Download original attachment
(Word document)
This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request
'Professor David Nutt'.
(Word document)
Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848 Fax: 020 7035 4745 Textphone: 020 7035 4742
E-mail: [Home Office request email] Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk
[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010 ][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010 ][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010 ][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010 ][FOI #22262 email][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010 ][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010 ][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010 ]
Mr Michael Bimmler[Author ID0: at ]
Referen[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010
]ce: T19236/9 Date: [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010
]13[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 13:59:00 2010
]27 [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:25:00 2010
]January 2010[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010
]
FOI Case: [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:00:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:00:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:10:00 2010
]?[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:01:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:10:00 2010
]13266[Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:10:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010
]
Dear Mr Bimmler,[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010 ]
Freedom of Information Act 2000 request[Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:20:00 2010 ][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:21:00 2010 ]
I am writing further to [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010
]the [Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:07:00 2010
]my [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:07:00 2010
]Home Office [Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:07:00 2010
]correspondence[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:02:00 2010
] of [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010
]16 December 2009[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:07:00 2010
]20 January [Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:07:00 2010
]regarding[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:02:00 2010
] your [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010
]information [Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:27:00 2010
]request [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010
]of 30 October 2009 about [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:02:00 2010
]the dismissal of Professor Nutt. [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010
]We are now in a position to provide you with a full reply to your request.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:02:00 2010
]
Your request is access to the following records:[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ]
1) A recent letter by the Home Secretary to Professor David Nutt which I believe to contain the sentence "I cannot have public[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ]confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ]lost confidence in your ability to[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ] advise me as Chair of the ACMD[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ]". I would like to request a copy of the full letter.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ]
2) The response letter by Prof Nutt to the letter mentioned above.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ]
3) All internal drafts of this letter and all memoranda, notes,[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ]e-mails and other documents which were produced in connection with[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ]the preparation of this letter.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ]
4) Any internal advice which suggested that the Home Secretary[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ]should ask Prof Nutt to resign.”[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ][Author ID0: at ]
We have already provided you with a link to the letters requested in points 1 and 2[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ] at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/10/nutt_gets_the_sack.html, [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ]so I[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:16:00 2010 ] will now deal with points 3 and 4.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:04:00 2010 ]
I can confirm that the Home Office holds[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 15:59:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:04:00 2010
]some information [Author ID1: at Thu Jan 14 16:20:00 2010
]relating to [Author ID1: at Thu Jan 14 16:20:00 2010
]those parts of you[Author ID1: at Thu Jan 14 16:20:00 2010
]r request[Author ID1: at Thu Jan 14 16:20:00 2010
], primarily in the form of [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:05:00 2010
]advice to Ministers in submission[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:06:00 2010
]ss[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:06:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:29:00 2010
] and discussions via emails. However, these documents [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:06:00 2010
]mainly record the [Author ID1: at Thu Jan 14 16:07:00 2010
]outcome of discussion[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:07:00 2010
]s[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:07:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:30:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:07:00 2010
]between offic[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:07:00 2010
]ials and [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:07:00 2010
]legal[Author ID1: at Thu Jan 14 16:08:00 2010
] advisers etc., [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:07:00 2010
]not the detail [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:07:00 2010
]of the discussions.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:07:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:07:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:36:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:09:00 2010
]
After careful consideration, we have decided that the information on Professor Nutt[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:09:00 2010
]'s d[Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:31:00 2010
]ismissal[Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:31:00 2010
] is exempt from disclosure [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:09:00 2010
]by virtue of[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:10:00 2010
] section[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:09:00 2010
]s [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:09:00 2010
]36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 42 of the Freedom of Information Act. [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:09:00 2010
]Section [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:09:00 2010
]36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) is a qualified exemption which, subject to the public interest and with Ministerial agreement, exempts [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:09:00 2010
]cert[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:10:00 2010
]ain [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:10:00 2010
]information from disclosure if it[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:09:00 2010
]s release would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank provision of [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:10:00 2010
]advice[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:11:00 2010
] [Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:35:00 2010
]or [Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:35:00 2010
]the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation[Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:35:00 2010
].[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:10:00 2010
] As such, the Home[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:11:00 2010
] Office is required to consider whether the public interest falls in favour of releasing or withholding the information requested before applying the exemption[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:11:00 2010
]s[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:11:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:38:00 2010
].[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:11:00 2010
]
Section 42 of the Act exempts information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.The public interest test also applies to this exemption so the public interest in maintaining the exemption must outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information.
I set out our consideration of the relevant public interest factors on the [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:11:00 2010 ]application[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:12:00 2010 ] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:11:00 2010 ]of section[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:12:00 2010 ]s [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:12:00 2010 ]36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 42 of the[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:12:00 2010 ] Act in Annex A, upon which our decision as to the applicability of th[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:12:00 2010 ]ese exemption[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:12:00 2010 ]s has been based.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:12:00 2010 ][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:10:00 2010 ]
We [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ]conclude that[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ]the public interest[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ] in not [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ]disclos[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ]ing [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ]the[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ]information [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ]you [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ]request[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ]outweighs the public interest in its release[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ] as release c[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ]ould lead to reluctance on t[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ]he part of officials, Ministers[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ] and other advisers to provide (and[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ] seek) frank advice in future. That [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ]would self[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ]evidently [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ]not be in the public interest.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ]Th[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ]e[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ] information is therefore withheld under [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ]section[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:12:00 2010 ]s 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 42 of the Act.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010 ][Author ID0: at ]
However[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
], whilst I cannot provide you with the advice of officials in the Home Off[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
]ice, I can provide you with [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
]links to two products of that advice which are:[Author ID0: at ][Author ID0: at ]
1) Alan Johnson's statement to the House of Commons on 2 November 2009 ([Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
]http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091102/debtext/91102-0004.htm[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
]).[Author ID0: at ][Author ID0: at ]
2) Alan Johnson's letter on Professor Nutt which was published in the Guardian newspaper on 2 November 2009[Author ID0: at ][Author ID0: at ]
([Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
]http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/02/drug-policy-alan-johnson-nutt[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
]). [Author ID0: at ][Author ID0: at ]
I can also provide you with the link to Lord Taverne's Private Notice Question in the House of Lords on 2 November 2009 relating to Government Scientists ([Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/91102-0002.htm[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:17:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
]).[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:18:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:44:00 2010
]
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review of our handling of your request by [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010
]submitting your[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010
] complaint within two months to the address below, quoting reference [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010
]T19236/9[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:46:00 2010
]13266[Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:46:00 2010
].[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010
]
Information Access Team[Author ID0: at ]
Home Office[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010 ]
Ground Floor, Seacole Building[Author ID0: at ]
2 Marsham Street[Author ID0: at ]
e-mail: [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010 ][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010 ][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010 ][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010 ][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010 ][email address][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010 ][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010 ][Author ID0: at ]
During the independent review[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010 ],[Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:48:00 2010 ] the [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010 ]Department's handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff who were not involved in prov[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010 ]iding you with this response. Should[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010 ] you remain dissatisfied after[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010 ] this internal review, you will[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010 ] have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.[Author ID0: at ]
I realise that you may be disappointed with this response. However, we have considered the application of the exemption with great care. The Home Office always seeks to provide as much information as it is able to.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:14:00 2010 ]
Yours sincerely,[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:08:00 2010 ]
[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:09:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:11:00 2010
][Author ID0: at ]
[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:01:00 2010
]Reference: T10307/9[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]2 [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]xx[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] October[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] 2009[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]
Dear Professor Silverman,[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]
Freedom of Information Act [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]2000 [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]request [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]
I am writing further to my correspondence of [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]14 October[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] regarding your information request [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]of [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]16 June about cannabis classification. We are now in a position to provide[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] you with a full reply to your request.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]
Your request is:[Author ID0: at ]
“[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]What discussions took place with special advisers, the Home Office press office and no. 10 Policy Unit about the likely media response before the Home Secretary [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
](David Blunkett) announced in October 2001 (re-announced in July 2002) that cannabis was to be reclassified from a Class B to a Class C drug[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]?[Author ID0: at ]
What discussions took place with special advisers, the Home Office press office and no. 10 Policy Unit about the likely media response when the Home Secretary [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
](Charles Clarke) announced in January 2006 that cannabis was to remain unchanged[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]?[Author ID0: at ]
What discussions took place with special advisers, the Home Office press office and no. 10 Policy Unit about the likely media response before the Home Secretary [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
](Jacqui Smith) announced in May 2008 that cannabis would be reclassified from a Class C to a Class B drug[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]?[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]“[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]
Your request focuses on [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]likely [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]media response[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] and, based on that,[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]I can confirm that the Home Office holds [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]some [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]information that is related to your request, primarily in the form of advice to Ministers in media handling submissions. [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]However, t[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]hese documents focus on [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]presentation of[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] the Government's decisions[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
], the mechanics of the relevant announcements, potential interview commitments and how to respond to [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]all [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]the[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] issues[Author ID5: at Thu Apr 17 17:42:00 2008
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
], such as[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]police guidance and enforcement measures, that will change [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]([Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]or not[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]) [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]as a result of the classification decision. [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]They [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]re[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]cord[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] the [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]outcome[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] of discussions between officials and special advisers [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]etc., [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]not the detail[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]of the[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] discussions. [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]Any reference to [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]likely [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]media response[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] is not prioritised insofar as c[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]annabis classification[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] is [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]a highly polarised subject[Author ID5: at Thu Apr 17 17:42:00 2008
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] and the likely [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]media [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]response is always diverse from firmly supportive to outright opposition[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
].[Author ID6: at Fri Sep 18 11:49:00 2009
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]
Home Office Press [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]Office[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] policy is to agree lines to take on [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]any[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] issue with the relevant policy unit, in this case the Drug Strategy Unit, in preparation for responding to [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]the press [Author ID7: at Fri Sep 18 15:25:00 2009
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]generally[Author ID7: at Fri Sep 18 15:25:00 2009
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
], including [Author ID7: at Fri Sep 18 15:25:00 2009
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]at the time of an announcement and associated press release.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] The lines are[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]often prepared to reply to[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]MPs and the Lords in debate in the first instance; and, whilst those preparing the lines have to anticipate likely media response, the lines have simply[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] focus[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]ed[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] on presentation of the Government's decisions.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]
Weekend trail scripts [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]have [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]also [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]been [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]used to brief Sunday newspapers [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]generally[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] to [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]set the scene[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] for cannabis classification announcements. When we as the Home Office communicate about cannabis we have a responsibility to provide information that is both factually correct and comprehensible for the public[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
],[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] but how the media report such news is a matter entirely for them[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
].[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]
A[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]fter careful consideration[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
], we have decided [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]that [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]what [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]relevan[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]t[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]information there is available [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]about [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]likely [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]media response[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]is[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] exempt from disclosure by virtue of[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]section [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]36([Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]2[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
])(b)[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]and [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]([Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]c[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
])[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]of the[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] Freedom of Information [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]Act[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
].[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]This is a[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] qualified exemption[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] which, s[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]ubject to a public interest test[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] and w[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]ith Ministerial agreement, exemp[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]ts[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]certain[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] information from disclosure if[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] it[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]s release would,[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]or would be likely to,[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation or[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]the effective conduct of public affairs. [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]As such, the Home Office is required to consider whether the public interest falls in favour of releasing or withholding the information in question before applying the exemptions.[Author ID0: at ]
I [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]set out our consideration of the relevant public interest factors [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]on the application of section [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]36([Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]2[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
])(b)[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] and [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]([Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]c[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
])[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] of the Act[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]in Annex A, up[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]on which our decision as to the applicability of th[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]is[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] exemption has been based.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]
We [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]conclude that[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]the public interest[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] in not [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]disclos[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]ing [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]the[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]information [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]you [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]request[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]outweighs the public interest in its release[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] as release c[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]ould lead to reluctance on t[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]he part of officials, Ministers[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] and other advisers to provide (and[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] seek) frank advice in future. That [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]would self[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]evidently [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]not be in the public interest.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]Th[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]e[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] information is therefore withheld under section [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]36([Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]2[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
])(b)[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]and [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]([Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]c[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
])[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] of the Act.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review of our handling of your request by submitting your complaint [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]within two months [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]to the below address quoting reference [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]12713[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
].[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]
Information [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]Access[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
] Team[Author ID0: at ]
Information and Record Management Service[Author ID0: at ]
Home Office[Author ID0: at ]
4th Floor, Seacole Building[Author ID0: at ]
2 Marsham Street[Author ID0: at ]
London SW1P 4DF[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]
Email: [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
][email address][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]
During the independent review the department's handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. Should you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you will have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
].[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]
I realise that you may be disappointed with this response. However, we have considered the application of exemptions with great care in this case[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]. T[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
]he Home Office always seeks to provide as much information as it is able to.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
][Author ID0: at ]
Yours sincerely,[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
][Author ID0: at ]
RICHARD MULLINS[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:15:00 2010
][Author ID0: at ]
The Public Interest Test - general considerations
The exemptions under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are qualitative and only apply if the public interest in withholding the information is greater than that in releasing it. The arguments for and against the public interest are set out below.
The Public Interest Test (PIT) is integral to the application of any of the 'qualified' exemption provisions in the Act. Where a public authority is considering the use of one or more qualified exemptions[Author ID1: at Thu Jan 14 16:17:00 2010 ] in response to a request for information, they must conduct a PIT to balance considerations favouring disclosure of the requested information against those favouring non-disclosure. Under section 2(2)(b) of the Act, such an exemption will only be effective in excluding the duty to communicate information where:
"...in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information."
The public interest is not about what is of interest to the public but what will be of greater good, if released, to the community as a whole - what is, in effect, in the best interest of the general public. It would not, for example, be in the public interest to disclose information that could prejudice the ability of Ministers and officials to be able to conduct rigorous and candid discussions relating to its[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:18:00 2010
][Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:55:00 2010
]the Government's[Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:55:00 2010
] scientific [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:18:00 2010
]advisors.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:48:00 2010
]media handling issues.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:18:00 2010
]
General considerations favouring disclosure:
Your request concerns a high-profile subject and there is therefore an argument to be made that there is a strong public interest in disclosing the information to provide greater transparency.
Disclosure of this information would also be likely to aid an informed public debate on this subject as it would raise public awareness of the decision making processes involved in this matter.
It can also be argued that, in providing the advice given in the decision making process, that[Author ID1: at Thu Jan 14 16:18:00 2010
] any poor advice put forward would be brought to light and, as such, it would be likely that the quality of future advice put forward would be of a higher calibre.
General considerations favouring non-disclosure:
The likelihood of inhibiting the free and frank provision of advice and the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation[Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 14:35:00 2010
].[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:48:00 2010
] Disclosure of preliminary thinking may end up closing off better options because of adverse public reaction.and the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:47:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:47:00 2010
]D[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:20:00 2010
]isclosure of preliminary thinking may end up closing off better options because of adverse public reaction[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:20:00 2010
].[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:20:00 2010
]
It is in the public interest that decision making is based on the best advice available with full consideration of all the options and the impartiality of the civil service being protected - it might be undermined if advice was routinely made public as there is a risk that officials could come under political or public pressure not to challenge ideas in the application of policy[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:20:00 2010
], leading to poorer decision making. There is also a need to ensure that the collective responsibility of the Government is not undermined by the disclosure of departmental consideration and views of other ministers which may reveal disagreement.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:20:00 2010
].[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:20:00 2010
]
Retention of the information would help maintain the value and quality of the advice given to Ministers. The exemptions at sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 42 recognise that government Ministers must be able to receive advice and exchange views without undue concern that information about this will be routinely released.
Considerations specific to your case
Sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 42 of the Freedom of Information Act reflect recognition of the public interest in allowing government and officials to have a clear space, immune from exposure to public view, in which they can debate matters internally with candour and free from pressures.
We acknowledge this public interest and in recognition of it we have already released correspondence between the Home Secretary[Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 13:46:00 2010 ] and [Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 13:47:00 2010 ]Professor Nutt[Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 13:47:00 2010 ]. This can be seen at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/10/nutt_gets_the_sack.html.
The exempt documents which fall within the scope of points 3 and 4[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:03:00 2010 ] of your request relate to internal drafts of [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:21:00 2010 ]the letter[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:21:00 2010 ] from the Home Secretary[Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 13:46:00 2010 ] [Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 13:47:00 2010 ]to [Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 13:47:00 2010 ]Professor Nutt[Author ID2: at Tue Jan 19 13:47:00 2010 ], as well as submissions [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:21:00 2010 ]to Ministers and email exchanges between officials.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:21:00 2010 ][Author ID0: at ]
This information can be considered exempt information under section[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010 ]s [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010 ]36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 42 of the Act and therefore the public interest test must be applied before taking a decision on whether to disclose or withhold.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010 ][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:21:00 2010 ]
media handling[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:21:00 2010
] advice to [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:21:00 2010
]Ministers[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:21:00 2010
], including em[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:21:00 2010
]ail exchanges between officials.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:21:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:21:00 2010
]Reference to [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:21:00 2010
]likely [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:21:00 2010
]media response[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:21:00 2010
] in the available information is peripheral. Those preparing advice have to anticipate likely media response, but the focus and context of that advice[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:21:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:21:00 2010
]is[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:21:00 2010
] presentation of the Government's decisions.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:21:00 2010
][Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:21:00 2010
]
Media handling advice[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
] provided to the then Home Secretar[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
]ies[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
] on [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
]the classification of[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
] cannabis [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
]is information that can be considered[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
] exempt information under section [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
]36([Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
]2[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
])(b)[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
]and [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
]([Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
]c[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
])[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
]of the Act[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
] and therefore th[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
]e public interest test must be applied before taking a decision on whether to disclose or w[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
]ithhold.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:22:00 2010
]
The decisions Ministers take have a significant impact on the lives of citizens and there is a public interest in the way they reach such decisions being transparent. However, there is also a very strong public interest in officials and advisers retaining both the ability to communicate between themselves on key issues freely and in confidence and being able to advise Ministers objectively and frankly, no matter how emotive or sensitive the issue. Disclosing the advice on this high profile issue may inhibit officials and advisers from providing frank and objective advice in the future. It is important that Ministers can receive uninhibited advice on the expected media response and approach to take to the press coverage [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:23:00 2010
]in order that the decision can be explained properly to the public.
In addition, in relation to section 42, there is an inbuilt public interest in maintaining professional privilege to ensure public authorities take decisions in a fully informed legal context with advice given by lawyers who are fully apprised of the factual background. Legal advisers must be able to present the full picture, which will include arguments in support of the final conclusions and those against.
Conclusion
We consider that the public interest in not disclosing the information you request outweighs the public interest in its release as release could lead to reluctance on the part of officials, Ministers and other advisers to provide (and seek) frank advice in future. That would self evidently not be in the public interest. The information is therefore withheld under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 42 and [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:23:00 2010
]([Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:23:00 2010
]c[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:23:00 2010
])[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:23:00 2010
] [Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:23:00 2010
]of the Act.[Author ID1: at Wed Jan 13 16:24:00 2010
]