Chamber and committees

I thought that we all understood that there has been extensive consultation with stakeholders, but I am happy to let the minister answer.

I am not arguing that businesses should not be compensated—of course they should be—but I take a bit of issue with your constantly saying that businesses will be shut down. Retailers will still be able to sell for 57 days of the year; how they rearrange their business models will be entirely up to them, and compensation might come into play, too. It does not necessarily mean that retailers will no longer have their businesses.

I thank the minister for that clarification. That is really interesting, because the MS Society’s report found that 22 per cent of people living with MS had accessed

“illegal forms of cannabis to treat their ... symptoms”,

which I find outrageous. I understand that Sativex gained Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency approval 10 years ago, and that MS sufferers are being forced to break the law to gain access to it, so I hope that the situation changes quickly.

Why are we not prescribing such a demonstrably effective drug? In Scotland, there are currently no NHS patients receiving CBPMs, and, in the UK, there are only three. The international data tells a different story, but I do not have time to outline that.

The barriers to prescribing include the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, which, as I understand it, is not legally enforceable in Scotland and is not legally challengeable by Scottish patients. That is typical of the legal confusion that surrounds the prescribing of cannabis-based drugs. However, NICE has clarified that healthcare professionals in England should not feel

“prevented from considering the use of unlicensed ... products”

if it is appropriate for individual patients.

Although powers relating to the regulation of medicines and medicinal products are reserved, funding for cannabis-based products through NHS prescriptions is a devolved issue. Only specialist doctors on the General Medical Council’s special register can prescribe unlicensed cannabis-based products for medicinal use. GPs cannot, or will not, prescribe them. Around the world, prescribing is done mostly through primary care, but for some reason the UK has gone down the route of allowing only specialists to prescribe.

Weak clinical evidence is also cited as a barrier, but I would argue that the thousands of patients whose lives have been immeasurably improved by such products are evidence that they should be prescribed. There is also the fear factor among clinicians, along with a lack of awareness and training. The GMC, which is responsible for overseeing medical practitioners in good prescribing practice, is working with clinicians on the prescribing of CBPMs. However, it would appear that many NHS clinicians fear being struck off if they prescribe such products.

I believe that it is possible for Scotland to lead the way on cannabis research. My time on the cross-party group has been a huge learning curve for me. The issues around prescription are embedded in a legal minefield, but I am optimistic that that will change soon. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care is liaising with the UK Government on the need to build the evidence base for CBPMs, and he believes that the UK Government and the Scottish Government could work together to achieve that.

In conclusion, I urge the minister to ensure that the issue is taken forward and clarified in Scotland without further delay, and to look at international evidence, get the trials under way and sort out the legal complexities. The lives of thousands of patients—old and young—depend on it.

As we have heard, this debate on access to medicinal cannabis is a first for this Parliament—a very important first—and I thank my colleague Collette Stevenson for bringing it to the chamber.

As a co-convener of the cross-party group on medicinal cannabis, I know that a debate on the issue is long overdue. We have heard Collette Stevenson’s heart-rending account of her constituent Lisa Quarrell and her son Cole. As a mother, I cannot imagine the stress and heartache of having to fight every day to keep my child alive and facing the constant worry of how to pay for private prescriptions for the drug on which they depend. About 40 other mothers in Scotland have children who have severe epilepsy and, like Lisa, they have to do that every day. That is not to mention the thousands of chronic pain sufferers and those with conditions for which cannabis can relieve the worst symptoms.

Cannabis is the oldest medicine in recorded history—there is evidence of its medicinal and religious use for more than 4,000 years, so it is not a new drug. However, it is clear that there is stigma around the use of it. I think that it is the psychoactive aspect that scares people, but medicinal cannabis has very low levels of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which is the psychoactive component, so the benefits of its use far outweigh the element of risk regarding side effects.

I make it clear that cannabis for medicinal use is not about people looking to chill out and have a good time; it is about giving people quality of life and pain relief when other drugs have failed to do that. Why should sufferers be denied that simply because of ill-informed prejudice?

The Misuse of Drugs (Amendments) (Cannabis and Licence Fees) (England, Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2018 allow for cannabis-based medicines to be legally prescribed for any condition. Thomas Mulvey of the MS Society Scotland has for some time been calling on the Scottish Medicines Consortium to approve Sativex. Cannabis-based Sativex has been shown to be hugely beneficial in treating symptoms that are associated with MS, and it will be considered by the SMC later this year.

As my colleague Collette Stevenson said, the MS Society’s UK-wide report into Sativex found that 22 per cent of people living with MS had accessed “illegal forms of cannabis”.

Today’s publications confirm this SNP Scottish Government’s priorities: the game-changing Scottish child payment, huge increases for front-line health services, free school meals for young people and money to decarbonise buildings and promote active travel, among many others. However, the cost of living crisis will be at the front of most people’s minds at the moment. Will the cabinet secretary expand on what the Scottish Government is doing to help?

I hope that the minister will join me in celebrating our ELC workers, who are making a huge difference to our children’s lives, day in and day out. As we emerge from the pandemic, can the minister set out how the Scottish Government is supporting our ELC settings to continue to deliver high-quality care for our children?

To ask the Scottish Government how many early learning and childcare providers, including private providers, received funding from the £9.8 million childcare sector omicron impacts fund that opened for applications in March this year. (S6O-01145)

To be honest, I have a lot of sympathy with amendment 67, which seeks to amend the age limit, but there could be unintended consequences. It could push more people into buying by proxy for 20-year-olds, for example, and it would risk widening a black market. However, I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say on it.

I appreciate many of the points that have been made, but I fear that we are going down a rabbit hole in talking about why existing legislation is not being used and prejudging whether the bill will be used. It is new legislation. The police and the courts are in favour of it. There is absolutely no reason for a review to be in the bill because the bill would be a fresh start and has the support of the courts and police. It is not necessary to put a review in the bill.

On amendment 61, the onus is already on the retailer to ask for proof of age for alcohol and cigarettes, so the amendment might be pre-empting something that is not a problem.

On Katy Clark’s amendment 46, licensing is an integral part of the bill and dovetails with other measures, so if we agree to amendment 46—regardless of what Pauline McNeill was saying about how it could come back at stage 3—licensing would be gone from the bill. If licensing were not there, I think that that would negate the purpose of the bill, which is to make people realise that they have to be responsible when they are buying and setting off fireworks. If there were no licensing scheme, that would defeat the purpose of the bill.

I agree that the detail is very important. We would have to scrutinise the licensing scheme when it comes around in the future, but it is far too sweeping to say that we should just take it out of the bill now.