Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is helpful.

I am sorry. We would be happy to hear from Doug Howieson again. You contributed to our discussion a fortnight ago. Would you like to come in on any of the points that we have touched on so far?

PE1884, which was lodged by Steve Gillan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make whole plant cannabis oil available on the national health service, or to provide funds for private access for severely epileptic children and adults where all other NHS epileptic drugs have failed to help.

When we last considered the petition, we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to seek information about the progress of clinical trials and further information on his discussions with the UK Government. The cabinet secretary’s response stated that he thinks that

“the lack of evidence on the quality, safety and efficacy”

of cannabis-based products for medicinal uses is “the main barrier” to them being prescribed by NHS clinicians, and he stressed the importance of development of the trials. He outlined plans to undertake two randomised and controlled trials of their use in early-onset epilepsy. The trials will compare medicines that contain only cannabidiol with ones that contain CBD and tetrahydrocannabinol and with placebos. That is to help answer the question of whether adding THC to CBD improves anti-epileptic properties. He also indicated that commercial discussions about the supply of products to the trial are under way, and that further details of the trials, including the timetable, will be dependent on the conclusion of those discussions.

The cabinet secretary stated that a meeting was scheduled for early February with the UK Minister for Patient Safety and Primary Care, Maria Caulfield MP. It was to include a consideration of ways in which the trials can be expedited.

The committee also requested information on existing evidence from other countries from the Scottish Parliament information centre. Its review is included in your papers pack at annex D. It provides information on current guidelines from Australia, America, Ireland and Canada. It highlights that a review on medicinal cannabis in Australia was examined by the UK Government. The UK Government stated that the review showed

“limited but high quality evidence for the use of medicinal cannabis products”

to treat epilepsy.

The use and efficacy of THC treatments is addressed in the guidance from Australia, Ireland and Canada. It indicates that the evidence base for THC is complex in that it may have either pro or anti-epileptic properties.

Much of the guidance in other jurisdictions acknowledges that limited evidence is available for the use of cannabis-based products for medicinal use and frequently advises that such products should be prescribed as an add-on treatment with existing anti-epileptic drugs.

The petitioner points to three existing prescriptions across the UK, and reiterates that he does not accept that there is a lack of evidence for prescribing. He explains that the prescriptions have been in place for three years, and he considers that to be an example of “reliable evidence” for its use by the NHS.

Again, that was quite a long introduction. Do colleagues have any comments that they wish to add?

Thank you. Again, that is quite a comprehensive series of recommendations. Would anybody like to add to that, or is the committee content to support that?

The petitioners are concerned about the native content in new forest planting. It is interesting to hear that the Government is seeking to increase the percentage of native trees. What is the balancing act in that? It would be helpful if people could understand why it is not all native. What calculation is made in determining the percentage that can be native species?

Are other colleagues content?

Members indicated agreement.

Please do.

I am not aware that any committee is considering bringing forward a bill or anything such as that on the matter.

One of our committee members, Paul Sweeney, joins us remotely.

That is interesting. If the Scottish Government will not expand the remit of its inquiry or, as has been suggested, if a separate inquiry were not to take place, is it possible that some of the themes, lessons and recommendations that emerge through that inquiry in England and Wales could crystallise into actions that campaigners could pursue more directly with the Scottish Government here? In other words, is it possible that that inquiry will lead to recommendations of which Scotland should be taking note, too?