Deafblind Scotland
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-4738, in the name of Margaret Mitchell, on Deafblind Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the work of Deafblind Scotland, based in Lenzie, which seeks to enable Scots who are both deaf and blind to receive the support and recognition that they require to be equal citizens; notes with concern the difficulties faced by deafblind people in freely accessing public transport due to the varying restrictions placed by local authorities on concessionary travel for guide communicators who provide professional communication and guiding support, and believes that cooperation among all relevant bodies will ensure that deafblind citizens can enjoy full access to public transport.
I begin by extending a warm welcome to the deafblind people and their supporters who are in the public gallery this evening. Their attendance is doubly appreciated as I know just how difficult it can be for them to organise a journey such as their journey to the Scottish Parliament today, or indeed for them to embark on any of the journeys that the rest of us manage with comparative ease and rarely think twice about. For deafblind people, there is no such luxury. Instead, every step of a journey on public transport can be fraught with difficulty.
That point was graphically brought home to me recently when I attended Deafblind Scotland's 20th anniversary celebrations in Lenzie union church. During my visit, some of the deafblind members performed two five-minute drama skits that effectively illustrated the nature of the difficulties that they face daily in attempting to negotiate travel on public transport. Those difficulties can start, for example, with communication difficulties during an initial taxi journey, and continue when the person goes on to attempt to find their way around a bus or train station or an airport and tries to purchase a ticket, or merely book in.
I know that some of my MSP colleagues, despite having to juggle voting on stage 3 amendments, managed to go and see the dramas that were being performed this afternoon. I am grateful to them for doing that, and I am grateful to all members who have stayed behind to register their support for Deafblind Scotland's plea for co-operation among all relevant bodies to ensure that deafblind citizens can enjoy full access to public transport.
In particular, I hope that the debate will concentrate minds on the barriers to free access to all public transport that deafblind people experience as a consequence of the varying restrictions that local authorities place on concessionary train travel for the guide/communicators who provide such necessary and invaluable assistance through professional communication and guiding support. Put simply, bus travel is free for the deafblind and their guide companions, but free train travel is available only to the deafblind. At best, that seriously curtails their ability to access train travel and, at worst, it renders it impossible for some deafblind people to use train travel at all.
I mentioned earlier that I attended Deafblind Scotland's 20th anniversary celebrations, as part of which there was an exhibition of video and photographs that charted the tremendous work and activities in which Deafblind Scotland has been involved over the years. Although it was in general immensely encouraging, I have to say that I felt a real sense of despondency when I saw the photos and video coverage of members of Deafblind Scotland attending the other debate that I sponsored in the Scottish Parliament almost five years ago to seek recognition of deafblindness as a distinct disability. At that time, it was emphasised how vital it is to ensure that deafblind people are identified in each local authority area as soon as possible, and before their hearing or sight deteriorates too far, in order to try to preserve the best possible quality of life. In other words, what was sought then was a similar provision to what exists in England and Wales, which has become known there as section 7 guidance.
Despite my 2005 debate and the warm words that were offered at the time, evidence shows—I refer to the Scottish Government's statistics in "Registered Blind and Partially Sighted Persons, Scotland 2008"—that there are 2,863 people in Scotland who are registered as having dual sensory loss. However, Deafblind Scotland believes that the total is grossly underestimated and is much more likely to be nearer 5,000. Unfortunately, that leads me to the conclusion that if it is merely recommended to local authorities, rather than its being required of them, they identify people with dual sensory problems early, little or no progress will be made.
Meanwhile, for deafblind people, problems persist with communication and access to information as people strive to live independently with little support and with difficulties that are little known or unnoticed. If deafblind people are to be included in society, we need to ensure that the necessary special arrangements to ensure their inclusion are in place. As the world of sensory impairment moves on apace, the risk is that deafblind people will become further marginalised.
Deafblind Scotland has 650 members, of whom 160 are under 60 years of age. If, rather than just providing platitudes—as was the case following a meeting on the same subject involving ScotRail, deafblind representatives and myself several years ago—we can genuinely aid the co-operation that the motion seeks to achieve by ensuring that today's debate results in deafblind guide/communicators being given access to concessionary fares, we will have taken a small but crucial step towards removing at least one of the barriers that are faced by this very small number of people, who are an inspiration to the rest of us and who deserve our support.
I look forward to the minister's comments on what assistance he can offer to deafblind people.
I thank Margaret Mitchell for bringing such an important debate to the Parliament. The motion rightly highlights the significance to deafblind people and their families of the work that is done by Deafblind Scotland. I welcome all the visitors in the public gallery and put on record my thanks—indeed admiration—for the unstinting work that Deafblind Scotland does.
Presiding Officer, I ask you—and members in the chamber and the people in the gallery—to accept my apologies: I will need to leave directly after speaking as I have an important commitment to keep in my constituency.
As Margaret Mitchell explained, services for deafblind people differ greatly from local authority to local authority. There are still too many gaps in services, of which the lack of concessionary rail travel for guide/communicators is just one. Local authorities and Governments must look at that and do much more to address the needs of deafblind people.
It cannot be denied that deafblind people have specific needs. I am sure that all members understand the particular struggle that deafblind people have when travelling on public transport. Evidence suggests that a significant number of deafblind people go without food, medicine and other essentials because shopping is so difficult. How much more difficult must tasks such as shopping be without a companion? What happens when deafblind people cannot make a trip to the shops or keep an appointment in town because they are not in a financial position to pay the train fare for their guide/communicator? It must be horrendous to have to make such a choice.
As Margaret Mitchell highlighted, the number of people who are registered with local authorities as deafblind, or who have been otherwise identified as such, is just over 2,600. I know that that figure is disputed; Deafblind Scotland thinks that it is 5,000. Dealing with that number would not be difficult within our budgetary constraints.
Deafblind people are marginalised because they do not have equal access to services and to the everyday things that we all enjoy. I think that the people of Scotland would be only too happy financially to support deafblind companions for rail travel. I encourage the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change to consider carefully the issue of companion travel for deafblind people. I know that budgets are tight and are not made of elastic, but the number of people involved throughout Scotland would not be unmanageable and things would not be unaffordable. I urge the minister to give a positive response and to tell the deafblind people in the gallery and deafblind people throughout Scotland that they are important and that their companions should have access to rail travel at no cost to them. That is a small ask. I am sure that the deafblind community would be happy if he did so.
I, too, congratulate Margaret Mitchell on securing such an important debate. It is customary to congratulate members on securing debates, but the issue is hugely important and I am delighted that we are debating it.
I am also delighted to see in the gallery those who have travelled here. It is interesting that we talk about the travelling problems of people who have dual sensory impairments, but some of us have travelling problems anyway with the wretched rain that we are having. I suspect that some people who might have come from Aberdeen have not made it here. However, it is good to see those who are in the gallery, and it is particularly good to see Drena O'Malley again. I acknowledge the work that she does and her contribution to the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on deafness, which Cathie Craigie and I support.
Members have said that travel is one issue for deafblind people, but most of what happens for deafblind people is uncertain. Last year, I asked an intern to do some research on the subject. Getting good answers not only about how many people are deafblind, but about where they are, who pays them, what services there are for them and who provides those services was extremely difficult. I have continued to do some work in the area, but it is desperately difficult. Deafblind people are so marginalised that we are not even sure how many of them there are and where we can find them.
I will pre-empt the minister by saying that, by and large, the Government does not tell people what they have to do. We know that local authorities have single outcome agreements and are expected to come up with answers that are appropriate for their local area. As a former councillor, I must say that that is basically right.
The challenge for the minister and the Government is to say what the Government can do to encourage consistency in how services are provided for financially by local authorities—or nationally, if that can be done. Can it be done? I came to Edinburgh this week on a £15 ticket—it is on the public record that I have reached the exalted age of 55, so I do not need to say that. The fact that I came to Edinburgh on that ticket suggests to me that the rail companies in general reckon that it is all right to have a marginal passenger for £15. I suspect that most deafblind people would not choose to travel at peak times—indeed, most of us would not travel at peak times if we could avoid doing so. It seems to me that the railway companies have already established that providing £15 marginal tickets to anywhere represents fair economic sense. I put it to the minister that that approach might be a way forward that is apparently already on the economic landscape. It might be better than having no top-up at all.
The challenge for the minister and the Government is to see whether they can get local authorities and others who generate funding to provide a level playing field and consistency for desperately unfortunate people who need as much help as we can give them.
I take the point that Cathie Craigie made—that the general public would support the proposal. I am pretty sure that, if they were aware of the issues, the public would be behind putting a little bit of money into it, and it would not cost a fortune.
I offer my congratulations to Margaret Mitchell on securing tonight's debate. I also congratulate her on her debate of 9 March 2005—more than two years before I was elected to the Scottish Parliament—in which she represented the issues of concern to Deafblind Scotland. In the motion that she lodged in 2005, she sought to raise awareness of the unequal treatment of the deafblind community, especially in relation to the European Parliament's 2004 declaration on the rights of deafblind people. I know that she has done much more for the deafblind community since then, and I commend her for that.
Tonight, Margaret Mitchell asks us to focus on the transport issues that affect deafblind people's ability to become—as Deafblind Scotland's vision outlines—part of a society in which
"deafblind people have the permanent support and recognition necessary to be equal citizens."
I could not agree with that more.
If there is one basic reason why we are members of the Scottish Parliament, regardless of our political differences, it is to make the lives of the people of Scotland better and fair. As members will be aware, I recently had the pleasure of hosting a series of visits to the Parliament by south Fife puppy walkers. Those events not only raised awareness of the need for people to volunteer to look after and give basic training to guide dog puppies, but highlighted the need for more businesses to allow the young dogs into their workplace to get them ready for their role with a blind or partially sighted person in their own workplace. Today, we have in the Parliament people from Deafblind Scotland, some of whom have dogs that are trained for use by people with dual sensory impairment.
Blind and partially sighted people have access to free travel on buses and trains, as do deafblind people. If deafblind people are to use public transport effectively, they need a specially trained guide/communicator to assist them with their journey and their reason for taking that journey. However, their companion does not get free travel—they get only discounted travel. That means that such transport is not really free for the deafblind community; it is subsidised.
The issue was made clear to me recently when I was contacted by a constituent, Mrs Elizabeth Keating of Dunfermline, who highlighted her concerns about train travel. The need for free travel on trains is not currently recognised by Fife Council. I assure Mrs Keating and any other deafblind constituents of mine that I will do all that I can to persuade Fife Council to review its policy on the issue.
It was a real pleasure to join deafblind people from communities throughout Scotland in committee room 5 this afternoon. They were able to highlight their concerns through some very good drama—I am sure that the Oscar is in the post—and other members and I were able to ask them a series of questions to enable us to understand their needs better.
I fully agree with Deafblind Scotland's vision that Scotland's deafblind people should be treated as equal citizens. As the Lib Dem deputy spokesperson on local government and transport, I take very seriously the issues that have been raised this evening on behalf of Deafblind Scotland. I will do all that I can to help Mrs Keating, and I am sure that other members will contact their local authorities to raise similar issues.
I, too, thank my colleague, Margaret Mitchell, for securing the debate. I also thank her for her continued commitment to supporting Deafblind Scotland. The figure of 2,683 that was cited by Cathie Craigie appears to be an underestimate. I am sure that, given the minister's ability with figures, he will be able to give us a more accurate figure.
As Jim Tolson and others have said, Margaret Mitchell has raised a real issue for debate in focusing on the need to give deafblind people independence and dignity by enabling them to travel accompanied, when appropriate, in order to address the social exclusion that they face. There is no doubt that enabling deafblind people to travel to visit friends and family, to attend social and sporting events or to go shopping—which Cathie Craigie mentioned—would also help to promote good mental health. The excellent guide/communicator service aims to ensure equal access, promote independence and encourage integration into the community. That is not really much to ask.
In preparing for the debate, I, like Jim Tolson, came across the European Parliament declaration on the rights of deafblind people, which was published in 2004. Interestingly, the document highlights
"the right to receive one-to-one support … from communicatorguides … interpreters, or intervenors"
when appropriate and also
"the right to participate in … democratic life; the right to work and access training …; the right to person-centred health and social care"
and
"the right to lifelong learning."
Obviously, all those rights depend on access to transport.
The difference highlighted today is that a deafblind person can travel free on the bus and the train but their companion can do so only on the bus; when travelling by train, the companion has to be paid for. I understand that in four of Scotland's transport areas a discounted train fare is available for companions, but I am sure that the minister will clarify that.
I realise that I am asking the wrong minister for a response to this issue, but I also want to highlight the lack of mental health facilities in Scotland for deafblind people, which was raised at both the Public Petitions Committee and the Health and Sport Committee. The Health and Sport Committee is still awaiting the outcome of a proposal for specialist in-patient services in Scotland that was to be submitted to the Scottish Government in autumn 2008. However, I will raise the matter with the appropriate minister.
Deafblind people have the right to be accompanied by a guide/communicator, and we must ensure that people in Scotland are neither isolated nor excluded. Surely we will all agree that the deafblind community deserves to enjoy the independence that the rest of us have and often take for granted. I look forward to hearing about the Government's commitment to tackling these issues.
I, too, congratulate Margaret Mitchell on securing the debate and endorse her welcome to deafblind people visiting the Parliament today.
Margaret Mitchell highlighted important issues such as the identification and registration of deafblind people as a prelude to responding to their needs, especially their travel needs. I, too, will focus on travel. Mrs Mitchell correctly pointed out that deafblind people and their companions have access to free bus travel. However, as I know from responses to the consultation that I carried out earlier this year on my draft member's bill on bus services, some parts of Scotland have few such services, which in itself can be a fundamental problem. In that consultation, I also received evidence from people who have various difficulties in respect of vehicle standards. Vehicle standards for buses, for example, are reserved, but there are pressing reasons for responding to the needs of deafblind people and people with mobility impairments by finding innovative ways of modernising such standards.
There is also the anomaly with regard to rail travel for companions of deafblind people. As Margaret Mitchell made clear, a number of local authorities have concessionary travel schemes with a rail travel component. Of course, not all local concessionary travel schemes have the same eligibility criteria, and it appears that some local authorities feel that the funding pressures in those schemes could lead to a reduction in travel opportunities for all concessionaires.
I see scope for a practical, non-partisan—or, one might say, cross-party—approach to finding a solution to the rail travel issue for companions of deafblind people. At the end of the day, we are supposed to be here to help to solve the problems of ordinary people in Scotland, so we should try to avoid—as I am sure we will—pointing fingers at operators, councils or, indeed, the Scottish Government. I suggest that the minister, Stewart Stevenson, consider convening a meeting of all stakeholders to see whether we can bottom out the issue and find a swift, practical and affordable solution, even in these difficult times. There is a strong case for a better deal for deafblind people; let us apply ourselves to putting the situation right.
Like other members, I am grateful to Margaret Mitchell for securing the debate. I appreciate the work that has been done by Deafblind Scotland on the issue and its success in encouraging so many of my constituents to correspond with me.
As we have heard, there are at most 5,000 deafblind people in Scotland—a small but not insignificant group of people who have a unique and profound disability. It should therefore not be beyond our wit or our finances to make what would amount to a small change in transport policy. As my constituent, Mr Laird, from Stoneyburn, said to me, small changes can have a big impact. Mr Laird got to the heart of the issue when he wrote in a letter to me:
"Even the very brave, able, deafblind person rarely travels alone. In most cases their companion is a skilled guide/communicator who acts as the deafblind person's eyes and ears."
Despite the necessity for deafblind people to travel with a skilled companion, the companion is eligible only for some discount and only in some local authority areas. The situation becomes very complex because, in some areas, the discretionary local authority rail travel concession is available only within the local authority's boundaries. Of course, the whole point of rail travel is to enable us to tackle longer journeys comfortably and in a more reasonable timescale, and to access more direct routes. It is also often necessary and desirable for deafblind people to use rail transport as opposed to other forms of transport.
I am pleased that concessionary rail travel for deafblind people's companions is available in West Lothian and, I note, also in Falkirk and Edinburgh. I wonder whether those authorities, which share boundaries, could extend their schemes into one another's areas, or whether they currently do so. That might be an important question to ask.
The crux of the issue and the motion is the principle that deafblind people's companions are valuable and essential and should be able to travel for free by rail and by bus. I am told—and I am sure that my constituents will correct me if the information is wrong—that it costs £1 for a companion to travel on the train from West Lothian to Edinburgh, but if that person wants to travel from West Lothian to Glasgow, they have to pay half the full fare. In my constituency, there have been big improvements in the Bathgate to Airdrie line, which offer enormous opportunities to people across West Lothian, and it would be a missed opportunity if deafblind people could not also receive the maximum benefit of those improvements.
The national concessionary travel scheme is one of Parliament's successes, partly because of its universal eligibility for older people. However, although I support the universal aspect of the current scheme for older people, I regret that some people are excluded. The minister knows my views about the exclusion of people with learning disabilities who are on the lower rates of the disability living allowance, and I have the same view about the exclusion of disabled people's companions. It is fantastic that someone who is over 65, irrespective of their health and financial position, can travel anywhere in Scotland for free, but surely the same principle should apply to all Scotland's disabled people and their companions whether they are travelling by bus or by rail.
I note that deafblind people are not specifically defined in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005, and I wonder whether the minister would consider the benefits of changing that.
The Scottish Government has conducted a major review of concessionary travel, the report of which was published in May. Although the review considered the need for additional companions on buses and whether to extend the scheme wholesale to rail, it did not specifically consider extending the funding to cover companions on rail for blind or deafblind people. As some months have passed since the publication of the review, I wonder what the minister's current thoughts are and whether he will consider addressing that issue.
I echo members' thanks to Margaret Mitchell for giving us the opportunity to talk about this important subject. I also thank her for explaining why red matters. She is wearing a red jacket and I see that many of our visitors in the public gallery are doing the same. I now know that red is the colour that is most easily seen by people with some residual eyesight. The next time that I am engaged in a deafblind event, I might at least wear a red tie, although Charlie Gordon should not believe that that would have any political implication.
Margaret Mitchell and Jim Tolson referred to the dramas in committee room 5 this afternoon. I was aware of the event, but I am afraid that ministerial duties did not permit me to go. However, from the accounts of those who visited the event in Parliament today, I know that it was an excellent opportunity to ensure that we are aware of the issues that affect deafblind people. At the outset, I concede that, without the debate, the issue would not have come into my in-tray in any significant way. Thus far, it probably has not.
There has been some questioning of numbers. I say to Ms Scanlon that the minister is a polymath, but not yet an omnimath. Therefore, I do not have the exact number of deafblind people. Margaret Mitchell said that there are just under 3,000 registered deafblind people, but she reasonably pointed out that, as it is merely recommended that local authorities should look for people in the category, there can be little doubt that the figure is an understatement. I undertake to consider further whether we can do something on the number of people who are affected, to ensure that we have an accurate, helpful and factual basis.
Cathie Craigie properly said that elastic is not part of the budgetary process. She is of course correct but, at the end of the day in politics, we make choices and we can never spend money on everything that we wish to; we have to choose.
Nigel Don made the reasonable point that, when the weather is poor, travel can be difficult for those of us with no impairments, which illustrates the difficulties for some people in every day of their travelling life. I absolutely accept that. He also made a point about £15 tickets. I point out that, when he reaches 60, he can buy a card that will get him a third off other tickets and another £2 off that £15 ticket, which will take it to £13. Interestingly enough, that is a wholly commercial offering by the rail companies—no public money is involved in the provision of those tickets. This year, the offer is extending for about three months or perhaps slightly longer. There is certainly scope for the rail companies to consider how to bring more people to the railways without involving public money.
Mary Scanlon referred to there being four schemes. My notes suggest that there are 15 schemes that support blind people on the rail network—there were previously 16—although they are variable schemes with different ranges of offerings. For example, there is a scheme in Highland, which will interest Ms Scanlon, and one in the Lothians. Strathclyde partnership for transport, which covers a significant number of local authority areas, also has a scheme.
I am somewhat aware of the mental health issues for the deafblind. Members will have heard me talk before of a period—45 years ago, I hasten to add—when I worked in a psychiatric hospital. One of our patients was a deafblind patient, but they had a range of more severe problems. I am aware of the issues in that respect.
As Angela Constance made clear, many of the rail schemes provide benefits beyond the council boundary in question. Charlie Gordon made an important point when he said that some parts of Scotland have few bus services.
Why should local authorities, rather than central Government, provide such support? The answer is partly because local travel varies in different local authority areas. Members have heard me say before that there are no trains in my constituency, so a train benefit may be of some, although not much, use to people there. It is perhaps often more important for people on the islands to have supported ferry travel. Some people on the islands commute by aircraft—they go by air from the outer isles in Orkney to Kirkwall for the shopping once a week. That points to why local delivery and local decision making can make a great deal of sense.
Charlie Gordon suggested that I convene a meeting of stakeholders. I will certainly consider that suggestion further, because I want to be seen to be taking the subject seriously. I make the general point that Deafblind Scotland recently raised the whole issue that we are discussing with the Scottish rail accessibility forum, and my officials from Transport Scotland are engaging with local authorities on consistency of approach when they consider the provision of discounted rail travel for companions for blind passengers. Some work is going on and I will certainly keep on top of it. If we can see that it will make a real difference, I will certainly consider picking up Charlie Gordon's suggestion.
Our Scotland-wide free bus travel scheme is pretty widely recognised as delivering a huge benefit, although, I have to say, at significant cost to the public purse, which presents its own challenges.
Probably three years ago—it was before the last election—I had the pleasure and privilege of being invited by the Grampian Society for the Blind to attend a blind driving day, at which I was blindfolded and invited to drive a car round a racetrack. Of course, to do that I had to have someone sitting beside me, giving precisely the sort of support that we are talking about but in relation to the very temporary handicap that was inflicted on me. That experience enabled me to see how difficult it was. Even with that assistance—with a trained person helping me—it was a very substantially challenging undertaking. So I ask members please to be aware that I have some limited insight from personal experience of the difficulties that are experienced by people who are deafblind.
The debate has given me, and the Government generally, considerable food for thought. Given that Mary Scanlon said that she would talk to health ministers directly, I will not pick up the point that the Presiding Officer allowed her to make in that regard.
I am grateful for this useful opportunity to debate an important subject.
Meeting closed at 17:43.