-
Mr. Shannon supported Mr. Smith's Bill by citing a case of his constituent Sophia Gibson whose epilepsy was significantly improved with access to medical cannabis, underlining its life-changing impact.
-
Mr. Sobel suggested that producing medicinal cannabis could create good-quality jobs in secure premises, addressing public misconceptions about its production.
-
He supported cross-party cooperation and collaboration between Westminster and devolved Administrations to facilitate wider access to medical cannabis across the UK.
-
Mr. McDonald agreed with Mr. Smith's argument that children outside rare syndrome categories could benefit from trying cannabis-based products without significant risk, emphasising the injustice of denying such opportunities.
-
She highlighted her constituent's worries about side-effects from synthetic elements in current treatments and stressed the importance of considering these risks alongside benefits of medical cannabis.
-
Commends the debate's importance, highlights Joanne Griffiths' struggle to secure medicinal cannabis for her son Ben with epilepsy. Emphasises the need to balance compassion and medical ethics while acknowledging the complexity of the issue.
-
Intervened briefly to express appreciation for the speech by his hon. Friend and urged Members to take the Bill seriously, although he did not clearly state his position on the amendment or clause.
-
Spoke in support of the Bill, emphasising its importance for families struggling with the financial burden of medical cannabis treatments. He highlighted the need to remove barriers for NHS prescriptions and praised his hon. Friend's previous speech as a comprehensive account of the issue. Andy McDonald also declared an interest due to having a son with epilepsy.
-
Ms Elphicke supports the clause of the Medical Cannabis (Prescription) Bill, which seeks to address barriers in NHS prescriptions for medical cannabis. She cites the case of her constituent Teagan Appleby who needs medical cannabis but cannot obtain it through the NHS due to financial constraints and bureaucratic hurdles. Ms Elphicke emphasises that the current law change is insufficient as many patients still struggle with access. The speech highlights the need for proper funding mechanisms within the NHS and training for GPs to prescribe medical cannabis, stressing that the evidence of efficacy in cases like Teagan's is clear from clinical records.
-
Jim Shannon supports the Bill, citing his advocacy for medicinal cannabis and sharing a personal story of Sophia Gibson who benefited from whole-plant medicinal cannabis. He emphasises the importance of access to medicinal cannabis in specific cases where it can help patients, as seen with Sophia's reduced seizures and hospital visits.
-
Welcomed the Government's drug strategy and called for evidence-based policy changes. Criticised the absence of drugs from medicine development and the criminal justice consequences of current policies. Highlighted the need to oppose prejudice in practice and stressed that cannabis and psychedelics are not supported by evidence in schedule 1. Emphasised the historical racial biases in U.S. drug policing influencing global approaches, leading to significant societal harm. Urged for a better public health approach through medicines and treatments while minimising damage from drugs. Critiqued the current policy's impact on medical cannabis users who resort to criminality due to lack of legal access.
-
[INTERVENTION] Welcomed recent innovations and changes in law, such as allowing psilocybin for research on clinical depression. Acknowledged movement in this space despite past ignorance.
-
Supports the Bill and praises the work done by her colleague Jeff Smith. Acknowledges the empathy shown towards parents but criticises lack of action. Emphasises the inhumane situation faced by families waiting for medicinal cannabis prescriptions. Highlights the need for immediate change rather than a two to three-year delay proposed by the Government. Cites personal experiences and testimonials from parents whose children have benefited greatly from medical cannabis.
-
[INTERVENTION]: If the Government does not support the Bill, asks what alternative actions they will take to help families in need of medical cannabis.
-
[INTERVENTION]: Clarifies that there are approved uses for this treatment, but criticises the debate's focus on observational trials over RCTs. Warns about potential risks of undermining rigorous scientific methods based on past instances like the MMR vaccine scandal.
-
Saxby recognises the emotional impact of drug-resistant epilepsy cases but argues for a logical approach. She highlights progress made by rescheduling cannabis-based products for medicinal use in November 2018, enabling medical trials and research to proceed despite pandemic delays. Saxby points out that while doctors can prescribe unlicensed CBPMs under specialist guidance, they lack rigorous safety and efficacy testing required for NHS funding. The speaker emphasises the importance of clinical evidence and research investment from manufacturers to ensure safe and effective use on the NHS.
-
Hart agrees with Saxby's emphasis on clinical evidence and rigorous testing for all medications, including cannabis-based products. She underscores the need for full knowledge about potential side-effects to inform prescribing decisions by GPs.
-
The Bill aims to move forward with robust mechanisms in place for assessing cannabis-based medicines. It addresses the current issue of limited access through NHS prescriptions and seeks to reduce barriers faced by patients. The lack of progress since 2018 is causing immense suffering, financial strain, and developmental delays among young people. The existing two-tier health system forces families into private providers due to unaffordable costs.
-
He expresses frustration at contributions suggesting a need to start anew when the law has already changed in 2018. We must focus on action rather than debating existing regulations.
-
She argues that the law is already in place, and there is no need for further legislation. Instead, emphasis should be placed on NHS funding to ensure approved medicines are available.
-
He agrees with the sentiment but raises concerns about financing as a primary barrier rather than licensing issues. He supports clauses 1 and 2 for their potential to help.
-
He urges Government Members to stop talking the Bill out and vote it through.
-
Questions why medical professionals are not prescribing cannabis-based products despite clear evidence. He inquires about potential financial barriers within Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) preventing prescriptions from being approved.
-
She highlights that children have been taking unlicensed drugs and stresses the need to break down barriers regarding perceptions of cannabis-based medicines as over-the-counter drugs in places like the Netherlands.
-
Congratulates the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington on securing time to debate the bill. Mentions his own experience working with sustainability and transformation partnerships in NHS and highlights the confusion among commissioners about commissioning medicines of this type. Shares a constituent's story detailing how medical cannabis significantly improved their life after traditional treatments failed. Emphasises the stigma associated with cannabis use, including difficulties accessing private clinics and pharmacies, which often leads people to seek out black market providers due to high costs and supply chain issues. Calls for robust research on CBD for fibromyalgia and other treatment-resistant neuropathic pain. Stresses the need for clear guidelines to support commissioners in making positive decisions regarding medical cannabis prescriptions.
-
Intervenes to highlight the semantic issue with the term 'cannabis', which often causes fear and confusion among medical professionals and patients alike.
-
Discusses the need to tackle stigma around drug addiction, including cannabis use, and suggests removing exclusion from the Equality Act 2010 and properly funding addiction services.
-
Pleads not to conflate national drugs policy with medicinal cannabis policy, highlighting the importance of addressing issues related to medical cannabis without being swayed by broader drug policy debates.
-
Highlights concerns about side effects from recreational cannabis use and advocates for better access to medicinal cannabis to prevent people from resorting to black market options.
-
Agrees that medical professionals can prescribe non-licensed cannabis products, but calls for funding and support to ensure such prescriptions are funded by clinical commissioning groups.
-
Ms Keeley supports the Bill, highlighting its potential to improve lives for families with children affected by severe treatment-resistant epilepsy. She cites her constituent Zoe Kirkman’s case where private purchase of THC and CBD products significantly reduced Riley's seizures but still faced educational and care challenges due to non-NHS prescription. She questions why schools and respite-care facilities cannot use these treatments when prescribed privately. She also notes that despite changes in law, only three children received NHS prescriptions for cannabis-based treatment, questioning the Government’s implementation of such promises. Ms Keeley advocates for more research into the effectiveness of medical cannabis while stressing the importance of measures proposed by the Bill to increase doctor prescription and accessibility through a commission.
-
Argues that primary legislation may not be necessary; supports current pathways but emphasises the importance of evidence, safety and quality assessment by regulatory bodies. Highlights concerns about misuse and need for rigorous testing before prescription.
-
Raises personal family experience to illustrate the urgent need for better access to medical cannabis, emphasising emotional impact and importance of individual cases while supporting evidence-based approach.
-
Clarified that the use of 'you' is not appropriate in debates as it refers to the Chair, emphasised the importance of following debating rules which are designed to maintain the decorum of the House. She also clarified her previous comments on vernacular usage.
-
Argued that the debate could be better conducted in Committee where detailed discussions can take place without prolonging the Second Reading unnecessarily. Suggested that this approach would allow for a more efficient legislative process.
-
Acknowledged the efforts of Opposition Members in debating the Bill, despite expressing frustration with the pace and style of the debate. Emphasised that significant progress has been made despite challenges.
-
Expressed concern about clause 3 setting a precedent for the House to prioritise which medicines should be approved, potentially undermining the independent regulatory system based on scientific evidence.
-
Suggested that additional Government involvement may not solve problems effectively and could undermine NICE and CCGs. Emphasised the need for more structured and reliable evidence on medicinal cannabis to expedite licensing processes.
-
Challenged the notion that Opposition Members' concerns are not valid, highlighting instances where children have died and faced severe health issues due to lack of access to medicinal cannabis. Urged the hon. Member to join an all-party parliamentary group for better education on the issue.
-
Clarified that the debate should not conflate the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use with its medical applications, ensuring a clear distinction between the two.
-
Questioned the hon. Member on the impact of seizures on children's brains and the necessity of medicinal cannabis for their health.
-
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle opposes the amendment, emphasising the need for caution in introducing unlicensed treatments due to historical errors such as the thalidomide scandal and the importance of evidence-based medicine.
-
The hon. Member for Gower intervenes, questioning whether the previous speaker is suggesting that medical scientists do not know anything and highlights the current use of medicinal cannabis under prescription.
-
The hon. Member for Epping Forest intervenes, clarifying that it is honourable to provide context and caution about introducing unlicensed treatments.
-
Argues that primary legislation is not the appropriate way to address the issue, suggesting discussions with NICE, NIHR and the Department of Health and Social Care.
-
Highlights the lack of appropriate evidence for the cannabis plant under current regulations, and calls for a wider evidence base to be considered. Emphasises that the NHS requested this in 2019.
-
Argues that randomised control trials would be immoral for children in dire need of medication, advocating for the Bill to consider alternative forms of evidence.
-
Suggests that there are better alternatives than using primary legislation for this matter.
-
Questions the use of primary legislation to advance this cause, citing the Autism Act 2009 as a precedent. Criticises the Conservative Benches for talking out the Bill.
-
Suggests that the Bill seeks to duplicate work already being done by existing bodies, differing from other Bills such as the Down Syndrome Act which aimed to fill gaps in service provision.
-
Questions how the commissioning proposal in the Bill would interact with NICE's statutory responsibilities and existing reviews conducted by them.
-
Argues that primary legislation is unnecessary for this issue, as the process can be handled through NHS and CCG processes without slowing things down.
-
Questions what next steps should be taken by the Government to address the issue, highlighting the need for a pot of money to facilitate proper prescribing processes.