Surrogacy in the UK: Myth busting and reform ten years on

In December, we finalised the third report of the SurrogacyUK Working Group on Surrogacy Law Reform, titled 'Surrogacy in the UK: Myth busting and reform ten years on'. In it, we reflect on developments in surrogacy taking place in the UK, or involving UK-based parties, in the ten years since we published our first report in 2015, and 40 years since this country first legislated for surrogacy in the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985.

As in our previous two reports in 2015 and 2018, we set out the landscape of available data on UK surrogacy, which remains piecemeal and difficult to obtain. However, we include the number of children recorded as being born from surrogacy in the UK as measured by the number of parental orders granted and show how, although this number has risen since records began, annual numbers are now relatively static, averaging around 500 each year. We identify where these surrogacy births are taking place, showing some movement over time in the destinations where intended parents (IPs) access surrogacy, but also that surrogacy births in the UK and USA remain by far the largest proportions of all births.

We also include the results of our own survey, 'Perspectives on Surrogacy 2025' which ran from September to October 2025 and gained 354 responses from surrogates, their partners, IPs and those already parents through surrogacy, professionals and volunteers working in the surrogacy space (including lawyers, midwives, counsellors, fertility specialists, academics, those working in non-profit organisations and more) and others connected to surrogacy in various ways. We include a chapter detailing important case law since our last report, and considering the various issues that have arisen before our specialist High Court judges.

This all leads us to be able to make further recommendations about what should happen with surrogacy law and policy in the UK. While our previous reports may have helped inform the research undertaken by the Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission in their joint review of surrogacy law, our conclusion now is that the Law Commissions' recommendations made in 2023 and the Surrogacy Bill that has already been drafted must be put before parliamentarians so that they can be debated without further delay (see BioNews 1289). Not doing so is not in the interests of surrogates, IPs or children born from surrogacy.

We believe that the Law Commissions' recommendations respect and build on decades of existing good practice in surrogacy in the UK. Crucially, among our survey respondents, there was an even higher level of support for legal reform than in our past two reports and for the recognition of IPs as parents at birth. What we know is that, despite the court cases detailed in the report – some of which are troubling – the vast majority of surrogacy arrangements in this country are ethical and uncomplicated.

They create families after, often, many years of infertility or pregnancy loss, or where 'natural' conception or other fertility interventions are not possible. They give surrogates a sense of satisfaction and pleasure at having been able to help someone else have a longed-for child. Of course, nobody shouts about these arrangements, and they are largely invisible as they do not raise issues that need to be considered by the court – but we should celebrate them and look to have a law that can better support them.

The existing law – though it can and has been rightly interpreted generously by judges to reflect the best interests of children – is no longer adequate. The parental order requirements are straining at the seams. The Law Commissions' recommendation that a new administrative 'pathway to parenthood' be created, supported by regulated non-profit surrogacy organisations and allowing IPs to become – where certain conditions are met – legal parents from birth better reflects the intentions of all parties to a surrogacy arrangement and the child's interest in having a legal connection to those caring for them from (usually) soon after birth.

The creation of a new Surrogacy Register, giving children born through surrogacy the opportunity to discover their birth origins when they are older, adds weight to this. For those unable to access the 'pathway', including those who go overseas for surrogacy, a revised parental order route that reflects some judicial comment from past cases is sensible. Separating the question of payments and reimbursement from the legal recognition of parenthood is welcome.

Far from being a liberalisation of surrogacy law, we view the recommendations as introducing greater safeguards where IPs wish to become parents from birth. Frontloading these safeguards – and ensuring they take place in a regulated setting – helps to ensure truly informed consent. There is no move towards commercialisation of surrogacy and some clarity is introduced about what kind of payments to surrogates should be allowed, though this needs further debate. A surrogate should not be left out of pocket for doing what she willingly and intentionally set out to do (on this, we are concerned about a recent tribunal ruling that surrogates' expenses count as 'income' in relation to means-tested benefits).

The important thing is that parliamentary debate is allowed to occur and, crucially, is informed by the latest data and information. Surrogacy is already recognised by government as a legitimate form of family creation and the Law Commissions' work was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care. Other jurisdictions that recognise surrogacy are also formulating or proposing laws that follow a similar model to that proposed here, including Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. Some jurisdictions where surrogacy is currently unregulated are considering regulation. Some places where surrogacy was formerly banned are altering their laws in the best interests of children, recognising that prohibiting surrogacy does not make it stop, but drives people to enter arrangements elsewhere. While this is not always problematic, exploitation of both surrogates and IPs can occur in some transnational arrangements, as we have seen from recent cases – especially where due diligence does not take place at the outset.

All that said, the answer seems to be progressive domestic regulation that has children at its centre and reflects the reality of surrogacy. Therefore, it would be a massive shame for the hard work of the Law Commissions – and everyone who contributed to the debate, especially those with lived experience – to stay sitting on a shelf gathering dust.