Those opposed to the new regulations, laid before Parliament in July, are unlikely to push for a vote. But they will hope to make it clear to the Government that there is strong and widespread disapproval.

Lord Taverne, who initiated the debate, said: "Evidence-based medicine has been a major public gain of the 20th century.

"This is the first time, since the thalidomide tragedy and the passing of the 1968 Medicines Act, that the regulation of medicines has moved away from the science rather than towards it."

The new regulations, proposed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) allow the use of homoeopathic "provings" - where the medicine is shown to induce similar symptoms to those of a disease it is meant to treat - rather than clinical trials.

Sense about Science has been contacted by more than 700 scientists and organisations protesting about the new regulations.

In a statement, the British Pharmacological Society said it was surprised by the new regulations and raised serious concerns that using homoeopathic remedies may put patients at risk of a delayed diagnosis.

The Biosciences Federation said that it viewed the MHRA's decision with "extreme concern" and that the MHRA had "bowed down to industry pressure".

A total of 12 national organisations have raised concerns over the safety of patients and the accuracy of information, including The Royal Society, the Medical Research Council, the British Pharmacological Society and The Royal College of Pathologists.

The Faculty of Homeopathy rejected the criticisms, saying that the regulations are in the public interest and that Lord Taverne's attack on homoeopathy is unwarranted.

The new regulations cover the sale of a limited range of over-the-counter medicines for minor health problems, the faculty said, bringing UK regulations for homoeopathy into line with other European countries and with the regulations for herbal medicines introduced last year.

"To say that homoeopathic medicines are no better than placebo is nonsense" said John Saxton, President of the Faculty.

"These criticisms are coming from a group of doctors and scientists who have no clinical experience of homoeopathy and reject it because it does not fit with their reductionist view of health and healing. Patients are the ones who lose out in such an approach."

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Science News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Catalogue of failings ‘leaves others at risk’
• Tourists told to stay away amid Venice floods
• Google generation has no need for rote learning