On February 20th 2010 a UK parliamentary committee published a report on the use of National Health Service (NHS) money to provide patients with homeopathic treatment. The report was the work of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. This consists of 14 MPs drawn from the three main political parties. According to its website 'The Committee exists to ensure that Government policy and decision-making are based on good scientific and engineering advice and evidence.' It invites written and oral evidence from experts and interested parties in whatever subject it is investigating. Its meetings are open to the press and the public and its reports are available on its website. The committee makes recommendations the Government but it has no statuary authority.

The report on homeopathy is headed 'Evidence Check 2'. According to the committee's website, 'The purpose of Evidence Check is to examine how the Government uses evidence to formulate and review its policies'. The report itself examines 'the Government's policies on the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and the licensing of homeopathic products by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The committee received around 60 written submissions and these are provided in the report. They include the evidence of critics, including Edzard Ernst and Ben Goldacre, and supporters of homeopathy, including Peter Fisher of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital.

The background to the report is that, as one of the 'alternative' or 'complementary' therapies, homeopathy is relatively popular in the UK; there are many practitioners working privately and many homeopathic medicines are available from high street pharmacists. There are also four homeopathic hospitals (in London, Glasgow, Bristol and Liverpool) receiving NHS pies. Some general medical practitioners prescribe homeopathic remedies or refer their patients for treatment at homeopathic clinics and hospitals under NHS arrangements. The Royal Family is known to use homeopathic remedies and the future Head of State, Prince Charles, has used (some would say misused) his position to lobby strongly for the alternative medicine industry. Currently the Government spends £4 million of NHS money on homeopathic treatment.

The committee's main conclusions are as follows. The Government should stop allowing the funding of homeopathy on the NHS; the funding of homeopathic hospitals should not continue; and NHS doctors should not refer patients to homeopaths.
The typical headline that greeted the publication of the report was 'Homeopathy is a waste of money according to MPs'. Opinion in the media has been polarised. Many medical people and journalists have supported the recommendations. Some however have argued that even if homeopathy is a placebo it is still efficacious as such; it is cheaper than equivalent conventional remedies and does not have adverse side-effects. Supporters of homeopathy consider the scientific approach using randomised controlled trials is too narrow but also believe that these have demonstrated the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies. They also point to surveys that reveal a 70% satisfaction rate amongst patients attending homeopathic hospitals. Critics say that postive results for homeopathy over placebo disappear when only well-conducted clinial trials are considered and that customer satisfaction is not equivalent to treatment efficacy. Finally, patients who believe they have benefited or are benefiting from homeopathy have protested about the committee's findings in reports and letters in the newspapers and online.

The Government normally responds to the committee's findings within two months of a report, but there is uncertainty at present as a general election is imminent in the UK.