PET PET
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
Become a Friend Donate
  • About Us
    • People
    • Press Office
    • Our History
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Friend of PET
    • Volunteer
    • Campaigns
    • Writing Scheme
    • Partnership and Sponsorship
    • Advertise with Us
  • Donate
    • Become a Friend of PET
  • BioNews
    • News
    • Comment
    • Reviews
    • Elsewhere
    • Topics
    • Glossary
    • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Previous Events
  • Engagement
    • Policy and Projects
      • Resources
    • Education
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
    • People
    • Press Office
    • Our History
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Friend of PET
    • Volunteer
    • Campaigns
    • Writing Scheme
    • Partnership and Sponsorship
    • Advertise with Us
  • Donate
    • Become a Friend of PET
  • BioNews
    • News
    • Comment
    • Reviews
    • Elsewhere
    • Topics
    • Glossary
    • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Previous Events
  • Engagement
    • Policy and Projects
      • Resources
    • Education
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements
PETBioNewsCommentReform of surrogacy law: some thoughts

BioNews

Reform of surrogacy law: some thoughts

Published 12 August 2019 posted in Comment and appears in BioNews 1010

Author

Sir James Munby

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis

There is widespread agreement that the legislation governing surrogacy is seriously out of date and not fit for purpose. Much has changed since 1985, not least the enormous changes in social attitudes which have had such an impact on what we think of as a family...

There is widespread agreement that the legislation governing surrogacy is seriously out of date and not fit for purpose. Much has changed since 1985, not least the enormous changes in social attitudes which have had such an impact on what we think of as a family.  

The approach in the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 is that surrogacy is, at best, to be tolerated, neither encouraged nor in large part even regulated. Section 1A provides that surrogacy arrangements are unenforceable. Sections 2 and 3 contain statutory prohibitions, enforced by criminal penalties, against the commercialisation of surrogacy arrangements and their advertising. 

By contrast, the Government's 2018 Guidance Having a child through surrogacy includes the section The surrogacy pathway: surrogacy and the legal process for intended parents and surrogates in England and Wales, which reads:

'Surrogacy is increasingly becoming an option for starting a family for people who are unable to conceive a child themselves … The Government supports surrogacy as part of the range of assisted conception options.'

There seems to be increasing recognition that: first, surrogacy is a legitimate means of forming a family; and, secondly, among countries which do not prohibit surrogacy, all are moving towards a regulatory approach from somewhat disparate starting points. We have indeed come a long way since 1985. 

Parental Orders

The one key area where, at present, UK surrogacy is regulated is in relation to the provisions in section 54 and the recently inserted section 54A of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 for the making of 'parental orders'. A now very substantial body of case-law demonstrates three things:

First, the legislation was not properly thought out. Section 30 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (the forerunner of section 54 in the 2008 act) was introduced at a late stage in the Parliamentary process, so was hurriedly drafted and debated, and the thinking that lay behind the detail was not interrogated.

A comparison of section 30 with the relevant provisions of the Adoption Act 1976 (or of section 54 with the relevant provisions of the Adoption and Children Act 2002) demonstrates that in some respects the law in relation to parental orders was derived from adoption orders; in other respects, the requirements are quite different. One crucial difference is that there is no provision enabling the surrogate's consent to be dispensed with.

Secondly, there are significant problems with the legislation as currently drafted.

Thirdly, the judges have had – properly – to be adept in making the legislation work, despite these problems, in the best interests of the child.

In relation to the last two points, I concentrate on just one topic.

Section 54(8), requiring the court to be satisfied that no money has changed hands 'other than for expenses reasonably incurred' unless 'authorised by the court,' has generated much judicial anxiety. It reflects the criminalisation of commercial surrogacy in the 1985 Act and continues a philosophy which has long been a part of our adoption law. 

Women are banned from advertising themselves as surrogates or receiving payment other than to cover 'reasonable expenses', but how is a judge supposed to assess whether the £X paid is a genuine expense? By and large, even in cases where the court thinks it is not a proper expense, the judge nonetheless authorises it, because in reality, the court has little choice. 

When the matter comes to court, the judge is presented with a fait accompli. The child, whose future welfare it is the duty of the judge to promote, has been born and is living with the new parents. What is the judge to do? Refuse to make the order which would otherwise be appropriate, and leave the child in legal limbo? To authorise the payment, however distasteful the need to do so, will usually better promote the child's welfare than not to. 

What is the way forward? 

The time has come to give serious consideration to this problem, to face up to reality and to move to a proper system of regulation rather than simple prohibition. Our legislation is elderly by any standards. Large-scale legislative reform is essential. That, of course, is what the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission are currently embarked on.

Increasingly the view, unless you are a prohibitionist, is of movement to some system of regulation. The Law Commissions, in their design of the proposed new pathway (see their consultation paper), recognise this. It must be right. 

There are two reasons why: first, only a system of appropriate regulation can prevent abuses, in particular, the exploitation of the vulnerable; secondly, a properly regulated, and therefore more reliable and welcoming domestic system, will reduce the incentives to look abroad for surrogacy and hopefully reduce the legal problems which arise in such cases and which will largely remain whether or not the Law Commissions' proposals for the reform of section 54 are implemented. 

For the simple fact of life is that if people want a family and cannot have the family they want by staying within their own state, they will go abroad to find it. Similar consequences follow where the system, although not prohibitive, is unwelcoming. 

This creates a very real problem since our law, very long-established, is that no foreign determination in a surrogacy case, whether it arises by operation of foreign law, or by operation of some foreign administrative process, or indeed some foreign judicial process, is recognised here.  And that is why we have the problem of the limbo between the child coming back stateless, parentless in English law, and the point at which the parental order is made, if indeed the parental order is ever made. 

One question which arises in moving to a regulatory position is whether, as a matter of principle, to adopt a pre-conception or a post-birth process. Currently, we have a post-birth process, which is the very thing which creates the limbo and so many other problems. In contrast, the pathway being proposed by the Law Commissions is for a pre-conception process. This, in line with an emerging international consensus, is to be welcomed. One can only have real protections against abuse and exploitation if there is an effective process of regulation pre-conception. And, given the judicial realities as I have described them, the best protection for the best interests of the child is by a pre-conception rather than a post-birth process. 

Another question is whether the process should be judicial or administrative. The proposals of the Law Commissions in relation to the proposed new pathway are for a non-judicial process, and I can well understand why. But if the system is to be non-judicial it is imperative that it operates with efficiency and clarity and that it is robustly and effectively regulated. 

Parenthood is not only a matter of the most profound personal, emotional, psychological and societal importance; it also determines status, affecting the seemingly dry topics of succession and inheritance. It is therefore vital that there should be no room for argument, perhaps years later, because of some 'problem' with the paperwork, as to who a child's legal parents are. We cannot afford to see in surrogacy any repetition of the disturbingly long line of cases in which the administrative incompetence of too many IVF clinics, not prevented by a regulatory regime in which the regulator hardly covered itself in glory, caused untold misery and distress.

Clarifying consent

Two critical issues relate to the surrogate's consent: first, as to the timing of consent; and, secondly, as to whether there should be power to dispense with consent.

In relation to the first, there is, of course, an acute tension between the desire of the intended parents for certainty, and the need to protect the surrogate from a premature consent which does not take adequate account of the realities of pregnancy and birth. That is why it has always been a principle of adoption law that a birth mother cannot give legally effective consent to the adoption of her child less than six weeks after the child's birth. 

The Law Commissions propose to square this particular circle by giving the surrogate who has previously consented within the preconception pathway a narrow window of opportunity to withdraw her consent, corresponding with the time limits for the registration of a birth. 

Should she do so, an application to court will need to be made, as at present, for a parental order (modifications are proposed to remove some of the current difficulties presented by section 54). That may be an acceptable compromise, but it will require very careful statutory drafting. Who does the surrogate have to notify, in what form and by what means? What will be the consequence if, as will inevitably occur, such notification is given incorrectly or out of time?

In relation to the second issue, the Law Commissions propose circumstances in which the surrogate's consent can be dispensed with, though taking a different approach from that in adoption law where the birth parent's consent can be dispensed with if the child's welfare so requires. 

The proposal (CP, para 11.51) is that 'the court should have the power to dispense with consent where the child is living with the intended parents (and the surrogate consents to this), or following a determination by the court that the child's primary residence should be with the intended parents', adding by way of justification, 'In its determination of where a child should live, the child's welfare is the paramount consideration for the court.' 

This requires more thought and very careful drafting: it is presumably not intended that parenthood should be determined by any order, however temporary or time-limited, which provides for the child to live with the intended parents; and thought needs to be given to whether, in deciding whether to make such an order, the court should or should not have regard to its effect in relation to parentage. 

The final critical issue relates to the nature and quantum of the payments which should be permitted under the proposed pathway – a topic on which the Commissions, to judge from their consultation paper, need, and are seeking particular assistance from consultees.

I add two final observations. We must never overlook the risks of exploitation of surrogates. That, of course, is one reason why we need to move from an essentially unregulated to a regulated system. If that is one side of the issue, the other goes to the questions: what should the regulatory mechanisms be? What should the protections be? 

Regulatory systems, particularly if they involve judicial proceedings, cost money, so we need to be alert also to the risk of privileging the wealthy over the less wealthy. So, if you want a regulatory system, How pervasive? How expensive? For, the more you strive to protect the surrogate from the risk of exploitation, the more you may actually be creating a privilege for the wealthy which is denied to the less wealthy.
 

Related Articles

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Comment
28 October 2019 • 4 minutes read

Why the Law Commissions' consultation paper on surrogacy reform was incomplete

by Dr Calum MacKellar

The Law Commissions of Scotland and England and Wales' joint consultation on surrogacy reform has now closed to responses...

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Comment
27 September 2019 • 7 minutes read

Do the Law Commissions' proposals for surrogacy reform have the child's welfare at heart?

by Catherine Hill

Can law reform solve surrogacy's problems? That was the big question at the start of the Progress Educational Trust (PET) and the Scottish Government's joint public event in Edinburgh on 24 September 2019...

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Comment
22 August 2019 • 5 minutes read

Baby Cotton onwards: UK surrogacy law needs to keep pace

by Kim Cotton

The birth of my surrogate daughter Baby Cotton triggered the 1985 Surrogacy Act which was hastily rushed through the UK Parliament as a knee jerk reaction to public opinion, which was generated by sensationalised newspaper headlines...

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
News
7 June 2019 • 2 minutes read

Consultation on UK surrogacy law begins

by Jen Willows

Recommendations to clarify UK surrogacy law have been announced by the Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission...

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Comment
8 April 2019 • 5 minutes read

How can we make surrogacy law deliver?

by Dr Antony Starza-Allen

After many years of debate, surrogacy law reform is finally on the move. The Law Commissions of England and Wales, and that of Scotland, are now jointly evaluating areas of surrogacy law that have been identified as needing reform, with a view to making r

Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
CC0 1.0
Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
Comment
21 January 2019 • 7 minutes read

The future of fertility law: what must change and when?

by Dr Kirsty Horsey

The final session at the Progress Educational Trust's annual conference 'Make Do or Amend: Should We Update UK Fertility and Embryo Law?' continued the theme of looking to future reform of fertility law, as had the keynote address given by Sir James Munby

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
News
14 December 2018 • 2 minutes read

UK legal system may impact decision to go abroad for surrogacy

by Georgia Everett

A new study into the experience of British families who undertaking surrogacy arrangements has shed light on the reasons some seek a surrogate in the UK while others choose to go abroad...

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
News
4 May 2018 • 2 minutes read

'Outdated and inadequate' UK surrogacy laws set for reform

by Dr Antony Starza-Allen

The Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission, have announced that they will review the law around surrogacy and make recommendations for reform...

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« FILM: Anonymous No More? Donor Conception and Direct-to-Consumer DNA Testing

Data-Label The UK's Leading Supplier Of Medical Labels & Asset Labels

RetiringDentist.co.uk The UK's Leading M&A Company.
easyfundraising
amazon

This month in BioNews

  • Recent
27 June 2022 • 4 minutes read

Thirty years of PET: our 'Fertility, Genomics and Embryo Research' report

27 June 2022 • 5 minutes read

Children's rights and donor conception: What next?

20 June 2022 • 4 minutes read

The problems with lifting donor anonymity earlier

20 June 2022 • 6 minutes read

An adaptive act: How should human fertilisation and embryology legislation respond to scientific and technological change?

13 June 2022 • 1 minute read

A new look for BioNews

Subscribe to BioNews and other PET updates for free.

Subscribe
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS
Wellcome
Website redevelopment supported by Wellcome.

Website by Impact Media Impact Media

  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements

© 1992 - 2022 Progress Educational Trust. All rights reserved.

Limited company registered in England and Wales no 07405980 • Registered charity no 1139856

Subscribe to BioNews and other PET updates for free.

Subscribe
PET PET

PET is an independent charity that improves choices for people affected by infertility and genetic conditions.

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS
Wellcome
Website redevelopment supported by Wellcome.

Navigation

  • About Us
  • Get Involved
  • Donate
  • BioNews
  • Events
  • Engagement
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us

BioNews

  • News
  • Comment
  • Reviews
  • Elsewhere
  • Topics
  • Glossary
  • Newsletters

Other

  • My Account
  • Subscribe

Website by Impact Media Impact Media

  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements

© 1992 - 2022 Progress Educational Trust. All rights reserved.

Limited company registered in England and Wales no 07405980 • Registered charity no 1139856