Chamber
Plenary, 05 Mar 2008
05 Mar 2008 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Wheelchair Users <br />(Human Rights)
This is one of those occasions on which the motion seems to say it all. Trish Godman lodged a comprehensive statement summarising the issue at hand and spoke to it effectively. I am grateful to her, because I have to confess that I was less familiar with the issue than I ought to have been. While researching the situation, I became convinced that progress to improve the position for wheelchair users had run into the sand.
I am drawn to the conclusion that a ministerial statement and questions might have been the more appropriate format, because we are in danger tonight of treading a well-worn wheel, given that a perfectly practical and sensible report has been produced and was previously welcomed—yet here we are. For all the work and detail in the "Moving Forward" report, it seems that it has been gathering dust rather than traction. Fundamentally, the recommendations still need to be implemented and they must be supported by an adequate—by which I mean incremental—level of funding. I make no party-political point. I accept that the previous Executive acted in good faith and that the present Government is doing so, too. It is just that a pretty cursory glance at the recommendations in "Moving Forward" and at the supporting evidence confirms that the current forecast levels of funding are inadequate and, although the funding is welcome, it will see us treading water rather than making substantive progress.
In addition, the case for creating a national structure to implement the recommendations remains unanswered—the recommendation to create such a structure remains unfulfilled—and the painfully frustrating practice of ensuring that the right type of chair is identified for the particular physical impairment remains unaddressed.
To those coming to the discussion anew, it must seem that the inherently antediluvian practices that the report sought to rectify belong to another age. I guess that, once again, it is a case of out of public sight, out of public mind. In no other area of widely accessed public service would a similar situation be tolerable any longer. If the reality of the current situation was widely understood by those who are not in need of wheelchairs, it would not be tolerated.
The submissions detailing progress, that were made available to members by the Scottish Disability Equality Forum and Quarriers are disappointing—desperate even—in their astonished bewilderment at the seeming total lack of practical progress. It is extraordinary that technical advances have led not to practical steps forward but to real steps back—all because the available improvements cost more.
All that is being borne stoically by our vulnerable and courageous fellow citizens and veterans who are waiting for an incorrectly allocated, inferior product and who are expected to do so with some sort of old-communist-state gratitude for the privilege.
I find myself ranting against the sheer ineptitude of it all while recognising that that in itself will not serve much purpose—but, hey, it is late in the day, and I thank Trish Godman for the opportunity to rant.
This is the 21st century. We are all quick to use politically correct language, sign petitions advocating equality for all our citizens and offer our support for reports that promise that all will be well. However, we are witnessing advantage being taken of a vulnerable group. We should be able to celebrate the extraordinary advances that have been made in wheelchair technology and design, which should be liberating many wheelchair users.
The failure is as ridiculous as it is shameful. We need resolve—Parliament has shown it before on a breathtaking scale, with the introduction of free personal care for the elderly. Surely in a modern Scotland, in which every citizen seeks to play their part, a national strategy and a national wheelchair stock of the first order should be achievable? Which Government minister would agree to be ferried around in a 50-year-old ministerial car—or a standard entry model, for that matter?
As someone who is steeped in the Scottish retail motor industry, I recall my parents telling me that half a century ago they would go down to the production plant to pick up vehicles and drive them back to Glasgow sitting in a box, as a seat was optional, and wearing scarves, as windshields were optional too. Why are wheelchair users still being allocated model T-generation wheelchairs?
I support Trish Godman, and congratulate her on securing a debate that has engaged my support. I hope that the minister will give a constructive and positive response on how the report can and will be thoroughly implemented—setting aside any nod to who has done what and when—in order to give Scotland's wheelchair users the response that they seek. I hope that she will go beyond that and promise that we will give real equality of opportunity to wheelchair users by ensuring that the product that they have is totally suitable for their needs and the very best available. As a human right, none of us should settle for anything less.
I am drawn to the conclusion that a ministerial statement and questions might have been the more appropriate format, because we are in danger tonight of treading a well-worn wheel, given that a perfectly practical and sensible report has been produced and was previously welcomed—yet here we are. For all the work and detail in the "Moving Forward" report, it seems that it has been gathering dust rather than traction. Fundamentally, the recommendations still need to be implemented and they must be supported by an adequate—by which I mean incremental—level of funding. I make no party-political point. I accept that the previous Executive acted in good faith and that the present Government is doing so, too. It is just that a pretty cursory glance at the recommendations in "Moving Forward" and at the supporting evidence confirms that the current forecast levels of funding are inadequate and, although the funding is welcome, it will see us treading water rather than making substantive progress.
In addition, the case for creating a national structure to implement the recommendations remains unanswered—the recommendation to create such a structure remains unfulfilled—and the painfully frustrating practice of ensuring that the right type of chair is identified for the particular physical impairment remains unaddressed.
To those coming to the discussion anew, it must seem that the inherently antediluvian practices that the report sought to rectify belong to another age. I guess that, once again, it is a case of out of public sight, out of public mind. In no other area of widely accessed public service would a similar situation be tolerable any longer. If the reality of the current situation was widely understood by those who are not in need of wheelchairs, it would not be tolerated.
The submissions detailing progress, that were made available to members by the Scottish Disability Equality Forum and Quarriers are disappointing—desperate even—in their astonished bewilderment at the seeming total lack of practical progress. It is extraordinary that technical advances have led not to practical steps forward but to real steps back—all because the available improvements cost more.
All that is being borne stoically by our vulnerable and courageous fellow citizens and veterans who are waiting for an incorrectly allocated, inferior product and who are expected to do so with some sort of old-communist-state gratitude for the privilege.
I find myself ranting against the sheer ineptitude of it all while recognising that that in itself will not serve much purpose—but, hey, it is late in the day, and I thank Trish Godman for the opportunity to rant.
This is the 21st century. We are all quick to use politically correct language, sign petitions advocating equality for all our citizens and offer our support for reports that promise that all will be well. However, we are witnessing advantage being taken of a vulnerable group. We should be able to celebrate the extraordinary advances that have been made in wheelchair technology and design, which should be liberating many wheelchair users.
The failure is as ridiculous as it is shameful. We need resolve—Parliament has shown it before on a breathtaking scale, with the introduction of free personal care for the elderly. Surely in a modern Scotland, in which every citizen seeks to play their part, a national strategy and a national wheelchair stock of the first order should be achievable? Which Government minister would agree to be ferried around in a 50-year-old ministerial car—or a standard entry model, for that matter?
As someone who is steeped in the Scottish retail motor industry, I recall my parents telling me that half a century ago they would go down to the production plant to pick up vehicles and drive them back to Glasgow sitting in a box, as a seat was optional, and wearing scarves, as windshields were optional too. Why are wheelchair users still being allocated model T-generation wheelchairs?
I support Trish Godman, and congratulate her on securing a debate that has engaged my support. I hope that the minister will give a constructive and positive response on how the report can and will be thoroughly implemented—setting aside any nod to who has done what and when—in order to give Scotland's wheelchair users the response that they seek. I hope that she will go beyond that and promise that we will give real equality of opportunity to wheelchair users by ensuring that the product that they have is totally suitable for their needs and the very best available. As a human right, none of us should settle for anything less.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-1028, in the name of Trish Godman, on Scottish wheelchair users and their human rights...
Motion debated,
That the Parliament commends The Herald for alerting the public to the ofttimes severe distress and denial of human rights inflicted upon Scottish wheelchair...
Trish Godman (West Renfrewshire) (Lab):
Lab
At one point in a training session, I had to spend half a day in a wheelchair. It was an experience that I will not forget. I remember not so much what I cou...
Hugh Henry (Paisley South) (Lab):
Lab
I commend Trish Godman for encouraging and facilitating this important debate. I hope that she will join me in welcoming to the Scottish Parliament my consti...
Trish Godman:
Lab
I could not have put it better myself.The consensus is that the wheelchair service in Scotland is underresourced. The review of the service made 40 recommend...
Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
I thank Trish Godman for initiating this debate on an issue that is significant to all those who depend on wheelchairs to live their lives in as dignified an...
Jim Tolson (Dunfermline West) (LD):
LD
I am delighted to speak in this important members' business debate, and I commend Trish Godman for securing it. As a Liberal Democrat, I am absolutely commit...
Jackson Carlaw (West of Scotland) (Con):
Con
This is one of those occasions on which the motion seems to say it all. Trish Godman lodged a comprehensive statement summarising the issue at hand and spoke...
Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab):
Lab
Members have already indicated that this is an important debate. If Mr Carlaw was hesitant about following Trish Godman's speech, he should consider how I fe...
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD):
LD
Johann Lamont's concluding remark about setting the debate within the context of human rights is exactly right, and my remarks will be within that context. I...
Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) (Lab):
Lab
The member raises an important point. Does he agree that people who work in public services should get disability awareness training? Such training is import...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
Before the member responds, I say that I have been fairly relaxed, but the motion is fairly specific and it is not really about access issues. I ask the memb...
Jamie Stone:
LD
The motion's title is about wheelchair users and their human rights. If I am incorrect to address my remarks to that issue, I will—
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
We are debating the motion. The fact that it has a title does not mean that we do not debate the motion. I ask the member to refer in his remarks to the moti...
Jamie Stone:
LD
Very well. With that guidance from the chair, I conclude my remarks by saying that disabled access to bus travel in Caithness and the north of Scotland leave...
Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
I am a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, and I was also a member of the committee in the previous session, when Cathy Peattie was the convener. We...
Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab):
Lab
I join others in congratulating Trish Godman on securing the debate. Wheelchair services have been the subject of motions—Trish Godman has run with several i...
The Minister for Public Health (Shona Robison):
SNP
I congratulate Trish Godman on securing the debate. I assure her that I will of course take cognisance of what has been said and of members' views. The issue...
Trish Godman:
Lab
Will the extra money to health boards be ring fenced? We want the money that is being provided to go exactly where it should go. Perhaps some things could be...
Shona Robison:
SNP
I am coming to that.I realise that people who use the services now want real progress. Service providers are considering and implementing several recommendat...
Meeting closed at 17:43.