ACMD
70. Transparency is crucial to building confidence
in scientific advice and policy making. This is recognised in
the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees published
by the Office of Science and Innovation, which states:
"Committees should operate from a presumption
of openness. The proceedings of the committee should be as open
as is compatible with the requirements of confidentiality. […]
The committee should maintain high levels of transparency during
routine business."[140]
We have been impressed by the transparency and clarity
of ACMD reports explaining the methodology and rationale underlying
its recommendations on drug classification decisions. However,
we received evidence to suggest that the Council was not complying
with this guidance in other aspects of its operations. Transform
Drug Policy Foundation, for example, told us: "The ACMD lacks
transparency—Its deliberations are not open to the public,
are unpublished and are unavailable for independent comment or
scrutiny".[141]
71. The Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory
Committees explicitly states that committees should publish meeting
agendas and minutes and, "unless there are particular reasons
to the contrary", supporting papers, none of which the ACMD
currently does.[142]
We asked the Chairman, Sir Michael Rawlins, why the Council did
not publish minutes of its meetings. He told us that "anyone
who asks would get a version of it" but warned that "there
is sometimes material in the minutes that we would need to remove
because they are based on intelligence that would not be appropriate
in the public domain".[143]
When pressed, Sir Michael conceded that "it would not be
a major issue" to remove this information since it only amounted
to "a couple of lines, that is all".[144]
The ACMD provided to us, at our request, copies of the minutes
of meetings of the full Council, Technical Committee and methylamphetamine
working group on a confidential basis. Having reviewed these documents,
we do not accept that the
majority of the Council's work requires the level of confidentiality
currently being exercised. The ACMD should, in keeping with the
Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees, routinely
publish the agendas and minutes for its meetings, removing as
necessary any particularly sensitive information.
72. In taking evidence on the terms of reference
for the over-arching inquiry on the Government's handling of scientific
advice, risk and evidence, we were struck by the extent to which
the Food Standards Agency had placed transparency at the heart
of its operations. We will address this topic more fully in the
over-arching Report but were interested to know, in view of the
fact that the Food Standards Agency routinely holds board meetings
in public, whether the ACMD ever held open meetings to enable
the public to observe its deliberations. The Council told us that
it had not and again invoked the argument that to do so would
cause "a particular problem for ACMD because it is sometimes
provided with police or enforcement agency intelligence which
cannot be disclosed to the public (at the present time)".[145]
The Council further argued that "Although it might appear
to be possible to exclude the public from those agenda items that
include sensitive material of this nature, members might wish
to raise such matters during the discussion of other agenda items".[146]
According to the Council, "Failure to do so could place the
Council at a serious disadvantage and impair the quality of its
advice".[147]
Holding open meetings where
the public could witness the processes used by the ACMD in developing
its recommendations could have enormous benefits in terms of strengthening
public confidence in the scientific advisory process. We do not
believe that the need for confidentiality in discussion of certain
topics is an insurmountable obstacle to holding occasional, if
not routine, meetings of this nature.
73. The measures that we have proposed here to improve
the openness of the ACMD are not radical - they simply reflect
best practice, as outlined in the Code of Practice for Scientific
Advisory Committees. It is
extremely disappointing that the Council has not taken any steps
to increase the transparency of its operations and, moreover,
that the Chairman displayed so little interest in improving the
Council's approach in evidence to us.
It is incumbent upon the Chairman to ensure that the ACMD follows
the spirit of openness prescribed by the Code of Practice.
Home Office
74. Advice from the ACMD forms just one input to
decisions about classification taken by Ministers. It is inevitable
that in this sensitive and high profile policy area, these decisions
will be susceptible to influence by factors such as media pressure
and perceptions of public opinion, as well as harm. Martin Barnes,
Chief Executive of DrugScope and member of the ACMD, emphasised
the importance of "the political context, the way the media
covers these issues and the fact that when we deal with the issue
of drugs and drugs policy it is very difficult on almost any level
to have an informed, objective, evidence based discussion".[148]
He argued that "politicians are nervous about drugs policy;
they are nervous about being seen to make changes", citing
the example of the reclassification of cannabis: "in terms
of the system overall it is not that big [a change], but that
was not the way it was reacted to politically or in the media".[149]
75. In view of the political sensitivities associated
with policy making on topics relating to drug abuse, it is particularly
important that Government decision making processes are as transparent
as possible. Parents Against Lethal Addictive Drugs argued that
this was not happening at present: "There is no transparency
concerning which types of scientific and non-scientific evidence
have been considered relevant, how this has influenced policy
making and how conflicting rights and responsibilities of stakeholders
have been balanced during policy making".[150]
As discussed in paragraph 81, the Home Office also has a tendency
to see classification decisions as vehicles for 'sending signals'
to the public. We acknowledge
that in this sensitive policy area scientific advice is just one
input to decision making, The Home Office should be more transparent
about the various factors influencing its decisions.
The need for a systematic approach
76. We were also concerned by the evident lack of
a systematic approach to determining when reviews of classifications
were needed. As discussed in Chapter 4, we have been left with
the impression that media responses have been influential in triggering
at least one of the Home Secretary's referrals to the ACMD. It
is perfectly reasonable for the Government to seek to take into
account public opinion in determining its policy on classification,
but in the absence of any research or empirical data on this subject,
we can only assume that the Government is using the media response
as a proxy. We tried to ask the Minister whether this was indeed
the case, but did not find his response - "We are not driven
by headlines; we are driven by what is best for the people that
we seek to do our best for"—terribly illuminating.[151]
If the
Government wishes to take into account public opinion in making
its decisions about classification it should adopt a more empirical
approach to assessing it. The Government's current approach is
opaque and leaves itself open to the interpretation that reviews
are being launched as knee-jerk responses to media storms.
77. More generally,
we have identified a pressing need for both the Home Office and
ACMD to institute a
more systematic approach to reviewing the classification of individual
drugs. We recommend that the Home Office and ACMD draw up a list
of criteria to be taken into account in determining whether a
review of a particular drug is required. Ministers
and the ACMD would still be free to exercise their judgement in
deciding when reviews should be undertaken but would do so within
a more transparent framework.
140 Office of Science and Technology, Code of Practice
for Scientific Advisory Committees, December 2001, para 46 Back
141
Ev 65 Back
142
Office of Science and Technology, Code of Practice for Scientific
Advisory Committees, December 2001, para 65 Back
143
Q 165 Back
144
Q 170 Back
145
Ev 108 Back
146
As above Back
147
As above Back
148
Q 439 Back
149
As above Back
150
Ev 60 Back
151
Q 1225 Back
