Licensed Premises(Access for Disabled People)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-4618, in the name of George Foulkes, on the barred campaign goes nationwide. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament congratulates the Barred campaign, led by Mark Cooper, which seeks to improve the accessibility of licensed premises for disabled people across Edinburgh and now Scotland; recognises that the campaign has been adopted by Capability Scotland; looks forward to the campaign's development and future successes, and believes that no one should be barred from accessing a pub or club or receive a poorer standard of service because of a perceived disability.
I am most grateful to have the opportunity to bring the issue to Parliament's attention, especially as the debate falls, most appropriately, on the international day for disabled people. We will discuss the accessibility—or, more appropriately, the lack of it—of licensed premises, but I will first say a word or two about the barred campaign's pioneer, Mark Cooper. I am honoured to have known Mark as a friend for some time. I am glad to see him in the public gallery and am sure that we all welcome him.
Mark has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair, and has had a particularly difficult time in the past few months. On completing his degree at the University of Aberdeen, he applied for and obtained a prestigious job with Lehman Brothers in New York and was due to start there on the very day when the bank collapsed. That was a tragedy. For several months thereafter, he was unemployed, but his great and wonderfully positive manner and his sense of humour have always prevailed. His spirit and his determination to fight inequality and discrimination are astonishing. I am sure that those who know him and have met him agree.
That spirit brings us here today. Mark was one of those who were kind enough to help me with my rather ill-fated campaign for the rectorship of the University of Edinburgh. I thank Dr Richard Simpson for his support. I am sure that Ian McKee would have supported me if he had had the opportunity. On the night when the result was revealed after two long weeks of constant campaigning, I took my campaign team out for a drink—or three—in one of Edinburgh's establishments. As Mark was coming, we made a conscious effort to go to a pub with street-level access. Even the most able-bodied members—I am not one of them, but some of them are seated around me—will appreciate from their jaunts up the Royal Mile to Waverley station that the twists and cobbles of Edinburgh's old town are difficult enough to navigate, let alone the stairs and steps that are involved in reaching shops, offices and pubs above and below ground.
I go back to that evening celebration. We had settled for an hour or so when Mark needed to use the facilities. He was frustrated to find that the establishment had, as is the case in many other pubs in Edinburgh and beyond, no disabled toilet, that the facilities for all customers were downstairs and that there was no lift. There was no alternative for Mark but to leave with a friend and go 200yd up the road to the next establishment, where he had to rely on the bar staff's good will to let him answer the call of nature. On that day, the barred campaign was born.
I agree that Mark Cooper's work in raising the campaign's profile and getting us all involved has been outstanding. Where does the campaign go next? Should we think about compulsion or should we simply encourage pubs to change and improve their facilities?
I am grateful to Sarah Boyack, who has been very helpful in this campaign. We are not talking about compulsion. The campaign's original emphasis was to help to identify and promote through the City of Edinburgh Council's website establishments with facilities for the disabled. In other words, the approach would be more carrot than stick.
Mark Cooper took his campaign to the council with a very powerful and eloquent presentation, in which he argued that it was his intention not to penalise pubs that were unwilling or unable to make the necessary adjustments, but to increase awareness of accessibility issues. For most of us, it is easy enough to decide whether to go for drinks with friends; however, for Mark Cooper and people in similar situations, all sorts of considerations have to be factored in. All he has sought to do is to ensure that, when he plans a night out, he can look up a website and find out whether the bar that he and his friends plan to go to is accessible. Can he get in the front door? Can he go to the bathroom? Is there enough space between tables for his wheelchair?
While we are on the subject of wheelchairs, I think that it is worth reminding ourselves of a members' business debate on the quality of state-provided wheelchairs, which was initiated by my good colleague Trish Godman just over a year ago following a Quarriers report that showed that 50 out of 105 surveyed national health service wheelchairs were not fit for purpose. I am sure that Mrs Godman will confirm this, but I understand that, a year on, very little progress has been made and wheelchair users throughout Scotland are still very much concerned about the issue.
Although the City of Edinburgh Council was initially reluctant, it soon accepted that Mark Cooper's request was very simple. In the run-up to his council deputation, he established a Facebook group, at which point we began to see the potential to turn a local and personal issue into the national campaign that we are discussing this evening. In just a few days, the Facebook group grew to more than 700 people and now stands at well over 1,000. Wheelchair users and non-wheelchair users alike e-mailed in to back the campaign and to congratulate Mark on highlighting an issue that was long overdue being in the public spotlight. His campaign has been so successful that it has been adopted by the national organisation Capability Scotland, for which, I am glad to say, Mark is now working as its press and campaigns officer.
Capability Scotland plans to take the campaign to a new level in the coming weeks and months by proposing an amendment, which I am hoping and willing to sponsor, to the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill. The amendment would require licensees to produce, as part of their operating plans, an access statement of compliance with part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I hope, Presiding Officer, that the Parliament will at the appropriate time have the opportunity to debate the amendment, the principle behind which will be that no person should be barred from accessing a pub or receive a poorer standard of service because of a disability.
Let me be clear: Mark Cooper is not anti-pub. Quite the reverse is true, in fact. He loves them. He accepts that the licensed trade is struggling at the minute and understands that adaptations can be either expensive or impossible to make due to planning regulations or listed-building restrictions, so he wants to work alongside the licensed trade and local authority licensing forums to improve, where possible, accessibility of pubs and clubs and to get the right information about the accessibility of venues into the hands of disabled people.
With Parliament's support, the barred campaign can empower disabled people to make informed choices about where they choose to relax and socialise, and ensure that they have the best possible independent lifestyle.
I thank George Foulkes for having secured tonight's debate, and for speaking so well on a serious issue that affects a significant proportion of our fellow citizens across Scotland.
Be that as it may, when most people visit their local pub or a city centre venue or a nightclub—that is what they call discos now—they do not give disabled access, toilets or other facilities a second thought. Unfortunately, neither do some of the owners of those establishments, until they are challenged on the issue, which Mark Cooper is doing. Under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, there are duties of liability on service providers who offer goods, facilities or services to the public, whether they are free or paid for.
An example that has been quoted is of the bar manager refusing to serve a deaf man because he thinks the man is drunk. The man explains his deafness and his hearing aids are clearly visible, but he is nonetheless refused and is shown out of the pub by the bouncer. Under the DDA, the owner of the bar is liable to be charged with discrimination. Furthermore, if the man's hearing friend remonstrates on his behalf and finds herself barred for doing so, she also has a claim for damages from the licensee.
However, as Mark Cooper has said, there are other ways of achieving justice than going through the courts, even if they can be challenging. I heartily congratulate Mark on his initiative and determination in finding the right people to approach and going ahead with his campaign in a logical and reasoned manner. I know that he has the strong support of Capability Scotland, this nation's largest disability rights organisation, and I know that he will also have the support of all in the Parliament, across all parties, as a result of his tireless campaigning for the publication of a good pub guide that includes information about establishments that are wheelchair friendly and have disabled access and disabled toilet facilities.
To that end—and although I come from Glasgow—I congratulate the City of Edinburgh Council on agreeing with Mark's campaign and including on its licensing portal a list of accessible pubs and clubs. I am sure that we will all, in any way we can, support Mark's efforts to persuade other local authorities to follow Edinburgh's encouraging lead.
Disability discrimination is a blot on Scotland's landscape, and it needs to be tackled wherever it is encountered. All local authorities should follow Edinburgh's lead by writing to their licensees, reminding them of their obligations under the DDA, and ensuring that they are followed.
I have only water in my glass, but here's to Mark Cooper and Capability Scotland for working to make Scotland a more civilised place in which to live.
I, too, congratulate George Foulkes on securing the debate and, more important, I congratulate Mark Cooper on his determination and perseverance.
The barred campaign is all about improving accessibility for all patrons of Scotland's pubs. Disabled access to pubs affects pubs in Edinburgh and all parts of Scotland. Mark Cooper's success has been widespread. I am always impressed by people who have Facebook group memberships of more than 700, and I understand that Mark's group has 1,000 members worldwide.
The need for disabled access is universal. In the chamber last year, during the debate on the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill, which is now an act, I related a story about a constituent of mine. I will do so again, because his story is also about access. My constituent is a disabled driver who, due to the nature of his disability, required to park in the marked disabled bay right outside his front door so that he could access his home. Now I pause, and introduce members to his neighbour. He was a man who, for reasons best known to himself, decided that he should regularly park in that disabled bay. He caused untold misery for my constituent, who became afraid to leave his home in case his bay had been taken by the time he got back. Naturally, I asked the council for help, but it could do nothing. Equally, the police could do nothing because the bay was advisory, and they were unable to enforce it. Not one to be deterred, I put the neighbour on the front page of the local newspaper for two weeks running, but still he would not move.
My illustration might be about disabled parking, but this is a wider issue about access to shops, facilities, and the other things that we all take for granted.
Does Jackie Baillie agree that some accessibility issues are about the attitude and the discrimination that underpins the fact that somebody would use a disabled parking bay or be hostile towards disabled people? I have experience of a pub being hostile to people who were not wheelchair users, but who were perceived to be different because of their disability.
Johann Lamont is absolutely right. We need to challenge the underlying discrimination and the attitude that does not recognise us all as equal. The story about my constituent demonstrates the hardship that can be faced by members of society who have a disability. Many daily actions that those of us who do not live with disabilities take for granted can create an incredible challenge in the daily lives of those who have disabilities. Even going out at night with friends can be a challenge when one is bound to a wheelchair.
Some pubs have disabled access to their premises, but do not have a disabled toilet. We heard that Mark Cooper encountered such a situation last February. By all means, people can pop in and have a drink or two—I suggest to George Foulkes that it should be only that—but when it comes to using the toilet, they are out in the cold. If a pub has disabled access but no disabled toilets, disabled patrons are forced to abandon the pub where they started their drink, perhaps in favour of another pub with a disabled toilet although, if we are honest, in most cases they will not find anything suitable. That is embarrassing and it can ruin an otherwise enjoyable night out with friends.
That was Mark Cooper's experience, but rather than sit back and accept it, he decided to campaign for change, for which he should be applauded. I am conscious that one in five people in Scotland lives with a disability. There is absolutely no reason why that substantial number of the Scottish population should be limited in the pubs that they can visit because of a lack of disabled entrances, disabled toilets or both. The campaign, working alongside the licensed trade and local authority licensing forums, seeks to improve the situation and I am sure that they will make the necessary changes.
The proposed amendment to the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill that George Foulkes mentioned would introduce a requirement for access statements. That is worth considering, as it just might encourage new pubs to make adjustments to their premises to make them more accessible for all. I hope that the Scottish Government will support such an amendment, as it would eventually make it easier for disabled people and their friends to go out to socialise in a pub. It would certainly take some of the guesswork out of a fun night out, although, as we would always say in the chamber, with drinking only in moderation.
I, too, congratulate George Foulkes on obtaining the debate and on bringing the matter before the Parliament. I have always found George Foulkes to be a convivial and congenial man, despite the political differences that sometimes come between us, and I know that Capability Scotland and Mark Cooper have a sound advocate on the matter that we are discussing. I congratulate Mark Cooper, with whom I have been in correspondence, on his approach. He has approached the issue with moderation and with no lack of humour, sometimes of the self-deprecating type. That is exceptionally effective because, when one receives approaches in that moderate manner, one gives them the fullest consideration.
One interesting feature of the campaign is that the points that have been made are reasonable and are argued in a reasoned manner. We have frequently seen in the Parliament that there is no better way of destroying a good case than by overstating it. Mark Cooper has certainly not made that mistake, because his campaign seeks recognition of the difficulties that a significant proportion of the Scottish population have, but at the same time he is not demanding the impossible. He has been realistic.
Jackie Baillie touched on the point that we can do something in respect of new build or newly adapted premises. The case can be argued that such premises should bear in mind the difficulties that disabled persons might have with access, particularly to toilets. It is not beyond the wit of architects and those who plan the layout of these premises to achieve that.
It might be worth while for the chamber to consider the possibility of wheelchair users being part of local licensing forums. In my area, I work with a wheelchair group that is effective in advising Clackmannanshire Council on changes to roads and so forth. The group also advises on planning applications, on which it is consulted.
That could be considered.
The problem as I see it is one that Mark Cooper anticipated. I refer to established premises, some of which have been in situ for many years. They were designed during a time when wheelchair users—sadly and unfortunately—did not even consider the option of going out for a refreshment. As George Foulkes said, many of those premises were designed with a drinking and eating area at ground-floor level and toilets on either a downstairs or upstairs level. That is a problem for licensees, given that the cost of adapting such premises is considerable. I say that particularly at a time when the licensed trade, like everyone else, is going through serious difficulties.
It is to Mark Cooper's credit that he recognises the potential for difficulty. The submission that he has made is moderate and reasonable. I look forward to the continuation of the debate. I have written to Mark to indicate that I would like to see the draft of his proposed stage 2 amendment to the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill. I know that his proposal will get full and sympathetic consideration at stage 2.
I congratulate George Foulkes on bringing the motion before the chamber. His speech was the sparkling contribution that we have come to expect of him. I hope that he and his colleagues send the First Minister a recording of the speech; I think he would enjoy it enormously.
The toilets in the establishments that we are debating can be tricky for someone to use, even if they are non-disabled and even before they have had one or two refreshments. I had cause to avail myself of the facilities in an establishment in my home town, during which time a wee birdie came to sit on the gutter outside the window. Without thinking, I bent forward to look at the birdie and—unfortunately—my posterior came into contact with a red-hot radiator. I made quite a lot of noise—indeed, I had to reassure the dentist next door that an assault or murder had not taken place. If I find such facilities difficult to use, just think what they are like for the disabled.
As colleagues know, my wife is disabled. She is not wheelchair bound, but she has lost the use of one side, walks with some difficulty and uses a stick. I have seen the disappointment on her face when we have visited a pub or other similar establishment and she has had to admit defeat and say, "I cannot go down there." I am talking about simply getting into the premises, let alone going to the toilet. That is shocking. We all want to let the disabled feel that they can play a full role in life. No one should be home bound; people should not be trapped and unable to go out simply because they are disabled. I speak with some knowledge on the subject.
Today is international day of disabled people, which is precisely why it is a pleasure to join in the debate. Mark Cooper is in the public gallery, which is an honour and pleasure for each and every one of us.
Members who were elected to the Parliament in 1999 will recall that one thing that made me passionate about constructing this building—and the reason why I served on the Holyrood progress group—was that I could not countenance the Parliament going to the Royal high school. That building was absolutely hopeless in terms of toilet and other facilities for the disabled. Goodness knows, the facilities were bad enough in our temporary premises up the road. The need for good facilities for the disabled was one thing that drove me forward to complete the building, so—I am going to blow my trumpet—it is with some pride that I add to the welcome that other members have given to Mark Cooper as he watches the debate from the public gallery.
Of course, if we think about it, we realise that one of the most disabled-friendly bars the length and breadth of Edinburgh is not far away from this chamber. I trust that after this debate Lord George Foulkes will entertain Mark Cooper to a moderate refreshment in that most disabled-friendly of bars.
I conclude this short speech by offering a word of advice to anyone who uses the disabled toilet next door to the members' bar—for God's sake, do not mistake the alarm string for the light string. I have done so, and it proved extremely embarrassing. I congratulate Mark Cooper and George Foulkes from the bottom of my heart on bringing a most important motion to the chamber.
I, too, congratulate George Foulkes on securing this debate. In my political life, I have always thought it a good idea to follow his sage advice; that certainly applies to his support for the barred campaign.
I know that nowadays we generally encourage people to be abstemious when enjoying a night out—we may have strayed from that at times in this debate—but it does not follow that people should be unable to enjoy a sociable night in the some venue as others simply on account of their disability. I congratulate Mark Cooper on his campaigning work on the issue. George Foulkes and others have already paid him fulsome tribute for that, but of course we expect nothing less than determination and success from graduates of the great University of Aberdeen. I am sure that Robin Harper will agree with that.
Oh!
I hear a St Andrews man complaining—he should recognise reality.
It is also right that we congratulate Capability Scotland on its support for the campaign.
I have met Mark Cooper to discuss the barred campaign. As Bill Aitken said, he has made a persuasive case for the measures that he proposes. When he described to me his experiences of trying to enjoy a night out with his friends but being frustrated by access issues, I recalled an exercise that Anne Begg, the MP for Aberdeen South, conducted some years previously. She went out in Aberdeen to see whether bars and clubs had considered access issues and whether she, as a wheelchair user, could get into them. She found that, in a number of instances, she could not. It is a shame that, some years later, that is still the case in a number of establishments. We really should be making better progress.
I do not underestimate the pressures to which the licensed trade is subject at the moment. Mark Cooper has highlighted them, but what he proposes should not be too onerous. The proposals involve a change to the law so that landlords must consider accessibility before being granted a licence; licensing standards officers carry out access surveys; and, crucially, access information is made available to disabled people so that, at the very least, they can make their plans around the places that have appropriate accessibility. As Bill Kidd said, the City of Edinburgh Council has already taken a lead on the last point.
I do not think that Mark Cooper's ambitions are too much to ask. It is right that he seeks action not only from the licensed trade but from licensing authorities. Some are already making progress; we must hope that others will follow. He has said that he wants to work with the licensed trade to achieve the goals that he has set out.
I agree with Mark Cooper that the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill may provide an appropriate legislative vehicle for progress on these matters. However, it is a controversial bill and the issue should be left for less consensual debates than tonight's. I am sure that there will be cross-party support for the campaign and look forward to hearing from the minister what support the Scottish Government will give it to enable it to achieve its laudable goals.
As Jackie Baillie said, equality of access is a fundamental principle that applies to all areas of life, whether it be the workplace, public services or the provision of opportunities for recreation and enjoyment, which should be an important part of anyone's life—even if they are rarely part of mine, given that I am a father. The campaign raises an important issue of equality; that is why all of us should support it tonight.
I, too, congratulate George Foulkes on bringing this motion to the chamber this evening, and Mark Cooper on the qualities that he has displayed—and not just over the past months or years. He went not only to a fine university—the University of Aberdeen—but to a fine high school, Boroughmuir.
I am proud to say that, before Mark arrived at Boroughmuir, I arranged for 15 redundant wheelchairs to be delivered so that some sixth-year pupils could spend a day moving around the school in them in order to report on how ready the school was to become wheelchair-user friendly. I do not know how effective the report was at the time, but the school eventually became relatively wheelchair-user friendly—I hope Mark would agree with that.
I will pick up on a couple of issues that other members have raised. Dr Richard Simpson made an important point that I wish to take further. On the representation of disabilities at all levels, it would be worth the Government finding out in which areas it would be appropriate for disabled users to become statutory consultees, with particular regard to the architecture of public buildings, including schools.
Does the member acknowledge that we consulted the disabled lobby when we built this building?
Yes, indeed. Jamie Stone will remember that well, as he was on the Holyrood progress group in the early days of the building.
As Jackie Baillie said, people can find it embarrassing to go into a pub to find that the necessary facilities are not there. Perhaps pubs could be encouraged right now to do what might eventually become part of George Foulkes's amendment to the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill, which would require pubs to show, externally, exactly how disabled-user friendly they were in every respect. Perhaps if logos, the appropriate symbols or tick boxes were used, people would know what restrictions there were.
I close by congratulating George Foulkes and Mark Cooper once again on bringing the subject to the Parliament's attention, and I hope that we hear a positive response from the Government.
I, too, congratulate George Foulkes on securing this important debate. I join members in congratulating Mark Cooper, too. It is clear from the barred campaign that Mark is a man of courage—and anyone who goes on a pub crawl in Edinburgh with George Foulkes has to be a man of courage. I commend Mark for his robustness in doing that.
The barred campaign has had a very positive impact, in that it has secured an undertaking from the City of Edinburgh Council to perform an access survey of all licensed premises in the city. I am further encouraged by Edinburgh's commitment to turn that information into a guide concerning accessibility and relevant facilities. The council should be congratulated on doing that.
However, the barred campaign is not just about Edinburgh, local authorities or pubs and clubs. In her intervention, Johann Lamont made an important point about attitudes, and the campaign is indeed about raising awareness and changing attitudes. It is amazing: I am astounded by the negative approach of some people, even in this day and age, towards people with a perceived disability—and by their treatment of them, let alone their attitude. We must all join together in doing everything that we can to change attitudes, to raise awareness and to make life much more civilised and tolerable for those people who have a disability, be it a physical disability or a learning disability.
As the minister with responsibility for disability issues, one of my key objectives is to enable far more people with disabilities to live independently and to decide their agenda for their lives, rather than having it decided for them. A key part of that is that people who have a disability should be able to partake in the social life of the nation as well as anyone else can do. Independent living must be a central focus of how we develop disability policy in the 21st century.
I have not met Mark Cooper. I offer him and George Foulkes an invitation to an early meeting, to discuss how the Government, including in its dealings with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the numerous agencies for which the Government has responsibility, can help.
I am grateful to the minister for his positive suggestion, and I am sure that Mark Cooper and I would be delighted to meet him at an early opportunity.
That is excellent; I look forward to that. We should have a wide-ranging discussion, because it is clear that organisations such as VisitScotland, which promotes Scotland, should do their level best to ensure that disabled people have the same access as other members of the community have to the facilities that we promote.
In my meeting with George Foulkes and Mark Cooper, I want to discuss the amendment to the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill that George Foulkes proposes to lodge. I am 100 per cent behind the motion, but there is a problem with such amendments, because equalities legislation is reserved. Even though George Foulkes would be seeking to amend licensing legislation, I am led to believe that there might be a problem because the amendment would have an impact on equalities legislation. Of course, if reserved laws need to be changed I will be happy to raise the matter formally with ministers in London. Ultimately it is for the law officers and the Presiding Officer to decide whether the provisions in an amendment are within the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament, but I am sure that we do not want to miss an opportunity to do something because of a problem to do with a reserved matter.
It is extremely important that we talk to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has the lead responsibility for the implementation of disability equality legislation in Scotland. In the context of the equality duty, which will incorporate the disability duty, there are areas in which the Government can perhaps help to achieve the objective that we all share. There might be ways of achieving the objective that we have not yet identified. As I said, I am keen to work with George Foulkes and Mark Cooper, and with the EHRC and others, to consider what we can do within our jurisdiction—with a view, I hope, to our jurisdiction in the area eventually being extended.
For example, we now have licensing standards officers in Scotland. Although they have no statutory duty in relation to disability, I am sure that it would be useful to make them aware of the need for enhanced facilities for disabled people in licensed premises. There is an awful lot that we can do by increasing awareness and trying to change attitudes, as well as by making changes to legislation, if such changes are appropriate.
The motion that George Foulkes lodged has the Government's total support and we will do anything that we can do practically to make life more civilised, more fair and more equal for disabled people in Scotland.
Meeting closed at 17:44.