Medicinal Cannabis

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Meacher]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they plan to take to improve access to cannabis for medicinal purposes for (1) patients, and (2) research, in the United Kingdom.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for her Question. There is no legal impediment to prescribing medicinal cannabis where clinically appropriate, and the Government are keen to make progress in this area. However, these are largely untested, unlicensed products. To support further NHS funding decisions, we have committed public funds to develop the evidence base. I thank NHS England, NHS Improvement and the National Institute for Health Research for their work to establish much-needed clinical trials and call on the industry to support clinical trials in refractory epilepsy and other treatment areas.

[Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]]

My Lords, from 1 November 2018 consultants have been able to prescribe medical cannabis as an unlicensed medicine, as the Minister implies, yet NHS doctors remain unwilling to prescribe, partly because medical cannabis remains on the list of controlled drugs. Hundreds of thousands of patients with severe and chronic conditions who find that cannabis is the only medicine that controls their symptoms without unpleasant side-effects continue to risk arrest every day by growing or buying their medical cannabis at exorbitant prices. Does the Minister agree that this is contrary to the patients’ human rights? How can we criminalise patients for saving the NHS huge sums of money by looking after themselves and doing harm to no one? Will the Minister appeal to Matt Hancock to write to the Home Secretary, urging her to remove medical cannabis from the list of controlled drugs?

[Lord Bethell]

There is a difference between the issue of controlled drugs and that of access to regulatory approved drugs. The noble Baroness is right that medicinal cannabis offers huge hope to those in pain and with severe symptoms. However, it is only through the process of regulation, clinical trials and scientific proof that we can guarantee that the benefits of this important medical opportunity are truly exploited.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]]

My Lords, my remarks are no criticism at all of the Minister, but I am deeply concerned about the regulations. They completely fail to include crucial mitigating measures, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has just said, which are necessary for each step of the reopening of the economy if we are to avoid a second wave of the virus.

In his detailed analysis of countries’ responses to Covid-19, Professor Jeffrey Sachs concludes that the Asia-Pacific region has been successful in controlling Covid using just three low-cost solutions: face masks—which is interesting—physical distancing, and test and trace. I do not think that face masks are mentioned at all in the regulations. Is that not remarkable when Professor Piot, director of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said the other day that people are safer one metre apart wearing masks than they are two metres apart not wearing masks? Yesterday, of course, the Prime Minister took further steps to open up the economy. Can the Minister explain why, when the scientific advice is clear that the wearing of masks reduces risks, these regulations do not pave the way for the compulsory wearing of masks in shops and other inside spaces where one-metre social distancing will be the norm?

Another yawning gap in the regulations is the absence of any mention of the Google/Apple app or indeed any other successful app used in other countries, and whether and precisely how such an app will be rolled out across this country in order to drive down infections and enable the latest plans to open up the economy to be carried out safely. Surely we need regulations now to put a successful app in place. The UK cannot afford to continue doing too little, too late to fight this virus. Christophe Fraser, disease epidemiologist at Oxford University, says that human tracing will not be enough to prevent a second wave. Will the Minister appeal to the Government to include in next week’s amendments to the regulations rules for the provision of a recognised app? If not, why not?

Social Distancing: Two-metre Rule

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell [V]]

My Lords, I completely and utterly share my noble friend’s frustration about the lack of clarity, but a fact of this epidemic is that the Covid germ is incredibly unpredictable. We have fought really hard to apply the best and most up-to-date science possible, which has meant that there has been a real struggle to lay out the kind of clear framework that he and the public would like to see. We remain guided by the science; we work closely with our foreign neighbours; and we are working hard to put in place a clear plan to take us out of lockdown.

[Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]]

My Lords, does the Minister anticipate that the two-metre social distancing rule will in fact be reduced following the review? I might be wrong but I think that it will be, in which case access to masks on high streets and at stations will become absolutely urgent. What plans do the Government have to ensure ready access to masks across the country? Would the Minister like me to send him details of one company that provides and installs dispensers of masks and hand-sanitising gel free of charge? I declare that I have no personal interest in this company but I believe that it and others like it, if they exist, will have a vital role to play in tackling Covid-19 if the social distancing rule is in fact changed.

[Lord Bethell [V]]

My Lords, social distancing has without doubt been the most effective tool in the battle against Covid. That is why the Prime Minister has appointed the Permanent Secretary, Simon Case, to undertake a review, which will include the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser. The use of masks might offer some protection but in no way will it ever replicate the impact of social distancing. That is why we are not prejudging any review or making any assumptions about any changes.

Covid-19: Response

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell]

The noble Baroness is entirely right: the backlog of operations and procedures will be a daunting task for the NHS to tackle. We have prioritised it. Simon Stevens has told the NHS to throw the doors open to try to get through this backlog. As a result, we will live with the effects of Covid for months to come. I am not fully aware of the contract of which she speaks, but I will try to find out its status and will write to her with additional information.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful responses so far. The UK had just under 50,000 excess deaths in less than six weeks from 20 March. Does the Minister agree that the NHS was overrun at that time and had the unbearable choice either to let Covid-19 patients die or to deny treatment to patients with life-threatening illnesses such as cancer and kidney failure? Were we unable to make extensive use of the Nightingale hospitals to save lives due to staff shortages or for some other reason? I would be grateful for the Minister’s response.

[Lord Bethell]

I am extremely grateful for the noble Baroness’s comments. Since she asks for my personal opinion, I would say that, no, the NHS was not overrun. It has been a huge achievement that the NHS has stood firm on its feet. Operationally, it has been extremely sound. It was never overwhelmed, either by Covid-19 or by other operations. The Nightingale hospitals were not needed in the end because the lockdown was adopted by the British public and the infection rate was reduced. That is a huge testimony both to the British people and to the NHS.

Covid-19: Social Care Services

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest in the register as chair of Dignity in Dying. One of the unexpected outcomes of the pandemic has been a national awakening, albeit very late, about the vital role of care workers and their commitment and determination to continue caring for their most vulnerable of patients, risking their own lives in the terrible absence of PPE. This is surely the moment to re-evaluate the care sector, not just for now but for the longer term. We know that care home residents who contract Covid-19 are generally not encouraged to go to hospital. Their end-of-life care is left in the hands of the care staff. This may be the wish of the patient, but we do not know that this is the case. Are the wishes of the patient the determining factor in decisions about hospital admission and other end-of-life decisions?

Many noble Lords have focused on the vital issue of funding for the social care sector. I want instead to focus on the implications of the vital role in end-of-life care being played by care homes, not only during this crisis but always. The reality is that care homes sit alongside hospitals and hospices in caring for the dying. This is skilled work. Apart from physical nursing care and symptom relief, it requires skills in assessing the mental capacity of patients, undertaking sensible conversations about a patient’s wishes as their condition deteriorates, and the preparation of advanced care plans. All this has come to the fore in the Covid-19 crisis, but of course these skills are always needed in care homes. We need to revisit the training, skills and pay of care staff.

I welcome the advice from the CMO and the Chief Nursing Officer on 7 April encouraging vulnerable patients to discuss their treatment preferences and record them in an advanced care plan. Only then can we be sure that their wishes are respected. This advice should apply much more widely. None of us knows when we will be struck down by a heart attack, stroke or deadly virus. Every one of us needs an advanced care plan. A number of charities, including Prostate Cancer UK and Compassion in Dying, the sister charity to Dignity in Dying, provide excellent materials and guidance on end-of-life planning, but these services need to be supported by the Government, not just now but in the future.

In this context, I strongly support Care England’s call for a commissioner for older people. Can the Minister set out the Government’s response to this proposal? When people think about dying, they desperately want to have some control over how and when they die. A commissioner could help to achieve this. Sadly, many Covid-19 victims suffer terrible deaths. Their end- of-life wishes were never known.

Covid-19

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell]

I reassure my noble and learned friend that one of the most distinctive and reassuring aspects of the government response to Covid has been a very strong collaboration between the four nations. That has been epitomised by the strong relationship between the four CMOs, and operationally it has been given teeth by the presence of the devolved Administrations at COBRA meetings, which I attend.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Ministers for all that they are doing in this very difficult situation and, of course, all our wonderful NHS and care staff for what they do every day and every night.

As the Minister knows, the countries most successful in controlling Covid-19 are those with comprehensive testing and contact-tracing systems. We are thrilled to bits that we have two leading research teams in the country—great applause to them—but, until their vaccines are available across the country, the testing regime will be the only approach that will enable a return to any kind of normality. A large-scale sample, or provision, of testing and tracing and so on for care workers will not achieve that objective. Will the Minister tell the House if or when the Government will introduce a comprehensive—I emphasise that word—scheme of testing, contact-tracing and, as has been said, isolation, of all who have symptoms of Covid-19? This means not a sample and not just people in the care sector, but the nation. That is the only way out of the tight corner we are in. If not, can the Minister explain why?

[Lord Bethell]

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is entirely right in the way that she explains things. The driver of that decision is the need to get our prevalence rates and the velocity of the infection down to a reasonable level, so that we have reasonable resources to keep R down by track and trace. I remind her that South Korea, which has used this technique most effectively, does only 20,000 tests per day, because its prevalence levels and velocity of infection are so low.

Access to Palliative Care and Treatment of Children Bill [HL]

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Friday 7th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, who made an excellent speech. I rise to support the first aim of this Bill, which is to ensure the provision of adequate funding for palliative care services, including hospices, across the country. Who could disagree with that? Hospice UK tells us that the NHS currently provides only 32% of the cost of adult hospice care and just 17% of the cost of children’s hospice provision. It is extraordinary that hospices still depend upon charitable funds to support such a high proportion of their vital services. Of course, hospices must have access to pharmaceutical services on the same basis as any other NHS-commissioned service. I hope the Minister can give the House some assurance that progress can be made on some of these injustices.

Adequate funding is certainly a necessary condition for the provision of high-quality services, but it is by no means a sufficient condition. The NHS Long Term Plan rightly talks about the need to give patients

“more control over their own health”.

Of particular relevance to today’s debate is the NHS commitment to personalise care in order to improve end-of-life care. Probably the most distressing feeling of anyone facing death is a sense of helplessness, a lack of control. We all know how much more suffering we can bear if we suddenly realise we have some control over it. I cannot be the only person who has had toothache and found that, the minute I booked an appointment with the dentist, the pain somehow did not seem quite so bad. That applies very strongly, and I suggest that the greater the pain and the greater the suffering, the more it applies.

Your Lordships will not be surprised—here I need to declare my interest, as stated in the register, as chair of Dignity in Dying—that I will argue from evidence of the experience in other countries that one of the most effective ways to increase the funding and quality of palliative care, most importantly the latter, is to give terminally ill, mentally competent patients the right to control the timing and circumstances of their own death if they are suffering unbearably: the right to decide for themselves when, despite high-quality palliative care, their suffering has reached the point where they cannot stand it any longer. It is no accident that nearly everyone—84% of people generally and 86% of disabled people—wants this right. We all fear an unbearable death—I certainly do—and would lead happier lives, as well as die better, without the need for that fear.

Surely relevant to the need for funding was the cash injection of 72 million Australian dollars in Victoria to increase the number of palliative care beds and access to home-based palliative care when assisted dying legislation was passed in 2017. In Western Australia, where assisted dying was legalised last year, the Government provided 17.8 million Australian dollars for palliative care. In California, where assisted dying has been legal since 2016, doctors say that the conversations that health workers are having with patients are leading to patients’ fears and needs around dying being addressed better than ever before. The whole point of the assisted dying process and safeguards is that the patients are at the centre. They are the decision-makers, they are consulted at every turn and the result is better palliative care.

Probably the most powerful evidence of the link between legalised assisted dying and enhanced palliative care provision comes from Oregon, where assisted dying was legalised 22 years ago. Oregon is considered to have the best palliative care services in the whole of the United States, and that is not an accident.

An important lesson from Oregon is that patients’ experience of palliative care depends not only on funding, as I have already indicated. Studies of Oregon’s palliative care services show that the Death with Dignity Act has resulted in more open conversations about death and dying, and more careful evaluation of end-of-life options. In the UK, the—in my experience, massive—taboo attached to dying is inhibiting doctors, and indeed relatives, from having those open conversations. The dying person therefore feels far more alone with their suffering than they should. The safeguards attached to the Oregon model of assisted dying, which we plan to introduce in the UK, with a few adjustments, ensure that patients facing death are encouraged to talk about their wishes, fears and treatment options. Nearest relatives are required to have a conversation with the patient’s doctor about their wishes for the patient. Doctors say that since the passage of the legislation, they have made the effort to learn more about the treatment options available. The quality of palliative care increases as a result, and that is what this debate is all about—better palliative care.

It is understandable that many palliative care doctors oppose assisted dying until the relevant law is passed. Then, as they experience their services improving and their patients being more involved in their care, the patient-centred doctors change their minds and support the freedom of dying patients to choose precisely how and when they die. We have evidence of this shift in the attitude of palliative care doctors from Oregon, Canada and elsewhere.

Along with other noble Lords, I want to see the best possible palliative care funding in the UK. However, until patients have some control over their own dying process, their experience of palliative care services will not be as good as it could be and, for a minority, dying will continue to be an utterly intolerable experience, however good the funding. That is what the report The Inescapable Truth illustrates in agonising detail. I could read it only in bits, as it was so painful to see what people had gone through before they died.

I turn briefly to Clause 2 of the Bill, which concerns the treatment of children with a life-limiting illness. In general, I am a great supporter of mediation as an excellent way of resolving disputes. However, I am profoundly concerned about this clause and, in particular, subsection (4). It assumes that parents will put the best interests of their child first, but it fails to take account of the very powerful need of any normal parent to keep their child alive. I argue that it is an animal instinct in us all and is essential for the preservation of the species. It is that strong—the feeling that “We just must keep that baby alive.” My heart goes out to any parent faced with the dilemma that Clause 2(4) seeks to address—misguidedly, I believe.

In my humble opinion, as the mother of four children, Clause 2(4) is very dangerous for anyone really committed to ensuring that the child’s best interests always remain paramount in these almost impossibly difficult situations. No assumption should interfere with the fundamental principle of the primacy of the child’s best interests.

Health: Vaping

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford]

As I said, more than 50,000 additional people quit smoking through e-cigarette use each year. We see e-cigarettes as an effective and safer route to quitting smoking than other routes. However, we understand that, at the moment, there is no evidence on the impact of long-term vaping, which is why Public Health England continues to update and publish the evidence base on e-cigarettes annually. We will continue to monitor the impacts of that use.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, modest process changes could be made to enable patients who need medical cannabis to gain access to it. This is the most effective way of reducing public use of cancer-inducing cigarettes and vaping, which I understand is not risk free, although we do not know all the results. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss these process changes, which really could make a big difference and save people?

[Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford]

The noble Baroness is an avid campaigner on this, and I commend her on the work she does on it. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss this, of course, but I am also pleased with the progress we have made in bringing forward clinical trials to improve the evidence base around medicinal cannabis.

Health Service Safety Investigations Bill [HL]

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 29th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, along with other noble Lords I very much welcome this important Bill, at least in principle—I think it could go one way or the other. I declare my interest having worked in the NHS for many years; I also have two doctors in my family, which, I suppose, is bound to influence my opinions somewhat.

During my years with the NHS, I was terribly conscious that it was far from straightforward for lessons to be learned across the complex web of organisations within the NHS following an incident; indeed, lessons from excellent practices in one trust somehow failed to get across to trusts around the country. We certainly have a problem. The other tragedy in our health services, in my view, is the appalling toll on doctors’ morale of investigations into complaints, so many of which lead to no further action—or in some cases lead to minor or, on occasion, inappropriate recommendations—after months of misery for the professional involved. No account seems to be taken of the huge pressures under which doctors and nurses work these days.

The blame culture that pervades the health service undoubtedly reduces staff morale and therefore the quality of service for patients—which, at the end of the day, is what the NHS is all about. This culture also reduces the willingness of doctors to be open, so we do not learn the lessons that we need to learn.

The Bill is not about doctors and nurses versus patients—quite the opposite. If we manage to reduce the blame culture, and the unpleasantness of this culture, for professionals, that will undoubtedly benefit patients at least as much as it benefits the professionals. Much will depend on the relationship between the HSSIB and other regulatory bodies. The GMC refers to Clause 12, which envisages co-operation between the HSSIB and regulatory bodies. It is not clear what this means. What do the Government intend this co-operation to involve? In particular, would the Minister be interested in exploring the possibility of reducing the blame culture more widely through the work of the HSSIB?

Of course, firm action does need to be taken where necessary. Clause 15 makes this point clear and I welcome the emphasis on limiting disclosure to situations where there is,

“a serious and continuing risk to the safety of any patient or to the public”.

The “safe space” for doctors to provide information will need to be protected, as other noble Lords have pointed out. It is absolutely priceless to this Bill.

I hope that we can discuss in Committee the possibility of a restorative justice approach at the very start of certain complaints. Of course, this has worked extremely well in the criminal justice system. It would involve a meeting between the doctor, the patient and an independent person to try to resolve the matter amicably. I think a lot of patients would welcome that approach; certainly, the professionals would. Obviously, if you cannot resolve the matter amicably you have to move on to a further investigation. I would have thought that, in many cases, to avoid the blame matter coming into play, the HSSIB would be a good place for these investigations to go.

The GMC wants greater flexibility to enable it not to waste resources on investigations which lead to no further action. At the moment, it complains, the GMC is required to investigate every one of the thousands of complaints made every year concerning doctors’ fitness to practice. I hope we can support the GMC in its wish to reduce that work and reduce the misery for professionals through amendments to the Bill.

As the Minister pointed out, the model for the HSSIB is of course the aviation safety investigation system that has apparently been so extraordinarily successful in improving safety through getting rid of the blame culture. A particularly difficult issue, I recognise, is raised in Clause 25. The clause limits disclosure to other regulators if the interests of justice in a particular case are outweighed by the public interest in doctors’ willingness to participate in HSSIB investigations and the need to secure service improvements. This will undoubtedly raise concerns in many parts, but I welcome the assertion of the supremacy of the public interest.

NHS Providers proposes that the disclosure provisions be more tightly drawn, limiting disclosure further than envisaged in the Bill. It is concerned about Clauses 17 and 19, and I am inclined to agree with its argument. It argues that it cannot be right for a doctor to be compelled to give information to the HSSIB when they would be committing an offence if they did not do so, and to give that information on the understanding that they are acting within a safe space, and then for the information to disclosed to other investigating bodies. This seems to me to be a very serious issue, and I am sure we will come back to it in Committee.

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman argues that the HSSIB should be required to disclose information to it because the lack of disclosure could prevent it carrying out an effective investigation. It seems to have managed fine up to now without the HSSIB helping it, so I have no sympathy, I have to say. I would be very concerned if the safe space aspect of HSSIB were weakened. That would surely negate the whole point of the organisation, inhibit openness on the part of doctors and others, and limit the potential for learning lessons. In my view, we really would have scored an extraordinary own goal. Again, we will no doubt return to this issue.

Finally, I support the call from the Royal College of Surgeons in its helpful briefing for the remit of the HSSIB to extend to non-NHS services in the independent sector. That proposal is supported by the Independent Healthcare Providers Network. I understand that the Government have a reason for not including this at the moment because of the Paterson report but, like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I hope that at least we would include an enabling power in the Bill. However, I am much more persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, who spoke very powerfully on the basis that we do not need to wait for the Paterson report at all and that the remit of the HSSIB should be extended to the independent sector where it is caring for people not under the NHS. My reason for supporting the surgeons’ proposal comes from my experience as a Mental Health Act commissioner when I used to visit private and independent hospitals as well as NHS ones. It is so clear in my mind that the very worst services that I ever visited were in the independent sector. If we leave that out, we really have not done very well.

Like other noble Lords, I regard the Bill as having great potential. I just hope that we can play a constructive role in making sure that that potential is achieved.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak on health issues in the Queen’s Speech and in principle on a pressing problem that needs government action but does not appear in the Government’s agenda.

I welcome the Health Service Safety Investigations Bill, with its focus on learning and not attributing blame or finding fault. This could transform morale in the NHS, which is fundamental to staff retention and high-quality care. However, it will achieve these benefits only if the blame culture of the many other NHS monitoring bodies is adjusted accordingly. I applaud the Government for that initiative.

The social care proposals, unfortunately, do not reflect the urgency of the situation for older people, those with mental health problems in particular, others and the NHS itself. Several other noble Lords have referred to this problem, in particular that there is no timeframe for the substantive proposals and legislative plans in this area to respond to this problem. Can the Minister give the House some assurance on that issue if at all possible?

I welcome the commitment to issue a mental health reform White Paper by the end of the year, which will pave the way for reform of the Mental Health Act. Can the Minister assure the House that legislation in that field will come forward in this Session?

I hope to contribute to work in these areas, but today I will focus on a health issue that could save the NHS billions of pounds and precious consultant time and which, in my view, should have been included in the Queen’s Speech. On 1 November 2018 medical cannabis was rescheduled and recognised as a medicine for the first time in 50 years, having been used as a medicine for thousands of years before then. However, the job to make medical cannabis available to patients has hardly begun. A year on, only two patients have an NHS prescription and 30 have a prescription from the private sector. In Germany, in marked contrast, medical cannabis was legalised in 2017 and in the following year 95,000 prescriptions were written—not 30 but 95,000—and public health insurers are required to provide cover for cannabis medication. Not in the UK. In Germany, 66 conditions are covered by medical cannabis compared with only one—it could be two by now—in the UK. In Italy, 13,000 patients receive medical cannabis prescriptions; in the Netherlands, 20,000; and significantly, in Canada, which has a much smaller population than we do, 400,000. I could give figures for other countries. We hear no reports of the ill effects of medical cannabis—unlike morphine, which is highly addictive and kills people, but we merrily prescribe that every day.

In the UK, the average cost of medical cannabis for a child with epilepsy is about £2,000 per month for the family, despite medical leaders in the field, such as Dr Mike Barnes, taking no fee for their work. Dr Barnes has spent hundreds of hours hacking through bureaucratic red tape and inertia for no fee. The high cost is due to the crazy rules which require medical cannabis to be imported on a named-patient basis for just one month at a time. The Government need to address this urgently. Bulk importation would slash costs. Cultivation licences are urgently required so that the medicine could be supplied locally and, again, more cheaply.

The Government need to remove cannabis medicines from the “specials” category and enable GPs to prescribe. Only then will the UK begin to come into line with the 50 other countries where medical cannabis has been legalised and patients are rapidly gaining access to the medicine they want and need. In all 50 countries, epilepsy sufferers are prescribed medical cannabis and in 49 countries pain sufferers benefit.

Another major problem in the UK has been the incredibly restrictive NICE guidelines. In its review of medical cannabis, NICE considered 19,491 research studies but dismissed all but four of them because they were not double-blind placebo-controlled trials. However, these trials are not appropriate to assessment of these plant products. I appeal to the Government to raise this issue with NICE so that the hundreds of thousands —probably close to 1 million—patients who suffer the unpleasant side-effects of approved drugs, or risk arrest by buying cannabis in the illegal market, can go to their doctor, get and prescription and improve their health.

In the meantime, drug science is doing its bit to tackle the problem. Professor David Nutt, notoriously sacked as chair of ACMD for telling the truth about the UK’s destructive drug laws, is one of the great experts on medicines and, in particular, medical cannabis. Drug science is doing some important work which will be launched in a couple of weeks’ time.

The NHS could save billions of pounds if medical cannabis was available at realistic prices at GP level. Hospital bed days, consultant appointments and costly medications could be saved. I hope the Minister can give some assurance about the Government’s determination to bring the UK into line with our leading European neighbours, Canada and others.