Lords Sitting of 28 June 1985

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

GATT: Proposed Negotiations
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there are any plans to arrange a conference to consider the operation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT); and whether they have decided what issues they would like to see on the agenda.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are working with their Community partners to get the proposed new round of multilateral trade negotiations launched as soon as possible. The agenda should include all aspects of world trade on which GATT members wish for new or improved internationally-agreed rules.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I should like to ask him whether he is aware of the damaging impact on the British film laboratory industry of the import into this country of used film prints. In the interests of protecting British industry and British workers and jobs, will the Government consider proposing, at any future meeting of GATT, a levy in order to protect vital British interests in a time of recession and job losses?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who indicated to me the area of his concern. I should perhaps remind the noble Lord that negotiations in GATT are usually aimed at reducing rather than increasing barriers to imports. In the particular case which he instances, I am not aware that the British film processing laboratories regard imports of used film print as a problem. Certainly no representations have been made to my department. However, if the noble Lord knows of a specific instance, and will inform me of it, I shall be very glad to look into it.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, as one concerned with the original negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, may I ask the Minister whether he does not agree that there has been a drift away from policies consistent with the GATT principles? In these circumstances, does he not agree that there is a need for a further round of multi-trade negotiations?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the House will of course recall the interest of the noble Lord in this
902
matter some short while ago. I cannot agree with him that there is any drift away from the principles, but I would certainly agree with him that it is necessary to get a new round under way as soon as practicable.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, will the noble Lord take it from me that the last report of GATT said exactly what I have said about the drift away from principles?
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that this week there were the British Film Institute awards? Following on what the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, was saying—and I should like to add that both he and I were present at these awards—Sir Richard Attenborough drew attention to the fact that since the start of British Film Year there has been an increase of 50 per cent. in film attendances, and that the British film industry is making enormous efforts and showing great enthusiasm. Will the Government bear in mind on their side, in any future talks as regards importations of film and video cassettes and so on, that it is necessary to protect this very encouraging momentum in the industry?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for reminding the House of the upsurge in the film industry's business. However, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government are opposed to any protectionist measures. We believe that the reduction of barriers to trade is all-important for world trade, the world economy and indeed our own economic future.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the very worthy sentiments that he has just uttered in practice affect manufacturing industry only? Is he further aware that in fact one of the difficulties in negotiating satisfactory reductions in tariff barriers is the protectionist agricultural policy in Europe, which has forced up prices to the consumer and which is one of the principal reasons why it is impossible for the noble Lord to do anything other than give ground when it comes to ordinary manufacturing industry, trade imports and exports in this country?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I really cannot accept that it is necessary to give ground. The forthcoming GATT round will undoubtedly be concentrating on some of the matters that the noble Lord raises.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, may I say to the Minister that I understand that in any GATT negotiations there can be very sensitive issues, and swings and roundabouts obviously play their part. If in fact the idea of a levy to protect this particularly vulnerable British industry does not commend itself to the Minister—bearing in mind what I think were his hopeful remarks in the final part of his first response—will he be prepared not only to receive representations from me but also to see representatives of the British film laboratory industry in order to see if there are any other ways in which he and his colleagues can assist?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in isolation the matter of levies is not attractive to us. In regard to the second point made by the noble Lord, of course I should be very glad to meet them and to do what I can to help if the problem can be clearly identified.

Remand Centres: Staff Consultation
11.12 a.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the procedures for consultation with staff in cases where the role of a remand centre is changed to that of a category C prison, as is presently envisaged at Thorp Arch remand centre.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): Yes, my Lords.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I shall try to be grateful to the Minister for that reply. May I draw the attention of the Minister to the excellent Question that was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on Wednesday, which was responded to so very well by his ministerial colleague, Baroness Cox, and which is a good backcloth to this problem? Will the Minister acknowledge that the experience and expertise of prison officers can play a crucial part in effecting a smooth transition in matters of this kind, and that there is dissatisfaction among prison officers that, very often, their opinions or views on matters of this kind are sought far too late and then ignored? For instance, why is the purpose-built remand centre at Thorp Arch being used as a means of relieving the dreadful problems at Leeds, instead of proceeding with the planned fourth wing at Thorp Arch?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly agree that the experience and expertise of prison officers is useful in any transitional phase, but my right honourable friend's decision on Thorp Arch was a complex one. It involved a number of establishments and various interests, both parliamentary and local, in addition to those of the staff. The noble Lord will be aware that there are many factors to be taken into account with the rising prison population.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the Minister say where they are to put the remand prisoners, bearing in mind that the overcrowding in places where remand prisoners are kept is now notorious?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the proposals involve three prisons, Thorp Arch, Hull and Leeds. It is a rather complex matter, but I can certainly let the noble and learned Lord know the actual movement of people in the case of all of them.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord may have said "Yes" in answer to the original
904
Question regarding consultation. However, is he aware that, when I represented Leeds in another place, Leeds prison was in my constituency, and I have received correspondence and phone messages from people who represent the staff in Leeds prison and who are very disgruntled and disheartened by the lack of consultation in this exercise which the Home Secretary announced?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there are disadvantages, in some cases, in going through a period of consultation with the staff in complex areas. I can give the noble Lord examples of other prisons, such as Wetherby, where we had to change plans at the last minute, and this causes a great deal of disruption.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am told that, when his right honourable colleague the Home Secretary in another place made an announcement of changes which affect Thorpe Arch, that statement was made without prior warning or consultation with members of the Prison Officers Association at either national or local level? While I acknowledge what he said in his Answer, will the Minister take on board that, though he may be satisfied that the consultation procedures are adequate, there are others who are dismayed at the manner in which they are being carried out?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, management in this kind of case is essentially a matter for the Prison Department. But the staff and their trade unions were informed immediately a decision had been made and there have been subsequent meetings at prison service headquarters, at which trade union representatives have made their views known. Of course, the noble Lord will be aware that the National Executive Committee of the POA has also put forward its own proposals, which are under consideration.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I would simply say that the Minister has outlined not consultation, but information.

Peaceful Death and the Law
11.17 a.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have noted that in a national opinion poll 72 per cent. agreed that medical help should be legally available to ensure peaceful death and whether they will either facilitate legislation to permit this or set up an inquiry into the question.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have noted the result of the poll and understand the feelings which underlie it. The question of mercy killing was reviewed by the Criminal Law Revision Committee in its report on offences against the person, published in 1980. The Government have no plans for any further review or change in the law.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but is he in a position to say that if the Government will not initiate legislation they will, at least, not oppose it? Is he aware that the wider question of voluntary euthanasia and the rather narrow one of mercy killing are, in fact, two different issues?
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords, I am not in a position to give that assurance to the noble Lord. The whole subject is a particularly difficult and emotional one and I cannot give the assurance which the noble Lord seeks.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the second part of my question—that he understands that the narrow issue of mercy killing, on which the Government have replied, is a different issue from the wider question of voluntary euthanasia?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, when we get into this area we are also talking about the treatment of patients and the fact that so much of that is a matter for the clinical judgment of doctors. There may be essential differences in the way that the noble Lord describes it, but the Government have no plans for change.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, will my noble friend endorse the view expressed by a very senior doctor in this House, that it is not the duty of a doctor to prolong the process of dying?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that it is possible to agree in general terms, but there is rather more that could be said on this issue and I do not think that this moment is appropriate.

Airline Terrorism
11.19 a. m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the international arrangements for preventing acts of terrorism against airlines; and whether they will initiate discussions with other leading countries of the world in order to pool intelligence in this field and to establish an international body of experts trained to detect and prevent such acts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we can never be satisfied while these wicked acts continue. We are supporting initiatives in several international fora, notably ICAO, and we are pressing for the fullest compliance with the relevant conventions. In the long term the solution lies, we believe, in ensuring that criminals understand that we never give in to demands backed by terror or murder.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply. I think the current situation requires that if absolutely innocent people are not to be done away with, we must, somehow or other,
906
negotiate. The very fact that there are so many successes by these appalling terrorists must indicate that, somewhere along the line, we are inefficient. Is the Minister aware that while the top countries have all the advantages of modern science and might be able to improve facilities at airports, these are not available to poorer countries which have airports as well? What are the current arrangements for this country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we clearly need to keep our national arrangements under careful scrutiny at this time. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport yesterday met representatives of the major airlines and airports who attend the National Aviation Security Committee to review security measures at United Kingdom airports. I understand that the committee itself plans to meet "next week.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend contemplate introducing into these important discussions the concept of applying to air piracy what has been international law for centuries in respect of sea piracy, namely that any power able to apprehend the pirates is entitled to take them, try them and, on conviction, execute them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure about the last point. I am persuaded to think that the real solution to this problem is to ensure that the terrorists never get what they want. If we can achieve that, this problem will die away.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, while I fully appreciate the difficulty of dealing with the problem, do the Government think that the vast amount of publicity given to terrorist acts is helpful? Does it not only achieve one of the objects of terrorists but also make the business of controlling terrorism more difficult?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has a point, although I am not quite sure how we get around that difficulty because, in this country at least, we have a free press.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, have the noble Lord the Minister and the Government considered the possibility of taking the initiative in getting as many countries as possible to agree that, in the event of any hijacking or any act of terrorism, no harbouring will take place; that if there is an offending country that harbours or encourages terrorism or hijacking, that country's airlines will not be permitted to land in the countries which have observed this convention; and that, if there is to be no landing at our or those countries' airports, in exactly the same way those countries willl not participate in any airline traffic with the country that offends?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the point of view of the noble Lord in this matter but the problem has always been to ensure watertight international compliance with these conventions. It is our task to see what we can do to improve that situation. That was one of the things in the mind of my honourable friend Mr. Spicer, who is currently attending the ICAO meeting in Montreal which is addressing these problems.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister not agree that it is not impossible that in modern airfields the equipment at the disposal of some of the top flight countries, if I may so describe them, could to a degree prevent the terrorists getting on board the planes? But what seems to be the position is this: the airports that do not have this equipment are where they seem to get on first of all. The conference that I envisage would make certain that even poorer nations or all airfields would have the same abundance of efficient equipment in an endeavour to stop terrorism. Finally, will he also agree that the political answers must also be pursued in an endeavour to eradicate the bitterness and frightful hatred which exists which are created by political situations and which allow sympathy for these people to some extent in parts of the world which does not fully understand the ruthlessness of their behaviour?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the last point may go a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. With regard to the provision of equipment, I fancy that the problem is not so much the provision of equipment (although I must say in parenthesis that there is no technical panacea to these problems) as the will to use it effectively. I fancy that many of your Lordships will have seen X-ray machinery attended by a man doing a crossword. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we will never give in to the demands of these terrorists, and if they come here they will go no further.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that there has been nothing incompatible between the maintenance of a free press and the recently achieved informal agreement among chief constables and editors in respect of kidnapping and terrorism within these islands? Might it not well be worth considering international action in respect of the reporting of such events?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that domestic action of the kind described by the noble Lord is a good deal easier to achieve than international action, which is what is necessary if we are to achieve the end which the noble Lord has in mind in this matter. To achieve a worldwide blackout on events such as the ones we have been witnessing recently is a very difficult thing indeed.

Gaming (Bingo) Bill
11.26 a.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Before bidding this little Bill adieu, I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. This Bill, as your Lordships know, is very much a result of his endeavours. Having been given the responsibility for nursing his baby, so to speak, through this House, I now have a feeling only of relief that I have neither dropped it nor poisoned it. Your Lordships will be well aware that the success of any legislation is in direct proportion to the measure of co-operation between those who administer the law and those who are affected by it.
908
This little Bill is in my untutored view a model of and a reflection of the will and determination of those in the industry to abide with both the spirit and the letter of the law as it affects them. The co-operation evident between the industry and the Gaming Board and not least the Home Office has resulted in what I believe to be a model Bill, a Bill which will accrue to the benefit in particular of an all too often neglected and rather small section of society. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for his warm welcome and for his unfailing assistance in the passing of this measure, and not least Her Majesty's loyal Opposition in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his ever elegant contributions. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—[Lord Morris.]
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the face of those extremely comely and appropriate words, may I in turn from these Benches thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, I am sure on behalf of the House, for the way in which he has conducted a good little Bill through this House. It helps in the enjoyment of many people, some of them lonely folk, some of them aged folk; and if this House has taken part in assisting in making this game possible for them in an enlarged way I think we have done a useful job.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps I may also thank my noble friend Lord Morris most warmly for his kind remarks about the assistance we have given to the Gaming (Bingo) Bill and about my own rather limited contribution to it. I wish that one or two other Private Member's Bills, were just as straightforward. I am sure your Lordships will agree that while there has not been any lengthy debate during the passage of the Bill, my noble friend has earned much credit for the care he took in presenting it at Second Reading. I know that the bingo industry appreciates his efforts, just as much as they appreciate the efforts of Mr. Peter Fry in another place.
The Bill makes some important modifications to the Gaming Act 1968, allowing a new form of bingo—called multiple bingo—in licensed bingo clubs. My noble friend explained very clearly on Second Reading why the bingo industry wants to see the Bill enacted. Licensed bingo is in decline. Attendances are falling and clubs are having to close. It will not come as any surprise if I reveal that the annual report of the Gaming Board for 1984, which will be published in full next week, suggests that the pattern of decline is continuing.
As for the next stage of the Bill, I know that my noble friend Lord Morris would like to see the necessary follow up work completed as soon as possible, so that games of multiple bingo may begin very soon. I confirm that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary stands ready to introduce regulations to give effect to the Bill; but the precise speed of implementation will turn on the ability of representatives of the bingo industry to sort out their arrangements for playing the game to the satisfaction of the Gaming Board.
In accordance with the Bill, my right honourable friend will proceed with regulations when the board

909
has been able to submit its views on the basis of discussions with the industry. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I cannot resist intervening just to support what has been said by the noble Lord the Minister and also the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I nearly used the words, "my noble friend" in referring to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Morris; I should like to congratulate him also.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Various Foods) (Amendment) Order 1985
11.32 a.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth rose to move. That the draft order laid before the House on 14th June be approved. [25th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order would, if approved, make four specific and unrelated amendments in two pieces of secondary weights and measures legislation which we approved in your Lordships' House last August. The first two of these amendments relate to provisions for fresh fruits and vegetables which are contained in the Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Cheese, Fish, Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, Meat and Poultry) Order 1984.
That order requires that from 1st July 1985, all produce must be sold at retail by net weight, by number or by the bunch. Hitherto, only a limited number of green vegetables were required to be sold by weight, all other produce being sold by the piece. The provisions of the 1984 order would, however, preclude the growing practice of inviting customers to select their own produce and present it for weighing in a light polythene hag. The amendment proposed in the draft order would permit fresh fruits and vegetables (including potatoes) to be sold by gross weight in a container of less than a certain weight. It would thus allow this popular trading practice, which benefits both consumers and retailers, to continue.
The opportunity has also been taken to correct an error in the same order which inadvertantly exempted packages of fruits or vegetables containing more than 5kg. from certain long-standing provisions designed to protect those buying at wholesale markets. It was not the intention that this protection should be removed, and the second amendment proposed in the draft order would re-instate the buyer's right to request that the weight of his goods be checked.
The other two amendments are to the Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Miscellaneous Foods) Order 1984. Many basic foodstuffs are required to be pre-packed only in ranges of quantities prescribed in Schedule 1 to that order. It is proposed to make two changes. First, the optional imperial range for instant coffee should be discontinued. This has ceased to be used by United Kingdom packers but nevertheless offers opportunities for marketing techniques which could be confusing to consumers. From 1st July 1986 it would be illegal for instant coffee to be sold by retail other than in the metric range of prescribed sizes.
Secondly, small jars of honey, jam, marmalade and similar preserves weighing less than 50 grams should be exempted from the requirement to be made up only in prescribed sizes. Your Lordships may be familiar with small jars of honey, jam, and so on, which are commonly sold in presentation packs of two or more, and your Lordships will appreciate that they do not compete with the everyday products for which the prescribed quantity legislation was designed.
The four amendments proposed in the draft order are not controversial. They have the support of consumers and trading standards officers and were largely drawn up in response to advice from the industry. I believe them to be useful measures which will enable traders better to serve the needs of their customers. Finally, I should advise your Lordships that this order was considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, but the committee did not draw the special attention of your Lordships' House to it. With that, I beg to move the draft order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th June be approved. [25th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.]
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it is true, as the noble Lord the Minister said, that this order has been before the joint committee of both Houses, and that in its view the special attention of either House is not to be directed towards it.
When I was a Member of another place, I was taught always to beware of business that was slipped through on a Friday morning. So, contrary to the advice of the joint committee, I examined this order and have pleasure in informing your Lordships that its views on this matter are quite correct, and that it is not necessary for us to pay detailed attention to the order.
I have only two questions to ask the Minister. The order states that consultations have taken place with the interests substantially affected. Can the noble Lord inform the House whether consultations took place with the National Consumer Council on this matter, and also with the co-operative societies? That is my first question. My second question is this: what is the particular reason for the lower limit referred to in the last paragraph of the Explanatory Note to the order? Why is it that the lower limit is now three times as much as the former limit of half an ounce? Fifty grams are 1·72 ounces and is there any particular reason why the lower limit should now be three times the size of the former limit? On the assumption that the noble Lord will answer those questions satisfactorily, I have to inform the House that I would not wish to detain it further.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, as the Minister is aware, retailers generally welcome this order. So far as concerns fruit and vegetables when they are sold not prepacked, which is very popular with consumers, this order will bring the law into line with practice and is to be welcomed for that reason, among others.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Sainsbury, for their welcome to this order. On Fridays, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and I frequently engage in

911
debates which are sometimes at greater length than I imagine this order is going to take.
The National Consumer Council itself was not I think specifically consulted, but certainly consumer interests were. I cannot confirm that the council itself was consulted, and neither can I confirm that the co-operative movement, separately from the industry's interests themselves, was consulted. As regards the lower limit, that was raised largely for consistency with other prescribed quantity goods and to exempt from control small jars a little below the 5-gram measurement.
I am now advised that both the Consumers' Association and the Co-op were consulted. I am sorry that I did not have that answer readily to hand.
I am glad to have the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, expressed on behalf of retailers. I am quite sure that this order is for the benefit not only of retailers but of consumers and that it will lead to a better service for both interests. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Insurance (Fees) Bill
11.41 a.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MURTON OF LINDISFARNE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Fees]:
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 1, after ("shall") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: With the Committee's permission, I propose to deal with Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together.
Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 6, at end insert—
("and
(b) set out, within such regulations a statement showing the detailed categories of expenditure to be taken into account in computing the cost referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection.").
In the course of his reply to the debate on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was good enough to say:
"It would not be our wish to let the control of the costs get out of hand to an extent that would have such a marked effect on the premium that the policyholder—who is the beneficiary of the supervisory nature of the work for which we are now seeking payment—would grumble".—[Official Report, 7/6/85; col. 953.]
I fully accept the general purpose of the noble Lord, but I am concerned lest the figure of £2·5 million, which I believe was the figure mentioned as being the total costs recoverable, is a figure that has been taken, as it were, arbitrarily out of the hat.
It would be interesting to know—and this is the reason for putting forward this amendment—just how the Government propose to calculate the costs of the various services comprised within the original Bill: services that the Government department provides in receiving and examining the various reports that it gets under the 1982 Act; costs that are undoubtedly incurred, or should be incurred, in following up information arising from Section 83 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982; costs, I should imagine, which have increased quite appreciably as a result of what we can only term as scandals occurring in some sections of the industry two or three years ago.
I can fully understand the purposes of the Bill. If the Government are put to extra trouble by reason of having extra work they should seek to recover some of the cost, but it is a principle which is open to abuse. After all, Governments are there to govern. Their Civil Service is paid for exercising the functions that it performs in accordance with various pieces of legislation that have gone through both Houses in the past, and continue to go through. It is a service generally provided for the whole of the community. Therefore it is not right as a general principle that where individuals or indeed a company are supervised or, as a result of legislation, have to give information to the Government—and the assembly and giving of information is in itself a costly operation—they should at the same time be charged for the time and the effort of the Government in examining the information and performing their various functions under the Act.
The principle of the Bill has already been dealt with at Second Reading but I venture somewhat into that field again (and trust that the Committee will forgive me for doing so), in order to elicit from the Government just how they arrive at their figures and what kind of costs they intend to include within the ambit of this particular little Bill. I have no intention, of course, of pressing this amendment. As I gave notice to the noble Lord, it is moved only for the purpose of obtaining information and I hope that today the noble Lord will be able to go into a little further detail than, for quite proper reasons, he was able to do at Second Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: I should like very briefly to say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has performed a service by tabling this amendment, although he does not intend to press it. It is important to know precisely what is the burden that it is felt necessary to put on the insurance industry in order to pay for the supervision of that industry. I shall be most interested to hear what the noble Lord the Minister has to say in answer to that important point.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, on two counts: first, for having given me notice of his intention to use the Committee stage this morning as an opportunity to probe a little further into our Second Reading debate earlier in the month; and, secondly, for his explanation this morning of what gives rise to this probing. In the light of this prior notice I have had the opoportunity to prepare a somewhat lengthy reply which I think may be of benefit to the Committee.
We do not think that it is appropriate to include in the regulations material on matters of fact.

913
Regulations are, in effect, the expansion of primary legislation and they are not therefore a suitable means for recording factual material such as details of administrative costs. Moreover, the combined effect of subsections (4) and (6) of the new Section 94A of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 will be that fees payable will have to equal the costs incurred by the Secretary of State in exercising relevant functions; and relevant functions means those functions prescribed in regulations to be made under the Act. In other words, rather more simply put, it will be necessary under the Bill as it stands to state in the regulations the functions in relation to which the charges are calculated. These regulations, as is the case with all regulations made under the Act, will be subject to annulment by the House.
It might be helpful were I to remind your Lordships' Committee that the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible to Parliament in accounting for both income and expenditure. The annual appropriation accounts prepared by the department and signed by the departmental accounting officer and the Comptroller and Auditor General are presented to Parliament by the Comptroller and Auditor General together with his report. The Public Accounts Committee may call the departmental accounting officer to give evidence before it in connection with the accounts and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The accounts and the report are of course published, and not only Parliament but others interested can pursue further any specific points that arise from these accounts.
I should say that the Annual Supplementary Estimates presented to Parliament by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury currently state the provision for staff salaries and general administrative expenses for the insurance and financial services and companies divisions. As from the next financial year they will include provision for receipt of fees from insurance companies. At the end of the year the relevant outturn figures are examined and presented to Parliament by the Comptroller and Auditor General as part of the appropriation accounts. An explanation is provided in the accounts for all variations between provisions and actual expenditures of more than 10 per cent. or £500,000, whichever is the greater.
Turning perhaps a little more closely to the substance of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I can give further information on the costs involved in the fees scheme. Currently, the total staff in the insurance division within my department is 84, and at present some 75 per cent. of staff costs for the division are expended on the supervisory functions. Staff costs consist of salaries and general administrative expenses. An allowance is also made for the cost of the computer operations and for the cost of legal and accountancy advisers. Expenditure incurred by the Government Actuary's Department has also been included in the estimate of the cost to be recovered, which, as I said earlier this month, is some £2·5 million annually. Your Lordships' Committee will remember that at that time I also suggested that that would equate to about £3,000 to the companies involved.
I would certainly envisage that the insurance annual report would also state the secretary's functions in
914
relation to which the charges had been calculated. It would then go on to indicate the number of staff who were principally engaged on the work from which those charges arose. I think that it would be an unwise exercise to make guesses during this Committee stage of what all that may amount to.
With that explanation, I hope that the Committee will be assured that there is a control on the costs which are to be transferred to the industry. The estimates will be placed before Parliament; the outturn is equally placed before Parliament. There is then ample opportunity for parliamentarians of both Houses, of course, or indeed other outside interests, to raise questions if they feel that we have the matter wrong.
I add that it would be our intention for information along these lines to be included in the Secretary of State's annual report upon the exercise of his powers under the Insurance Companies Act 1982. Again, this will help to explain how costs recovered relate to costs incurred in applying to insurance the Government's general policy that in cases where a service is provided or an activity carried out in connection with an identifiable group, that group should bear the proper costs involved.
I merely repeat what I said during the Second Reading of the Bill so that there is no misunderstanding as to the Government's policy. I might perhaps remind the Committee that that policy is very much in line not only with the United States procedures but also with those of many European countries, and most particularly in the connection with which this matter is concerned.
With that rather lengthy explanation I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will feel reassured. I thank him for raising the question, and I hope that he will not need to pursue it further.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. In the first part he dealt with some of the safeguards, including, for example, the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General. Of course I accept that. The only thing is that the attention of the PAC in another place would not in practice be drawn to matters of relatively minor significance of this kind. I very much doubt whether the issues would ever be sufficiently important to be deemed by the Comptroller and Auditor General to be worthy of the attention of the PAC. It deals with billions rather than comparatively small sums of this kind.
Having said that, however, somewhat uniquely for me, I think, I have to express my complete agreement with the noble Lord and my complete satisfaction with the answer that he gave. It will be most helpful to those of us who are interested in following up the detail of these matters. I am most grateful to him. I ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill
11.58 a.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is designed to remove an anomaly—the anomaly in Section 62 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and in Section 60 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. Under those Acts, if a protected tree is removed from or destroyed in woodland in contravention of a tree preservation order, the local planning authority cannot enforce replanting. However, if a protected tree which stands individually is destroyed the local authority can enforce replanting. That is an obvious anomaly which needs correcting. The Bill before us will serve that purpose. It will ensure that any protected woodland tree which is destroyed in contravention of a tree preservation order will have to be replaced if the local authority considers such action desirable.
In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which, as your Lordships will see, is concerned with the protection of trees and woodlands, I should perhaps declare an interest as President of the Men of Trees, which is an international society for the planting and protection of trees, founded by the famous Richard St. BarbeBaker, who sadly is no longer with us. It may not be inappropriate to say that only yesterday I had the honour of planting trees with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, who is patron of that society. We planted trees in Charnwood Forest in memory of St. Barbe, as he was affectionately known. I should also declare an interest as Chairman of the trust which owns quite extensive woodlands on the borders of Hampshire and Sussex.
I should make clear to your Lordships the exact nature of the Bill's central provision. In the context of the original legislation in 1971 and 1972, it will provide for the replanting of any protected tree which is destroyed or removed, "in contravention of the order". However, it will not provide for the replanting of trees which are removed because they are, "dying or dead or have become dangerous". Obviously, it would be unfair to punish a landowner because his trees had been damaged by strong winds, for example. Besides, it is obvious that acts of nature such as wind-damage or death through old age or disease could not be classed as contravention. The word "contravention" must imply human interference.
We do not need to be told that our countryside deserves protection. In Britain we are now seeing the price of our failure to plant new trees over the past 60 years. This certainly does not apply to those conscientious landowners, including many noble Lords in your Lordships' House, such as my father—and even, if I may modestly say so, myself—who have replanted systematically over that period. However, the fact remains that since World War Two, between 30 and 50 per cent. of our ancient woodland has disappeared, which is more than in the past 400 years. Obviously much of this has been for important residential and agricultural development. That of course was very much the case during the Second World War. Nonetheless, it is a sad record.
916
It is not surprising therefore that this modest correcting Bill, sponsored by my honourable friend Mr. Roger Freeman in another place, should have won so much support. It passed through another place without difficulty, and enjoyed all-party as well as Government support. Indeed, it was described as a "great step forward" and my honourable friend is to be congratulated on his initiative and enterprise in bringing it forward and piloting it through another place so successfully.
Among official groups, I can tell your Lordships that the Bill has the full support of the Council for the Protection of Rural. England, which has given much advice and help. It is supported by the National Farmers' Union; the Tree Council, of which the Men of the Trees is a founder member; the associations of county and district councils; the Country Landowners' Association; the Royal Insititution of Chartered Surveyors, and, most importantly, the timber growers organisation of Great Britain.
This Bill comes at an appropriate time. Already county councils have sought to remove the existing loophole for themselves. Such a provision was made in the County of Kent Act in 1981, Section 79 of which formed the basis of the Bill before us today. More recently, the Berkshire Bill, with which your Lordships have recently been dealing, has included a section to extend the replanting provision to cover protected trees in woodlands. Should this Town and Country (Amendment) Bill become an Act, it would replace those individual provisions with one national provision.
Therefore, rather than waiting for each county to seek to change the law individually, which would increase the likelihood of confusing local differences in our law, I believe it is fitting that legislation should be introduced at a national level. That is a sound argument in favour of the Bill before us. The need for this Bill is as unquestionable as the support for it is comprehensive. It is therefore the duty of Parliament to respond to such a demand.
This Bill is not controversial. It should be remembered that it was presented in another place as a ten-minute-rule Bill, and as such it can only address itself to the most immediate problems of tree preservation. It is to be hoped that in the future the need for proper tree and woodland management can be more positively assured. A tree is a living thing, and though a preservation order can save a tree or a wood in the short term, it cannot ensure that a wood will continue to flourish indefinitely. I believe that we should look in the future to replacing preservation orders with some more dynamic form of management protection. For the present though, I hope your Lordships will accept the Bill and welcome it as a useful step in the right direction. My Lords, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Bessborough.)
12.6 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, on behalf of the Labour Benches in your Lordships' House, may I say that we certainly do exactly what my colleagues did in another place. First of all, we congratulate Mr. Freeman for his initiative, and certainly I pay full

917
tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, not only for having done what he has done, but for having done it so simply and lucidly.
From the sympathetic noises all round the House, I think he will have detected that this Bill will have as easy a passage here as it had in another place. The noble Earl has assisted in plugging up a loophole. It is quite surprising that legislation in comparatively recent years, which appeared to be watertight, in the light of events is being seen to need amendment. Here we have something which certainly we can all support and for which there is clearly a need.
The noble Earl has reminded us of the crucial importance of woodlands and trees not only to our landscape but also to our economy. We rely upon wood throughout our lives from the cradle to the grave—or certainly to the coffin. The noble Earl has been quite right not only in demonstrating his interests and declaring them in a very pleasant, forthright and honourable way, but also in drawing our attention to the other interested bodies which, it is crucial to understand, welcome the Bill and what it seeks to do.
Those bodies include the Council for the Protection of Rural England; the National Farmers' Union; the Tree Council; the Association of County and District Councils (and here I declare a slight interest as a vice-president); the Country Landowners' Association; the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Timber Growers Association. On a matter of this kind, I do not think there could be better credentials assembled to ensure that we are not discussing merely a form of words but are discussing people who care and, equally importantly, people who have the will and the means to do something about the situation.
I was very interested to hear the noble Earl draw our attention to a disgraceful statistic. That is that in the past 40 years we have destroyed as many or more of our ancient woodlands as were lost in the previous 400 years. Perhaps we can only wring our hands, but perhaps we can do a little more than that. I first came across this dreadful situation when I served in another place during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. Of course, that Bill came through this House and noble Lords present will have been as shocked as I was at the vandalism. We are collectively responsible for the vandalism. I do not blame anyone. Economic imperatives have forced the farmers and landowners to consider having their trees chopped down. Where it is possible to replace trees that are neither damaged nor dying, we are reminded that we have a responsibility to try to make sure that they are replaced.
One reservation that I have—the Minister or his colleagues may be able to help me here—is that the Bill does not appear to insist on the trees being replaced in kind. Replacement seems merely a matter of numbers. In my view, to replace an oak or a beech with a hawthorn or a conifer would degrade the landscape to an unacceptable degree. Yet it could happen, because saplings of the lesser trees are cheaper. If there is any way of maintaining the quality as well as the quantity—it may be difficult, it may not be easy, and we are certainly not in the business of being pernickety—I hope that the Minister will be able to say something on those lines.
918
I was also interested in what the noble Earl said was the genesis of this Bill—a provision in a Private Bill, which became Section 79 of the Kent Act—and also the reference to the Berkshire Bill. I was reminded of my interest, wearing another hat, on behalf of the Co-operative movement, when the Essex Bill was going through the House. I found that something created as a precedent in one Private Bill was automatically assumed to be acceptable in others. Yet, as the noble Earl has pointed out, where it can be clearly seen that what we are discussing is not a localised matter but something of national importance, what we need, as we have in this Bill, is a straightforward Act of Parliament which removes the need to bring forward new private Bill legislation in order to take account of the situation. All told, I believe that we have been very well served today. The nation will be grateful in future for the initiative of Mr. Roger Freeman in another place and, more importantly, to our colleague in this House, the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. We give the Bill a very warm welcome.
12.12 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name on the list of speakers, if, indeed, one can call a document with the noble Earl's name standing by itself in solitary grandeur a list. I should however, like to thank the noble Earl for having introduced the Bill. He gave me a great deal of help when a short time ago I introduced a Private Member's Bill on the protection of trees. I should like to congratulate him and to thank him for this very necessary Bill.
12.13 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Bessborough has explained, this Bill will empower local planning authorities to enforce replanting of woodland trees which are removed or destroyed in contravention of a tree preservation order, and he has stressed that it will apply only in that particular circumstance. This is clearly a Bill that is uncontroversial. As my noble friend has said, it has attracted support from a wide range of interests; from one of the leading amenity bodies, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, from the farming and landowning interests, represented by the NFU and the CLA, from the local authority associations, from commercial forestry interests represented by the timber growers, and as we have heard, from the Men of the Trees and from the Tree Council which, if I may for once put in a plug for the department, was formed just over a decade ago—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, a wooden plug?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords any sort of plug. It was formed just over a decade ago to promote the planting and protection of amenity trees and my department gives financial support to it. Here endeth the plug.
My honourable friend the Member for Kettering who introduced the Bill in the other place pointed out that the amendments to the Bill introduced during the Committee stage there were the result of parliamentary counsel's drafting on the advice of my

919
department. The amendment which extended the provisions from England and Wales to cover Scotland as well resulted from the initiative of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am pleased to confirm that the Government are genuinely benevolent towards the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Bessborough has referred to the limited purpose of the Bill and has expressed the hope that in the future the need for proper trees and woodland management can be more positively assured. In this connection I would draw the attention of the House to the advice given in my department's Trees and Forestry circular 36/78, that it is better for authorities to seek agreements with landowners for the proper management of their woodlands and for them to use tree preservation orders on woodlands as a last resort.
It is perfectly true to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, reminded us, that woodlands have been causing concern in conservation circles for a number of years. This Bill, as my noble friend Lord Bessborough has pointed out, will help in this respect. But as regards demands for a full scale review of the tree preservation orders system, I would not wish to raise hopes of such a review and further primary legislation in the immediate future, though such a review remains on the agenda for the longer term.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked me a specific question. It was whether the Bill refers to replacement in kind of particular species of trees. My noble friend has already said that it does not refer to dead and dying trees. But it occurs to me that in the possible circumstances of someone having to cut down an elm tree that is alive, it would not be appropriate to replace an elm with an elm because, as the noble Lord well knows, for obvious reasons, no one is replanting elms at the present moment. However, so far as other species of trees are concerned, I can tell the noble Lord that in accordance with Section 62 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the replacement requirement is to plant another tree of an appropriate size and species. So that probably covers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham.
Finally, like the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I should like to express the hope that the rapid progress which this Bill had in another place may continue in your Lordships' House.
12.17 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and also the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches for what they have said. I, too, hope that the Bill will become an Act as soon as possible. The question of replacement of trees in kind was not discussed in another place. I am glad, however, that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has drawn our attention to Section 62 of the 1971 Act because I know that those who are replanting trees bear in mind the desirability of planting in kind, especially hard woods. But, as my noble friend has said, obviously we do not want to plant elms unless they are of a new species which are proven not to be subject to the disease. I believe that
920
there are now being propagated certain elm species which might be exempt from the disease.
I am most grateful for what has been said. I do not think that I need mention any other matter, except to say that in another place the Title of the Bill was much discussed. I believe that it is right to keep the Title as it is now. That would be in accordance with precedent in relation to this kind of Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Surrogacy Arrangements Bill
12.19 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MURTON OF LINDISFARNE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Meaning of "surrogate mother", "surrogacy arrangement" and other terms]:
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 18, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
("(9) Any such arrangements are void and unenforceable whether done with a view to payment or not.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I was unable to be here for the Second Reading debate, but perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the origin of this Bill, which is of considerable importance. It has arisen all because of Baby Cotton. A husband and wife in America were anxious to have a child, but the wife was infertile. It may be that she had no uterus or that the Fallopian tubes were blocked or whatever. They went to a commercial agency which then operated in this country, and advertised. As a result a Mrs. Cotton was induced for money to agree to bear a child for this couple. That is what happened. No doubt it was done by artificial insemination. The husband provided the sperm and the doctor or somebody inserted it into the woman's body—Mrs Cotton's body—and as a result she conceived and bore this baby. She did it for money. The baby was immediately handed over to the parents and, after court proceedings, it was taken by them to the United States.
The public were outraged that such a commercial agency should operate surrogacy agreements of this kind. Therefore, the Government have introduced this Bill to deal with that particular evil: namely, the commercial agency for surrogacy. However, the Bill goes further than the Baby Cotton case. The subject is of vast difficulty, indeed, it is one of the items in the Warnock Committee's Report and we shall have to wait for a year or two before legislation takes place as regards that report. Meanwhile, this Bill deals with one or two points beyond the Baby Cotton case, as indeed it should do. That is why I am suggesting these amendments which I hope are not controversial.
The first amendment deals with an ambiguity left by the concluding provisions of Clause 1 which deals with surrogacy arrangements. It says in a very neutral way that:
"This Act applies to arrangements whether or not they are lawful and whether or not they are enforceable by or against any of the persons making them".
I should like to say, and I should like this House to affirm, that all such surrogacy agreements are unlawful, void and unenforceable. To my mind they are completely contrary to public policy because they destroy the bond which should exist in nature between the carrying mother and the child whom she bears.
Let us consider the situation. A man's sperm—of which she does not know the origin—is injected by a doctor or somebody else into the woman's body and then she conceives and bears a child which she is immediately to hand over to some commissioning mother. I say that those agreements are void and unenforceable. Indeed, I am supported in that view by two passages in the Warnock Report. On page 43 it says:
"There is little doubt that the Courts would treat most, if not all, surrogacy agreements as contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable".
That is the position as it stands at the moment. However, in addition, the report goes on to say in black letters on page 47:
"We recommend that it be provided by statute that all surrogacy agreements are illegal contracts and therefore unenforceable in the Courts".
Let me give some illustrations. Let us suppose that the carrying mother has the baby and then the commissioning mother says, "It's my baby" and sues the carrying mother for the baby or for damages for not handing it over. Of course the courts would reject that claim by the commissioning mother and would say that the natural mother, the carrying mother, should have the child. That is one aspect, but there is another. Suppose the carrying mother has the baby and then the
commissioning mother says, "Oh, I have changed my mind. I don't want that baby any more. I am separated from my husband"; or it may be that the baby is deformed or she says, "I don't like the look of it". Let us suppose that the commissioning mother says. "Oh well, I'm not going to honour that agreement. I'm not going to have the child". Can the natural mother sue? Of course she cannot. To me it is a plain as a pikestaff that all these surrogacy agreements are unenforceable and void whether they are done for payment or not. That is why I move my first amendment. I think that it would be a good thing to put that provision into the Bill at this stage and not leave it to the neutrality which the Bill gives, apparently, to all surrogacy agreements at this point. My first amendment says that all such arrangements,
"are void and unenforceable whether done with a view to payment or not".
I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: First, I ought to remark that this is the only amendment which has been tabled on the Marshalled List by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, of which we have had prior notice. All the rest of the amendments are new and I am seeing them for the first time. We evidently do some of our business in great haste and we can hardly get here
922
before seeing amendments that we have not seen before. Out of 14 amendments on the Marshalled List, 11 are new. I make no undue complaint about that, but it means that one has to study this very carefully in a very short space of time before the sitting of your Lordships' House begins.
However, the question which I want to ask is this. Having listened to the noble and learned Lord very carefully, I am puzzled to know in what respect there is a real difference between the subsection on page 2 and the amendment. Does the amendment do something which the original words do not do? When we are amending words in a Bill we want to know the significance of the change. The difference which I seem to notice concerns whether arrangements are lawful or not. I do not know whether or not that has anything to do with the law of contract.
However, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord had a very definite purpose in his mind. I am sorry to say that, having listened to this remarks, I was not very clear about what he had in mind. I apologise for my suspicions, but when dealing with a Bill of this delicacy and with such an emotional background I am always very keen to know what changes mean and what words mean. After all, yesterday we saw some very subtle work going on as regards another Bill which led your Lordships into very serious difficulties after the noble and learned Lord had left us. I hope that he will forgive me for raising this point.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Craigmyle: Is what the noble and learned Lord trying to do really so obscure? The law at the moment is doubtful. The noble and learned Lord has told us clearly what he thinks courts would do. But the Bill as at present drafted talks about
"arrangements whether or not they are lawful and whether or not they are enforceable".
The noble and learned Lord's amendment simply says that the arrangements are "void and unenforceable". It seems to be a perfectly straightforward clarification, and I cannot see the difficulty that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, finds.
If a surrogate mother bears a child in spite of the arrangements by which it is done being unlawful, the child, by the next amendment, will be her own, and that will make it clear. This amendment, so far as I can see, is not going to make it unlawful to have a surrogate child, but it will make all the acts concerning the arrangements unlawful. If I have understood the noble and learned Lord correctly, that is what he is getting at.
Viscount Buckmaster: I rise to support with all the strength I can muster, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. My support for these amendments stems from my firmly held belief that the process of creation is a divinely ordered pattern, and if we try to interfere with it we do so at our own peril. Can we, by surrogacy or by other experiments which have been mentioned in other Bills, improve on the divine miracle of creation, whether it be a blade of grass, an elephant or a human being that is created? Can we really, by juggling with genes and in other ways, better the divine plan of creation?
I firmly believe that if we start experimenting in this way with forces which we cannot fully comprehend we

923
shall, like the sorcerer's apprentice, be sowing the seeds of our own doom. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will give support from the spiritual Benches. One could perhaps argue—and I expect that several of your Lordships will think on these lines—that after birth, a child becomes the responsibility of its parents and of mankind at large, but I cannot accept the argument that before birth, in the prenatal stage, which is what this Bill is all about, that argument applies.
The argument I have adduced is of course basically a Christian argument, and I say once more that I look forward to any views that the right reverend Prelate may have; but I should like to say also that, as your Lordships are aware and as I have mentioned on various occasions in your Lordships' House, we are not only a multi-ethnic but a multi-religious society. There are now in this country more Moslems than Methodists: there are one-and-a-quarter million of them. There are a great many Jews. In the view of all three monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, such experiments are unacceptable.
To the Moslems, such experiments, and surrogacy, and so on, are totally abhorrent. So abhorrent are they to the Moslem mind that such arrangements could never even be discussed. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will support these amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord, bearing in mind that this matter cannot be dealt with in purely secular terms.
Lord Edmund-Davies: I rise briefly to support the noble and learned Lord in relation to this amendment. It has the desirable aim—and succeeds in that aim—of introducing clarity where there is at present doubt. Clause 1(9) reads:
"This Act applies to arrangements whether or not they are lawful and whether or not they are enforceable".
The noble and learned Lord's amendment makes it clear by the provision not that they are illegal, because illegality is dealt with in Clause 2, but that they are,
"void and unenforceable whether done with a view to payment or not".
Therefore, we know where we are. We are not voting on a doubt; we are voting on a clear and certain point. I commend and support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, which is a requisite aid to clarification of the law which Clause 1(9), if one reads if carefully, impliedly recognises is uncertain for the reasons more cogently put than I could put them by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies.
Lord Somers: I too, should like to support this amendment for a reason additional to those spoken of so far. I agree with my noble friend Lord Buckmaster on the ethical side of this process, but there is also the practical side. When the child grows up or grows a little older he may have a feeling of great uncertainty as to who is his real mother. A feeling of certainty is very necessary for any child. To have that feeling of uncertainty in a relationship is very bad indeed. It gives him a bad start to life, and one that we can condemn altogether.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I should like to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. In doing so I should like to say something extra. I cannot think why, when we have had night after night debating a trivial matter of mere local government and of physical arrangements with regard to our society, a matter fundamental to our lives—the creation of human beings—is left to a Friday midday with a very thin Committee. The usual channels have been quite unusually stupid and unworthy of your Lordships' House in so arranging the business that it comes at this time. Having said that—and no doubt the words will have carried to the two Front Benches—I should like to add my word of support to this amendment.
Lord Swinfen: In general, I should like to support the noble and learned Lord's first amendment. However, I am convinced that we need to get this Bill through Parliament, and we are coming towards the end of the summer. There is only about another month left. The Government, as normal, will tell us that they have not got any time at all. Being a Government Bill, I am not sure that I really believe it.
I am not an ex-Master of the Rolls, only the grandson of a Master of the Rolls, and that does not qualify me in quite the same way, but, as I understand the noble and learned Lord's amendment, if he was to withdraw it and come back at a later stage with only its first line, it would leave the Bill clearer but still referring only to commercial arrangements. I feel that to leave the second line of his amendment in brings into the Bill non-commercial arrangements, and that widens the scope considerably and changes the nature of the beast completely. So far as I am concerned, I should like to see this Bill on the statute book in its limited form rather than lost altogether.
Lord Prys-Davies: Although this amendment is moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and has the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, I find that I am persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the amendment, but I fear that it is too widely drawn, at least at this stage. We agree that all aspects of commercial surrogacy should be unenforceable at law, that they should not be converted into a contract enforceable by the courts. But I am not so sure that every feature of non-commercial surrogacy should be outside the law of contract.
This point has been made in the other place. In the Second Reading debate the Minister drew our attention to one feature which possibly should be enforceable. I suggest that rather than adopt this all-embracing amendment, supported though it is by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning and Lord Edmund-Davies, it would be wiser to wait to see what view the Government take about the role of voluntary surrogacy as an act that can cement a marriage and support a family. I should be extremely cautious before asking the Committee to support the amendment as drawn.
The Earl of Caithness: It is with some trepidation that I rise to debate this matter with such a noted expert as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning,

925
and even more particularly now that he has the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that this Bill arose as a result of the Baby Cotton case. I am sorry that he was not here on Second Reading and I am equally sorry that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale was not here, but I hope he has read the proceedings because they set in context what this Bill is about. I can only reiterate that it was not as a result of the Baby Cotton case that this Bill came forward. Ministers were concerned for a long time before that case about commercial surrogacy arrangements, and that is why we asked the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, to undertake her inquiry. I am glad to see that she is in her place today. I am grateful for the help and useful words of my noble friend Lord Swinfen and of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who set the amendment in its proper context.
If your Lordships will forgive me, I shall set into some context what I have to say on this and other amendments. The Government will keep the points which have been raised and which will be raised very much in mind when, as we aim to do, we introduce a comprehensive Bill to cover aspects dealt with by the Warnock Inquiry. It is clear that these matters remain of considerable public interest even almost a year after the report was published. One only has to read the reports of the debates at the British Medical Association conference this week to realise that opinion is far from settled on these matters. In particular, a debate took place on non-commercial surrogacy arrangements, which this amendment affects. We are very much aware that this Bill is limited in its purpose and scope and I know from the speeches we heard at Second Reading that some noble Lords fee] frustrated about this. Indeed, all the comments we have heard about this Bill have been based on a desire to widen its scope rather than on any criticism about its drafting or what it seeks to do. I hope noble Lords will agree that in the wake of widespread public concern about the possible development of commercial surrogacy agencies in this country we were right to act quickly to try to prevent this. I am sure that had we attempted to be more ambitious, we would not only have had protracted debates on the more contentious issues, but, given the pressure of the government's legislative programme as a whole, we should have risked losing the Bill itself. Given the almost unanimous agreement that this Bill is needed, I am sure that that would have been most unfortunate. I hope noble Lords will bear that in mind today.
12.45 p.m.
I am grateful to noble Lords for being so sparing in the number of amendments they have put down at Committee stage. I reiterate my assurance that the points to be made today will be taken fully into account when we introduce a Government Bill on the issues dealt with in the Warnock Report.
In regard to the amendment there is widespread revulsion that anyone should contract to hand over a child in advance of its being born or even conceived. I am sure we all agree that any such agreement should legally be void and unenforceable. I am advised that this is already the case, for Section 85(2) of the Children Act 1975 provides that:
926
"a person cannot surrender or transfer to another any parental right or duty he has as respects a child".
The courts have already taken the same view where the arrangement is made for reward. In a case in 1978, in which a mother who had entered into a surrogacy arrangement for reward changed her mind during pregnancy and refused to hand over the child, the High Court rejected the commissioning father's application for custody. Mr. Justice Comyn said:
"The agreement between the parties I hold as being against public policy. None of them can rely upon it in any way or enforce the agreement in any way. I need only give one of many grounds for saying this, namely that this was a purported contract for the sale and purchase of a child".
He also described it as a "pernicious" agreement. When the case went to the Court of Appeal it was accepted that there could be no possible question in the circumstances of the father having care or control of the child. In refusing him even access to the child the Court of Appeal paid tribute to what was acknowledged as a very careful and clear judgment from Mr. Justice Comyn and considered that, with one slight exception relating to access which he had allowed, the judge had directed himself in law perfectly correctly.
There can be no doubt that the law will not regard as binding or enforceable the agreement of a surrogate mother to hand over her child to another or others. This is wholly right and proper. I find it hard to accept, as I am sure do most noble Lords, that a woman should bear a child while at the same time she has no long-term commitment to the infant's welfare. This principle that the child's interests should be paramount is central to this Bill and is the guiding principle in all family law.
While I am completely in agreement with the intentions of the noble and learned Lord in moving this amendment, I respectfully suggest that it is at odds with his motives. Apart from duplicating the Children Act provisions, to which I have referred, it would have other serious consequences. A surrogacy arrangement could be much more than an agreement to hand over the child at birth. It could be a lengthy document, as I understand is the case with surrogacy contracts drawn by the major American agencies. It might cover many points relating to the welfare of the mother before and during pregnancy, the attention to be paid to the child's health, and the financial support to be given to the mother during pregnancy and confinement. We can easily envisage a circumstance where a close friend or sister of the infertile woman voluntarily agreed to bear a child for the childless couple. She might, on reliance of a promise of reimbursement, incur considerable expenses as a result of the pregnancy and birth or cease work during the period. The couple might then renege on their agreement. They might refuse to accept the child or to pay medical or other expenses. They might even take the baby and refuse to pay the expenses.
We ought to consider this question: do we want to deny a surrogate mother all legal redress, because that is what the amendment does? I ask noble Lords to consider that question very carefully. It may not be in the child's best interests if agreed maintenance costs are withheld at some stage during the pregnancy. As I have said, I agree with the principles of the noble and learned Lord, but the law is clear on this point under the Children Act and I hope that the Committee

927
will not accept the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
Lord Denning: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported me. I do not wish to imperil the passage of this Bill through either House, and, therefore, I propose not to press my amendment today. Speaking not as a legislator, but as an ex-judge, extra judicially it is my opinion that in our law at the moment all these surrogacy agreements are void and unenforceable whether for payment or not. That is extra-judicial. It is not legislative. That may wait for a later decision. In the circumstances, I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) A child born to a surrogate mother in pursuance of a surrogacy agreement shall for all purposes be regarded in law as the child of that mother.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I am raising a lot of important points. This one is equally important. When you have a surrogacy agreement and when you have the baby born, who is the lawful parent? If it is in a case where another woman provides the egg to go into the body of this woman, is the woman who provided the egg to say that she is the mother when the carrying mother has had the baby since the very moment of inception or implantation up to its birth? I rule out the mother who provides the egg and I would also rule out the man who provides the sperm. What has he done? He has provided the sperm but he has not gone through the essential act of putting it inside the woman's body. How can he be said to be the father? If anyone might be said to be, it might be the doctor who inserts it. That cannot be right. We cannot have him to be the father; neither would I have the man who masturbates and provides the sperm. I would not have him to be the father. Neither of them, in truth, is the lawful father at all.
The only lawful parent for a child so born, to my mind, is the carrying mother who has carried the baby from the moment the organism was there inside her body right through until the time when it was born. She is the carrying mother. I should like to make that as clear as can be. She is the one who has the duty to bring up the child, who has all the rights in regard to the child, and I would rule out all these donors altogether. I would let that mother who has carried the child all the way through be the mother of the child and have all the rights and obligations in regard to it. I am sorry that I did not give my noble friend longer notice. It takes time when one has other things to do. He can speak off the cuff as well as anybody, so let him do so. I can see the objections, or what objections will be raised, but I should like to make the law certain now in this Bill.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, as I would have supported him on his previous amendment. While perhaps I may not dare question my noble friend on the Benches opposite, as I was taught English only in primary schools, I constantly wonder about the good English of many of the Bills that are coming forward.
928
Parliamentary draftsmen seem to be strange creatures who can draw up very curious documents which we are told are good in law, so that one has to accept that. What I should like to ask the Minister is this. Is there any point in our debating these very important amendments at all? He has advanced the argument which, if I remember, I had to advance when I was on the Front Bench. It is a kind of moral blackmail: "If you want this Bill to go through, you must not amend the Bill here".
I would suggest to the noble Earl that some of the Acts of Parliament that we have and which are imperfect have been rushed through in just this way. I should like to know whether he can solemnly pledge that there will be subsequent legislation, before we reject the amendments which have been moved by the noble and learned Lord. We are dealing here with a very important principle, whichever way you look at it. It is horrifying to think that in the 20th century we have to debate a matter of buying and selling children. That is what it is. If we go back to the 19th century, we see that there were then all kinds of legislation. This goes even further, and to a Christian and indeed to a woman the whole of this discussion is horrifying. But I should like to know particularly if there is any point in debating these vital matters which the noble and learned Lord has raised, because he is doing us all a great service.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: As I seek to express a view from the episcopal Benches on this amendment I am aware of the complexity of the issues with which we are dealing. As a Christian, I am profoundly convinced of the wrongness of surrogacy. I would find it difficult to go entirely with the argument that there can never be interference with the processes of divine creation. I would feel that there are occasions on which that divine process may be facilitated by human means. Nevertheless, in this particular case I feel that the separation of genetic parenthood from physiological motherhood is damaging to the integrity of the family and quite possibly damaging to the mother who has to carry the child.
However, I recognise that there are other views, and my view as a Christian and as a Bishop is not necessarily shared by others in our society. The members of the Warnock Committee were divided in their view on surrogacy, as were the members of the BMA who took part in the debate earlier this week. I therefore ignored in general the decision of the Government to bring forward legislation on the basis of what is generally agreed; and there is no doubt that we are all agreed upon the outlawing of commercial surrogacy arrangements. However, I want also to say that, whatever my own personal feelings about surrogacy, it would seem to me that we ought to leave open the option of surrogacy as something which can be entered into (if I may put it that way) by consenting adults.
In commenting upon this particular amendment, I should like to say that it seems to me to be valuable clarification. I echo what the noble Baroness has already said about our hopes that the Government will very quickly bring forward much wider legislation on the Warnock recommendations. Many of us would feel much happier about the lapse of some of these

929
amendments if we could receive such an assurance. But it seems to me that this particular amendment is a very valuable clarification at this time and therefore I am happy to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in moving it.
Lord Craigmyle: I should like very much to support this amendment. It is sometimes represented that surrogacy is really a sophisticated form of adoption; and adoption is perfectly normal and legal, so why should surrogacy not be so? The noble Baroness was much nearer the truth when she referred to the unhappy practices in the 19th century, among them the practice of baby farming. To my mind surrogacy is a sophisticated version not of adoption but of baby farming and, since baby farming is illegal, so then should be surrogacy. If we have it stated that for all purposes of law the lawful child is the child of the mother who bears it, this will be very much clearer. If the mother then wishes to go through with the surrogacy arrangements that she may have made (I hope unofficially), she can go via the procedure of adoption. There is nothing to stop her from doing that; it would be a perfectly normal thing to do. But the child's benefit must come first. If the mother wishes to retain the child, then the child's benefit would seem to lie in allowing the mother to retain it. One perfectly natural reason is that the mother who bore it will be lactating and the sponsoring mother will not. These are some of the considerations which lead me to support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I wish to ask a question on this point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is usually so kind in his speeches to your Lordships as to explain from his vast knowledge and experience what his amendments mean. I am almost at his footstool on occasions when he is explaining the law. What are the consequences of the noble and learned Lord's amendment? I have a feeling that he is stepping outside the intentions and framework of the Bill. I may be wrong. On this occasion, for once—how rare it is—the noble Earl the Minister is going to be right on this Bill throughout the piece. He knows what the Bill is intended to do. He does not want it to do any more and he does not want it to do any less. He knows that he has a flank behind him on the other Benches opposite and behind me who would wish to push him. They are nudging him, to push him a little further than the scope of the Bill.
1 p.m.
If the noble and learned Lord carries the day, it is like saying: "Away with everybody connected with this wretched business. The woman who bears the child is the mother and there is no nonsense about it, and all laws, doctrines, secular outlooks and religious beliefs shall be subordinated to that doctrine". That is what he is saying. I think that that is a point of view, but this Bill is dealing with commercial surrogacy. It is outlawing commercial transactions in connection with this procedure of transferring the process of carrying and birth to another person on behalf of someone else. This Bill does not outlaw that, unless there are commercial considerations involved in it.
930
The other part of profound importance is to be taken care of later on. I urge your Lordships not to be carried away on these matters by the headlines in the Daily Mail, the Mirror or any other of the popular newspapers, which try to sway public opinion and carry people into the kind of panic situation that we see so frequently in such matters. Let us be a little cautious for a change.
The noble and learned Lords who are Lords of Appeal sometimes reserve the right to deliver their judgments—judgment is reserved. Suppose I were to move now that the Committee should reserve judgment on the amendment of the noble and learned Lord. I think this would be justified in the circumstances, because not only is this amendment on the Marshalled List this morning for the first time but the noble and learned Lord has not told us where it would lead. As an ordinary layman, one can ask some questions about where it might lead. If the baby belongs to the mother who gives birth to it and is her property and no one else is able to claim it, does the law establish that parenthood so definitely that some other legal process has to be undertaken to change it?
Does it mean that the commissioning mother—to use the phrase of the noble and learned Lord—has to undertake adoption proceedings? Can we be told, if it is relevant? Quite honestly I think that these are matters which should be reserved for the grand inquisition into this matter, which is not suitable for this morning's proceedings, if I may say so. So I concur with the Minister, if he gets up and says that he is not in agreement with this.
Lord Denning: Perhaps I may answer the questions which have been asked. Clearly my noble friend has suffered nothing from not having noticed earlier—he has dealt with this very effectively—that the simple object of this clause is to do away with competition between the carrying mother and the commissioning mother. In law, the carrying mother, who has carried the baby for nine months, once she gives birth to the child should in law be the mother of the child. But the next step is easy. If this surrogacy agreement is to be implemented, let it be done by adoption, when the courts can see whether or not it is a proper case for the commissioning mother to bring up the child and for it to be adopted. That is the right way to deal with it and for the law always to say that the carrying mother is the mother subject to her power to institute adoption proceedings later.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may deal with some of the general points first, and particularly with the two points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. She said that it was pointless to discuss the amendments of the noble and learned Lord. I tried to make it clear, in the preamble to my answer to the first amendment, that it certainly is not. This is very relevant. We certainly welcome the debate on the wider issues as well as the principle of this very limited Bill, and everything that is said today will be borne in mind for future legislation.
This takes me on to her second point. She wanted an assurance that future legislation would be brought in. I hope she has read what I said at Second Reading, and perhaps I might just recap. Obviously it is not for me

931
to dictate what will be in the Queen's Speech, nor do I know; but my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, earlier in the week of 14th June, had said that it was the Government's intention to introduce a comprehensive Bill on these matters as soon as possible.
My noble friend Lord Craigmyle said that surrogacy was baby farming. This brings me to a point on the earlier amendment that I meant to take up with the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. If it was baby farming, well, then, Abraham was baby farming. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, seemed to indicate that surrogacy was a new invention of the permissive 20th century. It is nothing of the sort. It went on long before Abraham's day. The only thing that I should like the right reverend Prelate to help clear up for me, on which I am not 100 per cent. sure, is that Sarah was 99 when she had her child. I wonder whether in those days mothers were better than they are today. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for moving this amendment and giving us the opportunity to debate a matter which is obviously of great concern to us all.
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the legal status of a child born following a surrogacy agreement. In most cases the surrogate mother's egg will be fertilised in pursuance of the surrogacy agreement. In that case the law is clear: that the surrogate mother is the mother of the child. It would, however, be possible to envisage circumstances where the commissioning parents donated both egg and sperm and where the embryo was transferred to the uterus of the surrogate mother. In this circumstance the law is unclear at present as to whether the commissioning or the surrogate mother is to be regarded as the legal mother.
The Warnock Committee recommended that:
"Legislation should provide that when a child is born to a woman following donation of another's egg the woman giving birth should, for all purposes, be regarded in law as the mother of that child".
Its recommendation looks more widely than does this amendment to all cases where egg donation is involved, not just to those where a surrogacy arrangement is involved. Here again we step out of the context of this Bill, which is a very limited Bill to ban commercial agencies. We are stepping on to uncharted territory which is still the subject of much discussion. I think that this shows that the Committee would be wrong to rush into accepting an amendment of this kind, even one which would implement, at least partially, one of the Warnock Committee's recommendations. There are, as I pointed out, other issues to be borne in mind, including whether this provision should extend to all cases of egg donation. I am sure that it is better to wait and deal with this matter in a much more comprehensive Bill at a later stage.
Lord Denning: We are back to where we were on the other amendment. A lot of people would support the amendment. I want to make the law clear at the moment. That is why I limited it to the surrogacy. I still hold, and I would still express my opinion in law—you can disregard it if you like—that the carrying mother is in law the mother of the child. But I can understand the uncertainties that some people may have about it. In the circumstances I will not move the
932
amendment now nor proceed with it further. I only hope that when the Government come to consider the Warnock Report, they will bring this in as part of it. In the circumstances I do not propose to proceed further with the amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Negotiating surrogacy arrangements on a commercial basis, etc.]:
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("or")
The noble and learned Lord said: I am afraid I am causing all the trouble, but this involves an equally interesting point. If your Lordships look at Clause 2 as it stands, you will see that it deals with commercial surrogacy, where people go to an agency and arrange for a child to be born in this way for money. The clause then makes it a criminal offence for people to take part in a surrogacy arrangement on a commercial basis for money. An offence is committed by all those who do the arranging—the agencies and everything like that. But the clause exempts altogether the doctors who are the essential tools in doing the arranging. They can do it for a fee, if you please, and, maybe, a high fee. They are equally involved, or perhaps more involved, because they are the essential instruments for carrying this out on a commercial basis, and they do it for a fee. So, why on earth, should there not be an amendment to cover these professionals?
The Warnock Committee reported on page 47:
"We further recommend that the legislation be sufficiently wide to render criminally liable the actions of professionals and others who knowingly assist in the establishment of a surrogate pregnancy".
I say that the doctors who arrange it are just as bad as the agencies, and that they ought to be equally liable for the criminal offence. The special object of this Bill is to deal with commercial surrogacies, and that is why I have put down this amendment to implement a recommendation of the Warnock Report. I hope that it will be accepted. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble and learned Lord is plainly keen to extend the scope of the Bill to give further deterrence to those who would wish to enter upon the dangerous practice of surrogacy. But I would refer again to the principle that the interests of the child should be our paramount consideration and I suggest that the amendment unwittingly runs counter to that important tenet.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4-because Amendment No. 3 is the paving amendment to No. 4—would increase the provisions of the Bill beyond those who run commercial agencies to those who would give counselling advice to prospective commissioning couples.
Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 29, at end insert—
("or
(d) do any act intended to result in or facilitate the carrying of a child by a woman, knowing that the child is to be carried in pursuance of a surrogacy arrangement.")
A couple who are childless, and who are considering surrogacy, may want to take legal advice to see whether they would be breaking the law. I am sure that

933
they would wish to consult a solicitor, if only because of the wide publicity that this Bill has received and which will contribute much to its effectiveness in discouraging this practice, if your Lordships grant it a speedy passage on to the statute book.
I can see the headlines in the paper. The noble and learned Lord is approached by a childless couple. He is so popular throughout the country, but because of his own amendment he is taken to court and found guilty and is subject to a fine of £2,000 and/or three months' imprisonment; or even worse, if my noble friend Lord Swinfen has his way in asking for £20,000, with six months' imprisonment. I do not think the country would be at all pleased to see the noble and learned Lord in that plight.
A solicitor would be very reluctant to outline the legal position, in case the couple eventually decided to embark upon a surrogacy arrangement, in which case he might be legally liable for the information he gave, even if he had no part in the drafting of the contract. Similarly, a counsellor would be loath to see a prospective couple, even if he was disinclined in principle to recommend surrogacy and had done his utmost to dissuade them. He, too, could be prosecuted if they did, in the end, commission a surrogate to bear a child.
However, the most serious consequence of these amendments is not that legal advice or experienced counselling would be denied a couple already suffering distress because of childlessness, but that the surrogate mother herself would be denied counselling and might enter into an arrangement which she would avoid if she were given good advice. Worse still, she would be denied many kinds of medical treatment, notably treatment to prevent a threatened miscarriage during her pregnancy, and I do not need to tell your Lordships of the importance for mother and child of adequate pre-natal care. It would be sad, indeed, if an innocent child were to suffer because of a legal agreement entered into by its mother. Once again, we are discussing widening the Bill, and as soon as we start to consider widening its very narrow scope we run into an immense amount of problems.
Lord Denning: I was quoting the Warnock Report which, in many respects, is still a very good one. I can well see the point which has been raised about protecting professional men and, in the circumstances, I shall not press this amendment, either. The point has been raised and it is for wiser heads than mine to settle it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]:
1.15 p.m.
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 33, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 39.
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment deals with the position of the man and woman who take part in this commercial arrangement for money. Clause 2 exempts both of them from any criminal liability whatever and they go completely free. Is that right? The carrying mother, whoever she is, is doing it for money and is helping all the way through. It may be that the punishment ought to be very slight, but she is actually a participant in the whole of this criminal
934
situation of commercial surrogacy. One can have sympathy with her if she needs the money, and also sympathy with the man, but is it right that they should be excused altogether? Ought they not to be equally liable for the offence? The sentence may be very light, or even nothing. There may be just conditional discharge or something of that kind. But is it right that they should be exempted altogether by statute in this way? I beg to move.
Baroness Warnock: I have attempted to keep out of this debate, but I should just like to reiterate the arguments that we on the committee used to allow the surrogate herself to be exempt from any criminal charge. We did not like the idea of any child being born as a result of a criminal act, and I think that is what really lay behind our arguments. The other point is one that has been made before, that the urgent purpose of the Bill before your Lordships is to eliminate the agencies which I fear, unless this Bill goes through, will proliferate.
There are now waiting in America a largish number of agencies wishing, and anxious, to start on this side of the Atlantic and I think that there is a market for such agencies. I regard it as a matter of extreme urgency that to set up such agencies should he made a criminal offence. Since we know that it will be some time before all the detailed arrangements are discussed in both Houses, I think that we should, if possible, set up a criminal offence which picks on those very people whom we want to stop. Whatever may be anybody's view about surrogacy, this is a matter on which the body of the evidence is very strong—that people are not prepared to have in this country agencies which exploit both the misery of the infertile and the willingness of women to act as surrogates. It is very important that we should not widen the scope of this extremely narrow Bill in this way, but should allow it to go through as quickly as possible.
Lord Edmund-Davies: I support the noble Baroness in this matter. One cannot deal with this point at this stage without looking at page 3, line 5, of the Bill. We are dealing here with surrogate arrangements on a commercial basis and payments made therefor. As noble Lords will see, line 5 provides:
"In this subsection 'payment' does not include payment to or for the benefit of a surrogate mother or prospective surrogate mother."
When the comprehensive Bill is introduced, it must embrace and demand consideration of the position which frequently occurs and which must move any person of ordinary human feeling. I refer to the family longing for a child but incapable for one reason or another of having a child for whom someone out of pure benevolence agrees to act in the role of a surrogate mother.
I am not arguing for or against. All I am saying is that this little Bill is far too small to comprehend that situation. Accordingly, one has in line 5 of the Bill the words:
"In this subsection 'payment' does not include payment to or for the benefit of a surrogate mother or prospective surrogate mother."
I refer again to the case of the woman who, purely out of reasons of benevolence and pity for the barren couple, agrees to play the role of a surrogate mother. She puts herself inevitably to some expense during that

935
time. Would it be right to say, as is embodied in the next amendment, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has in mind to move or had in mind to move, that to recompense the kindly-disposed surrogate mother for her expenses, let alone some financial recognition of a modest kind for the service she had rendered, is to be prohibited? I leave the answer to the question. The answer I have in mind is neither here nor there. It is not a question capable of being adequately dealt with in this little Bill. Accordingly, I for once am not supporting my noble and learned friend Lord Denning in this matter.
Lord Prys-Davies: I wish to adopt all the arguments advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. The Minister has indicated to the Committee time and again that the object of the Bill is narrow and that it is primarily aimed at the commercial agencies and at the risks of exploitation of women and of commissioning parents by agencies. It appears to me that it would be very harsh if the mother and the commissioning parents were also punished for being the victims of exploitation.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I thought that the noble and learned Lord was providing by Amendment No. 5 for the carrying of Amendment No. 4. I thought he was clearing the decks to enable his Amendment No. 4 to be the governing clause in Clause 2. But on a closer look at it, it seems that, having failed by withdrawing Amendment No. 4, he still feels that he wants to remove the surrogate mother from the provisions of subsection (2). It is very confusing and difficult to follow as to what the combination of the amendments really amount to.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could assist the court, so to speak, by telling us which of his amendments is relative to the purpose of the Bill, and then not move the others. We could then probably make more progress instead of just going on, if I may say so, for this session of the law school learning more about the law for consideration later. We are quite prepared to await the noble and learned Lord's instructions at a subsequent stage in our legal education which will come probably in two years' time when we are a little older and probably able more readily to absorb the complications of this matter.
I feel that we are ploughing on, if I may say so with respect, rather needlessly. Can we not go to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who really wants to increase the fines. We will understand that all right. The noble Lord is going to get at the money. We might or might not agree with what he proposes to do, but at least it is relevant to the Bill. Am I being impertinent to the noble and learned Lord?
Baroness Phillips: Before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, replies, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that he is not being impertinent, but I think he is going a little outside the rules of courtesy. I say that because surely the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is as entitled as anyone else to make a contribution to this Committee. The fact that he happens to have been a Law Lord is not relevant because he is not sitting in that capacity in this Session of our parliamentary arrangements. If we are going to
936
use this rule, no doctor should ever speak on a medical matter, and certainly no farmer should ever speak on an agricultural matter. A great number of noble Lords have been distinguished military personnel. Are they not to take part in the debates on defence? It is a nonsensical argument and I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has as much interest in the clarification of our Bills as any other noble Lord. I have heard the noble and learned Lord speak many times, and he is a master of English if I may say so. This is something we certainly need injected into our legislation.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: In view of the remarks of the noble Baroness, perhaps I may venture a statement on the biblical sources which were put to me earlier by the noble Earl the Minister. When I refer to the complexity of the issues, among those complexities was the ambivalence of the biblical sources. It is indeed the case that one could argue that a form of surrogacy took place in the arrangements between Abraham and his slave, in view of the barrenness of Sarah.
I think it is worth pointing out that there are other features of Old Testament culture which, if we were to look to them as a guide, might lead us to some difficulty. For instance, polygamy was practised at that period. Most of us would accept that there has been a growth of the tradition, a formation of the culture, which has led us to our present understanding of the integrity of the family. It is the emphasis on that integrity that I feel to be so important.
I welcome the amendments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I do so in particular because in accepting this narrow Bill we are presumably allowing the possibility of the growth of practices which may in some regards negate other recommendations of the Warnock Report. I think for instance of the growth of non-commercial agencies. That in my mind underlines the strength of the argument for the urgency of the introduction of more comprehensive legislation.
The Earl of Caithness: Am I right in thinking that at the moment we are talking to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6?
Lord Denning: That is right.
1.30p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the support for the Government's point of view from the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies—and particularly from my point of view from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. We have crossed swords before, and we shall doubtless do so again; but I think he is learning that we are not always wrong. It is a good thing. I hope he will come around fully to our point of view in future.
These amendments touch on a point raised by a number of noble Lords on Second Reading. They seek to make all forms of commercial surrogacy illegal. At present the Bill excludes the commissioning parents and the surrogate mother from the criminal sanctions of the Bill.

937
These amendments, by removing those exceptions, would extend the scope of the Bill to make all forms of commercial surrogacy illegal. However, we decided that the Bill should not deal with that wider issue, as we felt it was important to deal with the immediate problem about which everyone was agreed, the probem of commercial agents themselves. Thus, this limited Bill sets out only to prohibit what virtually everyone regards as abuses, and to prevent the commercially-motivated exploitation of people's personal difficulties.
I am sure noble Lords will agree that such abuse is of a different order from the passing of fees from commissioning parents to surrogate mothers, offensive though I know many find that practice to be. I believe we can safely leave that and other issues to the later, Warnock Bill.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, said, there needs to be much wider debate on these amendments than we have had; for example, on whether the prohibition should apply only to surrogacy for reward or should extend, as it would do under these amendments, to cases where the surrogate mother's only payment is to cover the bare expenses which she might have undertaken. We need to have wider discussion on these issues, and I hope that for that reason the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Denning: I am quite persuaded by the arguments I have heard. I am only too pleased not to press this point and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denning Lord Denning had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 6 to 12:
Page 3, leave out lines 5 to 7.
Page 3, line 19, at the beginning insert ("a body of persons or").
Page 3, line 24, leave out from ("then") to end of line 31 and insert ("whether or not the body at any time receives any payment in respect of that activity,").
Page 3, leave out lines 33 to 39.
Page 4, leave lines 4 and 5.
Page 4, line 6, leave out from ("arrangements") to ("in") in line 8 and insert ("which are").
Page 4, leave out lines 14 to 17.
The noble and learned Lord said: I believe that I can deal with the rest of my amendments in one sentence or two. These amendments were designed to give effect to the proposal in the Warnock Report that such legislation should be wide enough to include both profit and non-profit making organisations. That is much too debatable a question to involve us in discussion at this stage and so I propose not to move any of the remaining amendments in my name.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 12 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Craigmyle: Before we wave a cheerful farewell to Clause 2 which, after all, is the main clause of the Bill, I believe it would be right to say a few more words about commercial and non-commercial agencies. I
938
accept very readily the point put so clearly and strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that there are commercial organisations waiting in the wings to come onto the all-too-permissive stage of the United Kingdom to do their obscene act. But there are already in existence so-called non-commercial—I should be inclined to call them pseudo-charitable—organisations which are all too willing to take up that act.
If we allow them to go ahead while addressing only the obviously commercial agencies, I fear that we may later regret doing so. At a later stage, when the main Bill which we are promised comes before us, those of us who try to raise the question of non-commercial agencies will be told, "But we have dealt with agencies already. You should have objected at the time". I see my noble friend shaking his head. I hope that he will bear his head-shake in mind if he has to deal with the main Bill when it comes before us.
I have not been tremendously impressed by the argument that we dare not amend this Bill in case we lose it. My noble friends on the Front Bench and their honourable and right honourable colleagues in another place are no mean parliamentarians. We have in the course of this Session dealt with, and are still dealing with, highly contentious measures; contentious in the ordinary sense of divisions along party lines. We have also seen the Government push one Bill through Parliament probably, though not certainly, against the majority opinion in another place, and they are pushing it through this House, too. We have seen the Government defeat another Bill which had overwhelming support in another place—all this to suit their own parliamentary convenience. Are we really to believe that the Government are now so incompetent that they cannot get a few Lords amendments to a Bill such as this through another place?
Lord Swinfen: I should like to support very much the remarks of my noble friend Lord Craigmyle. I also feel that the Government, if they really wished, could get this Bill—it is called a small Bill, but is in fact quite a large stepping stone in the right direction—through the other place with amendments. They have in other legislation been extremely courageous in tackling problems which have gradually been getting worse over the years because various Governments have been too frightened to deal with them. Why on earth do the Government not have the same courage to deal with this matter? It is absolutely essential that the Government either bring forward another Bill themselves very quickly, or, if a private Member of either House brings forward a Bill, give that individual every possible assistance to get that legislation onto the statute book. Debates on the various amendments to Clause 2 have shown that a great deal still needs to be done. I must apologise to the Committee if what I have said sounded rather like a Second Reading speech, particularly since I had a go at Second Reading.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I have every sympathy with the desire of the noble Lord that what has to be done shall be done without undue delay. This is a very important matter and there is a great deal of legitimate public interest, quite apart from the blown-up emotions that can be created on a matter of this kind.

939
But surely the experience of Private Members' Bills in recent days has exposed the hazards and risks of that procedure in dealing with important matters of this kind. Indeed, I am coming to the conclusion that, with the best will in the world, the Private Member's Bill procedure is unsuitable for dealing with a number of the matters with which Private Members' Bills attempt to deal.
One of two solutions is indicated. First, there should be some clear understanding as to what is and what is not a suitable subject for the Private Member's Bill procedure. Secondly, there is a course which I favoured when I was in a position to influence matters—that any Private Member's Bill on a subject of conspicuous public interest or concern should never fail through lack of time and thereby bring the parliamentary process into disrepute.
The public do not understand why it is that a Bill can occupy a House of Parliament—at any rate, the other place—for many hours and days and yet be talked out at the end of it all. Members of the public wonder what sensible parliamentary process it is that does that. Television may let the public into the secrets of our parliamentary life, but still they will think that we are all half-crazy and it is about time that parliamentary procedures were changed drastically so as to cope with business under modern conditions.
I ask forgiveness for giving this little homily about Private Members' Bills, but we saw something of this kind of situation yesterday and what a mess we got into then. We are not out of it yet and we have to finish that business next Wednesday. All of this arises because the Private Member's Bill procedure entrusts an important Bill into non-Government hands but requires those involved to work hand in glove with the Government. The consequences of that procedure can only be as we witnessed them to be yesterday. I utter this caution, and at the same time I am sure the Government want to get ahead with a matter of this importance. We can only await the outcome. After all, we take a little time to digest reports of the complexity and delicacy of the Warnock Report. Personally I cannot thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, too much for undertaking this difficult, and in some respects, quite distasteful task. We owe a tremendous amount to people who devote themselves in the public interest to matters of this kind. We must treat their reports with respect and arrive at well-considered solutions. Their own wisdom may not be enough in the end. Such complex and controversial matters require the clash of opinion to arrive at the right solution. I hope we shall get there, but not through the Private Member's Bill procedure.
Lord Denning: This is a Government Bill.
Viscount Brentford: I hope that the Government will bring forward a new Bill as soon as possible. We have been considering this admirable report for nearly a year, and that to me seems to be a reasonable time. I hope that the Government will not wait until public opinion veers too strongly one way or the other, because I am sure that there are strongly held feelings on all sides and also entrenched interests relating to the matters that we have been discussing on Clause 2. I
940
hope that the Government will bring forward a Bill that is right as soon as they possibly can.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this clause stand part debate. I remind the Committee that this Bill has the objective of prohibiting only commercial agencies. It does not bite on non-commercial agencies which do not take fees. Before my noble friends Lord Swinfen and Lord Craigmyle get too depressed, I refer them to Clause 2(5) and ask them to read that clause very carefully. The effect of that provision is that if any agency fixes up a surrogacy and at any subsequent time receives any money from the surrogate or the commissioning parents, or even anyone connected with them, it commits an offence unless it can prove that the payment had nothing to do with the arrangement made. This prevents a body from seeking donations instead of charging fees for what it does. I think that that will deter a lot of people. I realise that the majority of the Warnock Committee recommended—
Lord Swinfen: What is the position if the money is paid to them in the form of a legacy?
The Earl of Caithness: As I understand the position, if it can be proved that the legacy was as a result of a surrogacy agreement then there is trouble; but for whom I am not quite sure! Perhaps I should look into that.
I realise that the majority of the Warnock Committee recommended that both commercial and non-commercial agencies should be prohibited by law. However, it is clear from the response to the report and from the minority report signed by two of its members that there is not the same unanimity about banning non-commercial agencies as there is about prohibiting commercial agencies. Indeed, I refer again to the BMA conference earlier this week which voted to reject, against advice, the Warnock recommendation. It was rejected by 193 votes to 182 votes. The doctors themselves are now split down the middle. It is an extremely difficult area. As my noble friend Lord Swinfen said, there is still a great deal to be done. Certainly there is; but there is still a great deal to be discussed and a great many minds are putting their thoughts towards trying to form legislation that will not divide the country into two and which, when enacted, will not be impossible to work.
We have taken a small step forward and I hope that noble Lords will ensure the Bill's speedy passage on to the statute book; and I look forward to the wider debate on the Warnock Report.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Offences]:
1.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 9, leave out ("level 5 on the standard scale") and insert ("£20,000").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 14 because the two amendments are tied together.

941
Amendment No. 14: Page 5, line 10, leave out ("3") and insert ("6").
As this is only the Committee stage of the Bill, I have tabled these as probing amendments and do not intend to press them. However, I reserve the right to come back at a later stage of the Bill if I am not satisfied with the Government's answer. I feel that we still have ample time, perhaps in another place, to deal with amendments, even bearing in mind that Parliament normally works for only eight months of the year. I am sure that if any other organisation worked for only eight months of the year its shareholders would want to know why, and I sometimes wonder why our shareholders do not wonder why.
The question of amending the term of imprisonment from three to six months can easily be dealt with. I do not think that three months is long enough and that the period should be six months. A more complicated issue is the fine. Level 5 gives a maximum penalty of £2,000. I shall not go through all the press reports which I have in my hand because time is moving on and I do not want to weary your Lordships. However, a report in the Daily Telegraph on 5th January 1985 suggests that the agency in the Baby Cotton case was paid about £14,000, of which less than half was paid to Mrs. Cotton. A fine of£2,000 added to that would be a reasonable increase, and is possibly not too much.
This country very often follows the United States and I have here a report from the magazine Time on 10th September 1984. I shall quote a part of it:
"For their part, Aaron and Mandy"—
that is, the commissioning parents—
"have agreed to pay Valerie"—
that is, the surrogate mother—
"10,000 dollars to be kept in an escrow account until the child is in their legal custody. In addition, they have paid an agency fee of 7,500 dollars and are responsible for up to 4,000 dollars in doctors' fees, lab tests, legal costs, maternity clothes and other expenses."
If my arithmetic is correct, that totals 21,500 dollars, and that is not very far away from £21,500, depending on the rate of exchange. Add £2,000 to that amount and it is not a very large increase in the cost of the surrogacy arrangement. I am assuming that some arrangement will be concluded on who pays the fine if a commercial agreement is made. That would not surprise me.
I know that in normal circumstances Justices of the Peace, on summary conviction, can impose a fine of only £2,000. But not very long ago, in 1982, under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act we agreed in Section 22 that on summary conviction there should be a fine of £ 10,000. That was in relation to sex shops and sex establishments. In the Video Recordings Act, which became law at the end of last Session, the fine on summary conviction is one not exceeding £20,000; and that is where I obtained the figure for my amendment. There is one other example. In the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 the penalty that can be made on summary conviction in a magistrates' court is up to three times the value of the goods recovered in cases of smuggling. I have sat on a Bench on cases where goods have been recovered in excess of £16,000. That meant that the magistrates were entitled to impose a fine in excess of £48,000 on summary conviction. I suspect that goods to the value
942
of £16,000 or thereabouts is not the lowest value to have been before Justices of the Peace in the past. Any idea that they are not responsible enough to handle fines of that level is totally ruled out. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I agree with the noble Lord. The penalty provided in the Bill is too lenient. It does not reflect the gravity of the offence. It is not likely to hurt the defendant financially, especially as this is an offence where the offender has profited by its commission. It will not help to make it a really effective penalty.
It may be said that there is the stigma of a criminal conviction. That is probably the main usefulness of the offence. But the offender to whom the Bill is addressed will not too seriously be deterred by that stigma. If the penalty is to be effective, I agree that the offence must be buttressed by a penalty calculated to prevent the offence because it will hurt the offender.
Lord Denning: I, too, support the amendment. I only hope that passing the amendment will not imperil the Bill's getting through both Houses in time.
Viscount Brentford: I support the amendment for the reasons stated by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. The only problem I see is that he will need to make a diary note for 10 years' time to bring forward a Bill to update the figure unless at Third Reading the amendment is varied to allow a figure to be laid before your Lordships' House by order. I warmly support the amendment. It seems to me to bring realism into this matter.
The Earl of Caithness: May I deal briefly with the point that my noble friend Lord Swinfen raised on clause stand part? I was right in saying that the agency that accepts a legacy will be liable to prosecution unless it can be proved that it was not given as the result of a surrogacy arrangement.
I well recall the points made by my noble friend. He raised them at Second Reading. As I said we would, we have considered the amendments carefully together with the Home Office, which has a general oversight of the level of penalties provided for in legislation.
I can understand what I take to be the objectives of the amendments: to make sure that there is a realistic deterrent for those who might seek to profit by flouting the Bill. I do not think, however, that increasing the maximum fine tenfold to £20,000 and doubling the maximum period of imprisonment to six months would be appropriate to the offences which the Bill creates, and I should prefer to see the provisions stand as at present drafted. Your Lordships' Committee will want to consider how the courts will look at offenders and what penalties they would see fit to impose. In general, Level 5 on the standard scale is the maximum penalty which can be imposed by a magistrates' court, but there are exceptions in the case of sex shops, where the level of the fine reflects the profitability of the activity rather than the nature of the offence. Indeed, my noble friend gave another example.
I do not think that the Committee would be well advised significantly to increase the penalties provided in the Bill as drafted. We should not underestimate the seriousness of the offences created by Clause 2. The

943
approach taken in these amendments is somewhat draconian. It is very desirable that the penalties provided for comparable offences should be consistent, and those now in the Bill are identical to others for a very similar offence under Section 50 of the Adoption Act 1958, as now updated, of receiving a prohibited award or payment for making arrangements for the adoption of a child.
I understand very well the argument that, given the level of fees that we have seen paid in these cases, we must ensure that the penalties laid down should present a real deterrent. It would not do if it were possible to continue to run a commercial surrogacy agency and treat the likely penalty as merely an incidental expense of the business. What we have to remember, however, is that someone seeking to do that would face the possibility not only of a fine of £2,000 but of three months' imprisonment, too, and that not only for every time he negotiated a surrogacy arrangement but for every time that he offered to do so. I think that that is quite a major deterrent, and I beg to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. The evidence that we have to date shows that it is quite an effective deterrent on the existing commercial agency.
But it does not rest there. If a person's repeated conduct shows that the penalties available are an insufficient deterrent in his case, there is a well-established procedure by which the Attorney-General may obtain a High Court injunction to restrain him. Breach of such an injunction is a contempt of court for which on every occasion he will risk committal to prison for up to two years and an unlimited fine. I can therefore say to my noble friend Lord Brentford that on that basis there will be no need for legislation in 10 years' time.
We have powerful weapons available to ensure that the laws Parliament makes are respected. I must ask your Lordships' Committee not to let the very natural indignation aroused by the cases about which we have read to induce us to lay down penalties out of line with those for comparable offences. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coleraine: I wonder whether my noble friend will explain something of the nature of the evidence that satisfies him that the level of fines proposed is sufficient to deal with the commercial agency point.
The Earl of Caithness: I missed the point that my noble friend was trying to ask me.
Lord Coleraine: I believe that my noble friend said in answer to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord
944
Prys-Davies, that there was in his view ample evidence to satisfy him that the level of fines proposed is sufficient to deal with commercial agencies. I wonder whether he can add anything to explain the nature of the evidence that satisfies him on that point.
The Earl of Caithness: It is not only the level of fine: it is the imprisonment that is also a deterrent. As I understand it, the commercial agency existing at the moment has said that it will not operate because of the threat of those two things.
Lord Swinfen: I shall consider seriously what my noble friend said and read it carefully in Hansard when I receive it on Monday. He said that the level of fines in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and in the Video Recordings Act reflected the profitability of the business. Parliament will have to make sure that the level of fines also reflects the profitability in commercial surrogacy. There is a danger that if we do not deal with this matter properly now it will get worse, grow and become a blot on the nation.
My noble friend also mentioned the powers of the Attorney-General. They come in only on repeated offences, which will show that the level of fines and other penalties is not sufficient because it will be commercially viable for agencies to take such fines into account.
I feel that my noble friend's arguments do not really wash. However, as I said at the beginning, this is a probing amendment, I shall take it away and consider it.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. If he takes the logic of his argument further—and I hope he will consider this—it may be that that particular person is going to break the law regardless of the level of fine or the term of imprisonment, and that is when the Attorney-General's powers can be used.
Lord Swinfen: I realise that, but part of the law, and the penalties fixed by law, are a deterrent, and we have to make certain that the penalty is sufficiently large to act as a deterrent. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.
House adjourned at one minute past two o'clock.