National Institute of Medical Herbalists

House of Lords Hansard 1/2/10
Tabled By Lord Pearson of Rannoch

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will introduce a statutory registration system for the practice of herbal medicine in the United Kingdom before April 2011; and what assessment they have made of the consequences of not doing so.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as patron of the British Register of Chinese Herbal Medicine.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, we recently consulted on whether and if so how to regulate herbal medicine practitioners. We have received more than 6,000 responses to the consultation. These are currently being analysed and a report is expected to be with Ministers by March 2010.

We are aware of the requirement for the UK to comply with European directive 2004/24/EC, including the end of the transitional period at 30 April 2011, and we will take this into account in reaching our decision.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply, which suggests that she is doing her best to be helpful. However, are the Government aware that some 25 per cent of the British population use over-the-counter herbal medicines and that some 5 million people visit a practitioner? Do the Government accept that, if they do not fulfil their promise made as long ago as 2001 to bring in statutory regulation by April next 

1 Feb 2010 : Column 7

year, the whole of this activity will be forced underground, the public will be at risk and a large number of small businesses will fail?

Baroness Thornton: The noble Lord is right to point to the dangers if we do or do not regulate. If we do not go down the route of statutory regulation, we will consider creating a national scheme under the derogation of medicine legislation, which would allow practitioners to continue while we resolve this issue. If we do regulate, the noble Lord knows that it will take time for those regulations to be laid because this is a complex area. We would have to use that derogation as well. We are well aware of the timescale and the risks involved.

Lord Walton of Detchant: I declare an interest as having chaired the House of Lords Select Committee inquiry into complementary and alternative medicine some years ago. Does the Minister accept that some of the most powerful and effective remedies that are used regularly in medicine today are of herbal origin? However, certain remedies sold over the counter have been shown to be dangerous. For example, some traditional Chinese herb preparations contain a large number of different items, including on occasions aristolochia, which has been shown to be a seriously dangerous preparation that can cause serious renal damage. Is it not therefore in the public interest to introduce statutory regulation in order to be sure that practitioners of herbal medicine have been properly trained in scientific method and ensure that those who have not had such training can no longer practise?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, the noble Lord points to the important reason why we must reach a decision on this matter and take action. These practitioners pose a greater risk than other complementary therapies because they involve skin piercing and so on. Acupuncture, herbal medicine and traditional Chinese medicine are the alternative medicines under consideration here. The noble Lord is right that central to our decision is how we protect the public from poor practice and use this as an important lever for driving up the standards of practice.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, which promotes right-touch regulation. Does my noble friend agree that right-touch regulation must always focus on public protection and patient safety, not on promoting the interests of practitioners from whatever area?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. We made clear in our 2007 White Paper, Trust, assurance and safety, that public protection should be the overriding reason for professional regulation of every sort. This is about protecting the public from poor practice. As I have said, this is the best way of protecting the public from unscrupulous and poorly practising practitioners. Statutory regulation is not the only way of doing this and it may not be the most appropriate. In the next month or so, Ministers need to decide whether we go down the statutory route or look for some other way to deliver this protection.