Chamber and committees

I am grateful to Collette Stevenson for securing time for this debate. At the outset, it is important to acknowledge that people who are seeking to access cannabis-based medicine are often in significant pain and have a diminished quality of life. It is very difficult to ignore the desperation that they feel, especially when the health and wellbeing of children is involved. Collette Stevenson mentioned Cole Thomson, who, at not even 10 years old, suffered up to 20 epileptic seizures a day before being privately prescribed cannabis oil. That must have been unimaginably distressing for him and his mum, Lisa, who has been a tireless advocate for her son.

In particular, patients feel a deep frustration that, although the scheduling of cannabis-based products changed in 2018, clinical use remains low and is only for specific conditions and in exceptional circumstances. Many people have sought private treatment, which has significant cost implications. As we have heard, the costs sometimes amount to hundreds and even thousands of pounds a month, which is simply not a sustainable financial outlay.

Others have accessed illegal forms of cannabis to treat symptoms. Research by the MS Society has shown that almost a quarter of MS sufferers have obtained cannabis-based products that are illegal to possess. Often, the strength of THC and the quality of the ingredients in those products are not known, and there is potential to cause harm to the user.

It is also important to note that the prescribing regimes for medicinal cannabis are different in England and Scotland. That geographic disparity is felt acutely by sufferers of MS north of the border, where Sativex has not been approved by the Scottish Medicines Consortium. I understand from the Scottish Parliament information centre—the minister has confirmed this today—that that is because the holder of the NHS marketing authorisation has not made a submission for the product. I hope that there will be some action following today’s debate.

Although the therapeutic benefits of cannabis-based products for certain conditions have been conclusively demonstrated, there is a risk that such products could be seen as a panacea by people who are in acute pain and discomfort. As those individuals seek to effectively manage their conditions, clinicians and healthcare professionals are trying to manage patient expectations. Doctors are professionally responsible for any medicine and have to weigh up an individual’s suffering as well as their safety. However, we do not want people to turn to the illicit market and the harms that that could involve.

It is for clinicians and not politicians to determine the risks and benefits of medicinal cannabis. However, I agree with Collette Stevenson’s call for further research in the area, with high-quality and robust clinical trials to contribute to the evidence base. I understand that there are more than a dozen on-going trials in the UK, which is welcome.

I conclude by echoing the calls for collaboration and co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments on the issue. The UK has a thriving life sciences sector that is at the forefront of scientific research, and we must capitalise on that expertise across the four nations.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I have no relevant interests to declare.

Thank you, convener. I will be very quick. The pandemic has had a severe impact on the mental health of children and young people. The target is for 90 per cent of people to receive children and adolescent mental health services treatment within 18 weeks. My question is for Claire Sweeney. Is the funding sufficient to enable children to have CAMHS treatment?

Yes.

The Scottish Government’s “Women’s Health Plan: a plan for 2021-2024” seeks to address health inequalities experienced by women. The plan says that it

“has not specifically investigated the impact of Covid-19”.

I have a question for Claire Sweeney first, but the other panel members may want to answer it as well. Do you believe that the plan is still workable and deliverable with that caveat that it has not addressed the health inequalities that have been experienced by women due to Covid?

Bill Scott has already touched on the indirect harms of the pandemic on women. The pandemic has impacted on existing health inequalities. For example, the pandemic has had a negative impact on women’s mental health and there have been horrendous backlogs in life-saving screening services. What is the panel’s view on the mid-term to long-term health implications on women’s health inequalities, for women in general as well as those from different ethnic, cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds?

My next question is actually going to be on the negatives, but we have already captured that point about the conversations that go on before and after meetings.

Kimberley, can you highlight some of the positives?

After I ask my question, I will invite each person to say something if they would like to do so.

In your view, what are the positives about the changes that the Parliament has made to its working practices? That question goes first to Artemis Pana. You talked about normalising the online experience, but mentioned the negative aspect of a lack of good broadband access for some people. Can you think about a few of the positives from those working practices?

So, you think that the experience has been really positive and you have highlighted the option to appear in person or in hybrid form.

Charis, do you want to go next?