Hansard

I join others in welcoming the presence of BSL signers for the debate. As a member of the corporate body, I reflect on the fact that the Parliament has a good track record on accessibility. It is a key guiding principle of the institution, but that is not to say that we cannot keep on learning and improving.

I also welcome the debate and congratulate the minister on his motion and Jenny Marra on her helpful amendment, which draws attention to the accessible tourism project in particular.

I declare an interest because, as colleagues may know, my brother has been a wheelchair user since a serious rugby accident 18 years ago. In my remarks, I will draw on some of the first-hand experience that he has had and that we as a family have had.

This is an issue of principle. It is a question of fairness, equity and social justice. The minister quite rightly asked why those who have a disability should have any less of a right to a holiday or to a break than the rest of us.

These debates are often in danger of lapsing into discussions around the cost and practicality of adaptations, the cost of preparing materials and so on. It is therefore important that we emphasise the significant opportunities that we have. As other members have said, tourists who have disabilities contribute £370 million to our tourism industry. The trend is on the rise, which perhaps reflects the loyalty of those who find destinations and accommodation that meet their needs.

High as that figure is, it could and should be significantly higher. Research commissioned from the University of Surrey and published earlier this year suggests that the European tourism sector is missing out on around €140 billion per year because of the lack of support offered to travellers who have special access needs.

That does not surprise me. My first family holiday after my brother’s accident was to Barcelona 15 years ago. I was interested in Mark Griffin’s comments about Spain being an exemplar because, certainly 15 years ago, there was a lack of information, and although there were facilities, there were not many. Patricia Ferguson made the same point that Inclusion Scotland brings out very clearly in its briefing: the facilities are at the higher end of the market and perhaps not financially accessible to many who wish to travel.

It is not just a question of accessibility when travelling. Those who have disabilities are often required to travel with particular clothing, medication or equipment, and those who are flying—as we did—might not be able to keep their equipment and so on with them at all times. The risks associated with that were rammed home to us when British Airways lost my brother’s shower chair on the flight on the way out. I spent the first 48 hours of that holiday pushing my Spanish language skills to the absolute limit in pursuit of a replacement. Members should not labour under the misapprehension that that was a bit unfortunate for us, because BA managed to lose two of the wheels on the return journey a week later. Significant improvements have been made since then, but the Commission-sponsored research suggests that we have a way to go yet.

The question is often one of providing information for travellers, and the Scottish Government-sponsored project during the Commonwealth games drilled down into that aspect. I entirely agree with the minister that hotel access statements are not gobbledegook; they are absolutely essential, as, indeed, is the training for volunteers. The feedback shows that they are being seen as part of the success of the games that were held earlier this summer.

A lack of facilities is a frustration, but it is as nothing when compared with the frustration felt by those who arrive at a destination to find that the facilities are not as advertised. Chic Brodie and Jenny Marra referred to Euan’s Guide and the service that it provides. It is absolutely critical that people who have disabilities test out facilities, provide their feedback and make that feedback as widely available as possible. The more input and feedback there is, the better the service will become.

I will conclude with a couple of examples from my own constituency. Buchanhaven cottage is a self-catering cottage in Kirkwall for people who have dementia. Given the increase in the numbers of dementia sufferers that we have seen and the projections for those numbers in the future, I welcome the fact that that part of the market now appears to be being catered for. Buchanhaven cottage is owned and managed by Marilyn Buchan, who was, for 25 years, a nurse who supported those with dementia and other mental health issues. In the cottage there is a focus on things such as lighting, colour and signage. For example, the doors are brightly painted and labelled. The facility recognises the particular needs of dementia sufferers as well as those who have autism and other mental health issues. That example highlights that there is a need for not only overall improved provision and information but more specific and tailored provision.

The motion talks about the importance of the public and private sectors working closely together. That point has been well made. It has been illustrated to me by the visits that my brother, who is based in Edinburgh, continues to make up to Orkney.

In addition to good self-catering accommodation and more accessible facilities, the support from the occupational therapy team—from hoists to expert advice—has been invaluable. If it were not for the contribution from the public sector, what is on offer from private providers and local businesses would be far less accessible. That is probably reflected nationwide.

I welcome the debate. Raising public awareness and improving the information that is available are critical to removing many of the physical, mental and other barriers that continue to exist. It is a simple question of fairness and equity, but by reinforcing the message about the economic benefits we improve the chances of improvements being made more quickly.