Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood

Jonathan Hinder Excerpts

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 The text of the petition says that the current law is “outdated” because the woman giving birth to the child is recognised as the legal mother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.