Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1884, which has been lodged by Steve Gillan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make whole plant cannabis oil available on the NHS, or to provide funds for private access for severely epileptic children and adults in cases in which all other NHS epilepsy drugs have failed to help.

In response to the petition, the chief pharmaceutical officer outlines that the regulation, licensing and supply of medicines remains reserved to the UK Government under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and that includes the scheduling of cannabis-based products for medicinal use. The chief pharmaceutical officer states that specialist doctors across Scotland have a “clear and united view” that they would be unwilling to prescribe any CBPMs containing tetrahydrocannabinol—the longest word today—until there is clear published evidence available following a clinical trial.

The submission notes that there is currently a lack of data on dosage, toxicity, interactions and monitoring of long-term side effects. However, the chief pharmaceutical officer has been engaging with the development of clinical trials in refractory epilepsy. In addition, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care will be writing to the UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to see what additional leverage can be brought to bear on potential solutions, to request an update on progress with clinical trials and to ask that manufacturers of CBPMs be encouraged to participate in those trials.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

Thank you for that. As someone who sat on the cross-party group on chronic pain, I know that there are individuals who will personally testify to evidence that they have heard or who are aware of somebody who has, under exceptional circumstances, benefited from use of the product. I ask the clerks to find out whether there is potentially a body of evidence from other countries where the use of whole plant cannabis oil may be an approved procedure. It is one of those issues on which we are told that the evidence does not exist, but it cannot exist within our own sphere. Various engagements are taking place in relation to potential trials. We should seek to find out what we can about those.

I am interested in the chief pharmaceutical officer’s assertion that there is a “clear and united view” among specialist doctors that they would be unwilling to prescribe such products. Perhaps we could pursue that a bit more, because I would like to understand the reasoning for it.

Are members happy to pursue the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Given how the Government is approaching the matter, with the detailed schedule of actions, and given that it will share the details of the petition and its response, I am minded to close the petition. A package of actions seems to be in place.

I agree, however, that there are two actions that we could take. First, we could ask the Scottish Government, in developing its consultation, whether it would be possible to consult or potentially utilise the petitioners themselves, given that they are an organised interested party. I also think that it would be useful to pick up Paul Sweeney’s suggestion about giving more focus to best practice, and to do so with the appropriate level of enthusiasm and zest.

Beyond that, given that the Government is going to share the petition and is taking forward many of its aims, I am minded to close the petition.

I do not think that we do that with any great pleasure.

We have heard from our two colleagues. As the committee considers what to do next, do colleagues have any comments? I am tempted to come to you, David Torrance, simply because you have long been engaged with the petition, but I will not if you have a burning ambition for me not to do that. [Laughter.]

On that basis, I think that we are inclined to keep the petition open and to seek an update from the Scottish Government on its response to the deer working group, as our predecessor committee suggested. That could highlight some of the issues that Mr Sweeney has just raised. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

Is going through Professor Nandi the only way to get the treatment in England, or are there other places where it is offered?

Thank you. Would colleagues like to comment on the evidence that we have heard?

Thank you. We can write to the DWP. The Scottish Government has asserted that the DWP has taken a position. We do not know whether it is actually the case that the DWP would regard a change from 20m to 50m as a significant violation of the like-for-like principle. I simply see from the submissions that the Scottish Government suggests that that might be the case. It would be worth testing that.

The petitioner has noted that it would not lead to any enhancement of benefit, as such; it would just make access to the benefit slightly easier for the people whom it is meant to assist. We should clarify that point, at least, in addition to the suggestion that came forward. We might see where the response to those representations takes us, and pursue the discussion after that. Does that seem reasonable?

Members indicated agreement.

I certainly have long memories of the petition on seat belts in school buses, which, I seem to remember, eventually led to the minister, Mike Penning, agreeing to devolve competences to the Scottish Parliament. I do not know whether that ever actually happened—[Interruption.] Apparently it did, some time ago.

David Torrance, having heard from Paul Sweeney, would you be content for us to explore some of these issues further with the Scottish Government?