Crime, Policing and Fire Group Tel: 020 7035 4848
2 Marsham Street
Fax: 020 7035 4745
London
www.gov.uk/home-office
SW1P 4DF
Peter Reynolds
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
29 March 2018
Dear Mr Reynolds
Freedom of Information request reference: 47628
Thank you for your e-mail of 6 March, in which you ask the following:
In its 2017 report on narcotic drugs, the INCB reports that according to the UK
government in 2015 the UK harvested 117 hectares of medical cannabis amounting
to 95,000 Kg, that the UK exported 2.1 tons and holds stocks of 93.1 tons. Paras 98
and 99
http://www.incb.org/documents/Narcotic-Drugs/Technical-
Publications/2017/7_Part_2_comments_E.pdf
In an answer to a written question in Parliament on 1st March 2018, Home Office
minster Nick Hurd MP said "No licences for pharmaceutical companies to grow and
process medicinal cannabis for exportation to other countries have been issued."
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-
statements/written-question/Commons/2018-02-26/129592/
Please provide full details of licences issued and to which organisations or
individuals which account for the production, stocks and exports as reported by the
INCB and explain how Mr Hurd's answer is consistent with the facts reported.
Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
Details of Licences Issued
I can confirm that the Home Office holds the information that you have requested.
However, after careful consideration we have decided that the information is exempt from
disclosure under sections 43(2) and 31(1)(a) of the FOIA. These provide that information
can be withheld if disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the
commercial interests of any person (43(2)) or if its disclosure under this Act would, or
would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime (31(1)(a)). We consider
that the public interest falls in favour of maintaining the exemptions.
Arguments for and against disclosure in terms of the public interest, with the reasons for
our conclusion, are set out in the attached Annex.
INCB Report 2017
With regards to your second point, I can state outside of the FOIA, that the INCB’s current
reporting methodology means that definition of ‘cannabis’ in this context includes all
products containing traces of THC (and other controlled cannabinoids), and figures
reported by any countries reporting these figures could include any plant material exported
for pharmaceutical purposes or pharmaceutical products containing cannabinoids that are
manufactured in the UK and exported, such as Sativex.
The UK have not issued any licenses for ‘medicinal cannabis’, which we take to be
substances produced to be consumed, be that smoked or ingested in any way.
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review
of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to
xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx, quoting reference
47628. If you ask for an internal
review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.
As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information request would
be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If you
were to remain dissatisfied after an internal review, you would have a right of complaint to
the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the FOIA.
Yours sincerely
Drugs and Firearms Licensing Unit
Annex A - Public interest tests in relation to section 43(2) and 31(1)(a)
Some of the exemptions in the FOI Act, referred to as ‘qualified’ exemptions, are subject to
a public interest test (PIT). This test is used to balance the public interest in disclosure
against the public interest in favour of withholding the information, or the considerations for
and against the requirement to say whether the information requested is held or not. We
must carry out a PIT where we are considering using any of the qualified exemptions in
response to a request for information.
The ‘public interest’ is not necessarily the same as what interests the public. In carrying
out a PIT we consider the greater good or benefit to the community as a whole if the
information is released or not. Transparency and the ‘right to know’ must be balanced
against the need to enable effective government and to serve the best interests of the
public.
The FOIA is ‘applicant blind’. This means that we cannot, and do not, ask about the
motives of anyone who asks for information. In providing a response to one person, we are
expressing a willingness to provide the same response to anyone.
Considerations in favour of disclosing the information - section 43(2)
Knowledge of the full details of any controlled drug licence issued may be of interest to the
general public, companies involved in this trade and others.
Considerations in favour of maintaining the exemption - section 43(2)
Holders of controlled drug licences expect the Home Office to protect their commercial
information that we hold as part of the licensing process. Revealing full details of any
licensed activity would reveal facts about this commercial activity to other companies and
undermine their commercial interest of the controlled drug licence holder. This would then
weaken the company position in a competitive environment by revealing market sensitive
information or information that would be of use to competitors and have a detrimental
impact on any one company’s commercial revenue, potentially damaging its ability to
obtain supplies or secure finance in the future.
Considerations in favour of disclosing the information - 31(1)(a)
Knowledge of the full details of any controlled drug licence issued may be of interest to the
general public, companies involved in this trade and others.
Considerations in favour of maintaining the exemption - 31(1)(a)
Disclosures under the FOIA are ‘to the world’, so anyone may see the information. Those
with criminal intentions may use any disclosed information to confirm assumptions
regarding the presence of controlled drugs in a particular premises or supply chain in this
country or overseas.
Given the value and desirability of such controlled drugs to those involved in the illicit
drugs trade it is, in the Home Office’s view, very likely that such information would be used
for criminal purposes. Releasing full details of licensed activities would enable a targeted
approach to be made and potentially cause the diversion of the drugs to the illicit market
as has been the case in this area in the past.
I conclude that the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemptions and
withholding the information.
Date: 29 March 2018
