Hansard

This is a fascinating debate, particularly given that, as has already been mentioned, it comes after the kerfuffle of the previous few weeks. I am grateful to Jenny Marra, in particular, for referring to PAMIS and to the many colleagues who have mentioned BSL, partly because that means that I do not have to do so myself, and partly because they have been able to highlight the multifaceted nature of the issue.

Tourism is, as the minister has pointed out, a national opportunity, but I agree with him that it is also a social responsibility that we have to meet. There is absolutely no conceivable reason why those in our society who are disadvantaged should not be able to travel around and enjoy simply being out and about—never mind being able to enjoy the holidays that we have. If the facilities are not there, we must ensure that they are.

To those who want to worry about the numbers and money, I point out that such tourism is good not only for the businesses that are visited, but for our health services and the other facilities that we have to provide for those who are stuck at home. They are, quite simply, costing us money as a result, and the ability to get and about and enjoy life is actually good for the collective bank balance as well as for the individuals concerned.

When one starts to look at accessibility, one finds that it all becomes very local. As, I am sure, other members did, I took the opportunity to look around my constituency to find out what I could learn and where access was good or not so good. I shall deal gently with some of the organisations that I examine, but first I will speak about a couple of things that emerged. The first concerns the Caledonian railway, which runs from my home city of Brechin towards Montrose. It is accessible for wheelchairs, through ramped access, but I found myself wondering whether someone who is on a steam railway needs to be able to use a hearing loop. I have a suspicion that that is one of the experiences in life that you do not need to hear at all—I suspect that you can feel it and know exactly what is going on.

At the other extreme, there is Dunnottar castle, outside Stonehaven—I welcome some youngsters from that part of the world to the public gallery. It strikes me that the castle is where it is precisely because it is inaccessible. I have a sneaking suspicion that, in our discussion about access, we need to be a little bit careful to ensure that we do not go overboard and suggest that everything should be immediately accessible to absolutely everybody. I am not quite sure how we would ever get wheelchair access to Dunnottar castle. It might be wiser not to try.

I want to return to railways; I am grateful to Jenny Marra for speaking about access at Waverley station. I think that there is a suggestion that the issues there might have more to do with security than anything else, but we absolutely need to solve the problem there, so I add my voice to that argument.

I have been pursuing with the railway companies why it is that those who are very blind, and particularly those who are deafblind, should not be able to be accompanied by a companion who travels free. It is undoubtedly the case that, if someone had a guide dog, that dog would travel free. I have checked with our resident guide-dog user, and I am assured that Mr Q travels free. However, if someone required a companion to travel with them, that person would not travel free, unless they had their own reasons for travelling free. They might get a discount, depending on the local authority area that they reside in, and they might also get a substantial discount if they had an appropriate card, by dint of age or other issues. However, I am struck by the fact that the cost of someone occupying a seat on a train that is travelling outwith commuter times is, for all practical purposes, zero. One of the things that is taught at the Harvard business school is that most business costs are fixed costs. If that seat would otherwise be empty, the cost to the railway of its being occupied is, in fact, zero. It seems to me, therefore, that there is a clear case for saying to the railway operators that someone with severe disabilities who needs a companion to get out should be able to take that companion with them for free.

I asked that question of the train operators and received this response:

“Train Operating Companies are not in a position to allow free travel for companions as there would be a financial cost attached to this that the TOCs would not be in a position to meet. There are a number of off peak services that are particularly busy and there is almost always a value associated with a seat on a train, whether it be the cost of running or cleaning the train or the staff employed to ensure that the train reaches its destination.”

I quote that because I want to quote it back to the train operating companies and point out to them that those are all totally fixed costs. I accept that some off-peak trains might be particularly busy and that there is a real cost attached to a seat on them, but it seems to me that they are few and far between. I do not want to argue with the companies about their railways, because they know their systems—they know which ones are busy and they know what is going on. However, I want to make the argument to them that the cost of allowing free travel to the companion of someone who is blind or deafblind is pretty much zero. That is something that they should be able to deal with. I will continue to challenge them on the point. I am doing so in parliamentary time quite deliberately. I am conscious that Fergus Ewing is not the relevant minister, so I am not laying this at his door, but I will be taking it to the Minister for Transport and Veterans.

We need to address that issue. Whether those folk travel far or near, the deaf, the blind and those with severe difficulties in seeing should be able to take a companion with them for free on an off-peak train. We ought to pursue that issue.