Dr. Lorraine Nolan:

The terms of reference have been given to us by the Minister, who has asked us to review the availability of authorised medicines containing cannabis. He has also asked us to review the status of ongoing clinical research involving cannabis and associated products. He has asked us to review the international experience of the medicinal use of cannabis. On the basis of these factors, he has asked us for our opinion on its use and, depending on whether we view it positively or negatively, our policy advice. These are the terms of reference that we have been given.

The HPRA has expertise in the authorisation of medicines. There are medicines containing cannabis. From that perspective, we have the experience to know what we are looking for. We also have a section that deals directly with the licensing of controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Acts. I have worked in the area of controlled drugs since 2001. As an organisation, we have considerable expertise on this subject. We have many toxicologists, clinicians and specialists in the quality of medicines.

As an organisation, we do not provide health care. We are not engaged in clinical practice. Our role is the authorisation of products. It is from those on the front line in the treatment of patients with these conditions that we need to understand where this sits. For that reason, we have decided to convene a group to assist us.

The Deputy is right, in that patients and the demand that exists need to be heard. Theirs is an important voice in this programme. The changes brought about in other countries have been based on demand. The scientific evidence is where it is and more information will continue to come through, but we need to examine it collectively and properly. A review is necessary because it is the best way for us to protect patients' safety.

The timeline set by the Minister is tight. We have been given until the end of January. Regarding other countries that have examined this issue, the Barnes report took three months to produce. We are conscious of the timeline and the immediacy of the situation and we are committed to working through this as efficiently as possible.

Regarding the committee's composition, we have identified the clinical specialists that we would like to have on it. We have secured the participation of two consultant neurologists, one of whom specialises in childhood epilepsy. We have secured the participation of a palliative care specialist, a pain control specialist and a pharmacist with an extensive background in cannabinoid research, particularly the pharmacology of cannabinoids. We have also secured the participation of a pharmacist who specialises in palliative care and the possible compounding elements of medicine. We also want to involve patients. We are looking into the best way of achieving that. We undertake patient engagement as part of our role and we normally work through the patient associations relating to the major therapeutic areas for which cannabinoids are being investigated. We will look to those associations to assist us with this.

We must be realistic about the group's composition. If it grows too large, it becomes inefficient and unworkable. We need to control the number of participants so that it can work effectively, but the group will involve a large consultation process. We are trying to achieve a mechanism for including as broad a range of expertise as we can to inform us.