BLUNKETT EXPOSED AS 'TSAR' STRIKES BACK

It took Keith Hellawell just over a year to exact his revenge on David
Blunkett for downgrading his role as the Government's drugs "tsar".

But when the payback was delivered yesterday, the former police chief's
timing could hardly have been more damaging. Just as Mr Blunkett was about
to confirm plans to soften the law on cannabis possession, Mr Hellawell
struck with devastating effect in an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today
programme.

Mr Hellawell - who remained a part-time drugs adviser to the Government
despite losing his more grandiose status - announced that he had resigned
in protest at Mr Blunkett's policy on cannabis.

He also made clear that the decision to reclassify the drug from a Class B
to a Class C substance was the Home Secretary's personal initiative. "I
don't know where he got his advice from; it certainly wasn't from me," said
the erstwhile tsar.

Mr Hellawell's announcement was all the more surprising since, when he was
appointed shortly after Labour's election victory in 1997, he was
considered to be a "liberal" on cannabis.

His resignation left the Home Secretary looking exposed yesterday and also
brought to a head 10 months of growing disenchantment with Government policy.

When Mr Blunkett announced last October that he proposed to change the law
he was praised by reformers for recognising the realities of life on the
streets. The received wisdom was that police were too busy tackling heroin
and crack cocaine dealers and abusers to waste their time chasing up
cannabis smokers, who were harming no one but themselves.

In a surprise announcement to the Commons home affairs select committee, Mr
Blunkett said possession of cannabis would remain a criminal offence, but
it would no longer be arrestable.

This was noteworthy because the Government had, just a few months
previously, rejected a similar proposal from the Police Foundation, an
independent think-tank. Furthermore, Labour had come to power in 1997
vowing "zero tolerance" on drugs and had held this line against the growing
clamour for a more liberal policy.

So why the change? One reason was the experiment taking place in Brixton,
south London, where cannabis users were issued with a caution and had the
drug confiscated but were not arrested.

The Brixton initiative pioneered by Brian Paddick became a beacon for those
campaigning for more liberal laws and a bete noire for those against
relaxation.

Supporters claimed that police had more time to focus on hard drugs and
were also better placed to curb street crime, which declined in the borough
- - though by no more than it did elsewhere as a result of a special
operation by the Metropolitan Police.

Mr Blunkett also received a fair wind for his policy from the Advisory
Council on the Misuse of Drugs - which supported reclassification despite
warning that cannabis was harmful - and from the home affairs select
committee, whose MPs, apart from one Tory, backed the move.

The way seemed clear for the reclassification to proceed. Then the backlash
began. Firstly, some police chiefs - who are divided over the relaxation of
drugs laws - began to voice doubts about extending the Brixton experiment
nationwide.

This was mirrored on the Labour back benches, notably by Kate Hoey, the
former sports minister whose London constituency includes Brixton, who told
of the impact the Paddick initiative was having on the area.

Dealers were trading hard drugs openly in the streets and police recorded
an 11 per cent increase in trafficking offences, something that,
perversely, Mr Blunkett yesterday cited as a success but which could be a
sign that more dealers were in the area. Although an opinion poll in
Lambeth suggested that most people wanted the scheme to continue, some
community leaders were fearful of the impact on the borough.

The Conservatives saw the opportunity to turn the heat on Mr Blunkett. This
week, Iain Duncan Smith visited Brixton and spoke to residents who opposed
relaxing the laws.

Mr Blunkett, who had taken his initial decision against a seemingly
auspicious backdrop, suddenly found the political scenery shifting. In
order to generate more favourable coverage, he wrote to John Prescott, the
Deputy Prime Minister, saying he proposed to double the maximum jail
sentence for dealing in Class C drugs to 10 years.

This letter was leaked to a newspaper but unravelled when it became
apparent that the sentences would be four years less than those currently
available to the courts for trafficking cannabis.

By the time he made his announcement, Mr Blunkett had increased the maximum
sentence for dealing in Class C drugs to 14 years to bring cannabis back
into line with existing punishments.

In the Commons yesterday both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister had
been thrown on the defensive. All the preparations had been spectacularly
undone by the Government's silver-haired former drugs supremo.

Even his new policy was not what Mr Blunkett had originally signalled. The
police were to retain the power to arrest for possession where public order
was threatened or where children were at risk. This seemed to defeat the
object and, since primary legislation was now needed, the policy would take
another year to implement.

In the meantime, the Government's drugs policy risks becoming a confusing
muddle, for which Mr Blunkett will not be thanked either by the reformers,
the enforcers or his Cabinet colleagues.