THE Prince of Wales has secretly commissioned a report into the benefits of complementary therapies in an attempt to persuade the Government to offer more of them on the NHS, The Times has learnt.

The study ordered by the Prince, a long-standing enthusiast for alternative medicine, seeks to influence government policy by claiming that wider provision could save the tax-payer billions of pounds.

Its initial findings have been condemned as “outrageous and deeply flawed” by Britain’s leading scientific expert in the field, who said it exaggerates merits while “glossing over” problems of safety and effectiveness.

The Prince’s move has also triggered a row over his constitutional role, as doctors and MPs questioned whether the heir to the throne should be issuing so blatant a challenge to the Government’s agenda.

The report, led by Christopher Smallwood, a former chief economics adviser to Barclays Bank, will be sent to ministers and officials in October. A draft of its conclusions, seen by The Times, suggests that “economy-wide” savings of between £500 million and £3.5 billion could be achieved by offering spinal manipulation therapies such as chiropractic as a standard NHS option for back pain.

It claims that up to £480 million could be cut from the prescription drugs bill if 10 per cent of GPs were to offer homoeopathy as an alternative to standard drugs, and that £38 million could be saved by switching 10 per cent of depression patients to St John’s wort, a herbal remedy.

Edzard Ernst, Professor of Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the University of Exeter, said that the recommendations flew in the face of scientific evidence, which shows a net cost to providing alternative therapies.

“These are outrageous estimates without any strong evidence to support them,” Professor Ernst said. “The report glosses over the science and its methodology is deeply flawed.

“It is highly selective in its use of evidence and it looks like the conclusions have been written before everything else. It is based on such poor science it’s just hair-raising. The Prince of Wales also seems to have overstepped his constitutional role.”

Mr Smallwood, who has no previous expertise in complementary medicine, was approached by Fresh Minds, a research consultancy employed by the Prince. Professor Ernst, who was interviewed by Mr Smallwood and asked to advise on the study, said that his criticisms about its methodology and conclusions had been ignored. He has insisted that his contribution be withdrawn from the final document.

“They have selected all the positive evidence and left out all the negative studies,” the professor said. “They have overinterpreted and misinterpreted the data they do include. They changed the study’s methodology repeatedly as they went along, which is a well-known source of error and bias.”

The leak of the report, which is a first draft and has since been rewritten substantially, has caused fury at Clarence House. Mr Smallwood said that it was shown to the professor in confidence. He has complained privately of being “betrayed” by the professor’s comments.

The Prince of Wales has yet to see the work, which is still not complete.

Clarence House emphasised that the Prince of Wales had asked Mr Smallwood to head the inquiry because he was independent of the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, which promotes alternative medicine therapies. Professor Ernst is a long-standing critic of the foundation.

Paddy Harverson, the Prince’s communications secretary, said the Prince had not sought to influence the conclusions of the study, which is financed by two private char-ities not linked to the Prince.

“It is entirely inappropriate for anyone to be commenting on the report when it has not even been completed, let alone published,” Mr Harverson said. Criticism would be legitimate when it was completed, he said.

Clarence House also rejected the charge that the Prince was in breach of his constitutional role in trying to influence government policy. Mr Harverson added: “He merely asked an eminent independent economist to look at the effectiveness, especially from a financial point of view, of integrated healthcare.”

Professor Ernst said that there had been hardly any rigorous studies of the costeffectiveness of complemen-tary treatments — almost all for acupuncture and spinal manipulation — which found added costs for the NHS. He said that it was impossible to assess the costs and benefits of providing free complementary medicine without first considering how well various treatments worked, and their risks.

He said: “In homoeopathy, there is no indication for which it is better or even remotely similar to a conventional treatment, so to recommend it like this is astonishing.

“You can always save money in the health service by doing nothing, at least in the short term, but you will not help patients.”

Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat science spokesman, said: “If Prince Charles is going to seek to influence healthcare or science policy — especially without going through the normal peer review process — he must allow himself to be challenged in debate or interview, something that he has never done.

“If the Palace believes that it is not appropriate for him to lower himself into public debate, then he should stay out of public policy.”