Crispin Blunt
Main Page: Crispin Blunt (Independent - Reigate)Department Debates - View all Crispin Blunt's debates with the Home Office
Psilocybin Treatments
Crispin Blunt Excerpts(11 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I wholly concur with your words, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the speech of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). I also offer my thanks to those on the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. They were plainly moved by the brilliant words crafted by the hon. Lady, which I was privileged to deliver to the Committee on her behalf. I also thank the 25 parliamentary colleagues from across the House who supported the application for this debate on a technical and—as we heard from your predecessor in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker—tricky-to-pronounce subject, which is of astonishing potential importance to the future of mental health treatment.
The debate helpfully falls during Mental Health Awareness Week. The Government are formally committed to evidence-based policymaking; that is stressed in the White Paper of 22 August 2022. There is an immediate need to act on all available evidence in respect of psilocybin. Having spent the last six years specialising in this country’s failing approach to drugs and drugs harms, and setting up a think-tank on the subject to provide me with expert advice on the issue, I know the challenges all too well.
On 14 March 2023, the Minister with responsibility for drugs, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and I debated this very issue on the Adjournment. I purposely used that debate to raise the principal issues involved in this narrow question. I did not seek answers from the Minister on that occasion, but sought to give him a little time to look at options to resolve the question. It was already my intention to follow up with this debate to demonstrate publicly that this is not just my view but one that is widely shared, as the hon. Member for Warrington North said, including by the Royal College of Psychiatrists; mental health charities CALM and SANE; veterans’ charity Heroic Hearts, of which I happen to be a trustee; cluster headache organisation Clusterbusters; Drug Science, a drug charity chaired by the former chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, Professor David Nutt; and across this House.
I wanted to give the forewarned drugs Minister the opportunity, in responding to the debate, to show that His Majesty’s Government understand the potential improvement to mental health treatment, and that they are straining every bureaucratic and regulatory sinew to follow up the strongly indicative research evidence to date about its potential. I put that in terms in the previous debate. I said:
“I do not want or expect an answer this evening; these matters demand careful consideration. There will shortly be an application to the Backbench Business Committee, supported by more than a score of colleagues from across the House, for time for a fuller consideration. I hope by the time that debate is secured we can enjoy the news that this Minister is taking the available opportunities of his very tough policy inheritance.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 805.]
It is now two months since that debate and almost six years since the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs was first commissioned to look at the problem, so it is frustrating, to put it mildly, that it is the drugs Minister’s colleague who has been put forward to reply to this debate. I have the highest regard for the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and the quality of his attention to detail on issues he has been responsible for, such as planning, which is of immense importance to my constituency of Reigate, but this issue needs the policy Minister across the complexities engaged, and with the authority and confidence of his colleagues to carry them with his strategy, to enable the benefits that only bureaucratic inertia prevents.
Where is the drugs Minister? Having told him in terms of today’s opportunity and the date of this debate, when I had notice of it from the Backbench Business Committee, and of my expectation that he would have spent those ensuing two months engaged with these issues and able to come to the House today, what are we to make of his absence? What has he prioritised over Parliament, with notice? Does it remain his view that this issue is not a priority? Has he nothing new to say? Has he so little regard for the people who are raising this that he has prioritised the apparent visit scheduled for today, having initially tried to palm it off on the Minister for medicine, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), in the Department of Health and Social Care?
The Immigration Minister is now having to reply to this debate, and I already know the speech he is going to give on officials’ advice. The irony is that it should be the Minister for medicine replying to this debate, but the Department of Health and Social Care does not own this policy—the Home Office does—and that is part of the reason our drugs policy is in such an unforgivable mess. I am not sure who should be more insulted and put out by the drugs Minister’s dereliction of parliamentary duty: my right hon. Friend answering, with no new defence to offer, or myself, who tried to create this opportunity and deliver an incentive to his colleague to get the necessary focus to clear the bureaucratic hurdles to enabling this potential medicine.
What we can certainly conclude is that this Home Office, with the collective responsibility of all Government Ministers, can now be held accountable for the delay in delivering psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy and psychiatry as a new mental health treatment in the United Kingdom. Having heard the powerful opening speech from the hon. Member for Warrington North, it must be clear to any reasonable person that the duty on His Majesty’s Government to act and act now has been established.
The hon. Member for Warrington North, with personal courage of the highest order, has used her own massive trauma to advance the public interest engaged. She speaks for tens of thousands suffering from apparently untreatable, life-changing mental health trauma. How can my right hon. Friend the Minister look our parliamentary colleague in the eye and read his prepared script? She also speaks for 1.2 million of our fellow citizens with depression. One hundred and twenty five people end their battle every week by killing themselves. Knowing what they know, that makes the Government guilty of joint enterprise in those decisions, because we could and should now be on a path to avert them.
The hon. Lady speaks for about 2,500 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who have PTSD from their service that is currently untreatable. She speaks for Scotty, the ex-paratrooper medically discharged after 15 years of service who presented himself with military dignity on my train home last week to his fellow passengers. He gave his Army number and his service record of five tours in Iraq and Afghanistan as he asked for food, not money, understanding his health condition to be untreatable. He was apparently medically discharged after 15 years’ service due to an untreatable mental health condition and a borderline personality disorder. His dignity in these appalling circumstances, when simply under the care of his GP, being prescribed every kind of chemical cosh going but with no hope of cure, was humbling. It is the absence of hope that I found so distressing.
The current cost of depression alone to the United Kingdom economy is estimated to be about £110 billion a year—5% of our GDP. Even if psilocybin delivered a fraction of what is hoped, the benefits to the economy would be immense, and giving hope to those suffering without it today would be priceless. The ask is simple: that psilocybin be placed in the same schedule as heroin and cocaine through an urgent review by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs of the evidence of its harms. The original controls were not based on a review of the available evidence but simply on the fact that no product had yet reached market, which itself is an accident of history. No review has ever been conducted since, for over half a century. In what other area of policy would that be acceptable? Where it has been assessed—in Australia and the United States, for example—change has happened.
It is especially shocking that psilocybin has never been subject to analysis of harm and utility, when the Government admit they are aware of the many studies regarding its potential therapeutic applications. Adding insult to injury, the Government have confirmed that they have no plans to commission the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to assess the scheduling of psilocybin because it is “not currently a priority”. The potential treatment of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of mental health patients is not a priority—really? Does the word “scandalous” do that position justice? If psilocybin treated a physical health condition such as cancer or epilepsy, Government inertia not to swiftly lift barriers to research and treatment would not be tolerated, given the level of clinical potential and safety.
Let us not forget that in the last four months alone, His Majesty’s Government have commissioned the ACMD to conduct rapid reviews of the evidence of the harms of both nitrous oxide and monkey dust. In the case of nitrous oxide, it took the ACMD four weeks to reply. It took the Home Office about four hours to formally ignore that advice, but we know it is possible to commission a rapid review of harms, so why not do so for psilocybin? The Royal College of Psychiatrists and various mental health charities wrote to the drugs Minister to say:
“It is unethical to wait any longer. Psilocybin’s schedule 1 designation is not morally, medically or economically appropriate.”
Now let me address the speech that we shall hear from the Immigration Minister. He will explain that research trials are possible under schedule 1. While research into schedule 1 drugs is possible, only a tiny fraction of the possible research actually takes place, almost all of which is conducted by large pharmaceutical companies trying to bring drugs to market. This red tape not only discourages competition, as only very big companies can afford to conduct the research; it also means that, as the research is unnecessarily expensive, it will be the taxpayer who ultimately picks up the bill through higher drug prices for the NHS. Moreover, leading UK academics have had to relocate to North America and Australia, where the research is easier, which is leading to a brain drain in this vital bioscience area, despite our desire to be a science superpower. Put simply, the Home Office is the enemy of the Prime Minister’s aim to make Britain a centre of global bioscience.
The Immigration Minister, reading his script, will explain that barriers to research are already being investigated and that the ACMD is currently undertaking a review of the barriers to research into controlled drugs beyond cannabinoids. We are told that the drugs Minister is apparently pressing for urgency on psilocybin, but it was six years ago, in 2017, that the Government first asked the ACMD to review this. There is no current deadline for the completion of the current report. In 2017, the Government rejected the ACMD’s recommendations, just as they did with nitrous oxide recently.
In the meantime, since 2017, 40,000 people with depression and trauma have taken their own lives. As butchers’ bills for Government inaction go, I hope that statistic alone will gain some attention. Are the Government hoping that this issue will simply go away? Let me tell them: it will not. Under the current procedures, even if the ACMD is supportive of rescheduling, the Government will still need to issue a further review to reschedule psilocybin under statute to the same schedule as heroin and cocaine, as the current review does not look at the evidence of harms for rescheduling specifically, meaning more delay, more deaths and more misery for those people suffering from depression, who will eventually get treated with pharmacology accompanying psychotherapy and psychiatry.
The Government have also taken the view that specific compounds will be rescheduled once a drug containing psilocybin reaches market authorisation. Nowhere in law, nor in the standard scheduling operating procedures for the ACMD, is that required. In truth, there are three routes to rescheduling: one is that market authorisation triggers a review of the scheduling of that product rather than the generic compound, as was the case with Sativex in 2018, but rescheduling can also take place through the ACMD self-commissioning a review of the evidence or the Home Office commissioning an ACMD review of the evidence. Waiting for a product to reach market authorisation produces a Catch-22 situation where a product cannot be researched in the first place because the barriers of schedule 1 are too high. More importantly, rescheduling only patented products could create a pharmaceutical monopoly on a compound that grows naturally in the United Kingdom, increasing waiting times for patients and costs to the NHS and, ultimately, the taxpayer.
The Home Office has the power to commission a review of the evidence, and there is precedent for commissioning such a review in cannabis-based products for medicinal use. Indeed, in 2018, the wretched situation of just two epileptic children enabled change to start the deployment of cannabis-based medicines, but the regulatory treatment of the psychedelics—psilocybin in particular—remains unaddressed. Perhaps the Minister might like to have a go at advancing an explanation of why 1.2 million people with depression can go hang, compared with the very deserving but relatively few epileptic children.
There is some good news, in that thanks to the Chancellor’s Budget measures, psychedelics will benefit from the expedited approvals of medicines via the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency announced in the Budget. While welcome, that would still leave UK patients without access until approval has been achieved abroad, leaving the UK trailing behind Canada, Australia and the United States. In this scenario, the United Kingdom has become a world bioscience follower and not a leader, with the Home Office seeking to deny competitive advantage to our prestigious universities and research companies—indeed, to impose disadvantage on them.
Finally, psilocybin has been consistently found to be one of the safest controlled drugs. It is physiologically non-toxic, and there is no evidence of diversion from schedule 2 substances of whatever danger from clinical research of any kind. Use of psilocybin-containing mushrooms is low, and there is no evidence of users developing a dependency. Psilocybin mushrooms grow wild throughout the United Kingdom, meaning that psilocybin does not represent an opportunity for profit-motivated gangs and criminal individuals. To argue that they might conceivably cause excessive damage to the population, especially when the ask is for medical use under medical supervision, is nonsense—not least when tobacco and alcohol are already legal.
If the Home Office is not prepared to act, it is surely now crucial that the ACMD demonstrates its independence and a proactive approach by prioritising the wellbeing of patients in the UK, particularly given that it is chaired by a practising psychiatrist who enjoys the support of his royal college. But today, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is perhaps time to reveal the Home Office’s true regard for the advice and guidance of the regulatory body responsible for advice on drugs policy, set under statute by this House. That body reports its total expenditure in 2019-20, the last year for which figures are available, as £46,067.34. That is to guide the Government on drugs harms that cost the country an estimated £20 billion a year. It is perhaps unsurprising that proactive advice from the ACMD is somewhat rare.
Surely now the Minister, who has so kindly stood in for his colleague, is appreciating the scale of the hospital pass he has received this afternoon. Add in the modest consideration that the size of the psychedelics market is set to grow to $10 billion by 2027, and the fact that today’s proposition enjoys four to one support with the public and has the potential to revolutionise the lives of millions, and the Minister is invited to defend the Government’s position, which is unethical, immoral and wholly counter to the national interest, however we express it. It will not stand the test of time—change it now.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
May I add my voice to those who have paid tribute to the speech of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols)? She said she was not asking for sympathy, but she has the sympathy of the House and, I am sure, of anybody who watches that speech on film, which I hope many will do. My heart goes out to her for all that she has been through. I also hope more people see the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), which deserves wide circulation. He is a tremendous campaigner on many issues, not all of which I join him on, but I sympathise with what he is trying to do today. I particularly acknowledge and want to add to my voice to his point about the suffering of our veterans. As a Member with a large military community, I echo that. Too many of our former servicepeople suffer appallingly from PTSD and we need to do more to help them. Psilocybin might be part of the answer.
Both the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend cited studies suggesting that the efficacy of psilocybin is similar or superior to that of pharmaceutical interventions, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor drugs in particular. That is significant and we need more research to test that because, if true, it is tremendously positive news. Crucially, the evidence suggests that psilocybin is not dependency-forming and not toxic. I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for prescribed drug dependence. Research by colleagues supporting that APPG has laid bare the degree of dependence on prescribed drugs that exists in our country. I am talking not about illegal drugs here, but about drugs administered by doctors, generally in response to mental health conditions, and depression most of all.
A fifth of the adult population is on some sort of dependency-forming drug, such as SSRIs. Many of those are absolutely appropriately prescribed—the hon. Member for Warrington North mentioned that she takes an SSRI—but that is a very high rate. Crucially, and most worryingly, many people who are taking prescribed drugs were only prescribed them, according to the guidance that accompanies them, for a certain number of months. However, because doctors repeat prescriptions and we have such an inadequate system of withdrawal support for people in this country, they are prescribed these drugs for years and years, well beyond the healthy and safe guidance that was given. Of course, if they try to withdraw on their own without the support they need, they suffer terribly. Often they are re-prescribed the drugs because the doctor thinks they are having a relapse, when actually all they are doing is going through the agonies of withdrawal.
We need to do so much more to support people who take these prescribed drugs. There is also a huge amount—at least £500 million a year—spent on prescribed drugs for people where the prescription has gone beyond the period in the guidance. They should not be receiving these drugs, but they are doing so and it is costing the taxpayer half a billion pounds a year. We can think of the knock-on effects in terms of the health costs, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate mentioned huge figures there, the welfare costs and the human cost. We need to go beyond these pills. We need to get to an approach to mental health that does not only rely on what he calls the chemical cosh.
I have some concerns about psilocybin being the next big thing or the next SSRI, treated and imagined as if it will be some sort of silver bullet—another pill and another shortcut to what is a profoundly complex set of mental health circumstances, which derive in many cases from trauma and deep-rooted adverse social and emotional conditions that cannot just be wished away by the administration of a new pill.
Danny Kruger
I am happy to give way. I am about to repeat my own argument, but my hon. Friend will do it better than me.
Crispin Blunt
My hon. Friend was kind enough to reference the work that has already gone on. I could cheerfully read into the record the list of 15 separate studies where the evidence is gradually being developed, despite the schedule 1 status, about efficacy. That addresses his proper concern about treating this as another mythical silver bullet that solves the issue. There is only one way for us to fully establish this, but it is already evidentially established sufficiently that we should be doing everything we possibly can to enable this treatment to get under way.
Danny Kruger
I echo that point. The point I am making more generally is that I am concerned that we withdraw from a medicalised model. It is a bigger topic, but the way we approach health in general can often be over-medicalised, and that is particularly so for the mental health field. I echo my hon. Friend’s point that we have sufficient evidence to justify a more official review and I support the call for that. The hon. Member for Warrington North put the point very well. What we understand to be the case with psilocybin is that it creates this therapeutic window where talking therapies can be even more effective, or can be effective, because frankly often they are not effective at the moment.
If the administration of this non-toxic, naturally occurring substance can create an opportunity where talking therapy can be effective, that should be welcomed, and there is sufficient evidence to justify us looking at that. I am open to suggestions, and I am interested to hear what the Minister says—not from his script—about what might be done. It may be that the chief medical officer is the best office to review this. We need to be careful, and I retain my note of caution about leaping for another solution that might not deliver what we hope it will, but I also share the hope and inspiration that Members have mentioned.
I recognise the point—I do not know whether the Minister will make it—that it is possible to conduct research under schedule 1. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, it is difficult and expensive. In fact, it is usually just done by pharmaceutical companies that see the opportunity for big profit from new drugs. I am concerned that we do not class this research in that guise. In fact, I hope there will not be big profits to be made from this naturally occurring substance. This is another topic, but I am concerned about the MHRA, how it is funded and how it licenses treatments. I am not entirely sure we are doing the right thing by giving it the power to rubber-stamp licences that have been given abroad. I am not sure that speeding up approvals is always right, but in this case we need to conduct the research.
I find myself in the strange position not only of agreeing with my hon. Friend—actually, I do agree with him on many important matters, just not on others—but of taking inspiration from places such as Oregon and Colorado that I regard as unhelpful places, given the other things they are up to; they are the leading jurisdictions promoting assisted suicide, of which I strongly disapprove. I notice that Australia is also in the gang, and presumably Canada, if it is not so already, will be full steam ahead for psilocybin. Liberals do not get everything wrong, I suppose is my conclusion, because these places are paving the way and in this case we should follow them.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and the hon. Members for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) for their incredibly moving and well-informed speeches, and the Backbench Business Committee for supporting their application. I recognise the work that they have done for many years on this subject. As we know, in this place many Members take up individual causes that often do not get the numbers and publicity that they might warrant, but we are dogged in continuing to do that. I managed to avoid the comments that the Minister had about whether he was the appropriate person or not. I say simply that I am here on behalf of the Labour party. I am pleased to be here, I serve, it is beyond my paygrade as to who or why someone is here, but I am pleased to be here.
Like the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) I too needed to appraise myself of the details of this subject, and that is one advantage of being able to speak from the health team. For more than 50 years we have been investigating these drugs as potential treatments for a number of neurological and psychiatric conditions including, as we have heard, depression. There is now another wave of research into these drugs and the treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders such as treatment-resistant depression, anorexia and PTSD, and we have heard about that strongly today. Our priority is to improve treatment and prevention services and, in particular, to support research.
The point has been well made that this subject falls between Departments—Health and the Home Office—as is the case on many subjects. Wherever it falls, it is all of our responsibility, because at the heart of this, as we have heard strongly, is the needs of people—our constituents—for treatment of these conditions. As the motion says, we need evidence-led and data-driven interventions. That is why the last Labour Government established the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to balance care with value for money, to deliver for individuals and society. That involved rigorous and independent assessment of complex evidence. That is why, for the use of psilocybin and other treatments in the NHS, I strongly support an evidence-based approach and those processes.
This discussion highlights the opportunities available to us and to our constituents through a vibrant life sciences industry. Labour is committed to supporting our health sciences industry to improve the health and wealth of our country. That is why I am proud and hugely supportive of our fantastic academic and clinical colleagues in the NHS and UK higher institutions. They are doing world-leading research through the use of both experimental and gold-standard clinical trials to look at whether such treatments, among others, are helpful for those with severe and enduring mental health conditions. That includes interesting work on the use of psilocybin alongside talking therapies.
We hear much from the Government about their commitment to research and development, but it would be helpful to hear from the Minister about what pragmatic support the Government are giving to the research sector, universities and pharmaceutical companies to enable more research into this area.
It is clear that that work cannot sit in a silo. Following the Adjournment debate on this topic, which was responded to by the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), I would like to know what conversations the Minister has had with counterparts in the Home Office regarding the controlled drugs licensing regime to support research and clinical trials in the UK. Additionally, will he update the House on part 2 of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs’ advice, which was commissioned in December? That would be helpful. This is a cross-cutting issue, so he may have had conversations with Health colleagues on it, but I understand that it falls under his Department. Members on both sides of the House have come here today with good will to work cross-party—we have seen that in evidence this afternoon—and it is crucial that the Minister echoes that sentiment and outlines how the Departments are working collaboratively on this matter.
We cannot ignore the lack of a wider Government strategy on mental health, particularly in Mental Health Awareness Week. For far too long the Government have been dragging their heels on mental health. Last year they lauded themselves for putting together a 10-year Government mental health plan. However, like so much that comes from them at the moment, after months of consultations, pages of evidence and vital input from the public and experts, again we have more backsliding on those commitments. The Government must stop pushing things into the long grass and get serious about mental health.
The long-awaited reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 is a much-needed step in the right direction on improving people’s experiences with mental health services, but, despite the Joint Committee publishing its report on the draft Bill, there is still little progress. If we want to see patients having greater control over treatment options and accessing care tailored to their needs, the Government must get more serious about mental health services.
More than 7 million people are waiting for NHS treatment, and they are waiting longer than ever before, in pain and discomfort. The NHS went into the pandemic with record waiting lists and 100,000 vacancies, and there are more than 1.6 million people awaiting mental health treatment alone. Adults are waiting 5.4 million hours in A&E while we are experiencing a mental health crisis. We have heard about some of those crises today, and that is not the place for treatment. Without a proper plan for prevention and early intervention, and without a suitable workforce plan, patients will continue to be left behind.
Even where patients do get a referral, the appropriate course of action for their specific treatment needs is often not available. That accessibility to tailored mental health support goes to the core of why we are here. Across the NHS, there are frequently supply issues with antidepressants—medication that is already licensed—that people are dependent upon. Without secure supply chains, how can patients be secure in the knowledge that they will continue to receive their prescribed treatment? The anxiety that disruptions to treatment can cause patients cannot be ignored. That is why it is crucial that Ministers understand the importance of a variety of treatment options and of research and development. If the Minister could give an update on those supply issues and the assessment of stock availability, that will be welcomed by the people watching this debate.
The Government need to get a grip on mental health services. If they do not, we will. We will put prevention and early intervention at the forefront of our approach to mental health. We will place a mental health specialist in every school and an open access hub for young people in every community. We will double the number of district nurses qualifying every year and create additional nursing and midwifery placements in the health service. We will double the number of medical places so that we have the doctors that our NHS needs. We will guarantee mental health treatment within a month by recruiting an extra 8,500 mental health staff. We will reform the NHS to shift its focus to early diagnosis and intervention, as well as preventing ill health in the first place. Working with leading figures from research, life sciences and patient care will be a huge part of that.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
In the years that I have served as a Minister, I do not think I can recall a debate in which expectations were set so low about my response before I even stood up.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for securing the debate. I am grateful to them and to all the other Members who have contributed. This is the first debate that I have participated in on this subject, as colleagues have said. The House has raised the topic of psilocybin and other psychedelic drugs with the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). I appreciate the disappointment felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate that the Minister is unable to be with us today to respond directly to his concerns, but I am afraid he was drawn away on other departmental business. I recognise that this is a topic of substantial interest to Members of the House, who, again, have made the case with passion.
Crispin Blunt
Could the Minister give a bit of detail about the duties that have taken the drugs Minister away from the House?
Robert Jenrick
I am afraid I do not know the precise departmental visit that my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South is on. But knowing him, if he was here, he would certainly wish to be part of this debate and to continue the conversation that he has had with hon. Friend the Member for Reigate. It is only because of other departmental business that he was not able to join us today.
I want to begin by recognising, as others have done, the personal interest that the hon. Member for Warrington North has in this topic. I concur with your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member spoke with great conviction and very deeply. I have heard her speak on other subjects that we have a shared interest in, such as the fight against antisemitism, with the same eloquence and bravery that she showed today.
It may be helpful at the outset to remind the House that medicines policy, including the availability of medicines for prescribing, is led by the Department of Health and Social Care. Medicines are licensed and regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. However, the Home Office is responsible for controlled drugs legislation. Our controlled drugs licensing regime supports research and clinical trials in the UK. The two Departments work together on issues connected to controlled drugs in healthcare. I will endeavour to set out the Government’s position this afternoon.
Controlled drugs legislation seeks to prevent criminality while permitting access for legitimate use, including for medicines development. The Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 enable the use of controlled drugs in healthcare. The Home Office’s controlled drugs licensing regime enables the possession, supply, production, import and export of controlled drugs to support industry, pharmaceutical research and healthcare. These controls are subject to review in light of any emerging evidence and in consultation with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which has been referenced many times this afternoon.
There is an established process for medicines, including those that contain controlled drugs, to be developed, evaluated in clinical trials and licensed, based on an assessment of their quality, safety and efficacy by the MHRA. The MHRA supports the safe and scientifically sound conduct of clinical trials in this area, and provides regulatory and scientific advice to companies at all stages of developing medicines. Should a company submit an application for a marketing authorisation, otherwise known as product licence, it will ultimately be a decision for the MHRA whether to license a product based on a psychedelic drug as a therapy.
Crispin Blunt
I hope by now, as he has read his text, my right hon. Friend is beginning to work out that the administration of drugs policy is suboptimal, shall we say. Can he explain why esketamine is approved in Scotland, but not in England?
Robert Jenrick
I do not know the answer to that question, but I will happily ask officials who are listening to respond. It sounds like a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care rather than the Home Office, but I shall be pleased to give my hon. Friend a full reply as soon as possible.
Robert Jenrick
If my hon. Friend already knew the answer to his question, I wonder why he asked it in the first place.
Crispin Blunt
As my right hon. Friend well knows, one does not ask questions to which one does not know the answer. That is not a very wise thing to do in politics.
A point was raised with me by the public affairs director of a subsidiary of a major pharmaceutical company about the differential between physical and mental health treatments. This illustrates the difficulty of getting mental health treatments to the necessary standard for assessment by NICE, and is a further illustration of the different priorities given to the treatment of mental and physical health conditions.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend has made his point very powerfully. Of course the Government’s ambition is to ensure that NICE, the MHRA and all our regulators work in the most research-friendly manner, and that applies to mental health treatments as much as to anything else.
If a manufacturer is successful in being granted a marketing authorisation by the MHRA for a medicine containing psilocybin, the Home Office is committed to swift action to remove psilocybin from schedule 1 and make it available for prescribing, subject to advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on the appropriate scheduling and safeguards for the medicine. The same scrutiny should be applied to all potential medicines to ensure patient safety. While it is legally possible to enable prescribing in advance of marketing authorisation, the Government currently have no plans to move to that position.