Advertisements

Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Posts Tagged ‘Nick Hurd

Nick Hurd MP, The Home Office And Their Massive Broken Promise On Medicinal Cannabis.

with 2 comments

Nick Hurd MP, Home Office Minister

On 29th June 2018 in The Times newspaper, Nick Hurd MP, minister of state at the Home Office, published the following promise:

“If medicinal and therapeutic benefits are identified, the intention would be to reschedule cannabis-related medicine as a treatment available through GPs. Whilst recent cases in the media have involved epilepsy this would be open to patients suffering from all illnesses where such treatment is identified to benefit them.”

Source: ‘Out-of-date rules must not come before compassion for those who need medicinal cannabis’

Recently, including in response to a written parliamentary question on 7th September 2018, this promise has been dramatically broken and Mr Hurd’s message is now wholly different:

“The Home Secretary has confirmed that cannabis-derived medicinal products will be rescheduled. This means that senior clinicians will be able to prescribe the medicines to patients with an exceptional clinical need.”

Source: ‘Cannabis: Medical Treatments:Written question – 167359’

So ‘GPs’ has now become ‘senior clinicians’ and ‘open to patients suffering from all illnesses where such treatment is identified to benefit them.’ has become ‘exceptional clinical need’.  These are dramatic and far reaching changes which wholly change the nature of the promise made by Nick Hurd and will result in a highly restricted and limited regime making it very difficult for anyone to access cannabis as medicine.

This is a betrayal of the estimated one million people in the UK currently using cannabis to treat medical conditions.  It demonstrates how when this issue was in the headlines it provoked what was a sensible, measured and appropriate response. Now that the media storm has passed, in typical Home Office style, a totally different, hardline and repressive policy is being pushed through as quietly as possible.  No attempt has been made to explain why there has been such a dramatic change and it is quite clear that the Home Office hopes this will go through without attracting media attention.

CLEAR has submitted an FOI Request seeking a full explanation which can be seen here: ‘Provide full details concerning minister’s broken promise on the use of cannabis as medicine’

Advertisements

Written by Peter Reynolds

September 10, 2018 at 10:22 am

Posted in Health, Politics

Tagged with , , ,

Nick Hurd MP, The Times. ‘Out-of-date rules must not come before compassion for those who need medicinal cannabis’

with 2 comments

Nick Hurd MP

This article by Nick Hurd MP, the Home Office Minister, is re-published from the Times of Friday, 29th June 2018.

It is the most significant recent government statement on cannabis.

 

 

 

 

Out-of-date rules must not come before compassion for those who need medicinal cannabis

There are times when life presents a situation for which the status quo is no longer viable; when the case for compassion stands in direct challenge to the rules of the day. This is perhaps no better illustrated than in the case of two young boys and their need for a medicine current legislation does not allow within the UK.

The laws restricting access to cannabis-related medicine in this country have stood for decades. The highly emotive cases of Alfie Dingley and Billy Caldwell have brought home the urgent need to reconsider those rules.

It is impossible not to feel huge empathy for parents expressing their desperation at the difficulty of accessing a treatment they consider essential to the health and wellbeing of their children. I am very aware that behind those high-profile cases stand other families and individuals experiencing the same frustration at the current restrictions.

The home secretary and I are in the process of reviewing the case for rescheduling cannabis-related medicine. This review will be evidence led and should be completed in the autumn.

If medicinal and therapeutic benefits are identified, the intention would be to reschedule cannabis-related medicine as a treatment available through GPs. Whilst recent cases in the media have involved epilepsy this would be open to patients suffering from all illnesses where such treatment is identified to benefit them.

While we await this review, we are confined to working within the existing rules which require a licence. I am delighted that we were able to issue one on behalf of Alfie Dingley — the first ever licence for the long-term treatment of an individual using cannabis-related medicine in the UK.

However, this process took too long and I want to thank Alfie’s family and the clinical team for their patience in working with us to reach this landmark.

We have also issued an emergency licence to treat Billy Caldwell at the request of his clinical team at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. I have assured Ms Caldwell that Billy will continue to have access to the medicine should his medical team request it and have made clear that we will do what we can to facilitate a long-term licence application for Billy.

We have worked intensively to put in place a much better route for clinicians to secure licences on behalf of their patients until a decision is taken on rescheduling. An expert panel of clinicians will advise Ministers on individual applications. I want to reassure those involved that we are determined to strip this process of any unnecessary bureaucracy. As such, any application can expect to receive a final decision within two to four weeks.

We also want to remove anxiety on fees and are committed to urgently reviewing the fees paid for licences that are awarded as a result of the advice of the expert panel.

The bottom line is that we do not want people to suffer needlessly because of rules and processes that no longer feel fit for purpose.”

Written by Peter Reynolds

July 1, 2018 at 9:17 am

Letter To Nick Hurd MP, Home Office Minister, About Alfie Dingley’s and Billy Caldwell’s Urgent Need For Cannabis Medicine.

with 4 comments

From: Peter Reynolds

Sent: 12 June 2018 10:16

To: ‘nick.hurd.mp@parliament.uk’

Cc: ‘Charlotte Caldwell’

Subject: Give Billy back his medication.

Importance: High

 

Dear Mr Hurd,

The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 makes specific provision within it that the Home Secretary may licence any action under it that would otherwise be unlawful.

There can be no credible excuse whatsoever for refusing to licence Billy Caldwell’s and Alfie Dingley’s cannabis medicines when they have been proven to work under the supervision of senior doctors and the medicines themselves are produced by reputable, government regulated companies.

UK drugs policy is now the most regressive, backwards and cruel of any first world nation. Specifically on the medical use of cannabis it is evidence-opposed and causing great harm, far more harm than is prevented by a policy that is based on nothing but ignorance and prejudice.

It is nothing but an excuse to argue that all drugs must be properly tested. Cannabis is the oldest medicine known to mankind, it has been used safely and effectively for at least 10,000 years. Only in the last 100 years has this diabolical experiment of prohibition wreaked havoc across the world in exactly the same way as the prohibition of alcohol.

Cannabis contains around 500 molecules and it is impossible to regulate in the same way as a single molecule pharmaceutical product synthesised in a lab. Trying to force regulation of cannabis into the MHRA process is absurd. The MHRA was designed by the pharmaceutical industry for its products. It is run by people from the pharmaceutical industry. It is not fit for the purpose of regulating plant based medicines.

This is why in every jurisdiction throughout the word where there is legal access to cannabis, it is regulated by a special system separate from pharmaceutical products. This is the nettle that the UK government needs to grasp if it is to fulfil its responsibility.

In the meantime though you must ACT NOW for Billy and Alfie. Any further procrastination will amount to negligence and dereliction of duty for which you and other ministers will be held to account.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Reynolds

President
CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform

Written by Peter Reynolds

June 12, 2018 at 9:46 am

The UK Government’s Latest Excuse About Medicinal Cannabis Is Yet Another Deception.

with 4 comments

Nick Hurd MP, Home Office Minister

Nick Hurd MP, the Home Office minister, said again this week that as far as any consideration of cannabis for medical use is concerned, the government will “await the outcome” of the report on cannabis due from the WHO in 2019 “before considering the next steps”.

In fact, the results of an FOI request show that the UK government has refused to take part in the WHO committee which will “review cannabis and cannabis-related substances on their potential to cause dependence, abuse and harm to health, and potential therapeutic applications”. This despite the WHO issuing a questionnaire to the Department of Health and Social Care “designed to gather information on the legitimate use, harmful use, status of national control and potential impact of international control”.

Aside from the obvious concerns this raises, it is quite extraordinary considering that the UK is the world’s largest producer and exporter of legal cannabis.

Fundamentally the government’s postion on cannabis for medical use hasn’t changed since 1971. Those who follow the Home Office’s statements will have noticed gradual changes but they all seek to reinforce the fundamental premise that cannabis is a dangerous drug of abuse with no therapeutic benefit.

Recent ‘adjustments’, shall we call them, of the official position have dealt with the now overwhelming weight of evidence that cannabis does have very real and significant medical value.  The response has been to caution that all medicines must go through the etablished system of testing for safety and efficacy.

This is a deception as well.  As CLEAR revealed at the beginning of 2018, in every jurisdiction throughout the world where medicinal cannabis has been legally regulated, it is through a special system outside pharmaceutical medicines regulation.

Theresa May is ideologically opposed to the use of cannabis as medicine, it’s as simple as that.  She won’t permit it to be properly considered, discussed or investigated and every time something forces a response, such as a parliamentary question or an enquiry even from a fellow Conservative MP, another deceptive excuse is conjured up.

Victoria Atkins MP, Theresa May MP. Both Have Family Interests In Cannabis For Medical Use.

CLEAR can further reveal that the Home Office’s public position on prospects for licensed cannabis medicnes is also a deception. The statement that has been published is “As happened in the case of Sativex, the Home Office will consider issuing a licence to enable trials of any new medicine…”  We can’t name names just yet but we now have first hand knowledge that at least one publicly-quoted company with established cannabis production facilities in two other G7 countries has been refused permission by the Home Office even to apply for a licence.

The UK government’s stance on cannabis becomes murkier and murkier the deeper you look.  The stench of corruption becomes overpowering when you consider that Theresa May’s husband’s company is the largest single shareholder in GW Pharmaceuticals and the husband of Victoria Atkins MP, the drugs minister, holds a licence to produce 45 acres of cannabis for medical use.

Written by Peter Reynolds

May 12, 2018 at 6:24 pm

Home Office Denies FOI Request In Cover-Up Of All Information On Cannabis Production Licences

with 6 comments

On 6th March 2018 CLEAR submitted a Freedom of Information Request to the Home Office asking for full details of the licences accounting for the legal production of cannabis in the UK.  This arose from the story which we broke on 4th March revealing that the UK is the world’s largest producer and exporter of legal cannabis, this according to data provided to the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) by the government.

The Home Office has refused the request.  Its grounds for refusal are that disclosure “would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person or would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime“.

Presumably this means that the commercial interest of GW Pharmaceuticals and whoever else has been granted such licences would be prejudiced and that they would risk robbery or other crime at their places of business.

INCB Production of Cannabis 2015-2016

We consider this to be false and without any merit whatsoever. How would it prejudice anyone’s commercial interest?  We would not expect any detail that goes behind the licence holder’s normal commercial confidence and it must be right that the identity of those companies or individuals licenced to produce cannabis should be on the public record together with outline information about the terms of the licence – what is it for, for what period, in what quantities.  Furthermore, with the security precautions required for such a licence, any attempt at crime would be foolhardy and utterly stupid.  It would be much easier either to import or produce your own cannabis.  The sort of criminal enterprise that would be required to raid, for instance, one of GW’s grows would be on a grand scale, incredibly risky and with sentences probably higher than for production of cannabis.

Clearly, disclosure of the information around these licences could, in any case, be limited to redact any specific information which should be kept confidential

It’s quite clear that this refusal is simply an excuse, probably to cover-up not only the extent of the licences but also the basis on which they have been issued.

Of course, the Home Office has pre-empted the next step in a FOI request and states that “the public interest falls in favour” of not providing this information.  We consider this to be nonsense.  It is clear that the public interest (not just the interest of the public) is very much that the issue of such licences should be a matter of public record.  It is outrageous that this information is being kept secret.

The answer to the second part of our FOI Request provides further insight into how little trust can be placed in the Home Office and demonstrates that its answers are dishonest.  In 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.”  However the INCB report, which information can only have come from the Home Office, shows that in 2015/16 the UK exported 2.1 tons of medical cannabis.  We asked for an explanation of how Mr Hurd’s answer is consistent with the facts reported.

Nick Hurd MP, Home Office Minister

The Home Office’s answer is that “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.” and that it takes ‘medicinal cannabis’ to mean “substances produced to be consumed, be that smoked or ingested in any way.”

It is clear therefore that the Home Office has given two different answers to the same question and that the answer given to the INCB is correct whereas the answer given by Mr Hurd is without doubt intended to mislead Parliament.  It also seeks falsely to create a distinction between Sativex and other forms of cannabis which is manifestly and beyond doubt another deception, based on information published by GW Pharmaceuticals which CLEAR revealed in 2016.

In summary therefore, the Home Office has refused to answer the FOI Request in relation to licensing on grounds which are entirely spurious and has demonstrated that it is actively engaged in deceiving both Parliament and the public on the export of medicinal cannabis from the UK.

Following the required procedure, we have now requested an internal review of the Home Office’s handling of the FOI Request.  We argue that: “It goes directly to the question of the massive public demand for legal access to cannabis for medical use and the total denial of this by government. This policy is itself irrational and against the public interest and the refusal to disclose the information requested is a political cover-up.”

We anticipate this will be a whitewash and further attempt at a cover-up. Thereafter we have a right to complain to the Infomation Commissioner.  At this stage we would also seek to mobilise support from MPs with an interest in this area.  Ultimately, we may be able to apply to the High Court for judical review of the Home Office’s decision and we will consider mounting a crowdfunding campaign to enable this.

UK Is The Only Country In the World To Criminalise Doctors Who Prescribe Cannabis

with 5 comments

Bob Ainsworth MP. Like so many ex-ministers, now a supporter of cannabis law reform

It’s popularly believed that the obstacle to prescription of cannabis by doctors is that it is in schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations.  In fact, in 2001, the then drugs minster, Labour’s Bob Ainsworth MP, enacted a little known provision of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 UK specifically to make prescribing of cannabis a criminal offence.

Extraordinarily, apart from mescaline, raw opium, coca leaf, DMT and some extremely rare substances that most people will never have heard of, cannabis is the only substance to which this ruling applies.  The Statutory Instrument can be seen here. It designated cannabis as a drug to which section 7(4) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 applies.  I have reproduced the relevant sections at the end of this article.

Why?  Well that is a very good question and one that will no doubt be subject to endless speculation.  Could it be because only a couple of years previously the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee had recommended that it be available on prescription? No doubt the conspiracy theorists will connect it to that fact that only six months previously GW Pharmaceuticals PLC  had floated on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange.  It certainly demonstrates a determination by the then Labour government to restrict and prevent the medical use of cannabis as tightly as the law could possibly allow. It is unprecedented that such rigid controls should be placed, without any supporting evidence, on a substance which we know from recorded history has been used as a medicine for at least 5,000 years.

What is most important is what this means for law reform.  Removing cannabis from schedule 1 would be insufficient to allow doctors to prescribe it. The Statutory Instrument would also need to be rescinded so that section 7(4) of the Act no longer applied to it.

Amber Rudd MP. A single stroke of her pen can save Alfie Dingley

 

However, what this highlights is that the scheduling of cannabis and its use as medicine is entirely within the discretion of the Home Secretary.  The present incumbent, Amber Rudd MP, or any of her successors can, entirely on her own account, make any change to the scheduling of cannabis or doctors’ ability to prescribe it.  She can also issue a licence on whatever terms she chooses to enable individual prescription, importation or possession.

In other words, the fate of Alfie Dingley and thousands more is entirely in Amber Rudd’s hands.  The dishonest excuses advanced by junior Home Office minister Nick Hurd, that they “want to explore every option within the current regulatory framework” is obfuscation, doublespeak and deception at its most blatant.

 

 

The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 section 7(3) and (4) Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/section/7

(3)Subject to subsection (4) below, the Secretary of State shall so exercise his power to make regulations under subsection (1) above as to secure—

(a)that it is not unlawful under section 4(1) of this Act for a doctor, dentist, veterinary practitioner or veterinary surgeon, acting in his capacity as such, to prescribe, administer, manufacture, compound or supply a controlled drug, or for a pharmacist or a person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business, acting in either case in his capacity as such, to manufacture, compound or supply a controlled drug; and

(b)that it is not unlawful under section 5(1) of this Act for a doctor, dentist, veterinary practitioner, veterinary surgeon, pharmacist or person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business to have a controlled drug in his possession for the purpose of acting in his capacity as such.

(4)If in the case of any controlled drug the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is in the public interest—

(a)for production, supply and possession of that drug to be either wholly unlawful or unlawful except for purposes of research or other special purposes; or

(b)for it to be unlawful for practitioners, pharmacists and persons lawfully conducting retail pharmacy businesses to do in relation to that drug any of the things mentioned in subsection (3) above except under a licence or other authority issued by the Secretary of State,

he may by order designate that drug as a drug to which this subsection applies; and while there is in force an order under this subsection designating a controlled drug as one to which this subsection applies, subsection (3) above shall not apply as regards that drug.

Written by Peter Reynolds

March 18, 2018 at 5:09 pm