The report, from the Select Committee on Science and Technology, also recommends the abolition of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and says that opposition to reproductive cloning is based “more on taboos than coherent argument”.

The final report, published today, was agreed by just four members of the ten-strong committee, plus the chairman, Dr Ian Gibson.

Later, when the committee gathered to agree a summary and a press release, the minority MPs blocked agreement on both. Instead, an informal summary was issued yesterday by the office of Evan Harris, one of the five who approved the report. The others were Dr Gibson, Robert Key, Brian Iddon and Des Turner.

The dissidents assert that the proposals are too libertarian and fail to uphold the precautionary principle that is at the heart of contemporary legislation. They also maintain that insufficient regard was given to public opinion and ethical arguments.

The split in the committee seems likely to render its conclusions easily ignored, should the Government so wish. But Dr Gibson said yesterday: “After the best part of a year, 12 evidence sessions, visits to multiple areas both domestically and abroad and many hours of deliberation, no one can say that this important report has not been thoroughly researched and considered.

“It sets some challenges for the Government when they come to produce their own review, and asks politicians and the public to justify any extra regulation or any legislative prohibitions in arguments of principle with potential harms to be based on evidence rather than myth or prejudice.”

Mr Key said: “The HFE Act of 1990 is now creaking under the combined weight of scientific and technological advance, increasing evidence of the safety of IVF and changes in public opinion with a more relaxed approach to matters of personal and family life.

“This report shows how this country, which has led the way in legislation in this area, can combine the creation of a more permissive approach to scientific research and a reduction in the unnecessary layers of regulation.”

The pressure group Human Genetics Alert claimed that the committee had listened only to a small clique of libertarian lobby groups and academics, rather than to the majority of the evidence presented to it.

David King, director of the group, said: “The kind of ethics we see in this report, which is incapable of saying a clear ‘no’ to anything, is no ethics at all.

“Social sex selection should not be allowed, because it turns children into consumer items and allows gender stereotypes to determine who gets born. It will throw the door to designer babies wide open.”

Suzi Leather, the chairman of the HFEA, said: “The big question for the fertility and research sectors in the future is how we will maintain patient safety, public confidence and minimise risks from developing technologies.”

Should parents be allowed to choose the sex of their children? Join the debate

www.timesonline.co.uk/health
For more on the embryology debate

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Science News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Infertile couples to be made an NHS priority
• Sharp fall in number of GCSE entries
• Britain has more pensioners than children