Parliament has reacted to yesterday's news that the government plans to remove the legal requirement that the ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) contains scientists and experts

Yesterday I described my concern and that of others like the Campaign for Science and Engineering about the government's plan to remove the statutory minimum of scientists on the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD).

The political reaction has begun.

One MP raised the matter in the 20-minute segment of Home Office questions that is devoted to topical questions (which do not need three days' notice to submit).

From column 19 of yesterday's Hansard:

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Do the government really intend to end the obligation for scientists to be members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs? Will this not result in the failing government drugs policy ending up being evidence-free and prejudice-rich?

In response, the minister James Brokenshire (Con), repeated his line from the media the day before:

"I am grateful to the honorable gentleman for his question, because it allows me to underline the importance that the government place on scientific advice and the important role that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs plays in the formulation of our drugs policies. I can make it absolutely clear that our proposals are intended to add greater flexibility to the provision of advice given to government, in order to ensure that we are able to get more effective policies, given the changing nature of the drugs threat."

It is obvious that this answer only addresses the question of specific expertise written into statute and not the minimum number of scientists on the committee. No justification for the plan to end the statutory minimum number of scientists and experts on the committee.

Mr Brokenshire went on to say:

The proposals were drawn up in conjunction with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs...

He did not say they had the support of the ACMD, which begs the question as to whether the ACMD agreed all the proposals or were just told about them. Actually, it may be that the ACMD did approve them since – judging by the way the last government broke five of its own newly proposed rules when banning mephedrone – the ACMD has been shorn of many of the individuals who were willing and able to stand up to the government in this area.

We may never know what the ACMD thought of the proposal since their discussions seem clouded in secrecy and the last time minutes were placed on their website was several years ago, despite the cabinet office guidelines that such minutes should be published in a timely way.

In any event, it is not clear whether the view of the ACMD about its own composition is a wholly relevant one given the conflict of interests that obviously exists.

The minister then added the following "argument from authority":

... and I should add that they [the proposals] have the support of the government's chief scientific officer, Professor John Beddington.

This is intriguing. It is not clear and it is not in the public domain what Prof Beddington agreed or why. The letter from Mr Brokenshire to the Home Affairs Select Committee of 19 August mentioned consultation with the science community about changing the ACMD, but there does not seem to have been any.

Apparently the chief scientist's office stated yesterday that:

"I was consulted on this issue earlier in the year and I support the proposed changes. The changes will allow the council to access appropriate expertise and scientific advice depending on the issue being considered. Throughout this process it is essential that there is transparency in the expertise required, the recruitment of members and in implementing the changes to the council."

It is not clear why the council could not on a topic-by-topic basis access the expertise it needed in terms of the evidence it received and the experts called. It also casts no light on the question of there being a statutory minimum number of scientists and experts on the ACMD.

Julian Huppert MP (Lib Dem Cambridge), who according to his Twitter feed tried but failed to catch the Speaker's eye in Home Office questions yesterday, has tabled the Early Day Motion (1148) below:

SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE ON THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE MISUSE OF DRUGS That this House expresses its concern that the proposed changes in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill to the membership of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs remove the requirement to have any members on the Council with specific scientific knowledge; recognises the importance of evidence-based policy making, especially in the area of drugs policy; and requests that the Government brings forward amendments to the Bill to ensure that a reasonable proportion of the members of the Council have relevant scientific experience.

The Lib Dem manifesto position on the ACMD – which has not been overtaken by anything in the Coalition Agreement – was

"Always base drugs policy on independent scientific advice, including making the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs completely independent of government.

and on science advice generally it said ...

"It is vital that policy, especially that relating to public health, criminal justice and environmental protection, benefits from being based on the best available evidence."

It is to be hoped that Lib Dem MPs will sign Julian's motion. Significantly, Tom Brake, the chair of the party's Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee has already signed it, giving semi-official Lib Dem backing to the position in the motion.

The position of the Labour Party in opposition will be interesting given its hostility to the scientific findings of the ACMD when they were in government, and we can perhaps judge that by how many sign the motion.

Amendments can only be tabled on Monday night after the Bill's Second Reading.