Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 05 Mar 2008

05 Mar 2008 · S3 · Plenary

Item of business

Wheelchair Users <br />(Human Rights)

Godman, Trish Lab West Renfrewshire Watch on SPTV

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 could access as what I could not access. With the new Disability Discrimination Act 2005, there have been improvements, but they are not enough.

I believe that Governments can make changes, which is why I lodged the motion for debate. Many wheelchairs that are being used or reused in Scotland today were designed 50 years ago. It is no surprise, then, that in a recent survey of 105 wheelchair users, 50 wheelchairs were found to be not fit for purpose. Those are figures, but what do they mean for the people of all ages who are using those chairs, such as young men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, people who have suffered a stroke or been injured in some way, and people who have been born with needs that require them to use a wheelchair?

One of my constituents had an attendant-controlled chair removed because it was broken, but he was given a manual chair, which was not suitable for his needs. As a result, he was unable to leave the house or to participate in social activities, as he had been used to. Another constituent's attendant-controlled chair broke down. She was also given a manual one, which was unsuitable. As a result, she could not be left alone, without the support of her support worker, which compromised her independence and her dignity.

Due to the learning and physical difficulties of both those constituents, they do not meet national criteria for attendant-controlled electric wheelchairs, but the very nature of their disabilities means that they need one. Learning difficulties mean that they cannot use patient-controlled chairs. They are excluded from accessing equipment that they really need. Quarriers, where they live, bought them the proper chairs—that is another example of a voluntary organisation propping up an underfunded public service.

We hear a lot about the national health service waiting times initiative. What if my constituents had been waiting for a hip replacement? I am sure that members will agree that that would be a mobility problem, just as the lack of a correct wheelchair is a mobility problem. However, waiting times for a wheelchair do not feature in the initiative, because the lack of a wheelchair is not considered a health issue. Why not? It is the same mobility problem as needing a hip replacement. It is like admitting a patient from the waiting list to hospital to have their hip replaced and leaving them on a trolley—but they are off the waiting list.

The European convention on human rights covers fundamental rights, including the prohibition of degrading treatment and the right to a family life. I visited my two constituents before they were given their new chairs and I believe what I say in the motion: their human rights were being abused and it was a degrading way to treat them.

Amnesty International tells us that the majority of public bodies that responded to a recent survey that it carried out did not have a policy to monitor the impact of their activities on the human rights of the public that they serve.