Public Petitions Committee, 03 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 3, 2003

Official Report 255KB pdf

---

Inadmissible Petitions

---

Cannabis (Multiple Sclerosis Patients) (IP44)

We move to consider our recommendations in respect of inadmissible petitions—members will be pleased to hear that there are only two such petitions.

The first, petition IP44, was lodged by Mr Frank Harvey. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to legalise cannabis to ease the pain of multiple sclerosis patients in Scotland.

I will pass over to Steve Farrell at this point to take us through the petition.

Mr Harvey argues that MS patients who are in constant pain should have the right to use cannabis to ease their suffering and that cannabis should be prescribed for that purpose. His view is that cannabis should not be illegal for people who use it for such purposes. We have been advised that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, under which the supply of cannabis is an offence, is reserved. As it is not possible for the Scottish Parliament to amend that act, the petition is inadmissible.

Is the committee content with that advice?

The issue is highly topical and has had a lot of newspaper coverage. My local newspapers have covered it because of circumstances in my area. I am especially interested in the information at the end of the Executive note about the progress that has been made. The note says:

"The Home Secretary has said that the UK Government will do whatever is needed to amend the law quickly to permit the prescribing of a cannabis-based medicine, in the event that the MHRA—"

the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—"approves … the product."

It is helpful for politicians to know that so that we can advise our constituents. Although the matter is reserved, we have gained some useful information from our consideration of petition IP44.

Indeed. We should point out in writing to the petitioner that, as the matter is reserved, he should pursue it through his local member of Parliament rather than through the Scottish Parliament. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Attacks on Elderly People (Reporting) (IP45)

Petition IP45, which was lodged by Mr Charles Marshall, calls on the Scottish Parliament to introduce a restraint on newspapers so that they do not give details of the amount of money and jewellery that is taken in their reports of attacks on elderly people. Our legal advice confirms that, although the regulation of the press is not reserved under the Scotland Act 1998, the action that is called for in the petition would be contrary to article 10 of the ECHR, which relates to freedom of information. The subject of the petition is therefore outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament. That is the ground on which we believe that the petition is inadmissible. Is the committee content with that view?

Members indicated agreement.

Okay. That is it. I thank everyone for attending today and for members' forbearance and help.

We thought that you were an excellent convener.

You are much too generous. Nonetheless, I thank everyone for their support in getting through quite a big work load.

Meeting closed at 12:31.