Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-159)
PROFESSOR SIR
MICHAEL RAWLINS
AND PROFESSOR
DAVID NUTT
1 MARCH 2006
Q140 Chairman: It is more likely
if the Daily Mail wants it?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
Not the Daily Mail, sir!
Q141 Dr Harris: What is your relationship
with the media and indeed other opposition politicians? I use
the term other opposition politicians because clearly statements
are made and demands are called for which influence ministers
by these groups, and indeed opposition politicians, without the
benefit of a formal relationship with you. Do you have any form
of relationship with these groups so that you could let them know
if some form of work is ongoing in particular spheres, particularly
when they state something as fact which is not a fact? Do you
do anything?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
No, to be honest.
Q142 Dr Harris: Do you think you
should?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
Perhaps we should. Our role in the Act is to advise the secretaries
of state, particularly the Home Secretary, but I think you are
probably right, maybe we should talk more to parliamentarians
and the opposition parties as well but we have not really done
that in the past.
Professor Nutt: We did a presentation,
to MPs a couple of years ago, I think you were present.
Q143 Dr Harris: The All-Party Group.
If I am offered I pitch up but I think we are arguing for more
than a meeting of an All-Party Group, to which I am sure you will
be regularly invited. You just mentioned you did this thing on
khat because of perceived public concern.
Professor Nutt: It was not just
that.
Q144 Dr Harris: Did I mishear?
Professor Nutt: There was unquestionably
public concern which came to us through people working in drug
services but also through the Department of Health, which I believe
had some ongoing research looking at the potential risks of khat
use in certain communities.
Q145 Dr Harris: I do not know how
you measure public concern. It is hard to measure. A good way
is to talk to 2,000 people and ask them which of these they are
most concerned about. Some form of large-scale survey is probably
the best and only way. I do not know what you mean by public concern.
Do you mean ministers saying we are concerned? Do you mean a newspaper
headline?
Professor Nutt: I think it would
be fair to say that we do try to be evidence-based. A simple newspaper
headline would not drive us to do a major piece of work.
Q146 Dr Harris: Are you confident
that what you have said was the basis of public concern about
that particular substance was evidence-based or is that just your
impression?
Professor Nutt: The concern was
raised, as I say, through a number of sources—health sources,
drug addiction workers—and based on that, and in parallel
with ongoing research by the Department of Health, we did our
report. I do not really quite understand what you are getting
at.
Q147 Dr Harris: You said public concern
and I am saying what is the evidence that there is broader public
concern?
Professor Nutt: I was not talking
about the general public, I suppose, so maybe I misunderstood
you.
Q148 Chairman: You seem to be giving
the impression—and I would not want the Committee to be
unfair—that this is a very ad hoc sort of organisation,
where there is a lack of transparency about where you get advice
from. You have loose conversations with ministers which may or
may not change policy. The Daily Mail, or some other organ,
may exert undue influence. You may or may not have conversations
with the Department for Education and Skills, even though drugs
policy in schools is a massive issue. Are we being unfair here?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
Grossly unfair, yes. The way issues like this come through will
be multiple routes and finding out about, for example, khat, which
is used by a very small group of people, there is not a way in
which one can have a routine mechanism for flagging up issues.
Yes, I had the conversation with the Home Secretary, but that
is about the only thing I can think of that I have ever talked
to him in that way. We publish reports which are fully referenced
and fully detailed. The methylamphetamine report and the khat
report are all fully detailed with the sources of the evidence
and the evidence base. As for being influenced by the Daily
Mail, you have only got to read the Daily Mail and
read what they say about me and Professor Nutt to realise we are
not influenced by them.
Q149 Chairman: I am sure that will
be reported tomorrow.
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
I look forward to it.
Q150 Dr Harris: I want to ask you
about this ability to do proactive work. You have not done Ecstasy—I
could phrase that better!
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
I know what you mean, Dr Harris!
Q151 Dr Harris: We are going to take
ecstasy later in the question but the Runciman Report and these
other reports stated clearly that they thought there was a case
for reclassification, and indeed I think the Home Affairs Select
Committee did as well. These were not trivial pieces of work.
These were serious pieces of work, yet, remarkably, despite having
the ability (although you have not been asked by the Government
and in fact one might say because you have not been asked by the
Government) and in the face of these reports, you have not done
a report following that up. That gives the appearance, would you
not agree, that if ministers are not keen on something then you
are not going to do it, even if other august bodies, who do not
take perhaps as rigorous approach as you, have done it. It just
seems odd.
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
Yes, ecstasy was placed into Class A in 1977. Since that time—
Q152 Dr Harris: Without your being
advised?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
1977—that was when we were both medical students.
Q153 Dr Harris: Without the ACMD
being advised?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
I do not know in 1977. I presume it was on the advice of the Council.
I presume it would be then because the Act was already there.
Since that time the amount of research on ecstasy is minute. There
has hardly been any good scientific research at all on ecstasy.
What has been done is a few animal studies and little bits of
epidemiology on deaths which are very, very difficult to interpret
and, frankly, if we keep on going back --- so there is no evidence
base now to change the decision.
Q154 Bob Spink: Leah Betts' parents
might challenge your assertion that there is no evidence base.
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
There is no change in the evidence base; it is almost non-existent.
Q155 Dr Harris: So the limiting factor
is not resources? You have enough resources to do proactive reviews?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
Absolutely.
Q156 Dr Harris: My last area of questioning
is you said that you had said to ministers that if they were minded
to look at the way the classification system worked then the ACMD
would support that. Does that mean the ACMD discussed that?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
We did discuss it very briefly at the end of our meeting on cannabis.
Q157 Dr Harris: It is a bit peculiar
because a lot of organisations do spend time thinking about it
and in case they are asked by those who set their terms of reference,
"It would be really good if the terms of reference could
change . . . " they have a piece of work ready. Would you
say that it is something that really ought to be done, that there
ought to be serious consideration so that if someone says, "Shall
we do this?" you can say, "Yes, and here is some work
that we have done that would support the idea of a change from
a rigid ABC"? Select committees do that. They are always
looking at the way they work.
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
Our terms of reference are independent of the classification system
if you look at our terms of reference in the Act. This discussion
came at the end of two days of very intense discussion on cannabis,
and we had not actually discussed it previously and this was not
a moment to start going into what might be, and anyway I think
it is an issue that would be more appropriately done by Home Office
officials and by government ministers and then followed by broad
consultation. It was not appropriate at that stage, as I said,
at the end of two days of very intense discussions to try and
unpick it in any sense.
Chairman: I am going to try and change
direction a little bit because I am very conscious of the need
to move on. Des?
Q158 Dr Turner: Sir Michael, looking
at the list of members of your Committee, there is quite an impressive
breadth of expertise there and just about every stakeholder that
I can think of that needs to be represented is there. Is this
a function of your influence or is it decided by the Home Secretary?
Who actually determines the membership?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
What happens now is that there is an advertisement to join, but
I have also indicated that there are certain slots that we needed
to have filled. We needed to have, for example, senior police
officers. I was very keen on having a judge. I have been very
anxious recently to have people with experience of teaching, particularly
current, practical experience of teaching rather than, with great
respect, directors of education, so real, actual working teachers.
So I have influenced it and there has been no political suggestions
at all as to the range of individuals. I have also been keen on
trying to get a few younger people on it because most of us are
my age or a bit younger, like Professor Nutt here, but we felt
we needed some younger people who knew the culture and the environment
rather better than fathers and grandfathers like me.
Q159 Dr Turner: Clearly your influence
is very strong in this. The only thing of course is that although
your minimum membership is 20, it has expanded to 38 members.
Is it in danger of getting cumbersome?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
I would not want it to go any larger, but the breadth of expertise,
knowledge and understanding is very important to the Council,
and you will see from the membership that it includes very distinguished
scientists who are Fellows of the Royal Society as well as people
who have experience of looking after and helping individuals who
misuse drugs, and their families, so it is a wide range, as you
say.
| 
