential regulations in this area?

I will briefly touch on an equally complex and emotionally charged topic: surrogacy and legal parenthood from the point of birth. For the sake of the child, the surrogate and the legal parents, the matter needs to be handled with great sensitivity. The Liberal Democrats believe that all potential cases regarding legal parenthood of a new baby must ensure that the wellbeing of all involved is balanced and respected. There are, understandably, concerns about financial incentives for surrogates. For example, the Law Commission 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 believe that any proposed legislation should be published and subject to scrutiny before any changes to current practice are made.

So many lives around the world have been transformed by the miracle that is IVF, but there remains much work to be done to address the inequalities in NHS provision, end the postcode lottery, and ensure that lesbian couples have access to IVF fairly. We must also ensure that donors are not unduly influenced by exploitative marketing, and we hope the Government will take action following the debate to investigate that.