Thanks for the link the WPUK response-it is really good. I am so happy that WPUK have responded, that makes it harder for the Law Commission to sideline women’s voices once women’s groups are involved too.
As WPUK point out, it does feel that when you read the 25 page ‘summary‘ document, very shocking that the one-sided pro-surrogacy views are all literally quoted like endorsements alongside the Law Commission’s own proposals, saying how good these ideas are. 
where is the neutrality and the objectivity?
Plus the LC use ‘gender’ when they mean ‘sex’ in their documents which is quite telling politically. )
It feels like people (well, men) who seem to know little about this complex, contentious area, or who perhaps were politically motivated in a specific direction around surrogacy, just went to off the lobby groups and let them draft away.
It’s not hard to imagine that actually happening, because this area is difficult and complicated and these groups had already won the voting system that had chosen the Law Commission to cover this topic of surrogacy in the first place, by making a big response- so the Law Commission already knew which groups would have a clear position that they would want them to follow.
But is that how the UK wants to recommend national law reform on massively socially contentious subjects though? What do the Law Commission think their job we pay them for actually is?
Do they know that they are not a political think tank funded by party donors or businesses or lobby groups?
Do they understand that they are not free to come up with their own independent, partisan recommendations based on lobbying or on their own political beliefs?
They are a public sector organisation and regulatory capture is completely unacceptable. These are all of our institutions. The law commission are publicly funded by taxpayers to investigate ideas for legal reform which affect all of us. So who is running this show?
The LC’s recommendations need to be absolutely scrupulously evidence-based and unbiased, based on having developed a deep knowledge of the topic over the years of the project, which means speaking to all sides of the issue.
As WPUK note, they’ve more or less excluded women and mothers and women bringing up kids, apart from a few who are also willing surrogates. Which doesn’t even, obviously, cover the views of all surrogates.
It’s a classic case of a lack of diversity in thought and representation in action.