Contribution
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate. As he said, there are many hon. Members from both sides of the House representing constituents affected by the issue across the United Kingdom who would have liked to be here today. Obviously, health is a devolved matter. The hon. Gentleman spoke movingly about his constituents, and other colleagues talked about theirs. I agree with him. My words have been repeated back to me, so I do not need to say them again. This is an important issue for everyone in the Chamber and those who are listening in, as we all want to support people who are in very difficult circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman raised some key issues, which I will address. He said that landlords and the police are unaware of the legality surrounding prescribed medicinal cannabis. I encourage him to take that up with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. I understand that the Home Office has notified all police forces about the change to the law, and guidance has been issued to summarise what that means.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned electronic prescribing, which has been in operation for schedule 2 and 3 controlled drugs in NHS primary care settings since 2019. I am afraid there are no current plans to extend that to private clinics at this time.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about an observational study with a small patient cohort. I am afraid that it would not produce results as robust as a randomised control trial, which is the gold standard for clinical trials, nor would it add to the current evidence base. It would not provide results suitable to inform routine clinical or NHS commissioning decisions, because there would be no way to compare the findings with what would have happened in the absence of the intervention. I will come on to clinical trials in more detail, but let us be clear about the problem we face, the challenge faced by all of us involved in this debate and the challenge faced by children, many of whom have been mentioned today.
Of course, we listen to Members of this House, and to patients, parents and families, who say that these medicines are safe and should be available. We must ensure the safety and effectiveness of all medicines. The benefits should outweigh any potential harm and, as the hon. Gentleman outlined, clinicians must have that assurance and clarity, too.
There are currently only two cannabis-based medicines in the world with marketing authorisations or licence. They are—I hope I do not stumble over them too—Sativex, for the treatment of muscle spasms in multiple sclerosis, and Epidyolex, for treatment related to two rare forms of epilepsy and tuberous sclerosis complex. Those medicines show that it is possible to develop cannabis-based treatments that have been assessed for safety, quality and efficacy. The evidence generated on their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness can enable the National Institute for Care and Health Excellence to recommend them for use in the NHS.
The medicines we are talking about today are unlicensed, which means that they have not been assessed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Indeed, they have not been assessed or granted market authorisations by any medicines regulator anywhere in the world. However, as has been noted, in 2018 the then Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, enabled the prescription of unlicensed cannabis-based products for medicinal use. That provided a lawful route to these medicines for prescriptions for individual patients who were not benefiting from standard treatments and were not part of clinical trials, while limiting the ability to prescribe to specialist doctors. That came on the heels of the review by Professor Dame Sally Davies, then the chief medical officer, which found enough evidence of benefit to recommend that cannabis-based medicine should be moved out of schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.
For epilepsy, that evidence was mainly in relation to cannabidiol, also known as CBD, rather than products containing the psychoactive compound tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. The review did not provide evidence to support routine prescribing or funding of those medicines on the NHS, which the previous Government should have made clear at the time. Before we see routine prescribing of these unlicensed medicines, the NHS must have greater assurance on their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness at a population level. I am not a clinician—we are all here as politicians—and it is right that prescribing any medicine or treatment is a clinical decision, whether it is done on the NHS or privately. It is not for us to influence those decisions, so I cannot comment on individual cases.
We want to see more medicines approved by the MHRA and available on the NHS. We inherited a broken system, and it will take time to fix that failure, but the Chancellor has made an in-year investment in the NHS to fill the black hole that we inherited and prevent our having to cut back on services. That means that, more than ever, the NHS must account for every penny that it spends and make difficult decisions on what treatments are made available.
The NHS must get the best possible value for its investment in medicines and consider the cost-effectiveness of treatments to ensure that resources are used efficiently. For that to be fair, medicines or treatments initiated privately would not routinely be prescribed by the NHS unless the requested treatment was already approved under existing policies, which unlicensed medicinal cannabis is not, or when there are individual, exceptional circumstances. That remains the case even if privately funded treatment has been shown to have clinical benefit for an individual patient. This is the current NHS policy for all treatment initiated and prescribed privately, and it is not specific to medicinal cannabis.