Well, I think the next parts in my contribution may help with that. I said earlier that there are 60 different cannabinoids that the manufacturers of Sativex had to identify, then go through those that would help with particular conditions. The manufacturer of Sativex is currently developing three new cannabis-based medicines to help treat epilepsy, schizophrenia and autism spectrum conditions. A further 18 cannabis-based medicines are in development by other manufacturers to treat a range of conditions. So, this is an area that is rich in research and the potential for cannabis derivatives to be made available in a safe, licensed and effective form. 

Now, the report produced by the all-party parliamentary group, or this motion, they don't indicate the costs associated with introducing a regulatory system for herbal cannabis as a medicinal product, or indeed the costs of establishing and managing a new regulatory body to oversee production, procurement and distribution, and they're based on the costs of monitoring its use, including reporting and investing adverse incidents. There's a challenge here about how we choose to direct the national health service or press upon it to spend its resources. At this time in particular, I can't say this would be this would be a priority for me as a health Minister. But I am interested in the way in which we take advantage, in exactly the same way that any other new medicine comes into the market.

I have to say, just dealing with the point made about drugs legislation in other countries, it's true that other countries have taken a different view. But other countries take different views on a range of subjects as well. Just because states in the United States of America do this, it doesn't say that we must follow. We have a range of differences that I celebrate between ourselves and the United States, as well as key similarities that I would also celebrate too. And I don't think this is a campaign issue to replace our evidence-led approach to new medicines. Sadly, the motion, if implemented, would undermine our national evidence-based approach, and I want to ensure that the health service continues to provide safe and effective treatment. On the basis of the reasons I've set out, the Government will not support the motion, and we will be abstaining.