Parliament is often called upon to deal with urgent matters of state, requiring swift debate and equally prompt action.
However, the speed at which legislative reform occurs for matters considered less of a priority is relatively glacial by comparison.
Quite often, real world developments outstrip the statutes which are intended to regulate them and, as a result, tensions can arise which demand ministerial attention. That does not necessarily mean, of course, that change will automatically follow.
One such matter which has surfaced on a number of occasions in recent years is that of surrogacy.
It has become a more frequent way for couples either to start or add to their families via arrangements with surrogates based in the UK or overseas.
Regardless of where they happen, intended parents require a Parental Order conferring legal responsibility for any child born of a surrogacy agreement.
Data published by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) demonstrates how popular surrogacy has become (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-court-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2026/family-court-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2026).
Last year saw a record number of applications for Parental Orders – up 19 per cent on the previous year and by nearly 76 per cent on the figure for 2015.
Just under three-quarters (543) of the 726 applications lodged in 2025 were successful, far more than the proportion (117) in 2011, the earliest year for which such statistics are available.
The process of trying to obtain a Parental Order is not necessarily swift. In some cases, it can take many months before applicants learn if they have succeeded or not.
That timeframe is one reason why campaigners in the UK have been pushing for an overhaul of the laws which govern the surrogacy process. The laws which apply in the UK – the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 and certain sections of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 – have, they point out, been in place for some time.
Three years ago, the Law Commission produced a report proposing a series of changes, including a speedier surrogacy ‘pathway’, allowing Intended Parents to be granted parental responsibility from the birth of a child by a surrogate
(https://cdn.websitebuilder.service.justice.gov.uk/uploads/sites/54/2025/12/LC_Surrogacy_Summary_of_Report_2023.pdf).
In April 2025, Keir Starmer’s Government decided not to take up the changes, explaining that it had other “key priorities” (https://cdn.websitebuilder.service.justice.gov.uk/uploads/sites/54/2025/04/Letter-from-Baroness-Merron.pdf).
Despite that rebuff, the demands for change have not abated.
Last week, MPs once more debated whether Intended Parents should have parental responsibility from the moment that a child is born following a surrogacy arrangement (https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-09-07/debates/1DE05B16-B467-48D0-B6E7-6B7AD7F8B921/SurrogacyLawAndLegalParenthood).
The discussion came after a petition launched by a same-sex couple who had a child by a surrogate based in the United States attracted more than 113,000 signatures.
Once again, the Government has resisted the pressure. Whilst Health Minister Dame Diana Johnson recognised the need for greater clarity and robust safeguards for surrogates and children, she added that the Burnham administration is “not in a position to bring forward legislation on surrogacy reform immediately”.
As I’ve been telling The Times (https://www.thetimes.com/article/07a54f68-22b0-4ab0-ab44-7520393ef5aa?shareToken=589c64676889d82d54f2f3fc1bce10de&ver=article), in the absence of new legislation, I believe that the present situation can be improved by education.
That awareness should be considered something of an issue and an imperative can also be gleaned from the MoJ figures on parental orders, which reveal that nearly 25 per cent of applications fail.
As someone who has advised numerous Intended Parents, I would argue that the need for greater knowledge is just as true for domestic as for international surrogacy arrangements.
Unlike those commercial arrangements involving surrogates living overseas, only “reasonable expenses” are permitted for their UK-based counterparts.
When funds over and above “reasonable expenses” are paid overseas, UK courts can approve these retrospectively but each and every case is scrutinised, and supporting evidence needs to be provided.
There is another difference between the two, in that international surrogacy arrangements present particular complexities, not least because they can extend across multiple jurisdictions.
During her speech to the House of Commons last week, Dame Diana Johnson underlined the need for Intended Parents pursuing surrogacies outside the UK to be prepared, strongly advising that they “seek specialist independent legal advice in the UK and the relevant country before making any arrangements”.
Those remarks echo a judgement in a case in which I was involved on behalf of a client.
In that matter, Mrs Justice Theis said the circumstances should act as a “cautionary reminder” to Intended Parents engaging with overseas’ surrogates (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Re-Z-Foreign-Surrogacy.pdf).
She set out a 16-point checklist which she hoped might guide individuals to avoid some of the potential pitfalls which can arise in such instances.
The Law Commission’s 2023 recommendations were only concerned with domestic surrogacy, which means that even if those reforms were to be adopted, the law in so far as international surrogacy would remain. Therefore, is likely that more Intended Parents will opt to pursue surrogacy arrangements overseas.
If that turns out to be the case, it will be critically important for them to prepare themselves as fully as possible in order to avoid the kind of complications which have been seen in a number of cases in recent years.
