§ LORD AMULREEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any, and if so how many, State inebriate reformatories have been established under the Inebriates Act 1898.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)My Lords, two State reformatories were established soon after the Inebriates Act 1898 became law, one at Aylesbury for women and one at Warwick for men. Both were closed during the First World War. The experiment they represented—though it provided some lessons—was regarded at the time as having ended in failure.
§ LORD AMULREEMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that rather depressing reply. Can he say how many and what homes there are in the country at the present time for the care of these unfortunate people?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, apart from the two State reformatories there were thirteen inebriate reformatories provided by local authorities and philanthropic organisations, all of which were closed by 1921. In addition, there were thirty retreats for alcoholics who would go voluntarily, but unfortunately all of those have also closed down, except one at Spelthorne St. Mary. So the position is that no places of that kind are open except the one at Spelthorne.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, arising out of my noble friend's reply, can he state whether the number of cases of confirmed alcoholism has shown an increase over recent years, and whether all the 138 splendid efforts of the voluntary organisations are really adequate to core with this very severe social problem?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, so far as convictions for drunkenness are concerned—and that is the only criterion—the numbers vary; they go up and they go down. There is no evidence that at present alcoholism is on the increase. With regard to those cases that we can trace—that is, the offenders who go to prison for drunkenness—we estimate to that there are some 2,000 in the country, of whom at any given time about 1,000 are in prison for short periods.
§ BARONESS SWANBOROUGHMy Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for implementing the recommendations in the Criminal Justice Act 1967 regarding the alternative to imprisonment for drunkenness?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, our main present hope depends on after-care hostels. The Home Office is at present paying grants on 10 hostels, with 91 places, almost all of which are for alcoholics. As my noble friend Lady Reading is aware, the Rathcoole hostel, which she was instrumental in starting, has proved that even alcoholics of the, most extreme kind can be kept sober and at work for quite considerable periods, provided that they are given expert support and constant care. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is awaiting the Report of the Working Party on the habitual drunken offender which he set up, and will pay the greatest possible regard to its recommendations.
§ LORD AMULREEMy Lords, I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord two supplementary questions. The first is whether treatment facilities are now available for these people under the National Health Service, and, if so, whether they are available on any big scale. The second question is whether anything is being done at all to help these unfortunate people who are, I think, called "Skid-row" alcoholics at the present time.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, as I am quite sure the noble Lord is aware, alcoholism is officially recognised as a disease, and ministerial responsibility for medical treatment is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Minister 139 of Health. Unfortunately, facilities for that kind of treatment are not adequate. With regard to the treatment provided by the Home Office, which will eventually do away with the need for sending alcoholics to prison, that again is insufficient. I mentioned just now a stage army of some 2,000 of these people. In my opinion, at least 500 of them will need places in hostels for care of this kind, and that is a measure of the need still to be met.
§ LORD AMULREEMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord once more for his reply, but I think I shall need to raise this question again on an occasion when we have rather more to talk about.