Examination of Witnesses (Questions 107-119)
PROFESSOR SIR
MICHAEL RAWLINS
AND PROFESSOR
DAVID NUTT
1 MARCH 2006
Q107 Chairman: Good morning everybody,
and could I make an especial welcome to Professor Sir Michael
Rawlins and Professor David Nutt. You are very, very welcome this
morning. Could I remind everyone that this session is being televised
and, as with the Big Brother house, we want to make sure
that all actions and words are commensurate with broadcasting
licence agreements. This is the first case study in an over-arching
inquiry into scientific evidence which the Government uses to
inform policy. It is a particularly important area in terms of
drug classification. I have to say that we are focusing specifically
on the process and we are not making any judgments about drugs
policy. We are very interested to make sure that the classification
process is something that stands up to scrutiny. I shall start
by asking our two eminent witnesses, beginning with you Sir Michael,
to spend no more than one minute introducing themselves and say
what their role is within their organisation.
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
Thank you very much. I am Chairman of the Advisory Council on
the Misuse of Drugs (the ACMD) and I am Professor of Clinical
Pharmacology at the University of Newcastle. I have been Chairman
of the ACMD since 1998 and I have been in Newcastle since 1973.
Q108 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed.
Professor Nutt: I am David Nutt.
I am a psycho-pharmacologist at the University of Bristol. That
means I am a medical doctor, a psychiatrist, who is interested
in drugs and the brain. I have been Chair of the Technical Committee
of the ACMD for the last five years and have a research track
record in the field of drugs of addiction and mental processes.
I spent two years working in the National Institute of Health
in the States in the 1980s so I have some experience of the US
system as well.
Q109 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed. I wonder if I could start by asking you, Professor Rawlins,
what is the purpose of the ABC drug classification system that
we have got at the moment?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
The purpose is to classify the harmfulness of drugs so that the
penalties for possession and trafficking should be proportionate
to the harmfulness of the particular substance.
Q110 Chairman: Harmfulness to whom?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
Harmfulness to the individual and harmfulness to society.
Q111 Chairman: Which is the balance
between the two?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
We take both of them into account, both the individual and the
individual's family and society, and one does not overrule the
other.
Q112 Chairman: Do you feel you have
been proactive in achieving that objective and that the ABC classification
has done what it has set out to do?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
I think in terms of what it was intended to do, that is to say
to try and make the penalties proportionate to the harmfulness
of the substances that were being used or traded, yes. Of course,
in the United Kingdom over the last 30 years the use of these
substances has increased dramatically, not just in Britain but
in most other countries as well, so in another sense one can say
that we need more than that. I think one of the important things
about drugs misuse is that it is not just a criminal justice problem,
it is also a public health problem and one has to be certain that
one is looking at it from both angles.
Q113 Chairman: We did not know when
we started this inquiry what the priority of the Government is
in terms of those two angles; public health and law enforcement.
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
My view is that it is both a criminal justice problem and a public
health problem, and a social problem as well.
Q114 Chairman: Yes, but when somebody
like Professor Colin Blakemore, Chief Executive of the Medical
Research Council, says this about the ABC classification system:
"It is antiquated and reflects the prejudice and misconceptions
of an era in which drugs were placed in arbitrary categories with
notable, often illogical, consequences", this is a man who
has got a certain reputation to uphold and he is saying really
it is a bit of a waste of time.
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
And he is a good friend of mine and a good friend of David's as
well.
Q115 Chairman: So do you think it
is a waste of time as well?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
No, I do not think it is a waste of time but I think it is right
that the Home Secretary is relooking at it. There are various
ways in which one could do this sort of thing. Different countries
have different arrangements. The notion that the penalties for
possession and supply should be proportionate, broadly speaking,
to the harmfulness seems to me reasonable, but it does not necessarily
have to be done that way, so I very much welcome the approach
that the Home Secretary is taking, that he is reviewing it and
is going to produce a consultation paper shortly. I am not sure
how far away "shortly" is.
Q116 Chairman: What worries me here,
and perhaps Professor Nutt you can comment on this as well, is
that there does not seem to be a blind bit of evidence which your
Committee uses to make any of the decisions on which you advise
the Home Secretary. Indeed, Paul Flynn, the Minister responsible,
one of our eminent MPs, described government policy decisions
on illegal drugs as "largely evidence-free" in evidence
to this Committee.
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
I cannot answer for him but if you look at the way we examine
the evidence, there is a lot of evidence that we are able to look
at. It is not perfect by any manner or means. There are gaps and
in some areas there are large gaps, but there is evidence and
there is evidence that we can use.
Q117 Chairman: But have you then
ever provided evidence to ministers which they have just disregarded?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
Not since I have been Chairman, no.
Q118 Chairman: Have you ever given
them advice which they have disregarded?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
No.
Q119 Chairman: So in perfect harmony?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
In the past ministers have rejected the Council's advice but not
during my tenure of office and David's.
Chairman: I will pass you on to my colleague.
| 
