Surrogacy Law and Legal Parenthood

Debate between Phil Brickell and Tracy Gilbert

Monday 7th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. In the years since the passage of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act, the number of babies born as a result of surrogacy has increased and the nature of surrogacy arrangements has evolved. As I look through Hansard it appears that, in spite of that change, surrogacy has seldom been debated in this place. I therefore welcome this debate; although I do not agree with its framing, I believe it is long overdue.

This debate is critical as there are fundamental human rights at stake. The first are the rights of women: the rights of women as parents to be protected, to have the very best care and to have no outside pressure on decisions relating to their healthcare and their bodies; and the right of women living in poverty, in war zones or in vulnerable situations, here in the UK and across the globe, not to be forced, coerced or trafficked to service the growing demand for surrogates. The second are the rights of children, as set out in the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, to know where they came from, to have a nationality, and to be cared for by their parents, not separated from them, where possible.

Today I will focus on the rights of women. The Law Commission’s previously published proposals recommend tipping the balance of power away from the rights of the birth mother. That is clearly stated in the introduction of its core report:

“Our reforms respect the autonomy of the surrogate—if she withdraws her consent, the courts will make the final decision on parental status.”

If we were to put those proposals on the statute book, a woman who used her own egg as part of a surrogacy agreement, gave birth to a child and then changed her mind would end up in a court battle in which the judge would decide who the parent or parents of the child are. At present, if the surrogate withholds her consent, a parental order cannot be made; she remains the legal parent. However, under the commission’s preferred model, the birth mother’s name would be removed from the birth certificate altogether, and a judge would be forced to consider the living arrangements of the child until the court proceedings concluded.

The commission’s proposals would shift the balance of rights to the intended parents, but it is important that we, as legislators, consider the bigger picture. There is likely to be an economic imbalance between the surrogate mother and the intended—commissioning—parents: by definition, they are commissioning a child. At present, the expenses paid to surrogates far exceed what was anticipated when the 1985 Act was passed. Although the Law Commission’s proposals claim to provide clarity on expenses, they could still result in commissioning parents paying tens of thousands of pounds to a surrogate, including payments for holidays and gifts. That economic power imbalance prompts the question: is it ever a free choice for a surrogate to enter into a surrogacy agreement?

Before concluding, I want to talk about the international impact of surrogacy. Analysis by Stop Surrogacy Now UK suggests that, in most years since 2013, more than 60% of parental order applications in England and Wales related to surrogacy arrangements where the child was born abroad. It is false hope to think that these proposals will stop the demand from the UK for international surrogacy.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Two of my constituents recently travelled to Mexico, where their children were born by surrogacy. Those births were facilitated by a company called My Surrogacy Journey, which is listed on gov.uk. While in Mexico, they had repeated traumatic experiences with the company relating to issues including insurance for their children, accusations of bullying towards staff and repeated efforts to silence any constructive criticism. I understand that other Members of this House have received similar complaints. Given the severity of these matters, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should take My Surrogacy Journey down from gov.uk pending a review by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority?

[Tracy Gilbert]

I agree, and I will come to some of those matters shortly.

It is estimated that the international surrogacy industry will be worth more than $200 billion by 2032. The decisions that we take about surrogacy in the UK can help protect vulnerable women and girls in war-torn countries such as Ukraine, as has been mentioned, and low-income countries such as Nigeria from being forced, coerced and trafficked to service the growing demand.

I appreciate the time and consideration that the Law Commission gave to this issue. It heard directly from women who had acted as surrogates, were left displaced and received inadequate medical care. It 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 and, as a result, had no information about any inherited conditions that could affect the pregnancy and put them 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 it clear that women in the UK are not only at risk of forced surrogacy but already being identified as such. I have called for a wider debate on surrogacy that would have at its heart women at risk of forced surrogacy and their children.

The Government must fully reject the Law Commission’s proposals. The Scottish Government have already drafted guidance in preparation for the proposals being put on the statute book. Until they are rejected by the UK Government, such preparation will continue.

I hope I have evidenced why we must have a much wider debate on surrogacy. Fifty per cent of responses to the Law Commission’s consultation called for a total ban on surrogacy in the UK. I fully support such a ban, but it should be based on a wider debate that draws on evidence and focuses on 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 it, as that is the only way to play our part in ending the coercion and trafficking of women and children. I understand people’s desire to become parents, but that desire should not take priority over the rights of a child. Surrogacy asks all of us to answer very difficult questions, but answer them we must.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Debate between Phil Brickell and Tracy Gilbert

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I rise to support this vital Bill, and I commend the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) for bringing it to the House. As all Members will know, animal welfare is a major concern for our constituents, and nowhere is that more true than Bolton West. The Bill has been long awaited, and I am delighted that this Parliament will finally deliver where previous Parliaments were unable to deliver. We are a nation of animal lovers, and it should be a point of pride that, to reflect that, we strive to have the toughest animal welfare protections anywhere in the world.

My mailbox and postbag reflect the animal welfare concerns that I have and that we have heard during the debate. Dean, a constituent of mine in Daisy Hill, emailed to say:

“According to respondents to the Cats Protection Cats and Their Stats (CATS) 2024 survey, 4% of the cats that were obtained in the 12 months preceding the survey were from abroad. The importation of cats and dogs with mutilations (such as declawing and ear cropping), lack of vaccinations and health checks, and dangerous transport conditions present a significant risk to animal welfare.”

We know that the UK’s biosecurity is compromised by pet smuggling, given that animals may carry transmittable diseases such as rabies and tapeworm, which put both humans and animals at risk. The rising price of cats, in particular pedigrees, means that illegally importing cats is becoming increasingly lucrative for criminals. Cats Protection statistics show that 45% of the cats obtained in the past 12 months were pedigree; for the first time, more pedigree cats than moggies were acquired in a 12-month period. The Bill is a vital opportunity to put in place the measures to tackle pet smuggling that could not complete their passage in the last Parliament.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking the volunteers across Cats Protection and at Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home for the work that they do every day to keep rescued animals safe? Does he agree that those charities need our help and support, and that the Bill will help to amplify the work that they do?

I will also put it on the record that I had two rescue animals—a cat and a dog—who both lived to 19 years of age. Sadly, they are no longer with us, but for the sake of Hansard I want to mention their names: Cannie and Roohi.

[Phil Brickell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the critical work of animal welfare charities across the country. They can make such a difference.

Diane in Ladybridge emailed to say:

“This Bill is a major step forward in improving the lives of animals.”

She is delighted that it will make it

“much harder to exploit pet travel rules to illegally traffic puppies and kittens bred in horrific conditions overseas into the UK.”

She also noted:

“Dogs and cats involved in bad breeding—whether they’re used for breeding, or bred poorly themselves—don’t have a fair chance in life. They’re more likely to have health problems, and poor socialisation means they can struggle with life as a pet.”

I am really pleased that the Bill will finally close a loophole to address the issue of dogs and cats with illegal mutilations such as cropped ears or docked tails and help to bring down demand for those features. We have spoken about the social media impact. It is incumbent on us as parliamentarians and figures in public life to continue to drive public awareness about why those procedures are mutilations and the adverse impacts they have on the animals and, frankly, society as a whole.

I am really pleased that the Bill will make it much harder to exploit pet travel rules to traffic illegally puppies, kittens and ferrets bred in horrific conditions overseas into the UK. Sadly, these activities can involve gangs who are associated with serious organised crime, which I am personally keen on tackling during my time in Parliament. By bringing in tougher restrictions, we can protect animal welfare and also cut a source of criminal income—an issue that, one way or another, I continue to raise in this House.

While cats and dogs are overwhelmingly the most popular pets in this country, it would be remiss of me, as a northern MP, not to reference the humble ferret, mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Matt Turmaine) and for Northampton South (Mike Reader). Ferrets are a northern icon. On that topic, our other northern icons, Oasis, are today reforming for their first gig in 16 years. To conclude, having listened to my constituents on the vital importance of protecting animal welfare, it is fair to say that both they and I are “mad fer ret”.