| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West) rose--
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when the Foreign Secretary started his statement.
Mr. Wilshire: Madam Speaker, I believe that this is a genuine point of order. I heard it said that reporting a leaked document to the House amounted to a breach of privilege. Could you confirm whether that is a correct interpretation of the rules of this House?
Madam Speaker: I will have to have notice of that question, as I want to be clear and careful in my answer. If the hon. Gentleman will not mind, I would like notice of the question.
Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: It can hardly be further to it, because I cannot answer it.
Mr. King: I understand that you do not want to prolong this matter, and I entirely understand your answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). However, may I suggest that you address his point in the same way as you have decided to address the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)? This is a serious matter, and the House
is entitled to ask for the Speaker's guidance on the correct procedure. Will you reflect and report to the House on what the response should be?
Madam Speaker: I do not undertake to report to the House, but I will reflect on the matter. I quite understand that, from time to time, the House needs the Speaker's guidance, and I am willing to give it. Over the past few days, I have considered this matter carefully, and I am aware of our procedures according to "Erskine May". I will take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman and look into the matter.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), as you rightly observed, was assuredly not present in the Chamber for the start of the statement on Kosovo, but he categorically insists--simply for the record--that he was present in the Chamber for the start of the Foreign Secretary's second statement. I can vouchsafe that he is telling the truth, because he has been sitting next to me throughout.
Madam Speaker: I accept the hon. Gentleman's word. I always watch hon. Members on both sides of the House who appear late for a statement, and then try to ask a question or raise a point of order. I accept that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) was not here for the first statement, but was here for the second, and I will take his point of order.
Mr. Brady: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you give some guidance to the House and to Ministers on the correct procedure for answering written questions? Is it sufficient merely to answer with what is deemed to be the most narrow definition possible within the question, or should the answer seek to give the information that is required by the questioner?
Madam Speaker: I fear that I cannot advise Ministers or their offices as to how they might answer questions.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you to page 221 of "Erskine May", which refers to the publication in Hansard of written answers given by Ministers? I understand that there has been guidance from the Editor of Hansard that he will not publish answers of more than five pages. Will you consult the Editor, or look into the matter?
I was given an answer two days ago by the Minister for Local Government and Housing, which went on to five pages. However, one page contained very little information. Therefore, the Minister stated that the requested information had been placed in the Library of the House. The question was about educational expenditure across all local authorities.
We often see full lists of local authorities published in Hansard, because that is a way of giving comparisons. I could have split the question to ask about shire counties and unitary authorities separately, but the Table Office would probably have told me that I should put down one question rather than two. It is important that the answers should be available in Hansard and we should not have
to go to the Library for the information. I hope that you will ask the Editor of Hansard to reconsider the ruling, and will give it some consideration yourself.
Madam Speaker:
I had some indication of the hon. Gentleman's point of order. The House knows that the substance of replies to questions is a matter for Ministers, not for the Chair. However, Speakers have ruled that there should be a limit of four A4 pages to replies, to avoid Hansard being filled with a few long answers each day. That is sensible and the Minister's action in this case is reasonable. That is the ruling that Speakers have given in the past. Because I knew of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter, I had an opportunity to look up the ruling.
5.41 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow the production, supply, possession and use of cannabis resin for medicinal purposes.
Like many others, Mr. Mann had tried many conventional and unconventional cures. None of them worked for him, so he decided to use cannabis, with which he found relief from the pain. He was not selling it to anyone. He was not involved in any way in the illegal market. He grew his own. For that, this pensioner is facing a 12-month term of gaol.
There have been many similar cases. In a case last month in Hove, the jury--like many others in such cases--wanted to be compassionate and asked the judge whether they should convict a man who was confined to a wheelchair even if they felt that the law was unjust. The judge told them that it was up to Parliament to change the law, and that they must abide by that and return a verdict. It is up to us to decide the sentences. The responsibility for the savage injustice that has been meted out to Mr. Eric Mann in Swansea lies here.
The House of Lords Select Committee is hardly a bunch of drug-crazed teenagers. Its members are senior and elderly scientists. The Bill reflects their recommendations on the matter--that it should be possible for cannabis to be prescribed by a limited number of doctors in an unlicensed form to named patients, just as heroin and cocaine are supplied. It may come as a surprise to many that heroin and cocaine are prescribed legally. That cannot be done with cannabis. As the Lords Committee recommended, the Bill would also allow further research without the need for a special licence from the Home Office.
The Government's reaction to the report came within nanoseconds of its publication. They said:
I hate my party to be seen in this way, but the Government are not tough on drugs, but tough on multiple sclerosis patients, tough on cancer victims and tough on
Aids sufferers. The Government seized on the word "unlicensed", as though it is rare to have an unlicensed drug. Some 36 per cent. of the medicines that are prescribed to children in hospitals are unlicensed. They have not gone through trials. The trials for a new drug are rightly very tight, given all the tragedies that have occurred.
However, all the problems that we have had have come from chemical drugs--substances that do not occur naturally in the form in which we are taking them or injecting them in various ways. Cannabis is a natural substance which has been used for at least 3,000 years, according to the records. No medicine has been tried and tested like cannabis sativa. It was used by the people who built the pyramids to help with their eye problems. They did not know why it worked, but it did. Cannabis has been used as a medicine throughout the centuries on every continent. The word in Chinese means "big medicine". Unfortunately, our judgment has been clouded by recreational use, which has come about almost entirely since cannabis was banned.
Many other drugs are given unlicensed. Many of our established medicines would never get through the licensing rules. Several hon. Members have told me that they thought that the problem had been solved and the Government were carrying out trials. Sadly, there is no hope under the current policy of any patient receiving cannabis for at least five years, possibly much longer, because of the complexity of cannabis, which has at least 400 naturally occurring ingredients. The trials may finish in five years, 10 years, sometime or never.
Hon. Members should speak to people suffering from multiple sclerosis who are looking forward to a good night's sleep, which they cannot get without cannabis. Tens of thousands of people are taking it, including those suffering from the foul side effects of chemotherapy and the awful nausea and vomiting that can go on for days, so debilitating the cancer victims that they lose the will to struggle against the cancer. Some who suffer from the dreadful pain of Aids have found solace in this ancient medicine.
When I raised the subject some years ago, I brought three master criminals to the House to hear the debate. They were all women. One of them was in her 30s and a mother of young children. She had MS and found it impossible to control her bodily functions without the use of cannabis. There was another lady in her 60s with
cerebral palsy. She was a lovely lady who had a cannabis plant the size of a bush in her garage and kept her spliffs rolled up in a silver cigarette case next to a bust of Queen Victoria, who took cannabis every month of her adult life. The third, Carol Howard, told a moving story of how she cared for her daughter Sara, who was dying from a rare form of cancer. Sara knew that she was dying. Chemotherapy was all that was available, but it had dreadful side effects. The chemical drugs left her a zombie. She could not communicate; but if she took cannabis she could talk lucidly to her family and say those precious things that one wants to say when one realises that death is at hand.
I challenge anyone in the House to say that, in that position, they would not supply their loved ones with cannabis, if that was the only thing that offered relief. If we are not prepared to obey the laws ourselves--and I am sure that none of us would in such a case--how on earth can we continue to justify them?
"The Government's view is that cannabis should not be available on prescription unless or until the safety, quality and efficacy of a medicinal form had been scientifically established and a marketing authorisation issued by the Medicines Control Agency."--[Official Report, 18 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 607.]
Superficially, that may seem reasonable, but a more telling comment came in The Pharmaceutical Journal, which quoted a Labour party source as saying:
"Whatever the evidence, this administration is not going to risk being seen as soft on drug taking."
That shows the true position. When reading the press releases from the previous Government and this Government, it is impossible to get beyond a couple of sentences before finding the word "tough". Governments regard it as electorally damaging to be seen as soft on drugs.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |