HC Deb 17 February 1908 vol 184 cc402-4
MR. CHARLES ROBERTS (Lincoln)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the recent decision of the London County Council for the discontinuance of their contributions to the national institutions under the Inebriates Act of 1898; whether this will deprive some 400 or 500 of the worst classes of inebriates of treatment at these institutions; and whether he has it in his power to take any steps to prevent the Act being rendered of no effect by this decision.

*(Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have received with much regret a letter from the London County Council stating that the Council does not see its way to renew its contracts as regards females with the National Institutions for the Care and Reformation of Inebriate Persons. I would explain that, when the Inebriates Act of 1898 first came into force, absence of experience made it impossible to calculate the exact amount required by the managers of reformatories for the maintenance of inebriates. A sum of 10s. 6d. per head per week was decided upon as an experimental amount to be given to managers of reformatories by the Treasury, towards the maintenance of all cases committed under the Act, provided local authorities also contributed from local funds. This Government contribution was guaranteed for three years, but was in fact continued without change for seven years. It was then decided that the experience which had been gained warranted a reduction in the Government grant. The accounts of seven out of the eight institutions in full working order during 1906 showed a maintenance cost varying from 10s. 4d. to 14s. per inmate per week, but the eighth, "Farmfield" (managed by the London County Council) was not conducted at less than a weekly rate of 18s. 6d. per head. It was felt that 14s. per week should be considered the total amount required for maintenance, and that the managers of reformatories should be induced to bring down their expenses to that sum per head, and in furtherance of the view that the segregation of inebriates relieved Imperial and local funds about equally, it was decided that the Government contribution should be reduced from 10s. 6d. to 7s. to correspond with the 7s. provided by local authorities. This reduction has been accepted as reasonable by the managers of reformatories, except in the case of the London County Council. At an early date after the passing of the Inebriates Act of 1898, the London County Council established a reformatory at Farmfield, near Horley, for the reception of 100 female inebriates. It soon became evident that more accommodation would be necessary, and the Council accordingly contracted with the National Institution for Inebriates for the reception of all female cases they were unable to receive at Farmfield, agreeing to pay 7s. per head per week for each case. The number of London women now under detention as the result of this contract considerably exceeds 500. In May last the London County Council decided to withdraw their contract with the National Institutions and restrict their work under the Inebriates Act to that carried on at Farmfield for 100 cases. The serious effect of this decision was pointed out to the Council, and eventually the Council offered to renew their contract for females, provided the Government grant of 10s. 6d. per head be reverted to for all cases com- mitted under Section 2 of the Act and continued during the period of renewal of the contract. As such action by the Government would have supplied an unnecessary amount of money to the managers of institutions who did not need nor ask for any increase for the proper conduct of their work, and would have entailed a large increase of unjustifiable expenditure, the offer of the council was declined, and the contract with the national institutions has accordingly ceased. A few vacancies at Farmfield will probably be available from time to time, but these will be so few as practically to render the Act useless so far as London is concerned, and the step taken by the council will involve reversion to the discredited system of short and repeated terms of imprisonment as the only means of dealing with female inebriates, but no power exists by which the Council can be compelled to reverse its decision or make other adequate provision for the needs of females committed from within its administrative area.