Wheelchair Users (Human Rights)
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. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
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 users by the insensitive, penny-pinching and uncaring approach by those in authority to their legitimate expectations and requirements anent the design of wheelchairs and their manufacture, adaptability to individual needs and maintenance programmes; notes that the charity, Quarriers, in West Renfrewshire, has stated that, of 105 wheelchair users recently interviewed, over 50 said that their wheelchairs were unfit for purpose and is firmly of the view that this state of affairs is unacceptable in modern Scotland; believes that our wheelchair users should be provided with wheelchairs that equal the best provided elsewhere in Europe; considers that the recommendations contained in the document Moving Forward: Review of NHS Wheelchair and Seating Services in Scotland should be implemented forthwith, and reminds all such strategic decision-makers involved in these matters that the goal should be to offer the best services attainable so that Scottish wheelchair users can lead tolerable lives in their communities.
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.
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 constituents Caroline and John from Paisley. As well as recognising the difference that proper wheelchairs would make to the quality of their lives, will she acknowledge that it is important that they be able to use their wheelchairs in the wider community? Will she join me in encouraging Renfrewshire Council to improve the pavements in and around Paisley so that wheelchair users can access services when they are out?
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 recommendations and an analysis showed that an initial £6.6 million per year is needed to upgrade the wheelchair fleet. Yes, that is serious money, but not in the great scheme of things. Governments must make hard and difficult choices. I appreciate that there are limits to the public purse, but vulnerable people all over Scotland are being penalised. Financial consideration should not be the key issue. We need a system that meets users' and carers' legitimate requirements. The existing system is a barrier to social inclusion and social justice.
I have not sat where the minister is, because I was never a member of the front bench, but I did sit in the chamber and listen to her speak when she was on the Opposition benches. She could have been standing where I am tonight making the speech that I am making if I had been sitting where she is. That is the challenge.
In December, an action plan will be presented to the minister. I hope that she will take cognisance of what is said tonight. The system needs money. Users' and carers' human rights and social justice needs must be addressed in the action plan.
This debate is not about getting at the minister: her officials will have told her that I corresponded with her predecessors in the previous Administration from the day that I stepped into the Parliament. I genuinely hope that the debate will, at last, be about fixing the situation.
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 and independent a manner as possible.
Last week, I had the privilege of sponsoring an event in the Parliament on behalf of Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People, which was entitled "Handle With Care" and was about the moving and handling issues that young people with disabilities and their carers encounter. Almost all the attendees where wheelchair users, and all of them had experienced problems in ensuring that they had the best chair for their disability. Given their ages, that will continue to be an issue for some time, as they grow, but all wheelchair users—regardless of age and whatever their disability—require the best wheelchair that can be provided to allow them the maximum possible social inclusion. Disability or not, we are talking about people who have hopes, aspirations and ambitions. They also have abilities, which their disabilities often overshadow for the able-bodied who, when they see someone in a wheelchair, see the chair, not the person sitting in it.
It is hard for people who are able bodied and who take mobility for granted to imagine how a person in a chair feels if they are dependent on it for their comfort and mobility. We should think, if we can, about what it means if the seat causes sores—the person is confined to bed for a long period while the chair is sent away and a new body mould is made. They are socially isolated for a long time and find themselves at a severe disadvantage that none of the rest of us, if we were feeling ill, would expect to have to put up with. As Trish Godman suggested, lacking a wheelchair in that way is a health issue.
Minor repairs to chairs, even just to a foot rest or a neck rest on a self-guiding chair, require two or more weeks to carry out. During that time, the person has to sit in a chair that is not made for them and, in most cases, is not suitable for them. Although the use of a supervised manual chair is a way of getting round that situation, it robs the person of the limited independence that they normally have. If we think of those frustrations, we can understand how wheelchair users feel every day when their chair has broken down or requires a repair. That point was emphasised to me by the visitors from Quarriers, whom I was pleased to meet and speak to earlier today—some of them are in the public gallery. It is a pleasure to see them here. I hope that we will have good news for them as soon as possible.
It is imperative to consult wheelchair users when formulating policy, right from the very start. We should listen to bodies such as the Scottish Disability Equality Forum and Quarriers, which have the expertise of disabled people and their carers. They have stated that disability issues have for too long been at the back of the queue when allocating resources. Quarriers and the Scottish Disability Equality Forum are not-for-profit agencies with great expertise in providing services to adults and children. They cover the whole range. I know that we are all grateful to them for their input and for providing us with facts and figures, which I hope the minister will examine to guide her response to this debate on the needs of wheelchair users.
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 committed to the human rights of all. Human rights are universal, and they must be universally applied. No individual, whatever their circumstances, should be left out.
Wheelchair users deserve the support that they need to live full and active lives. Ensuring that such support is provided is a matter of guaranteeing their human rights. Fortunately, large strides have been made in recent years to improve access and services for wheelchair users, but all sides in the chamber and beyond acknowledge that a great deal more remains to be done. The days of wheelchair access being an afterthought are no more, and there is a fuller recognition throughout Scotland not only of the needs of wheelchair users but of their rights.
As part of the previous Executive, the Liberal Democrats endorsed "Moving Forward: Review of NHS Wheelchair and Seating Services in Scotland" and we support its conclusions, which include the need to address the lifestyle requirements of wheelchair users; the need to base service delivery on holistic requirements; the need to ensure consistent provision across the country; and the need to deliver a seamless multi-agency service, locally and nationally, to users and carers. We will work constructively with the Government to make progress on each of those areas and to help liberate wheelchair users from some of the difficulties that they face.
The role of carers should not be forgotten in the debate. Much of the assistance that individuals in wheelchairs receive comes from family members and friends, and it is incumbent on us not just to pay tribute to those who provide care but to do what we can to support them. We must never lose sight of the tremendously valuable work that carers in Scotland do, and we should always be grateful for it.
More money is going into providing wheelchair services, but it must get to where it is needed most and be spent in ways that improve the lives of wheelchair users directly and give them options in place of restrictions. Most important of all, it is clear that people who use a wheelchair should have access to one that is right for their requirements and circumstances. That is not just a question of comfort or preventing further injury; it is crucial if individuals are to take advantage of employment and educational opportunities, and to participate in social and leisure activities. That is their right and our responsibility. Wheelchair users want to lead mobile and independent lives, and they deserve every chance to do so.
I never cease to be amazed by the skill, courage and commitment of wheelchair athletes in basketball, tennis and other sports. As sport spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, I am conscious of the need to do more to encourage sporting participation and provision for all in our society. Disability should be no barrier to that.
The other aspect of the portfolio for which I am spokesperson is housing and communities. I note with interest Gordon Brown's recent proposals that new homes should be made considerably more wheelchair friendly. Although a number of issues surround such plans, they serve to illustrate that the rights of wheelchair users have advanced far up the political agenda. We have a duty to keep them there. This debate represents an excellent starting point, but it is just a start.
The motion calls for wheelchair users to be able to
"lead tolerable lives in their communities."
That must be the bare minimum of our ambition as we strive to respect fully the human rights of all wheelchair users and support them in leading lives that are not merely tolerable but fulfilling, rewarding, productive and independent.
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.
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 feel about having to speak after him—he encapsulated the passion around this issue, which a lot of us share. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the discussion.
Today, I met people from Quarriers—in particular, one of my constituents, Mr Fraser Wood—and again I recognised the challenge that people face in addressing the question of wheelchair use as wheelchair users themselves.
Like any equalities issue on the agenda for action, this issue is there not because of our good will and because we care about it, but because of the campaign activity, determination and energy of those who experience inequality and of the carers who support them. Wheelchair users and their carers have driven the agenda on this issue, and I applaud their energy and the energy of the groups and voluntary organisations that have supported them in ensuring that there was a review of wheelchair services and that we are now at the stage where we want to make further progress.
I will not make a party-political point—the points that have been made so far all show that the problem's existence is a reproach to all of us who are in a position to do something about it. It is also a broader reproach to a society that has allowed the situation to go on for too long. It is clear that political action should be shaped by those who not only understand the problems, but have the solutions. I hope that the minister can answer the question whether there is now a disability forum sitting inside the Scottish Government that would bring these groups together. There was such a body in the past, and I hope that she will commit today to bringing such a group together to pursue these issues, because it could press the right arguments in the right places.
The test of the rhetoric of equality and our commitment to it is an understanding of the practical issues that need to be addressed in order to deliver on that rhetoric. The wheelchair example is as good as any of the way in which we have to move from a general commitment to equality to addressing the practical issues that provide the barriers. I hope that there is a proper understanding of the need to deliver in partnership with those who understand the issues best.
The critical issue is that we need to view the wheelchair not as a machine or as a mechanism, but as a straightforward part of someone's care package and as the way in which they manage to maximise their abilities and their potential. The comparison with hip replacements is a good one. We do not see hip replacements in the same way—as somehow being a bonus, when in fact they can be critical to the quality of people's lives and their capacity to engage with their families and broader society.
As has been said, we need to look at the person and not the wheelchair, and we should not try to shape the person into what we think their wheelchair should be. Why should they not have the wheelchair that they need for the kind of disability and needs that they have?
The review was driven by those who understood the issues, and I wonder why the action plan has been delayed—for another year, it seems. Will the minister at least commit to examining these issues, which could be progressed before the broader action plan recommendations are brought forward? That would give people confidence that action was being taken.
I note from some of the submissions that we have received that people want a national service. Wheelchair service provision seems to be irrational and not attached to need within local areas—I ask the minister to consider that issue.
There is a broader issue about social inclusion and human rights, which is encapsulated in the way that we talk about disabled parking spaces. Somehow people think that someone with a disabled parking space has stolen a march and is getting a privilege. Some of the debate around wheelchair services is like that—it is as if someone is asking for something extra. The fact that the matter has been put in the context of human rights is critical. We should not tolerate the barriers. I hope that the minister will respond positively to the supportive points that members have made in the debate.
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 congratulate Trish Godman on bringing the matter to the chamber for debate. Her speech and the speeches from other members reach out in a very real way to wheelchair users, and to carers as well.
Members have given the minister a lot of food for thought. An important question was posed about whether a disability forum will sit within the Scottish Government. That question is a litmus test of how seriously the matter is taken.
I will talk briefly about disabled access. Members will recall the lack of access in the Parliament's temporary home up the road from here. Looking back, it was a disgrace. We should all be proud of the level of disabled access that we have in our building today. It is one of the best things about the building. We recognised the issue, took it on board, and we have what we have today.
In October 2007, the Caithness Courier printed an article under the headline "Disabled woman was barred from bus". The issue that is raised in the article parallels the one that Johann Lamont raised about parking spaces. The article states:
"A disabled Lybster woman was reduced to tears when she was told that she could not take her mobility scooter on a bus while trying to make one of her regular shopping trips to Wick."
The case became a cause célèbre in my constituency. It is entirely wrong that she was denied access to the bus, and things got worse because the driver was not as helpful as he could have been.
The member raises an important point. Does he agree that people who work in public services should get disability awareness training? Such training is important if we are to ensure that people can use services and get the support that they require, for example, to board a bus or to access timetable information so that they know what time the bus will turn up. There is a lot of work to be done on training and awareness.
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 member to address the motion in his concluding remarks.
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—
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 motion in some way.
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 leaves a great deal to be desired, and I would argue that that is a fundamental infringement of human rights. It was raised with Tavish Scott in the previous Government and I have raised it with Stewart Stevenson. I will not rest until it is sorted.
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 carried out an inquiry into disability issues and took evidence on the matter from Government ministers, and the committee continues to consider the matter.
In the inquiry, we considered the choices that people with disabilities have. Time after time, we heard that wheelchair users could not get new wheelchairs and that they faced problems with access to buses, trains and so on. Other members have raised that point, and it is important because, as Johann Lamont said, the situation has been going on for years and years. I would like the minister to take that on board and write to local authorities to remind them that people who use wheelchairs have just as much right as the rest of us to enter town centres, use pavements, enter public toilets and so on.
To get back to the substance of the motion, I congratulate Trish Godman on bringing the matter to the chamber for debate. She has raised the matter many times, and I have also raised it in committees and in the Parliament.
I will give an example of a constituency case that I dealt with. A young person was told that, because she was going to grow, she could not get a wheelchair. That was absolutely ridiculous. The health board could not afford to give her a wheelchair simply because she was going to grow—she was about eight years old at the time—and it would have had to replace the wheelchair. As Johann Lamont said, a wheelchair is not a prop—it is something that helps people's quality of life, and people should have the right to a wheelchair as they grow, progress through life and access education or whatever.
I was appalled, not just by the answers that I received from the health board but by the treatment received by people who approach health boards to request an upgraded wheelchair because they are older or their disability has got worse. They are sometimes treated with such disdain that it is downright disgraceful.
Health boards should perhaps have training—Johann Lamont and Bill Kidd mentioned training on how to lift people from wheelchairs, but perhaps boards or doctors should be given training in basic good manners when they are speaking to people who say that they need an upgraded wheelchair to have a decent quality of life. One of the most appalling aspects is that the health boards use a lack of money or facilities to prevent people from getting upgraded wheelchairs.
The problem has been with us for far too long and, unfortunately, it will probably continue to be with us—although, I hope, only for a number of months. I hope that the new Government and the Minister for Public Health will seriously consider it. I hope that, as well as writing to local authorities as previously requested, the Government will write to health boards to tell them that someone in a wheelchair deserves to live their life in the same way as the rest of us. Health boards should not use the excuse of having no money or people growing for not giving someone a wheelchair. I would like to see such a letter going not just from MSPs but from the minister.
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 in the past—petitions and even a Government review. However, like her, I do not think that we have gone far enough in achieving what can be described as even just a good service.
I associate myself with Trish Godman's remarks that the debate should unite the chamber. It is neither about having a go at the minister nor about looking again at what the problem is. We have had the review and identified the problem; the debate is about fixing the problem and providing solutions.
The independent review of NHS wheelchair services identified the clear need to invest more resources, to reduce waiting times and ultimately to improve the service. The previous Executive invested £1 million to reduce waiting times for this year. I understand that the Government has invested £4 million for next year and £6 million thereafter, and the money is welcome. Questions have been raised about whether that is enough, but I believe that we need to monitor how effectively the money is used to make the right changes in the service.
I echo Johann Lamont's call for a national strategy. Only when we bring the focus that the minister will bring to the issue will we see the change on the ground that we desire.
Let me put the debate into some context. People in all our constituencies have had a less than positive experience. The waiting times have been inordinately long, and I agree with Trish Godman that waiting time targets might just bring a much-needed focus. I invite the minister to consider that.
Let me give members a couple of real examples. The wife of one of my constituents is wheelchair bound. Her husband describes her wheelchair and the assessment process for procuring her wheelchair or any accessories as a disgrace. He tried for more than a year to find a suitable head rest and neck brace to support her. He was given the runaround about whom to contact for what: the neck brace was the responsibility of one organisation, while the head rest was the responsibility of another. Meanwhile, his wife remained in pain. He is also in a wheelchair, and he has now resolved to buy and repair his own wheelchairs. Clearly, that is not acceptable.
In another example, a mother encountered distressingly long waiting times for a wheelchair for her son, who has cerebral palsy. She ordered the chair, which arrived just under a year later. As they had waited for so long, the chair was too small. It then took another seven months for them to receive another wheelchair after an additional request. It sat in the offices at WESTMARC—the west of Scotland mobility and rehabilitation centre—for all that time due to a lack of staff to fit her son in the chair. Again, that is clearly not acceptable. What quality of life was there for that young boy?
What is happening is a fundamental breach of people's human rights, so I would be grateful if the minister would consider a national strategy, monitoring to ensure that the additional resources that are being made available are making a difference and finding additional resources on top of that if required.
The Parliament is at its best when we put aside our differences and focus on the key issues that matter. This is one such issue. For the sake of wheelchair users throughout Scotland, I invite the minister, with the Parliament's support, to fix the problem.
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 is important and sometimes very difficult for all those who have cause to access NHS wheelchair and seating services, as members have outlined, and who have waited too long for high-quality services throughout Scotland that meet their needs in participating fully in society.
I understand the frustration that has been expressed. Successive Administrations have promised much and delivered little improvement in the past 25 years. Reviews of rehabilitation technology services that were undertaken in 1982 and 1997 identified many of the same issues as are still with us today, including the need for the number of satellite services to be increased to bring services closer to patients; for improvements to patient transport arrangements; for efficiency savings in refurbishment procedures; for clearer definitions of the service's parameters; and for more integration with other service providers.
In opposition, we welcomed the previous Executive's independent review and the report "Moving Forward: Review of NHS Wheelchair and Seating Services in Scotland". That review was a direct result of the petition to Parliament in December 2004 by the late Margaret Scott of the Scottish wheelchair forum, whose daughter is disabled, which urged the then Executive to
"resolve the current critical problems in the provision of wheelchairs and specialist seating services within the NHS … through a review, which in consultation with users, will address minimum standards, the scope of equipment provided and the delivery of services."
The provision of wheelchair and seating services is a complex activity that impinges on social, housing and education services, as well as health services. A major challenge for all the stakeholders will be to establish an effective mechanism to achieve real change for the benefit of service users.
A further challenge will be to target areas in which changes will benefit the greatest number of users and carers, within a reasonable timescale and in ways that are cost effective to the NHS and its partners, while improving waiting times and providing services that continue to meet users' and carers' needs in the shorter term.
The disability equality duty, which came into force in December 2006, obliges public bodies, including the Government, proactively to identify and eliminate discrimination against disabled people and to promote positive attitudes to disabled people and their participation in public life. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities came into force in 2007.
We know what we have to do. I reassure Jackson Carlaw that the review report is not gathering dust—far from it. As the review recommended, a project board has been established. The board's membership is wide and includes user and carer representation, which is important, as well as rehab technology professionals, service providers and equality representatives. The board is taking the work forward.
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 done immediately.
I am coming to that.
I realise that people who use the services now want real progress. Service providers are considering and implementing several recommendations of the wheelchair review, including the introduction of satellite clinics in the west of Scotland and in Tayside, which relates to recommendation 4; the introduction of self-referral by all five wheelchair and seating centres, to enable users to have their equipment requirements reviewed, which relates to recommendation 8; and the introduction of planned preventive maintenance in the NHS Highland area and in the west of Scotland for powered chairs, which relates to recommendation 32.
The project team will produce an action plan by December for my approval. Members should be under no illusion that there is any room for slippage in that regard—I reassure Johann Lamont on that point. The action plan will identify the recommendations that best meet the needs of the users and carers and which are achievable, measurable—Jackie Baillie mentioned that—and the most effective use of resources. We must get this right; we do not want to be back here again. That is why a three-month period for consulting all those with an interest in wheelchair and seating services has been built into the timeline for delivery of the action plan.
Following the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, over the next three years £16 million of additional funds will be allocated to the modernisation and redesigning of NHS wheelchair and seating services in Scotland. I think that, in the current financial climate, that is a fair settlement for a very important issue. However, the additional resources will be released only following the Scottish Government's approval of robust, fully costed business cases from each of the five wheelchair centres in Scotland and taking into account the terms of the action plan. I hope that members are reassured that we will ensure that the money is spent on the right things in the right places.
I know that Trish Godman takes a keen interest in the Quarriers village near Bridge of Weir, which is a charity that supports both adults and children with disabilities. WESTMARC provides wheelchair and seating services to Quarriers. It is in direct contact with Quarriers and is familiar with the issues of access to attendant-controlled powered wheelchairs and the safe use of manual wheelchairs by young adults at Quarriers. WESTMARC provides powered wheelchairs to people who meet the national eligibility criteria, and many young adults at Quarriers and similar facilities need wheelchairs due to their lack of mobility.
As Trish Godman will acknowledge, this is not just about resources. WESTMARC clearly has a responsibility to assess the needs of young adults who are affiliated to Quarriers and to provide and maintain suitable equipment for them. In some instances, challenging behaviour and its management have to be taken into account and will influence the equipment that can be provided. There can sometimes be conflicting aims, but it is clear that at all times safety considerations must be paramount. The wheelchair project team will work with service managers in conducting a review of the national eligibility criteria for powered wheelchairs. I hope that that addresses Trish Godman's concerns in that regard.
It is imperative that NHS boards support the modernisation of wheelchair and seating services by providing adequate funding to the services on an annual basis as well as the additional resources from the spending review. The Scottish Government is determined to drive forward the modernisation and redesigning of Scotland's wheelchair and seating services, underpinned by robust funding arrangements, for the benefit of all users and carers. I hope that that reassures all members who have taken part in the debate.
Meeting closed at 17:43.