Parliament > HASC > Comment and Analysis

HASC report: Comment and Analysis

Context

The select committees are the most powerful non-government parliamentary bodies and the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) is one of the most influential amongst them. Whilst ministers are not bound by the recommendations made by select committees they can have significant policy impacts, often paving the way for reform and forming a backdrop and frame of reference for future policy developments.

The HASC report is the most high level and significant critique of current drug policy to emerge in recent years. It is also the first detailed parliamentary consideration of decriminalisation and legalisation since the 1971 misuse of drugs act entered the statute books. The range of expert witness evidence taken and the scope and detail of the report is unprecedented.

The Police Foundation report from 1998 is its nearest equivalent. The Police Foundation Report (often referred to as the Runciman report, after its chair Dame Ruth Runciman) undoubtedly contributed to the climate of debate that allowed the HASC inquiry to be undertaken, influenced the shape of the HASC report, and paved the way for the HASCs progressive conclusions. The Police Foundation asked many of the same questions and came to many similar conclusions, particularly in terms of highlighting failures in current policy.

The HASC report carries greater weight politically, coming from a powerful cross party parliamentary body rather than an independent policy think tank. From Transform’s perspective it had added significance as it specifically addressed the possibilities of decriminalisation and legalisation of drugs as a central theme.

Recommendations and Conclusions

At first glance the committee’s conclusions on the question of decriminalisation/legalisation appear contradictory: Proposals for legalisation and decriminalisation are rejected (recommendations 2 and 3), but at the same time it is recommended that the Government ‘initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways—including the possibility of legalisation and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma’ (recommendation 24).

The committee proceedings reveal that the committee was divided on the questions of decriminalisation/legalisation, some strongly in support, others passionately opposed. In this context in was perhaps not suprising that the committee came to slightly ambiguous conclusions on the law reform issue.

The committee has acknowledged that there are strong arguments for legalisation, but rejects it in the short term, saying only that it should be kept under discussion and may be appropriate in the future.

The final recommendation, for the government to initiate a discussion at UN level into the possibility of decriminalisation and legalisation, is an explicit endorsement of the ongoing debate, and an acknowledgement that it should not be ruled out in the future.

The Government’s Response

The Government’s written response can be read in full here (pdf file format)

The Government essentially agreed with the parts of report that fitted in with existing policy plans and rejected the rest. Whilst superficially paying greater lip service to the HASC report than the Police Foundation report (which was rejected almost before publication and only reluctantly responded to later), there has been no obvious significant change in policy direction as a result.

Drugs and law and order are policy areas historically defined by rhetorical moral absolutes and governments have traditionally adopted rigid stances on key issues where it is a perceived to be important to appear tough and uncompromising. Drug war rhetoric is a good example of this tradition with drugs often portrayed as an ‘evil’ against which a ‘war’ has been declared. In this context drug law reform is seen as politically dangerous, often presented (by opponents) as surrender, weakness, retreat, ‘going soft’ on drugs, or ‘sending out the wrong message’.

The response from the Government to the legalisation and decriminalisation question was absolute rejection (for the rest of time). They refused to raise it at the UN, as recomended by the HASC, on the (not unreasonable) grounds that it was not Government policy and they did not support it.

Given the need to present a strong public position on the drugs issue it is difficult to know exactly what the Government, and key players in the Home Office really made of the HASC report.

The debate and disagreements within the HASC represents the wider debate between the members in the commons, within the civil service, within the media, across the drugs field and amongst the wider public. That the Government is unwilling to engage the reform movement in the same open minded way as the HASC is a great shame.

A study was recently undertaken by The Number Ten Strategy Unit examining current policy failings and options for the future. Unfortunately this report was not made public, presumably for reasons of political sensitivity. Whilst the Government’s policy making process remains so opaque it is difficult to know what is going on.

What is clear is that many of those who make drug policy in Parliament and Whitehall will have read the HASC report (and other literature on reform) and will come to there own conclusions. The drug policy reform debate is being actively engaged in all levels of government and this report has helped to give it credibility and some useful momentum.