As a result of the first review of Britain’s fertility laws for 16 years, clinics will have to consider the welfare of IVF children but there will be no subjective assessments of parenting skills.

Caroline Flint, the Public Health Minister, who is overseeing the reforms, told The Times that the new legislation would be framed to protect the safety of children where there was good evidence of risk.

She believed that existing child-protection legislation should be sufficient to look after the welfare of most IVF children and said that doctors should not have to make decisions based on hunches that go beyond their professional expertise.

“We have got to be realistic about just how much doctors can do to vet a person sitting in front of them as a parent of the future,” she said.

“Clearly, as with children who are born through natural conception, we have child protection legislation to protect those children once they are born, and I think in many circumstances children born through IVF treatment should be no different. We’re not trying to turn clinicians into police officers.”

At present, the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act states that fertility treatment cannot be provided “unless account has been taken of the welfare of the child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father) and of any other child who may be affected by the birth”.

This should include an assessment of parents’ ability to provide a “stable and supportive” family environment, though since last year there has been a presumption in favour of treatment unless there is evidence of likely harm.

The rule has been criticised by doctors and patient groups, who say it is inconsistently applied and ineffective. Clinics often have difficulty conducting background checks and many feel it discriminates against those who would not face intrusion were they capable of conceiving naturally.

Last year the Commons Science and Technology Committee called for the welfare clause to be removed.

After a public consultation on reform of the 1990 Act, Ms Flint rejected this demand but agreed that clinics should no longer have to consider a child’s need for a father.

She said that she had been influenced by professional bodies, including the British Medical Association and the Academy of Medical Sciences, which accept that child welfare should be a consideration.

The regulations, however, will be redrawn to make it explicit that doctors are being asked to assess potential medical problems and serious threats to children’s safety, not to judge whether patients will make responsible parents.

A precise wording has yet to be determined, but the Government has given strong consideration to the British Medical Association’s proposal that clinics seek to prevent “foreseeable serious harm”. Examples might include a parent who was mentally ill or who had been convicted of child abuse, Ms Flint said. Mandatory criminal record checks, however, have not been discussed.

The need for a father, Ms Flint said, was no longer something that needed to be enshrined in law. “What is important is that you have people who want to be parents and create a loving family.

“That doesn’t mean fathers aren’t important, and that male role models aren’t important. But given that single women and single men can adopt and foster, and given that gay men through surrogacy can become parents, too, it seems to be something there has been a lot of discussion and social comment on, and times have moved on. In terms of protecting children, other aspects of the law should come first.”

Firm proposals for reviewing the Act would be published by the end of the year, she said.

Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on science, who has led calls for reform of the welfare of the child provision, welcomed the changes. “If they stick to their guns and do restrict this rule to ‘significant risk of serious foreseeable harm’, then the Government should be congratulated for taking a non-discriminatory, non-nannying approach,” he said.

THE GUIDELINES

Sex selection Formal ban on sex selection for non-medical reasons to be brought in for first time

Welfare of the child Obligation to consider the welfare of IVF children will be retained, but doctors will not have to vet parents

Need for a father Obligation to consider the need for a father will be removed, allowing lesbians and single women better access to IVF

Embryo screening Review likely to set out statutory guidelines about appropriate uses of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis technology

Online sperm banks Sale of fresh sperm over the internet likely to be banned

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Science News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• No room for Baldrick in overstretched army
• Freecycle booms as middle class feels squeeze
• Marksman gets £5,000 over ‘serial killer’ quip