Clemens Peeters: Angry natural father in Roche case

Under a COTS-organised agreement, Mrs Roche had agreed to bear a child for Clemens and Sonia Peeters from the Netherlands, where commercial surrogacy was banned in 1993.

Under current UK law, Mrs Roche accepted a �12,000 fee for "reasonable" expenses, but then fell out with the Peeters and refused to hand the baby over.

At first, Mrs Roche said the baby had been aborted, before attempting to strike a deal with a seperate British couple.

Mr Peeters accused Mrs Roche of using the child as "merchandise that could be sold to the highest bidder".

Big money abroad

The Roche case led to COTS deciding not to deal with couples from overseas.

However, some UK couples have been going to the US where the laws on surrogacy vary from state to state, and profit-making agencies charge up to �40,000.

This is split roughly four ways, with a quarter going to the surrogate mother, and another portion being spent on medical costs such as doctors, laboratories and drugs.

A third quarter is shared between psychologists and legal and insurance costs, with the last portion being the agency's profit margin.

That sort of figure does not stop many couples, particularly the rich 57-year-old movie star Raquel Welch, who said this year that she was prepared to pay �30,000 for a surrogate baby.

In the UK, the limit for expenses was set at �10,000 in 1985 when legislation was first introduced and has remained unchanged.

Earlier this year, it was claimed that Lynette Southall, who the tabloids labelled "The Baby Factory", had given birth to six surrogate babies, earning �15,000.

Twins

But finance and legal issues are not the only controversial aspects about surrogacy.

Some are worried about the ethics of "twins" conceived from the same egg who can be implanted separately and born 22 months apart.

Supporters of surrogacy insist that such cases are the exception rather than the rule, and that the practice has helped thousands of couples become happy, responsible parents.

Happier case: 10-month-old James Harvey was born from a surrogate mother

Ten-month-old James Harvey is one such case. His mother Carol could not carry him because she had a hysterectomy following cancer treatment.

The Harveys struck a deal with a surrogate mother and are now the proud parents of James.

"I feel very lucky," said Carol.

Public health minister Jowell commissioned the independent review in June 1997.

The move came after several high-profile cases involving surrogacy arrangements.

These include the case of surrogate mother Karen Roche, who changed her mind about handing over a baby after doubting the suitability of the Dutch couple, who had been willing to pay �12,000 for the child.

Mrs Roche first claimed she had terminated the pregnancy.

The government's review has been trying to discover a way of protecting the various parties when things go wrong without destroying the hopes of the couples who seek to benefit from it.

There are currently two main laws on surrogacy, which will be replaced under the new proposals.

The 1985 Surrogacy Arrangements Act bans commercial surrogacy (beyond the payment of reasonable expenses) and advertising for surrogates.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 amended the 1985 Act to ensure that any woman who has a baby does not have to give it up if she changes her mind.

In addition, under the 1990 Act a court can rule that a child resulting from a surrogacy arrangement can be treated in law as the child of a married couple who sought the arrangement, providing certain conditions are met.