STEVEN LOCKTON (RESIDENTIAL CARE) (Hansard, 14 April 1969)

§ Mr. A. H. Macdonald (Chislehurst)

I want at this late hour to raise the case of Steven Lockton, the son of Mr. and Mrs. Lockton, my constituents. Steven is a little boy aged 5½ who is mentally and physically disabled so that he is confined to a wheel chair. I understand that in the fulness of time there is some hope that he will be trained to the use of his limbs, although it is not likely that he will ever be able to lead a full normal life. At present, however, he is confined to a wheel chair.

Mr. and Mrs. Lockton also have a little daughter aged 3½. This little girl cannot understand why her brother does not play with her as the brothers of other little girls play with them. Mr. and Mrs. Lockton took advice about this and were advised that they should add to their family. They accepted this advice, and Mrs. Lockton is now expecting a further confinement in about five weeks time. During the later stages of her pregnancy she received medical advice that she should not lift her son Steven and, as I 946 have said, he is confined to a wheel chair and therefore this prohibition presented certain difficulties.

The question arose as to what should be provided for Steven, at any rate during the later stages of Mrs. Lockton's pregnancy, and if possible after that, because even after the birth, naturally, she will be faced with difficulties in manipulating a perambulator as well as a wheel chair. What she and her husband would naturally have liked would have been the provision of care for Steven, boarding him out for five days a week and letting him come home at weekends when Mr. Lockton is available to assist his wife.

My constituents made application to the local welfare authority, which is the London Borough of Bexley, and they were introduced to a home for mentally handicapped children, known as Goldie Leigh, in the borough. Mr. and Mrs. Lockton were invited to visit this home, which they did, and they were absolutely delighted by what they saw. They were gratified to see the care and the facilities that would be available there for their son. They noted the very satisfactory ratio of staff to patients at Goldie Leigh and they went home well contented and awaited the formal notification that Steven would be admitted to this home. But this notification did not come.

Instead they got a note to say that there was no place for Steven at Goldie Leigh but that a place could be found for him at another home for mentally handicapped children at Darenth. This is outside the borough but not far away. Both of these homes, Goldie Leigh and Darenth, are not controlled by the local authority but are the responsibility of Dartford and Stone Hospital Management Committee. Mr. and Mrs. Lockton accordingly went to see the facilities that were available at Darenth, and I am sorry to say that they came back determined that their son would not go there. They were not happy about what they saw would be the treatment or, as they rather 947 saw it, the absence of treatment that would be provided at this home.

I suppose it is very natural when any person is, for example, thirsty, that he is much more thirsty if he sees refreshment available but which he cannot get. Mr. and Mrs. Lockton have seen the facilities at Goldie Leigh and yet they were offered only a place at Darenth. I suppose there are two types of parent of mentally handicapped children. The one type of parent wishes to put out his child to full-time care and have nothing whatever further to do with him, whereas the other type of parent gives extra love to his mentally handicapped child. I do not know that I want to blame the first kind of parent. I have been spared this kind of trial and so I do not want to criticise, but I do say that Mr. and Mrs. Lockton are the second type of parent and they have a very deep love for their little boy, especially so because he is handicapped.

Mrs. Lockton is most unwilling to see her son offered a place at Darenth after she has seen the wonderful facilities that are available at Goldie Leigh. At this point, I break off the narrative to make absolutely clear that in what I have to say I neither offer nor imply any kind of criticism of the Dartford and Stone Hospital Management Committee or of the staff and facilities available at Darenth. I have some criticisms, but I have none whatever of the authorities responsible. Indeed, I consider that people who work in mental welfare deserve praise rather than blame, and it is praise that they will have from me. Like everyone else, they have to work with the facilities which are made available to them. If there be criticism, that criticism, I suppose, should be directed at me and other Members of Parliament for failing to make available the finance required for adequate care of mentally handicapped children.

I shall not develop that theme further, since to do so would be to step a little outside the bounds of this debate, but I wished to make those few remarks to show that, whatever other criticisms I have, I have no criticism, overt or implied, of the mental welfare authorities responsible for the home at Darenth. I venture to hope that little attention will be paid tomorrow to cries for the cutting of taxation when we see these defects 948 existing in our provision of mental welfare facilities. Having said that, I come straight back to the case of Steven Lockton.

As I have said, the facilities at Goldie Leigh which Mr. and Mrs. Lockton saw have not been made available to them. I think that they would not have been nearly so distressed if they had never actually seen Goldie Leigh. But to be told about it, to be invited to visit it, to be shown round, to be allowed to suppose that it was the place to which their son would go, and then to be told that no place was available was most unfortunate. They have been told that they may put Steven's name down on a waiting list for admission to Goldie Leigh. If Mr. and Mrs. Lockton had known of the existence of Goldie Leigh, they would have put his name down years ago.

In these circumstances, temporary provision was found for Steven at Cray Valley Hospital in my constituency, but it was only temporary and he had to leave there a little time ago. He is now at Queen Mary's Hospital at Carshalton, which has a special unit for mentally handicapped children. By coincidence, I know something of that hospital because I have another constituent who had a child there and who speaks very highly of the facilities there. So do Mr. and Mrs. Lockton, and they would be only too happy if Steven could stay there. But the arrangement is only temporary because the place has been found for Steven only while the children who are usually cared for at Queen Mary's Hospital are at home with their parents during the Easter holidays. Steven will have to leave Queen Mary's on Wednesday week when they return.

I should add that this temporary provision has been found by the welfare department of the London Borough of Bexley. I greatly appreciate the understanding, the sympathy and the efforts which the Bexley welfare department has shown throughout the whole of this case. But, as I say, Steven will have to leave Queen Mary's Hospital at Carshalton in just over a week. That will be only two or three weeks before Mrs. Lockton's confinement, and the future of Steven is still not entirely clear.

In these circumstances, Mr. Lockton made application to the London Borough 949 of Bexley to find out whether some sort of financial assistance could be provided to help him find accommodation for Steven at a private home. But the decision was that no financial assistance could be made available while there was a place offered and available for Steven at Darenth. I can understand this decision and, therefore, I do not press that point.

Then Mr. Lockton asked whether efforts might be made to find suitable accommodation for Steven at a home outside the borough, other than Darenth. This request, too, was not acceptable. I do not fully understand the reasons.

He tried again, and asked if he could be provided with home help assistance. The London Borough of Bexley provides home help assistance, and the standard charge is 6s. 6d. an hour, subject to an assessment of the applicant's means. The application was assessed in the normal way, and the result is that Mr. Lockton must pay £3 15s. for the first hours of home help assistance per week, and then can have as many extra hours as he likes free. The blunt fact is that he cannot afford that £3 15s., and therefore the offer of home help, acceptable though it might be in other circumstances, is not practical for him.

Therefore, it seems that inexorably Mr. and Mrs. Lockton are being driven to accept the accommodation offered at Darenth. I am anxious not to use too emotional or over-emphatic language, but Mrs. Lockton is in some agony of mind. At a time when her confinement is imminent and above all else she should have peace of mind, she is suffering great distress in not knowing exactly what care will be provided for Steven, and fearing that in the event he will have to be accommodated at Darenth.

For the reasons I have given, although in other circumstances she might have accepted that, she finds it very hard having seen the greatly superior facilities available at Goldie Leigh. Therefore, as a last resort, tonight I am asking my hon. Friend if he could intervene, even at this late stage, to see if it is possible to find some accommodation at Goldie Leigh for Steven, at least during the time of Mrs. Lockton's confinement and the period immediately after the birth of her child.

I have had correspondence with his Department, which has been most courte- 950 ous and helpful; I gladly put that on record. But I raise this matter tonight because the matter is now of some urgency owing to the coming confinement of Mrs. Lockton. I hope that even at this late stage it may be possible to resolve it in a way that will satisfy this mother, who deeply cares for her mentally handicapped child and wants to see the best possible care made available for him.

§ The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) for raising this case, and doing so in a very sympathetic way, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Lockton and their child. I also thank him for giving me notice of the points he would raise and enabling me to look into the matter. Although there are not many people in the House, I am always glad of an occasion like this when Parliament can consider the case of an individual, and I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for affording the opportunity.

I hope that I can give my hon. Friend and Mr. and Mrs. Lockton some reassurance. I feel as much sympathy for them as my hon. Friend does.

It might be helpful if I recapitulate the events that have led up to the present position. Because of his physical and mental handicaps, Steven, who is now 5½, was in the supervision of the London Borough of Bexley receiving physiotherapy treatment on one day a week from the age of two until he was five. In December 1967 the local authority's health and welfare departments examining medical officer found him unsuitable for education at school and considered him to be too handicapped to take advantage of training centre facilities. Residential care in hospital on five days a week was recommended, but at that time Mr. and Mrs. Lockton felt unable to accept this suggestion. In July 1968 Steven was admitted to the Sidcup Junior Training Centre for one day each week, as neither of the council's two training centres has special care facilities which would enable it to cope with a child so severely handicapped, and in the interests of the other children attending the centre and the staff, the council felt that this was the most that it could do.

951 In January, 1969, Mrs. Lockton again being pregnant and expecting her confinement late in May, the medical officer of health again raised with Mr. and Mrs. Lockton the question of five-day residential care for Steven. They recognised that it would be very difficult for Mrs. Lockton, particularly during her period of confinement. Mrs. Lockton asked if she might visit Goldie Leigh hospital before coming to a final decision. The local authority arranged for Mr. and Mrs. Lockton to visit this hospital on 20th January, and they were told that any approach for in-patient admission would need to be made through the South East Metropolitan Hospital Board.

Mrs. Lockton was agreeable to Steven's admission to Goldie Leigh for five-day care, but when the medical officer of health, in accordance with usual practice, approached the hospital authorities, they said that no places were available at Goldie Leigh but, instead, offered an immediate place at Darenth Park Hospital where the services of a physiotherapist with special experience with cerebral palsy children would be available.

I am glad that my hon. Friend went out of his way not to make any criticism of the hospital management committee who are responsible for Darenth, in which a great deal of very good work is done for a large number of patients. One can well understand the attraction of Goldie Leigh because it is a much smaller hospital, but it has the same consultant physician, it comes under the same hospital management committee, and there are facilities at Darenth which are not necessarily available at Goldie Leigh.

Unfortunately, Mr. and Mrs. Lockton did not find the offer of a place at Darenth Park acceptable. A consultant from Darenth Park Hospital visited them at the request of their general practitioner, and he made a firm offer of five-day care at Darenth Park Hospital beginning on 11th February, but this was refused. Steven was, however, admitted to Cray Valley Hospital on 6th March for a 10-day stay, to relieve pressure on Mrs. Lockton, who was of course much concerned.

952 I understand from the regional hospital board that a place will shortly be available at Hill House Hospital, Rye, and the medical officer of health has been informed of this.

The key question in this case is the kind of care which Steven needs. Both the local health authority and the regional hospital board are fully aware of the position, and have been considering what arrangements can best be made to help Mr. and Mrs. Lockton. A consultant psychiatrist has seen Steven in his home, and I understand that the regional hospital board, on the advice of its consultant psychiatrist, does not consider that he requires long-term hospital care. The board, however, offered a short-term place at Darenth Park Hospital to relieve pressure on Mr. and Mrs. Lockton, which was refused, and has now made an alternative offer of a place at Hill House.

My hon. Friend made a comment on the fact that a visit was made to Goldie Leigh Hospital by Mrs. Lockton, when no places were available. I would stress, however, that the visit was arranged entirely at Mrs. Lockton's own request and carried no promise or obligation that a place was, or could be made, available for Steven. The question of a place arose only after Mrs. Lockton had seen the hospital and had decided she wanted to make an application for her son to go there. It will be recognised that there are many other people also waiting, and it is difficult to edge one out in favour of another.

The immediate problem of short-term care during Mrs. Lockton's confinement therefore appears to have been solved by an offer of a place at Hill House. There remains the longer-term problem. Unfortunately, the local health authority does not at present have facilities to provide five-day care and training for the severely handicapped child. I know my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear, however, that there is a 60-place junior training centre under construction at Sidcup, which is due to be completed in March 1970, and which will contain 12 special care places, one of which will be offered to Steven. The 1969/70 capital programme of the authority contains provisions for a hostel for mentally subnormal children.

953 The local authority will, however, of course continue to make available facilities for training on one day each week at a junior training centre, and there will be full support in the home by visits and advice from the staff of the Health and Welfare Department. With a new baby, however, Mrs. Lockton will obviously need more help than this, and I am sure that the local authority has fully in mind the problem whether any further help with the care of Steven can be given. I think that there is an immediate solution for the next few months, and then one might also see the way to a long-term solution.

I recognise that the worry has caused a good deal of distress to Mrs. Lockton. The assessment of Steven's needs is highly specialised and we are all determined that he should receive the care and training which will help him best.

954 As I said at the beginning of my comments, Steven's needs are over-riding. I am sure that both the hospital authorities and the local health authority have this as much in mind as have my hon Friend and I. I therefore think that some good will have come from my hon. Friend's having sought leave to raise this matter in the House. I am now well aware of the concern by the hospital authorities and the local authority as well as by my own Department, and I think that as a consequence of all that has been done a solution will be found which will be to the advantage of young Steven who, I hope, will be able to benefit from some of the facilities which have been made available for him.