Though evidence suggests homeopathy has no clinical benefit, anecdotal evidence suggests many people benefit from its many forms. Whether this is placebo effect, or some science not understood by western minds I don't know, however, like political parties, the NHS has to accept certain boundaries. Much like the way the NHS work closely with but do not actually provide social services, health and safety executive, child protection agency etc I think that Homeopathy has a place, but not as part of the NHS.
Given that everything has a cost, and the NHS is supposed to have a limited budget, every new venture comes at the expense of an old one. Now, practices fall from favour and services are streamlined to free up cash, but like when NHS trusts decide not to pay for cancer medication that has negligible results, sadly in this current system the results have to be compared to the financial cost. When the last round of arguments about unused cancer medication went round the general answer from the trusts involved was that using a treatment with a 10% chance of improvement cost the same as ten treatments with an 80% chance of improvement, so that was the route they had to take (despite tabloid hysteria).
I'm not sure how much Homeopathy costs, but I'd prefer to see money spent on procedures and treatments that have a high rate of proven effectiveness to justify their expense.
I'd prefer not to see the NHS begin justifying every decision on financial grounds, as it could lead down a slippery slope, such as is it worth spending £10k+ on cardiac surgery on someone in their 80's? Is it worth treating an alcoholic for liver disease?
In short, reflexology seems to help my kidney problems, and i prefer having my feet rubbed than taken loads of tablets, but I accept that by not following the recognised norm, I have to pay for this treatment separately.