MR VERNON COAKER, PROFESSOR SIR MICHAEL RAWLINS AND PROFESSOR DAVID NUTT

22 NOVEMBER 2006

  Q1 Chairman: Good morning and welcome to this one-off evidence session in response to our Drug Classification: Making a Hash of It? Report which came out as part and parcel of a series of three reports which underpinned our scientific advice to the Government which was also published this month. Could I welcome back Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, welcome back Professor David Nutt and a very warm welcome to the Home Office Minister, Vernon Coaker, who has retained his job!

  Mr Coaker: So far.

  Q2 Chairman: I am sure that this morning's session will enhance your reputation across the nation. Could I also say a very, very warm welcome to a number of guests we have this morning from the Royal Society Parent Scheme. You are particularly welcome to join us in this evidence session. Vernon, the Government said that the classification system has stood the test of time. How do you respond to the criticism which in fact came from the Chief Executive of the MRC that it is antiquated and arbitrary?

  Mr Coaker: I think in the evidence that was given there was reference to that, but I think that he himself admitted that perhaps he had overstated his remarks, but we believe the classification system has now stood the test of time. It ranks drugs according to harm, both social harm and individual harm, we think it is necessary on that basis to set penalties accordingly, and we take advice from ACMD with respect to that. Of course that is one part of our strategy, and we have the classification system which we think does all of that, and then, alongside that, we have a drugs strategy, a wider drugs strategy which deals with a whole range of things to do with education, to do with how the law is enforced and to do with treatment and getting more people into treatment.

  Q3  Chairman: Could I just be specific with you, Vernon, because this whole inquiry was really about evidence-based policy and I just wonder what evidence do you have or do the Home Office have that their classification system discharges its function effectively because that is what you have just said, that it discharges its function effectively, and we could not find any real evidence for that. Where is the evidence?

  Mr Coaker: One of the things we have said in our response to you is that, as I say, we believe the classification system ranks drugs according to their harm, both individual and social, and we have set out the way in which we come to that conclusion and how we make the judgments for that. We take the advice from ACMD, we then, on receiving that advice, make political judgments, we make judgments on the advice we receive from ACPO and from other people, and we take a decision on that. That of course is informed by a whole range of different reports that we receive and research which we commission ourselves, but, as I say, we also accepted in the evidence, in trying to be responsive to the Committee, that we appreciate there is more work to be done with respect to the deterrent effect and so on, but, as I say, the important point I want to make to the Committee this morning is that we see the classification system as an important way of saying to people that this is the way in which we rank drugs according to harm and I have indicated there how we define harm, both on an individual basis and a social basis, but, alongside that, a whole series and a whole range of work to do with enforcement of the law, treatment of individuals and education of our young people.

  Q4  Chairman: I do not think we are ever saying, and I would not want you and certainly Sir Michael to feel, that the Committee feels that the Government is not well-intentioned and that obviously we are not well-intentioned in terms of what we are trying to do. What we are trying to get at is: where is the evidence to underpin the current classification system? I wonder if I could turn to you, Sir Michael, and ask, do you really feel that the classification system should be evidence-based?

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: Of course, of course the classification system should be evidence-based, yes, and the current classification system is based on placing substances into three classes based on their harmfulness to individuals and society and of course it should be evidence-based.

  Q5  Chairman: But we found a number of glaring discrepancies, did we not, and I think you would agree they were glaring discrepancies, in terms of classification where there was no evidence whatsoever to put a particular drug into a classification?

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: Which particular classification are you talking about?

  Q6  Chairman: Well, we will take magic mushrooms which we will come on to later, but I am just giving that example.

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: I do not accept the point you are making about magic mushrooms, to be frank.

  Q7  Chairman: Well, my colleague will deal with that.

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: I am sure he will!

  Q8  Chairman: Professor Nutt, you clearly have some misgivings about the classification system and indeed feel that we could have a better way of actually demonstrating harm in a much more evidence-based fashion, so are you happy with the current system?

  Professor Nutt: I would say a few things. What I have worked hard to do in the last few years is to try to work out a methodology for assessing harm and that has been a relatively successful process, at least I think the process we set up is an effective and transparent one. We are still in the process of trying to convince the scientific community that what we have done is valid.

  Q9  Chairman: I will come back to your actual classification system which I hope is going to be published soon, but in terms of the principle, do you feel that the current ABC system is sufficiently evidence-based to stand up to robust examination?

  Professor Nutt: I need to understand whether you are saying, "Is a tripartite classification system a good way of dealing with drugs?" or "Is the current allocation of drugs within ABC correct?" Which of those questions are you asking?

  Q10  Chairman: Well, actually both, but the underpinning question is: are you satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to support the classification of the current illegal drugs which are in each of those classifications, yes or no?

  Professor Nutt: I would have to say no. I do not think that all the drugs are correctly classified according to the current classification system which is one of the reasons why my committee has been systematically reviewing the harms of drugs.

  Q11  Dr Turner: Vernon, successive home secretaries have dithered a little bit on the question of reviewing the classification system. When you made your response to this Committee's report, the Government finally said that it had decided not to pursue a review. Can you explain all of your reasons for not reviewing the system?

  Mr Coaker: Well, this is a consistent problem and you will know that the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2002 looked into the whole issue of the effectiveness of the Government's drugs policy and they actually came to the conclusion that it was fit for purpose. There was a report in 2000, the Runciman Report, and the Police Foundation Report which as well said that the drug classification system was appropriate, relevant and fit for purpose, so, as I say, it is an ongoing debate. Essentially, when it comes to today, 2006, we think that the classification system where we are ranking drugs, A, B and C, the tripartite system, as you know, where different drugs are allocated according to individual and social harm which we believe they cause, it is based on the evidence that we receive from the ACMD and we think that that, as one part of the Government's drugs policy, is an important part of the strategy. It sets out clear penalties for the possession and supply of those drugs and, as I say, ranks them according to what we believe their individual and social harm is. There will always be debate and discussion as to whether the different drugs are in the right category, that will always happen, which are the most dangerous drugs, which category, if you have a tripartite system, should they be in. We thought that, on that basis, we had a system that works well, we thought and we think, but we also then say that we do not want to be diverted into an argument about which categories different drugs should be in, whether the Government is relaxing its efforts towards a particular drug, whether this means that the Government is saying that a particular drug is something that is softer than other drugs and, therefore, okay to take. What we wanted to do was concentrate our energy and our efforts, and I know that this is a common goal that everyone shares in this respect, on the things that we think are particularly important and which we think are making a very real difference. That is clearly enforcement of the law, that is clearly about making sure that law enforcement is effective and getting the dealers off the street. I know that is something everybody wants and there is no difference between us, all of us accept that. Alongside that, we want more people into treatment. We realise there are public health issues with respect to this and that is why we have massively increased the amount of money going into drug treatment, so huge numbers, record numbers of people are now going into treatment and what we want to do now is make that more effective so that we retain people in treatment, so that we get wrap-around services with respect to housing, with respect to employment, with respect to benefits, with respect to family relationships, all of those things done as well. Then of course we want to have education and we want to educate particularly our young people with respect to drugs and with respect to the dangers of drugs. We thought that concentrating on the drugs strategy that we have got, and I would just refer you to the introduction in paragraph 11 which lists a whole range of different things which, we think, have demonstrated the effectiveness of the strategy, that is what we wanted to concentrate on.

  Q12  Chairman: Why then, Vernon, when the previous Home Secretary was in place did he feel that we did need to have a review of classification? Surely the same officials are there, the same evidence is still there, Sir Michael is still there, so why in such a short period of time did things change so dramatically?

  Mr Coaker: Well, these are obviously judgments that people make and when we began to see particularly the massive increases in the numbers of people coming into treatment, particularly when we, as I say, see what the results of the Government's drugs strategy has been where there has been real success on the ground, we believe, and of course we are not complacent about it, of course we know that too many communities are still affected by drugs, too many people are still affected by drugs, but we saw the drugs strategy as being effective. The judgment we made was that we did not particularly want to get into a debate about how you rank particular drugs, we think we have got a system that effectively does that. What we wanted to do was to say we have got to clearly recognise—

  Q13  Chairman: But what changed? Was it just simply the fact that the Home Secretary changed or was there some material evidence which came to the Home Office through ACMD which actually made the decision to review the whole system and to scrap it?

  Mr Coaker: I think what we began to see were increasing results from the drugs strategy that we were dealing with and this was brought into focus really by the fact we are now reviewing the drugs strategy. We introduced it in 1998 and it was reviewed and refreshed in 2002 and obviously we have to do that again in 2008. We started to look at that, saw the very clear results and just said, "Where do we want our efforts to go? Where do we want the drive, enthusiasm and determination to go?", and we felt that, by doing it with respect to the drugs strategy, that was the appropriate place to put our efforts, and we felt that if we had a big row about the classification, then we might be diverted away from that effort.

  Q14  Dr Turner: But, Vernon, since the drugs strategy itself is very heavily predicated on the drug classification, do you not think it is logical, if you are reviewing the whole strategy, to review the classification in the process?

  Mr Coaker: We think that, if we did that, we would actually spend all of our time arguing about that rather than concentrating on the things that are making a difference on the street. We accept, as we tried to do in the response to the report, the need for us to continue to look at how we use evidence, how we use science, how we use all of the various other ways to inform that, but, as I say, the judgment that we made was that we wanted to concentrate on the drugs strategy while looking at how we improve the evidence base of the classification system.

  Q15  Dr Turner: That is almost tantamount to saying that the drug classification per se is much less important than the drugs strategy.

  Mr Coaker: No, not at all. I am not saying that at all and that was evidence—

  Q16  Dr Turner: There is an argument for that.

  Mr Coaker: Let me just say this very clearly, that it is not a way of saying that. Of course the drug classification system is important and the evidence of that is the fact that, as you know, we reclassified methylamphetamine from a Class B to a Class A drug because we thought that was an extremely important thing to do on the basis of the advice from ACMD, on the basis of what the police were telling us and on the basis of the evidence that we were receiving. I do not expect that anybody actually objected to that because they realised the dangers that potentially crystal methylamphetamine posed for the country, posed for communities, so do not mistake what I am saying. Of course the drug classification system is extremely important alongside the drugs strategy, but all I am saying is that we wanted to concentrate on the drugs strategy and let the drug classification system do its work, as I think it demonstrably did with respect to methylamphetamine where everybody, everybody has welcomed the move of it going from B to a Class A drug.

  Q17  Dr Harris: Can you just say, therefore, given what you have said, whether you believe, and it is a yes or no, that the decision to drop the plan to review the classification system itself was an evidence-based decision?

  Mr Coaker: I think the evidence that you take is a variety of evidence.

  Q18  Dr Harris: I am not asking what the evidence was yet, I am just asking you whether you thought that decision to not do the review was an evidence-based decision?

  Mr Coaker: It was based on the evidence we have received and the judgment that we made at the time.

  Q19  Chairman: Have you published that evidence?

  Mr Coaker: No, but it is the evidence that we have received on the basis of the drugs strategy, it is the judgments we make, and this is the point and it comes through, to be fair, in what the Committee are saying as well, that of course science informs the decisions that we make, but there are all sorts of other things which affect it.