When Britain's fertility laws were first framed by Parliament in 1990, the "need for a father" clause was inserted almost as an afterthought, to allay MPs' fears that fertility treatment would undermine the traditional family

At first, the requirement that clinics take account of children’s need for a father before treating patients was widely used to deny access to single and lesbian women. The legal language, however, was never absolute. As social attitudes began to change, many clinics started to loosen their rules, particularly in the private sector, which performs 75 per cent of donor insemination and IVF. Some still insisted that women provide evidence of a male role model, such as an uncle or grandfather. Others simply required a letter signed by a man, vouching for the patient’s good character, or ignored the provision altogether.

About 115 single women and 75 lesbians, on average, now conceive each year using regulated fertility treatment, while an unknown number come to informal arrangements. The father rule is now widely considered an anachronism in medical circles.

In 2004 Dame Suzi Leather, then chairwoman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), called for its abolition. The authority has revised its code of practice since then, so that when there is no legal father, “the prospective mother’s ability to meet the child’s needs” must be assessed. MPs who wanted the father rule retained highlighted this in the debate, pointing out that it does not prevent fatherless fertility treatment in practice, but sends a message to society that fathers are important. Gay rights groups such as Stonewall, however, still report that lesbians often struggle to persuade clinics to treat them.

Had the House of Commons approved yesterday’s amendments, access would probably have been restricted still further.

Many clinics would have applied a tough fatherhood test, according to John Parsons, head of the assisted reproduction unit at King’s College London. To comply with non-discrimination laws, this would have had to have been done for all patients, including heterosexual couples. The extra bureaucracy could drive up the cost of treatment. Doctors had feared that this would drive women into the unregulated sector. The sperm they use would not be screened for infections such as HIV, and their donors would not be protected by law from financial obligations.

The other main argument for the father rule was that there is ample research showing that children do better when a father is present. This is true, but the evidence comes from cases of family breakdown.

Research led by Clare Murray, of the Tavistock Centre, and Susan Golombok, of Cambridge University, has found that the children of lesbian and single women who conceive by donor insemination are just as well adjusted as those from traditional families.

Times Recommends

• Deal struck to rescue Jodrell Bank
• S&M madam: Nazi claims are rubbish
• Operation Goodnight: holiday town curfew