Tim Hollis: Why I fear that new budget cuts may harm the police battle against drugs

Firstly, in my capacity as leading on drugs for the Association of

Chief Police Officers (ACPO), I would like to welcome the drugs

strategy review that is being carried out by the Home Office. During

the four years I have held that national role, I have steadfastly maintained that the problems associated with drugs and the harm caused to communities can only be addressed long-term by a co-ordinated approach in which police have an important role to play regarding enforcement. This is not the only one, however, issues regarding prevention and education and treatment are equally important.

One of my frustrations is that the public debate on this important

issue is often very polarised. It is too easy to push any statement on the issue towards one of the two extreme positions, namely

the "legalisation" lobby, or those suggesting that we "lock them

up and throw away the key". Bearing in mind that we are talking about predominantly young people – and I speak as the father of three young adults – I do not find this polarisation very helpful.

From my meetings at the Home Office, I know that they are seeking to take a more objective, evidence based view looking across all

departments and agencies involved in tackling the harm associated with illicit drugs and seeking to identify what works best in the long-term. Their renewed focus on rehabilitation and reducing re-offending is refreshing.

Let us be clear: the landscape surrounding such drugs has changed materially in recent years. In terms of enforcement, police are very familiar with the problems and criminality associated with cannabis, cocaine and heroin. We now have the additional challenge of the rapid growth of cannabis factories and the link to serious and organised crimine. In the last three years, police have developed considerable intelligence and operational experience in relation to these.

At the same time society is wrestling with a new problem – the sudden growth in use of legal highs. This is linked directly to the

availability of the internet not only to promote and supply such commodities but also to exchange information and technical advice so as to allow others to develop new drugs which fall outside

those "controlled" by legislation. This represents a radical new challenge to society.

There is an increasing belief that The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the existing framework of drugs control lacks the flexibility and fleetness of foot to deal effectively with the challenges that communities now face. The Home Office is aware of this and actively exploring options to tackle the problem. I am encouraged to see that they are approaching it from a public health perspective rather than turning immediately to enforcement and adding inexorably to the list of proscribed drugs.

Turning to the possible impact of the forthcoming budget cuts, I am less optimistic. All agencies are making contingency plans to prepare for cuts to public sector funding anticipated in the Comprehensive Spending Review. All police forces, including my own, are assessing how best to remodel the service across all areas of policing. Inevitably, some aspects of policing will have to be slimmed down. The four forces of Yorkshire and Humber are also actively exploring options for joint working to assist in this process and to maintain capabilities which might otherwise diminish.

There is a clear risk that specialist crime units across the UK may be reduced in size with consequent impact upon their capacity to tackle serious and organised crime, some 70 per cent of which is related to drugs.

Likewise, in 2013 it is proposed that the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) will be replaced by the National Crime Agency. Currently, Soca focuses on class A drugs and works closely with other national enforcement agencies and all police forces to tackle national, European and international drugs markets. I strongly suspect that the NCA will play a key role in this regard in future but, from experience, we know that during the transition from one agency to a new one a degree of organisational energy will be absorbed elsewhere.

I also sense a risk to partnership working. Across many forces, good work in terms of treatment and diversion is provided to those arrested for drugs offences by the Drug Intervention Programme (DIP). The fact is that DIP funding comes from the centre and, even if it continues, a reduction in funding must be anticipated. This will inevitably have an impact on the diversionary programmes available locally.

From experience, when it comes to wider partnership working I am

convinced that the most effective partnerships are those where agencies have staff co-located and working as part of one team. I recently visited an Integrated Offender Management team in north Lincolnshire where police, probation and others worked as one to reduce re-offending, some of it related to drugs. While I am optimistic that such joint working is understood and valued by all, I do worry that some agencies may feel unable to maintain their commitment to such teams if reduced funding makes them withdraw to their core task. So much of drug-related work falls across agency boundaries, the long term solutions invariably so.

Professionally, I continue to be optimistic about the more mature and well-informed debate which is emerging around drugs. I know that all agencies involved in that area of work will strive hard to build upon what is shown to work. I am, however, apprehensive as to the cumulative effect over time of substantial budget cuts on our joint efforts to reduce the harms associated with drugs. Time will tell.

Tim Hollis is Chief Constable of Humberside Police and Association of Chief Police Officers lead on drugs.