First of all, can I thank Mark Isherwood for his enthusiasm in bringing this debate forward and for what he said up to now on it? There's nothing he said that I disagree with. The good news is that I'm not going to replicate any of it.

Firstly, can I say what this debate is not about? It's not about legalising cannabis for recreational use. It is not a legal excuse that someone caught with cannabis can use, saying, 'Oh, I've only got it for medicinal reasons.' It's not about people being able to import it and say, 'I've only brought it in for medicinal reasons.' It's not about: 'I'm going to take some cannabis; I think it might help me.' It's not about self-medication with cannabis. It's certainly not a back door method to legalising cannabis. It's about trusting our medical practitioners to prescribe the drug if they think it will benefit the patient.

To me, the key point, and one I asked Mark Isherwood to insert prior to signing up to the resolution, is:

'map out within the Welsh NHS how a system whereby cannabis for medicinal purposes could be made available via a prescription to those who could benefit.'

To me, the key words are 'via a prescription'. It's got to be via prescription, meaning a person medically qualified who is able to write a prescription can prescribe it. No-one else can prescribe it or tell somebody down the road, 'I think you'd benefit from a bit of cannabis. Just say that and you can get away with it.' It's about ensuring we trust our medical practitioners.

If you don't, and you don't have a prescription for it and you're using it, you'll be treated by the courts exactly as you are now. At Westminster, the all-party parliamentary group for drug policy reform, as Mark Isherwood just said, emphatically called on the UK Government to legalise medical cannabis based on the results of their seven-month inquiry. The MS Society, which was against it, has changed its policy position to call on the UK Government and health bodies to develop a system that legalises cannabis for medicinal use in light of the positive evidence of the use of cannabis in treating pain and spasticity. This is something some of my constituents and some people I know have been making a case for: it has health benefits. I think that's really the key. People are taking it for health benefit, not for some recreational purpose. 

Where the cannabinoid symptom-management drug, Sativex, is available on the NHS—and the Welsh Government have gone that far in making it available—it is only licensed for the treatment of spasticity to a small number of people living with multiple sclerosis. I am asking that cannabinoid drugs should be available where medical practitioners believe they can help. Would this be setting a bad precedent? I think that's one of the arguments that have been used against it. Well, let me ask you what the following drugs have got in common, apart from being available to patients: morphine, thebaine, oxycodone, hydrocodone, buprenorphine, oxymorphone and hydromorphone. All are either natural derivatives or synthetic derivatives of opium, and they are available on prescription.

Now, there are those of us who think that opium-based drugs are far more serious and dangerous than cannabis. They are available and people have morphine—many people have morphine towards the end of their lives in order to stop the pain. This is asking for the same availability of cannabinoid drugs to be available for people suffering from MS to help stop their pain. Let the medical practitioners, not politicians, decide if patients would benefit. 

Finally, I do not support legalising cannabis for non-medical use, and before anybody asks, no, I have never smoked cannabis or taken it in any form. But I urge Members to trust medical practitioners to prescribe cannabinoid drugs, as they do opiates, when the patients can benefit. Let the medical practitioners be the ones making the decision, not us making it out of our prejudices.