Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I will start with the recommendations made by the HPRA. Dr. Nolan mentioned that the Netherlands, Italy and the Czech Republic have all followed an approached access to medicinal cannabis. It is more extensive than the programme proposed by the HPRA and is in line with the proposals for access contained in Deputy Gino Kenny's Bill. The HPRA has chosen a more conservative approach than the one adopted by the Netherlands, Italy and the Czech Republic.

That happily dovetails with the Government's desire to kill Deputy Gino Kenny's Bill and only allow access in the cases that it decides. Why? What is wrong with the approach adopted in the Netherlands, Italy and the Czech Republic? Why did the HPRA make a recommendation in line with opinion No. 14 instead of something that was in line with what had been adopted in those countries? Has it any evidence to suggest there was anything irresponsible in the way the Dutch, the Italians or the Czechs had done things? I suggest it does not. Is the HPRA even qualified to adjudicate on this matter? The delegates made the point that Ireland did not have experience. Countries such as the Netherlands, Italy, the Czech Republic, Canada and so on do. They have set up cannabis regulatory authorities similar to the one included in Deputy Gino Kenny's proposal and are developing specific expertise. Those regimes make a distinction between cannabis and other pharmaceutical-type drugs. It was a political decision.

At the very least, we need to debate which is the better option and hear arguments on both sides instead of just one view. Other countries which are just as responsible as this one and which have more experience of this issue have made different decisions. Will the delegates respond to these points?

Why has the question of pain relief been omitted? Of the 800,000 people who suffer from chronic pain, 40% report that none of the medications they have tried addresses their condition. They include cancer sufferers who have been left out in the cold in this regard. Only those who suffer from nausea related to chemotherapy will be allowed into the trial programme. Why are the 800,000 people mentioned being left out in the cold? How can that be justified? It is not only me who is asking the question. I ask the delegates to respond to David Finn, professor of pharmacology and therapeutics at the Centre for Pain Research in NUI Galway, who is undertaking research in this area. According to him, it is disappointing that the report does not include a reference to chronic pain because a significant number of patients who suffer from chronic pain could be denied the opportunity to trial cannabis or cannabinoids as a consequence unless the case for their use to treat chronic pain can be strongly argued with the Government such that they will be included in the final legislation. He points out that one in five people suffers from chronic pain, or approximately 800,000 in Ireland alone, which is of an epidemic scale and all the more reason to do what we can to introduce new treatments that could benefit them, especially when we consider that 40% currently report that their medications are inadequate. In addition, he believes the concerns about misuse and diversion in the wider community are not unique to the use of cannabis and cannabinoids, as they also apply to opiates which have been the mainstay in pain treatment for decades. According to him, cannabis has significantly less potential for abuse than opiates and any concern could be mitigated to a large degree were the legislation to allow consultants to prescribe cannabis medicines for the treatment of chronic pain. Ms Vera Twomey was mentioned. She has said this, as has Professor Michael Barnes. I spoke to Ms Twomey in great detail in recent days. She will not mind me saying she is the person who has been denied medicinal cannabis. She believes we are taking too conservative an approach, which is why she has been denied access to it. She does not believe others who are suffering should be denied access to it in whatever approach we take.

On the legislative issue, my heart was sinking while the delegates discussed the time that would be required.

I do not understand this. We have a Bill before us, Second Stage of which was passed by the Dáil before Christmas, which acknowledges the need for much more research in this area, states we have to have a regulatory authority, states medicinal cannabis should be accessed through a doctor's prescription and attempts to deal with the removal of cannabis from schedule 1, which is an obstacle as has been alluded to. Why would it take six months, a year or even two years, rather than dealing with the legislation before us?