GenQ - For the not so straight individual

Single women and lesbians will win the right to seek fertility treatment in the most radical shake-up of Britain's embryology laws for 16 years.

A child's need for a father will no longer have to be considered by clinics before they provide IVF or sperm donation services, under proposals announced today by Caroline Flint, the Public Health Minister.

Ms Flint told MPs that the Government intends to scrap the requirement in its reforms to the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which are expected to be set out in a White Paper by the end of the year. The revised laws, however, will still include an obligation on doctors to consider the welfare of any children that might be born before starting fertility treatment, and the "need for a father" may be replaced by the "need for a family".

The review of Britain's fertility legilsation, which is widely considered out-of-date, will also impose a formal ban on choosing a child's sex for non-medical reasons. Other new measures will include a set of broad principles outlining when it is acceptable to screen embryos for genetic diseases.

The 1990 Act states that clinics cannot provide treatment to infertile patients of any sex "unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who might be born as a result... including the need of that child for a father".

Some clinics interpret the rule as a blanket prohibition on treating single women and lesbians, while a handful will accept them as patients but insist they show there will be an uncle, grandfather or family friend who will act as a paternal figure.

It has long been opposed by gay and lesbian groups and by infertility support charities, who regard it as discriminatory and anachronistic, and Dame Suzi Leather, chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), has attacked it as a "nonsense".

Some lawyers also consider it illegal under human rights legislation, and it is out of step with the Government's Equality Bill which will outlaw the refusal to provide goods or services on grounds of sexual orientation.

Ms Flint said that the Government has now accepted the case for reform. "We are minded to retain a duty in terms of the welfare of the child, but we are thinking that there is less of a case for retaining the law in reference to a father," she told the Commons Science and Technology Committee.

"What's important is looking at the family environment, whether in the traditional sense or a same-sex couple and the family they want to create. There's less of a need for the reference to the father in that circumstance. That's not to say that fathers are not important. What's important is that the children are going to be, as far as we know, part of a loving home."

Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat member of the committee who has led the campaign to change the law, said: "I'm pleased that after 16 years of licensed discrimination against solo mothers and lesbian couples there are signs that it will come to an end."

Susan Crane, a former board member of the lesbian and gay group Pink Parents, said: "It's not before time that they have recognised the changing nature of families, and the validity of many different kinds of families. The requirement was an anachronism that was judgmental and insulting."

Campaigners for traditional values, however, said that the move would inevitably undermine the importance of fatherhood. "This is exactly what we expected - politically-correct gender politics gone mad with inherent contradictions and the rights of women trumping everything else, including the welfare of the child," said Josephine Quintavalle of Comment on Reproductive Ethics.

"Fathers will be written out of the Act on one hand (but mothers not), but no gender discrimination allowed when it comes to sex selection of embryos. I think the world will ridicule most of these recommendations as will the majority of people in the United Kingdom, especially the attack on the role of fatherhood."

The HFEA currently refuses to issue licences for sex selection for social reasons, but the practice is not explicitly outlawed and a couple wishing to pursue it would be able to launch a legal challenge.

Ms Flint said that the Government would introduce an outright ban. "We think there should be a clear and explicit ban where it is not done for medical reasons," she said. "There is an understanding around sex selection where there are serious medical conditions. Bit I think on ?family balancing?, the problem is that it can be a slippery slope in terms of people deciding that one gender is more important than the other.

"There is also a wider implication beyond this country. We are considering the message it sends out around the world."

The Science and Technology Committee last year recommended that sex selection be allowed for family balancing, where a couple already has boys or girls and wants a child of the opposite sex.

Dr Harris said: "Other than the public's "yuk" reaction, the Government gives no reason why parents of three boys shouldn't use pre-implantation sex selection to balance their family. Allowing such a move in no way suggests that one gender is better than another and so has no bearing on the negative attitudes to girls in some other countries. The state should be giving good reasons before restricting the reproductive choice of adult citizens."