Thank you for your letter of 20 December 2006 seeking answers to specific questions arising from the ACMD's response to the Committee's report on drug classification. I will respond to the questions in the order they are put in your letter although points 1) and 2) are closely related.

1.   Your introduction to the response refers to the Committee's report being "in parts, misleading" and containing "significant errors of fact". Please provide us with references to each such occasion.

  Paragraph 21 of the Committee's report states that "Evidence submitted to this inquiry revealed a perception that the ACMD tended to operate primarily in a reactive mode". Paragraph 22 quotes the chief executive of Action on Addiction as saying "prevention does not come within the remit of the ACMD or the Drugs Misuse Act". Although the report goes on to state that this was refuted by the Martin Barnes (an ACMD member) it concludes this paragraph with the recommendation: The apparent confusion in the drug policy community over the remit of ACMD suggests that the Council needs to give more attention to communicating with its external stakeholders.

  These two paragraphs, taken together, are misleading and the recommendation lacks credibility. First, the so-called "evidence" quoted in paragraph 21 appears to relate to the opinion of one minor stakeholder. Second, the claim that prevention does not come within the remit of either the ACMD or the Misuse of Drugs Act is incorrect and was made by another minor stakeholder lacking a full understanding of the either the work of the Council or of the Act itself. The work of successive Prevention Working Groups, over many years, has been solely concerned with prevention. The Committee's recommendation in paragraph 22 is therefore based on the credence it has given to two minor stakeholders whose knowledge and understanding of this policy area is clearly deficient; together with an apparent incomplete understanding of the work of the Council's Prevention Working Groups.

  At various points in paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 the Committee expresses concerns about the lack of interaction between the ACMD with other government departments (especially the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health). This is misleading. Officials from the Department of Health invariably attend meetings of the ACMD and the Council has extensive and continuing interactions with the Department of Health over issues including:

—  the prescription of controlled drugs by nurses and pharmacists;

—  advising on the government's response to the Shipman Inquiry;

—  ensuring the continued availability of diamorphine for prescription;

—  measures to reduce the transmission of hepatitis C by intravenous drug misusers;

—  the provision of sterile water in needle-exchange schemes.

  The Council has also had extensive and fruitful interactions with the Department for Education and Skills particularly in respect of the misuse of drugs by young people (and highlighted in the ACMD's reports Hidden Harm and Pathways to Problems).

  The Committee should also be aware that the recent announcement by the Minister for Public Health—about a proposal to raise the age limit for the sale of tobacco products—endorses the ACMD's advice (paragraph 3.34) in its recent report Pathways to Problems.

  In paragraph 38 the Committee's report states "ACPO has two seats on the ACMD". This is incorrect. Although the Misuse of Drugs Act requires the membership of the Council to include certain professional skills includes neither ACPO or a police officer. Indeed no organisation, as such, has a "seat" on ACMD. Police officers (like all other members of the ACMD) who are appointed to membership of the Council sit in their own right and not as representatives of any organisation.

  Paragraphs 54 to 57 deal with the classification of fresh magic mushrooms and concluded by stating: The Chairman of the ACMD's attitude towards the decision to place magic mushrooms in Class A indicates a degree of complacency that can only serve to damage the reputation of the Council. It appeared from the subsequent exchange between myself and Dr Brian Iddon (Oral Evidence, 22 November 2006, Q4) that this criticism related to the appropriate classification of psilocin and psilocybin rather than fresh magic mushrooms. I, of course, I accept Dr Iddon's explanation. Even re-reading this section of the Committee's report, however, does not make it obvious; and if I myself was mislead—as well as the government (as shown by its response to this section of the Committee's report)—it is highly likely that others will have been mislead too.

  Paragraphs 63 to 68 are concerned with the role of the Council in the re-classification of methylamphetamine. In particular, the Committee's report (paragraph 66) states: "The ACMD acknowledged that there was clear-cut evidence that the harmfulness of methylamphetamine misuse justified Call A status. It should therefore have conveyed this to the Home Secretary with the caveat that he should consider any unintended consequences of a change in classification. It is highly regrettable that the ACMD took it upon itself to make what should have been a political judgement". The ACMD's full report (which was, and is, publicly available) made it very clear that the Council's advice was indeed based on the problem of "unintended consequences"; and it is misleading to suggest that it failed to do so. Whether it should have made what the Committee considers to be a "political" judgement is a matter of opinion.

2.   Under the heading "social harms" you state that "at various points the Committee berates the Council for failing to take "social" factors into account when drawing conclusions or giving advice to ministers". Please provide references for these instances.

  The Committee's report discusses the issue of "social harms" in paragraphs 23, 24 and 37. Much is made, in the report, of erroneous statements by a previous Home Secretary and by the chairman of the ACPO Drugs Committee, Only limited attention is given to my clear assertion that social harms are an important dimension to the Council's discussions and conclusions on classification. Paragraph 24 concluded, moreover, with the recommendation: The ACMD must look at social harms in its considerations—it is impossible to assess accurately the harm associated with a drug without taking into account the social dimensions of harm arising from its misuse. This implies that the Council does not take social harms into account when advising on the classification of substances despite the fact that the ACMD's written evidence to the Committee provided detailed examples of where it has done so. Indeed under the terms of section1(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, a substance can only be brought under control of the Act if it is seen as having, "harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem. social harm is a pre-requisite for control.

  In subsequent discussion with Dr Evan Harris (Oral Evidence, 22 November 2006, Q126-132) it now appears the Committee accept that the ACMD does take social harms into account. It would therefore have been clearer, and less misleading, for the Committee (in recommendation 5) to have stated "The ACMD must continue to look at social harms in its considerations—it is impossible to assess accurately the harm associated with a drug without taking into account the social dimensions of harm arising from its misuse". Those reading the Committee's report would then be aware that, despite claims to the contrary, the Council has taken (and should indeed continue to take) social harms into account.

3.   Under the heading "The nature of evidence", you refer to "the evidence base, in this area of public policy" including "evidence derived from intelligence" obtained from a variety of source. What distinction do you make between information and evidence? Is this extension to the evidence base unique to this area of public policy?

  I make no distinction between "information" and "evidence" in the context of the work of ACMD. Both terms describe the acquisition and use of knowledge. Whether or not such information or evidence is "scientific" or has been "scientifically analysed" depends on opinions about the philosophy and nature of science.

  Reference by ACMD to "intelligence" refers to information about criminal or quasi-criminal activities provided by the law enforcement agencies (primarily the police and HMRC) but which cannot, necessarily, be placed in the public domain. Such information (evidence) can be of significant value to the ACMD in the development of advice on the classification of drugs.

  The use of "intelligence" by a scientific advisory body is not unique to the ACMD. I am a member of a Ministry of Defence advisory body that provides scientific advice on certain clinical matters to the Surgeon General and the Defence Staff. This advisory body is not infrequently presented with classified information (ie "intelligence") that has been obtained by the security services. Such "intelligence" can have a significant impact on the clinical advice given by this particular advisory body.

4.   You refer to the Committee's "strictures about the make-up and composition of the ACMD". With reference to the recommendation of our report which states that "we are not in a position to judge whether the current membership is appropriately balanced" we would ask you to identify these "strictures".

  The Committee considered the membership of ACMD in paragraphs 28 to 34. The report states in paragraph 32: "We recommend that the term of office for the chairman of ACMD be limited to a maximum of five years". No reason—apart from it "not being convinced it is good practice for an individual to occupy such an influential position for such a long time" —is given to support this recommendation. As the Committee accepts, it is at variance with the advice of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  In paragraph 34 the Committee states: "We also recommend that the chairman always be accompanied by another member of Council—preferably the Chair of the Technical Committee or the relevant working group—in meetings with ministers". This implies that the Committee considers that the Chairman is not to be trusted to convey Council's views to ministers; or that the Chairman may somehow become inappropriately influenced by ministers.

5.   Please state in which recommendation the Committee "fails to appreciate that, when faced evidence from such disparate sources, the Council must exercise judgements about the nature and validity of the available information in drawing its conclusions".

  This relates to recommendations 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27.

January 2007