Medicines for Human Use (National Rules for Homeopathic Products) Regulations 2006

My Lords, I am glad the noble Countess is able to enjoy the benefits of homeopathic remedies, even if she does not know why. I find these regulations very disturbing, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has already outlined. I referred back to Complementary and Alternative Medicine, the report in November 2000 of the Select Committee of this House chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. It is, as so many of these reports are, a mine of information and advice. In the summary of recommendations, the committee reported: "““In our opinion any therapy that makes specific claims for being able to treat specific conditions should have evidence of being able to do this above and beyond the placebo effect. This is especially true for therapies which aim to be available on the NHS and aim to operate as an alternative to conventional medicine, specifically therapies in Group 1””." The House will no doubt be aware that homeopathy was listed by the committee in group 1. However, looking through the report for greater clarification, I read that: ““Many CAM””—that is, complementary and alternative medicine— "““therapies are based on theories about their modes of action that are not congruent with current scientific knowledge. That is not to say that new scientific knowledge may not emerge in the future. Nevertheless as a Select Committee on Science and Technology we must make it clear from the outset that whilst we accept that some CAM therapies, notably osteopathy, ""chiropractic and herbal medicine, have scientifically established efficacy in the treatment of a limited number of ailments, we remain sceptical about the modes of action about many of the others””." It is noteworthy that the Select Committee did not include homeopathy in that list. That report was published six years ago. Has anything changed since then? Would a Select Committee looking at that today have included homeopathy in the list with the other treatments mentioned? I turn to the question of research. I listened to the noble Countess with great interest. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm or comment upon what she said. The report says in chapter 7, ““Research and Development””: "““To conduct research into CAM disciplines will require much work and resources, and will therefore be time-consuming. Hence, we recommend that three important questions should be addressed in the following order:""(i) To provide a starting point for possible improvements in CAM treatment, to show whether further inquiry would be useful, and to highlight any areas where its application could inform conventional medicine—does the treatment offer therapeutic benefits greater than placebo?""(ii) To protect patients from hazardous practices—is the treatment safe?""(iii) To help patients, doctors and healthcare administrators choose whether or not to adopt the treatment—how does it compare, in medical outcome and cost effectiveness, with other forms of treatment?””." Has this research been done on homeopathy? If so, where, by whom and with what results? Has it been peer-reviewed? I hope the Minister will be able to answer those questions in his reply. My central objection to the new regulations is that by bending the rules—the reference to ““proven”” results is quite different from the normal rules about effectiveness and safety—they appear to give an official imprimatur to treatments for which there is no scientific evidence of safety and efficacy. I find that very disturbing, as did the noble Lords, Lord Taverne and Lord Turnberg. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the House.