Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 19: 19: Schedule 1, page 159, line 26, after ““specified”” insert ““and designated by the Secretary of State on the advice of the President of the Royal College of Physicians as”” The noble Lord said: First, I express my deep gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for his undeserved compliments about the wording of the amendment, which is not really a finished product, but more of a probing amendment to try to elicit some information from the Minister about what will be provided by way of intoxicating substance treatment requirements, and how the courts will decide on the appropriate institution in which a particular offender will be treated. No one would contest the assertion that alcohol is an important factor in the aetiology of crime, and because of the catastrophic rise in drinking by young people, many are committing offences that bring them before the courts. As an indication of the extent of the problem: in 2005-06, 5,280 children under the age of 16 were admitted to hospital for alcohol-related reasons; in 2006-07 that figure had risen to 6,707. We agree that the intoxicating substance treatment retirement, which can be imposed in connection with a youth rehabilitation order, is a necessary addition to Schedule 1. But we are concerned about whether the facilities to deliver this treatment will be available; whether they will be professionally validated and whether the courts will have the expertise to make decisions on detox and rehabilitation, which may well require different facilities. The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse has published a review of the effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems, and the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, in her introduction, says that there is compelling evidence for investment in alcohol treatment, but that it is essential that it should be directed towards interventions of proven effectiveness. Last October the NTA told the Observer that the number of young people in contact with alcohol treatment agencies rose from 5,200 in 2005-06 to 6,707 the following year, so there is undoubtedly a growing demand. Yet there seems to be no strategy to provide the facilities that are needed; indeed, establishments are being closed. I was told that Phoenix Futures, for instance, is just about to close one of its residential establishments—or has just about done so. Nor does there seem to be any authority to validate the treatment to be provided under the orders. The Commission for Social Care Inspection, which registers residential establishments, has no expertise on the quality of the treatment offered. Presumably, the treatment specified in the order will sometimes, if not generally, be residential, but those facilities are few and far between. In the light of the debate on the previous amendment, which the Minister resisted because it applied only in cases where a young person would be compelled to leave their home, I would be grateful if, when replying to this amendment, the Minister would say something about whether these alcohol treatments would invariably be non-residential. If not, the same arguments apply as they did to the previous amendment. I beg leave to doubt whether, in every case, the treatment of severe alcohol problems can be done on a non-residential basis. In the provision of those facilities, there is inadequate co-ordination between PCTs and local authorities. In the new NHS operational plan for 2008-09 to 2010-11, there is nothing specific about alcohol treatment. If the orders are to work, they need to be embedded in a proper strategic framework with adequate funding and with professional validation of the facilities to be developed. I beg to move.