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

22 NOVEMBER 2006

  Q120  Adam Afriyie: Just two short questions here because we have already covered the territory, Minister; what factors would spark the Government to reconsider the classification of a particular drug? What factors are in the Government's mind when it comes to reviewing the classification of a drug?

  Mr Coaker: Ultimately if the Government felt that it would contribute to tackling the drug problem in the country, but we do not believe that it will do that. The evidence that I mentioned before, Adam, which is evidence from the drugs strategy rather than evidence with respect to the drugs classification system, I think shows that the drugs strategy is making a difference, so in terms of the answer to the your question, the Government would make a judgment about what impact it would have in terms of tackling the drug problem in the country. If the Government felt that it would make a contribution to that rather than as we feel at the moment diverting the strategy we have got, then of course the Government would consider and think about it.

  Q121  Adam Afriyie: My second question is to Professor Rawlins. Professor Nutt has already mentioned that he would like to see a systematic quinquennial review of many classifications, not all of them of course, so what stops the ACMD from systematically reviewing drugs classifications at the moment?

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: We do on occasions certainly, but we tended in the past—and perhaps wrongly and I would accept that—to have looked at the new problems rather than going back very often over the old ones. We probably should have done and I would accept that.

  Q122  Dr Harris: Professor Rawlins, you say that your report is written by you. It is entitled "Response of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's Report", so could you distinguish, if there is a distinction to be made, between you writing something and the Council giving a considered response?

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: Yes, I produced the first draft and then all the members of the Council had an opportunity to consider both the original report and the response.

  Q123  Dr Harris: By?

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: By e-mail.

  Q124  Dr Harris: You go on to say that our report contains significant errors of fact?

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: Yes.

  Q125  Dr Harris: Other than the pharmacological ignorance which you have retracted because you misunderstood what our report was saying (although the Government did not) what are the other significant errors of fact?

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: The whole issue of social harms, and you went into some considerable detail about how we ought to take into account social harm and how there seems to be a lot of confusion around the place. There is no confusion; we take social harms into account and we give chapter and verse where we do it.

  Q126  Dr Harris: Your report states that there were significant errors of fact. If you have an opinion, there is no confusion; if we have an opinion, there is no confusion. I want to know what are the significant errors of fact, so give us a fact and then say what the correct fact is with the chapter and verse, please, because I am very concerned that we get a report talking about evidence factually correct, because I could not find any in your report.

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: Recommendation 5: "The ACMD must look at social harm in its considerations—it is impossible to assess accurately . . . " That statement by your Committee suggests that we do not look at social harms. Recommendation 5: "The ACMD must look at social harm in its considerations—it is impossible to assess accurately the harm associated with a drug without taking account of the social dimensions of harm arising from its misuse."

  Q127  Chairman: Then you go on to say that you agree with it totally.

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: I agree with the statement but not with the implication behind it because the implication behind it is that we do not take into account social harm.

  Q128  Dr Harris: What you are saying there is an error of fact is an implication that you have read into a statement because the statement said the ACMD must look at social harm?. You are agreeing with us.

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: We are agreeing—

  Q129  Dr Harris: That is not an error of fact.

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: But you would not have said it if you thought we had taken that into account.

  Q130  Dr Harris: Not necessarily. I do not think you can say that.

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: It is crystal clear, you were trying to say that there were various people out there who did not believe that we took into account social harms. You quoted individuals. You said that Andy Hayman did not know what the terms of reference were.

  Q131  Dr Harris: He did not, did he?

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: You were talking about the previous Home Secretary and then you told us that we must look at social harms in a way that quite clearly indicated you thought we did not. I remember the exchange we had at the time. What I am trying to do is to point out that we do look at social harms and we give chapter and verse of that.

  Q132  Dr Harris: Let us be clear here, it was not us that said you were wrong on this issue. We said to the man sitting next to you, on your right, do you agree with Sir Michael rather than the previous Home Secretary—if you remember the previous Home Secretary said that clinical medical harm is the Advisory Council's predominant consideration and you said that that was not the case and that equal weight is given. We asked him do you agree with Sir Michael rather than the previous Home Secretary and he said no, he did not agree with you or at least implied that he did not agree with you. If there is an error of fact it is in the misunderstanding of the previous Home Secretary not the Committee. I will draw your attention to question 1243 by our esteemed Chairman on 14 June 2006 in the minutes.

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: The clear implication from Recommendation 5 is that we do not look at social harms. That is crystal clear to me.

  Q133  Chairman: Sir Michael, I really do not want to continue with this line. I think there is a genuine misunderstanding between what you felt the Committee were saying. We had a concern that what the Home Secretary at the time and what you were saying were at odds in terms of the degree of emphasis that was put on social harms in terms of the classification system, and you were agreeing with our broad statement, and certainly there was no intention of impugning your integrity or the integrity of the members of the ACMD. However, there was an important issue that the evidence we brought to bear in terms of making the classification should be quite clear and obvious to be seen, and we did not feel that that was the case. I think I would rather just leave it at that because we want you to go away happy. Professor Nutt, I want to raise one final question before I finish this session and that is you mentioned earlier that some drugs are in the wrong class. I just wondered if you could name which ones you think they are.

  Professor Nutt: If you look at the assessment we did, I think 4-MTA, LSD and ecstasy probably should not be classed in A. I think that barbiturates might be worth moving up to Class A from Class B. I think those are the most obvious anomalies that we see, at least in this analysis that we have done.

  Q134  Chairman: Okay, which brings me, Vernon, to really try to get from you if in fact the Chair of the Technical Committee of the ACMD—and certainly this Committee has huge respect for both Michael Rawlins and David Nutt in this area—feels that some of drugs are in the wrong place, could you re-visit your decision not in fact to have a review?

  Mr Coaker: I think there are—

  Q135  Chairman: I know you cannot give me an answer.

  Mr Coaker: I cannot give you an answer, but I think there were two parts to the question, with respect, and if I have misunderstood then please correct me. In terms of the review of the whole classification system and going from an ABC system, a tripartite system, then the Government is quite clear that we have no plans to move to another system. We wish to retain the ABC. With respect to individual drugs within the ABC categorisation, there will always be a debate about whether drugs are in the right category, and if the ACMD look at drugs and then come to us with a recommendation, of course we will look at it. Whether we then decide to act on that recommendation will be a matter of political judgment and will be a matter of the other factors that would influence what decisions we take. All I would say again, just to repeat, is that of course we have confidence in the ACMD, we have massive respect for all the members of the ACMD, and of course we will look at that. What I cannot say to you is that if the ACMD came to us with a recommendation about any of the drugs which are currently classified in the way that they are, that we would then turn round and say, yes, we will automatically do that.

  Q136  Dr Harris: I have got a quick question about the issue of random drug testing in schools. BBC On-Line in their report on 5 November 2006 said: "The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs also believes there has been a lack of evidence that testing is effective and has recommended that random tests be abandoned." That is not true, is it?

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: That was in Pathways of Care.

  Q137  Dr Harris: So that is?

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: That is in the prevention working group.

  Q138  Dr Harris: So if you have made that recommendation why do you think it is that the DfES do not particularly seem to be aware of your advice or have taken your advice?

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: It came out about six weeks ago, it has only just been published.

  Q139  Dr Harris: As I understand it, the Government are going to extend the existing arrangements from one school in Kent to a number of other schools.

  Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: We will be having discussions with the Department for Education and Skills.