Phil Willis finds serious shortcomings

The term ‘evidence based policy’ is regularly bandied about by politicians seeking to give their policies greater credibility. In a wide-ranging inquiry, the Science and Technology Committee has been exploring the reality behind the rhetoric by examining the role that scientific advice and evidence have played in the formulation of various key areas of Government policy.

One of three case studies undertaken within the inquiry addressed the classification of illegal drugs.

The current ABC system purports to classify drugs on the basis of harm, in order to make penalties for possession and trafficking proportional to the harm associated with their misuse. Most of the classifications of individual drugs were determined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 but there have been changes made since then – most controversially, the reclassification of cannabis from Class B to Class C which came into effect in 2004.

The Misuse of Drugs Act also established a scientific committee, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), to advise the Government on drugs policy. The Home Secretary is obliged to consult the ACMD prior to making any changes to the classification of a drug, although he is not bound by this advice.

Conspiracy theories

We were concerned to find a number of deficiencies in the operation of the ACMD. We recognised that the Council made a vital contribution to policy making but found that it had given insufficient attention to transparency and public communication.

Scientific advisory committees have a public duty to be as transparent as possible in their approach – the ACMD’s deficiencies in this area have created fertile ground for suspicion and conspiracy theories, as well as hindering public understanding of the role of the Council.

We were also disappointed to find that the ACMD had focussed disproportionately on the provision of advice to the Home Office. The Department of Health and Department for Education and Skills clearly have pivotal roles to play in delivering the Government’s drug policy targets and it is essential that approaches to treatment and prevention are firmly rooted in evidence. We concluded that the Council needed to be much more proactive in supporting policy making in these departments.

Concerns all round

In order to examine the incorporation of advice in policy, we looked at the part played by scientific advice and evidence in the classification of cannabis; amphetamines, including ecstasy and methylamphetamine; and magic mushrooms. In each case, we found cause for concern.

The widespread confusion that accompanied the reclassification of cannabis emphasised the need for clear and effective information campaigns to ensure that the police, users and the general public understand the implications of any changes.

In the case of ecstasy, we found the ACMD’s failure to review its classification despite accumulating evidence that it did not merit its Class A status surprising and disappointing.

We were also critical of the fact that the ACMD took it upon itself to make a political judgement in advising the Home Secretary against moving methylamphetamine from Class B to Class A on the grounds that it might stimulate interest in the drug amongst potential users. The Council’s subsequent change of mind gave the impression that it had either realised its error, or succumbed to outside pressure.

Finally, in respect of magic mushrooms, we were critical of both the Government for using a ‘clarification of the law’ to place fresh magic mushrooms in Class A (which bypassed the need to consult the ACMD), and the ACMD for not speaking out against the Government’s decision, despite a lack of evidence to suggest that magic mushrooms should be placed in Class A.

Decouple classification from penalties

Drugs education must be evidence-based if it is to be credible. Yet in our inquiry we found glaring anomalies in the classification system and no convincing evidence for the deterrent effect which is widely seen as underpinning the Government’s drug policy.

Decoupling the classification system from penalties would facilitate the development of a more scientifically-based scale of harm which could be far more responsive to changes in the evidence base. A decoupled scale could also include tobacco and alcohol to give a better sense of the relative harms associated with abuse of various drugs.

At the beginning of 2006, the Government promised to undertake a root and branch review of the classification system but this has failed to materialise. Our inquiry has shown conclusively that this review is urgently needed.

Phil Willis MP is Chairman of House of Commons Science and Technology Committee

See also Tracey Brown’s article Scientific advice in government.