Drugs Policy and Parliament

Written by Colin Breed on Tue 3rd Nov 2009

The spat between the Home Secretary and the Chair of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs highlights some fundamental problems at the heart of Government. Essentially, the current Government and to a lesser extent the previous Conservative administration have sought ways of separating themselves from difficult decisions.

They have done this through a variety of ways - establishing quangos, setting up agencies and subtlety changing the operation and nature of advisory bodies. To many they give substantial powers over the spending of public money, to others automatic power to amend policy. The Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England now sets interest rates making the Bank largely independent. This has enabled the Government to indicate that it is responsible for policy, whilst leaving its implementation to "arms length" institutions. However, it has had other unforeseen and unintended consequences.

Firstly it has led to an explosion of legislation to enable these bodies to operate under statute. Secondly, it has substantially reduced the authority of Parliament and thirdly it has denied the use of Parliamentary time to debate controversial or awkward matters, which would more properly inform the country of the complexity and enormity of some issues. It is this latter category into which drugs policy falls.

One MP pointed out we have not had a substantive debate in Government time on drugs policy for many years and yet it remains one of the most important and intractable long term issues. It affects almost every part of society leading to criminality, cross-border trafficking, extreme violence, massive money laundering, the destruction of many lives and the filling up of our prisons. It is the so called "elephant in the room" in many social policy debates - referred to but not tackled, and accepted as a problem but left in the "to do" box. Bearing in mind this Government's inclination to involve itself in every nook and cranny of our lives it is strangely reticent to have open debate on this subject.

It was against this background that the scientists finally succumbed to their growing frustration. Tired of providing professional, researched and up to date information, which they considered was ignored, the Chair went into the public arena which was clearly against the Code on which he and the other members had agreed to work voluntarily. The Home Secretary acted as if this was not the first occasion the Chair had stepped out of line.

The issue now is not whether science should direct or inform policy, nor whether there should be a fundamental change to the many satisfactory relationships between Government and advisors which currently exist. The issue is can Parliament now have a full day's debate on the whole issue of drugs policy including the provision of the latest research together with contributions from agencies and others? Only this will give us better insight, more clarity of policy and provide the means to tackle this scourge of our society.