Church groups on designer baby panels

Couples who want "designer babies" will have to win over a panel of politicians and church groups under radical new plans.

MPs say controversial decisions about fertility treatment should no longer be made by bureaucrats.

They want to end "closed-door" rulings on issues such as sex selection, cloning and IVF for older women. It is expected that a committee at Westminster will rule how far doctors can go.

The new panel is the centrepiece of plans to overhaul Britain's fertility laws. The move follows a long investigation by Westminster's science and technology committee.

Controversial decisions about fertility treatment cases are currently made in private by officials at the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). But in a major report this week, the science and technology committee will say the fertility watchdog should stick to paperwork and not sit in judgment on patients. Other key recommendations are expected to include:

Under the present system, the fate of patients who want unusual fertility treatment rests in the hands of as few as three members of the

HFEA. They are drawn from a 16-strong ethics board of medics and lay people appointed by the authority.

Unelected individuals - including a BBC finance director, a financial ombudsman and two journalists - are given sweeping powers to decide how far science should be allowed to go.

Patients, banned from attending hearings about their cases, are denied the chance to make personal appeals.

A source close to the science and technology committee said: "It does not seem right that such huge decisions are made by a handful of people behind closed doors.

"These decisions have huge implications for patients and for medicine. The committee is looking at a whole new body to make the big ethical decisions and have the final say on difficult individual cases."

Only a handful of patients go in front of the HFEA every year but each decision sets a precedent for any others in similar circumstances.

Bitter divisions between MPs on issues such IVF treatment for single women and lesbians have repeatedly delayed the publication of the report.

Some committee members are known for their traditional views about the family while others argue that single women and gays are entitled to the same

treatment as anyone else.

Fertility specialists complained to the inquiry about rules requiring patients to obtain character references from their GPs before undergoing IVF. The committee also heard that red tape is stifling important fertility research. Scientists are frustrated by strict patient confidentiality rules which stop them sharing important data. The report is expected to recommend these rules be relaxed.

Ministers have made it clear that the report will form the basis of new legislation. Moves to strip the HFEA of its powers to make major ethical decisions will please pro-life groups. Josephine Quintavalle, of the campaign group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: "These issues should be decided democratically."