That is magnificent news, but clearly it is not enough.

When I intervened in that debate, I referred the Minister to a study produced by the Preston NHS trust, which has a neurology unit. The document, which is hot off the press, states that, if one is unfortunate enough to live in Lancaster, it can take six months to get an appointment or a referral to a neurologist. That needs to be seriously addressed. Waiting lists at clinics are simply far too long, as the maximum time—the MS Society tells me—should be one month. I think that that is reasonable, and the Minister should comment on the fact that it has been overshot so massively.

The second key area concerns the interface between the NHS and social services and the other support systems. That issue was also covered in the debate in January on neurological conditions.

The Multiple Sclerosis Society has drawn up a draft standard of care for purchasers and providers treating people with MS. It recommends how the illness should be handled at each stage of development, from the initial diagnosis, through the moderate disability stage, to the severe disability stage, for cases that tragically progress that far. The society's suggestion is already followed for other conditions for which standards of care are prescriptive. There is a standard of care if a person is suffering from diabetes, asthma, haemophilia or eczema, but not for MS or other neurological conditions.

It is an absolute disgrace that the Government have been so reluctant to fund properly research into multiple sclerosis. The Multiple Sclerosis Society has spent £30 million since it was set up in the 1950s on research into the disease. It is currently spending £8 million to fund 50 research projects. What have the Government allocated? Last year, they spent £216,000, the year before £207,000, and in 1993–94 £154,000. Those are sizeable sums of money, but they pale into insignificance when one considers the money spent by the society—a charity. The society says that it faces demands on its resources, and that it cannot be expected to carry the burden alone. It is looking for the Government to take a larger share.

I mentioned that other drugs are in the pipeline, including co-polymer 1, which was trialled in United States in 1994. It has had encouraging results. Another is cannabis. Every time I mention cannabis, my local press go berserk, as if I am being soft on drugs. However, masses of anecdotal evidence from people who suffer from MS suggests that cannabis helps them.

It was, of course, legal for cannabis to be prescribed by medically qualified doctors before the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and it was prescribed in tincture form. Under section 7 of the Act, it is now unlawful for a doctor to prescribe cannabis, yet heroin can be prescribed and is used in hospitals all the time for the relief of pain. I have also found out from the Minister for Health that an active ingredient derived from cannabis—dronabinol—has recently been rescheduled and can now be used, because it has been discovered that it could treat nausea in patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer.

I welcome the initiative that the Government have taken. I know that the Minister for Health has met the Multiple Sclerosis Society and is sympathetic, but more needs to be done. It need not cost a fortune to make services for people with MS seamless across the NHS and into the community. Wherever people live in the United Kingdom, they should have equal access to the treatment they need when they need it. At present, we have a national lottery, with too many losers.