Areas Unaddressed By The Government’s Response to the Committee’s Report on Drug Policy: Medicinal Cannabis

1) Focusing on addressing intractable epilepsy – (Recommendation 5 of the Committee’s Report)

In November 2018 medicinal cannabis was changed from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulation 2001. This was largely due to the efforts of those suffering with intractable epilepsy and their families and was the impetus for the Committee launching an inquiry into medicinal cannabis. The importance of improving access to medicinal cannabis for individuals (especially children) with intractable epilepsy is reflected throughout the Committee’s report.

In recommendation 5 of our Report, we recommended that the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) should make resources immediately available for a programme of clinical trials for the treatment of intractable epilepsy. This will allow many more patients to access treatments in specialist centres. These trials should be facilitated as a matter of urgency. This is because it is clear that we will fail patients if we do not establish the evidence base for the place of medicinal cannabis in treatment.

However, the Government’s response falls short of providing a clear commitment to taking direct and focussed action on the area intractable epilepsy. In particular, although intractable epilepsy is listed as a priority area for NIHR in the Government’s response, it remains one of five priorities and consequently it is possible for future research proposals to focus more on the other four priorities. This could marginalise research and trials into treating intractable epilepsy. This could potentially be a significant problem as NIHR’s funding is not ring-fenced. It is therefore unclear what provisions are in place to prevent research into intractable epilepsy taking a back seat, and what specific action is being undertaken to support the treatment of intractable epilepsy as an issue in its own right. What action is the Government taking to ensure that its own work and the work of the NIHR is sufficiently addressing the issue of intractable epilepsy?

2) Providing a stronger commitment that collaboration on research with the EU will continue in all Brexit scenarios - (Recommendation 6 of the Committee’s Report)

A key concern highlighted in the Committee’s report, emphasised in recommendation 6, is the impact of Brexit on the prescribing and researching of medicinal cannabis products in the UK.  

In recommendation 6, the Committee said that the Department of Health and Social Care should set out in its response to the Committee’s report how it will work with research organisations here in the UK and internationally to ensure that research is being co-ordinated and encouraged in the most appropriate areas. We also asked for the Government to set out how it will ensure that the future of European multi-centre clinical trials and the post marketing surveillance that protects patient safety are not put at risk by Brexit.

However, the Government’s response failed to address this recommendation directly, using vague and uninformative language to describe its current work. What specific work is the Government and the Department for Health and Social currently doing to ensure that the future of European multi-centre clinical trials and post marketing surveillance are not jeopardised post-Brexit, to avoid undermining patient safety?

3) Long-term deals to secure the supply of CBPMs in the UK - (Recommendation 10 of the Committee’s Report)

In recommendation 10 of our report, we urged the Department of Health and Social Care to take steps to secure long-term international deals in order to ensure a consistent supply of CBPMs in the UK. This is vital in ensuring that patients are not delayed in receiving their prescriptions and the cost of the medicinal cannabis products are kept as low as possible. The Committee also stated that it expects the Department for Health and Social Care to work with other governments, devolved and abroad, to make a more collaborative and attractive deal for industry. The Committee said that it expects to hear from the Department what success it has had in this area by the beginning of 2020.

However, the Government’s response to this recommendation is vague and unspecific in terms of its work to establish supply of CBPMs in the UK, and how it plans to keep costs low and ensure there is no delay in the supply of such products. Can you clarify the specific steps that the Government is currently taking and planning to take in this area?