A controversial report suggesting that parents could gain the right to choose the sex of their babies has prompted division among MPs.

The study by the science and technology committee also called for regulatory bodies to lose their right to decide on personal fertility issues.

Instead, couples should make decisions on embryo screening and selection in consultation with their doctors, argued the report.

As part of a shift in the balance of power over fertility decisions, the MPs call for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to be disbanded.

It should be replaced by a slimmed down Regulatory Agency for Fertility and Tissues, they say, which would focus on helping conception clinics and research laboratories meet high technical and management standards.

There was also strong backing for genetic screening to prevent the birth of children with major diseases.

"If ensuring that your child is less likely to face a debilitating disease in the course of their life can be termed eugenics,we have no problem with its use," said the report.

"State programmes that impose a genetic blueprint are another matter.They should be outlawed as part of any regulation of assisted reproduction.

"Use of the word eugenics must not be used as an emotive term of abuse to obscure rational debate."

Split decision

However, the committee itself was split over the conclusions of its final report.

Four committee members boycotted a vote to accept the report, and another member voted against it.

Those in favour of the report's findings were chairman Dr Ian Gibson, Robert Key, Dr Evan Harris, Dr Brian Iddon and Dr Des Turner.

Paul Farrelly, Kate Hoey, Tony McWalter, Geraldine Smith and Bob Spink issued their own minority report objecting to many of the conclusions reached by their counterparts.

"On a controversial subject on which consensus would be difficult to achieve, it was wrong to adopt an extreme libertarian approach right at the outset, simply on the basis that there was no chance of achieving unanimity," they argued.

The rebels also said the report "did not reflect the precautionary approach and the legitimate role for the state and regulation".