The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-08266, in the name of Neil Findlay, on airlines discriminating against disabled people. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament understands that, although EU law stipulates that airlines must provide assistance for passengers with reduced mobility who want to use toilet facilities, many companies do not carry portable aisle wheelchairs; commends those that do, such as Ryanair, Monarch, Thomsons and Virgin, but is concerned at the number of major airlines that do not; considers this to be a failure in their duty to adequately meet the needs of passengers from Lothian and across the country; sees this as a lack of provision that is discriminatory and can be humiliating; commends the Sunday Mail and the Reduced Mobility Rights website on exposing what it believes to be the failure of Jet2 to provide such basic equipment, and notes the view that all aircraft, regardless of the route being served, should carry on board portable wheelchairs to help meet the needs of passengers with reduced mobility.
12:34
My brother is a multiple sclerosis sufferer. He cannot walk because of his condition, so he uses a wheelchair permanently. Like many disabled travellers, he is sadly used to experiencing a wide range of problems when travelling at home and abroad, particularly when he is going on holiday. He could have problems with booking, poor information provision, problems with the hotel or his room, or issues with buses and taxis. The list appears to go on and on, and the problems will be familiar to many disabled travellers.
On his most recent holiday, the experience that he and his partner had was so bad that I felt that it had to be exposed because, without doubt, many other people will have had similar experiences. Since I lodged the motion, and my brother’s case was featured in the Sunday Mail, many other people have come forward and shared similar experiences.
Last year, John booked a holiday via a Scottish company, Barrhead Travel, and requested the usual adapted room with a roll-in shower and all the other things that he would need on holiday. On making the booking, he asked the adviser whether there would be an aisle wheelchair on board the aircraft so that he could get to and from the toilet while he was on the flight. Of course, that was confirmed.
However, when he boarded the Jet2 flight, he found that, despite previous assurances, no aisle wheelchair was available. The stewardess he spoke to advised him that they did not have such a thing. Indeed, she did not even know what one was. He then had to board the plane last, in front of everyone else, which he found very embarrassing. As someone with limited mobility, he had to drag himself to his seat, which took a great deal of time and energy. He was then seated in the ninth row from the toilet and told that there was no aisle wheelchair to get him to and from the toilet, and that he was not allowed to move seats because he would be blocking the evacuation route for able-bodied passengers should there be an emergency.
The cabin steward was very defensive—indeed, he was aggressive and unhelpful—and my brother had to endure the humiliation of discussing his toilet requirements and health problems in front of all the other passengers. He was told that the cabin crew could not assist him to move, if needed, as that was against the company’s health and safety policy. At one point, the situation became like a “Carry On” film, because the cabin crew suggested that his partner should carry him if he needed to be moved. That ignored the fact that she is small and he is over 6ft tall and weighs 13 stone. It was an utterly ridiculous suggestion.
Customer service seems to apply only to able-bodied passengers as far as Jet2 is concerned. The company seems to be happy enough to take money from disabled passengers while treating them with complete contempt.
I do not know about you, Presiding Officer, and I will not ask you to respond to the point, but I do not think that many of us could last for a four-hour flight without needing to go to the little boys’ or little girls’ room. Of course, the situation was repeated on my brother’s return journey.
How did he feel? He was certainly embarrassed, angry, disappointed, and humiliated. He had been treated very much like a second, third, or fourth-class citizen. He felt that no one was interested and that they did not care about his most basic needs. For other passengers, things can be as bad or even worse. The trailblazers group of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign has highlighted a number of related problems for wheelchair users travelling on flights. Some people have been unable to take flights because most of the budget airlines will not carry wheelchairs of above a certain weight. Wheelchairs have been damaged beyond repair, and people have said that they have low expectations of airlines’ ability to take care of their medical and mobility equipment. I thank the trailblazers group, the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, and Roberto Castiglioni of the Reduced Mobility Rights campaign for their efforts to improve the rights of disabled travellers.
Things need to change. We need to ensure that airlines provide a decent and dignified service for all passengers at all times. In June 2012, the European Commission issued guidelines to improve and facilitate the application of Regulation (EC) 1107/2006, but they are not legally binding. The guidelines state:
“Under Annex II to the Regulation cabin crew are required to provide appropriate assistance to disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility in moving from their seat to toilet facilities if required. Any particular procedures implemented for the assistance of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility should neither compromise the performance or the health and safety of cabin crew in undertaking their duties”.
The guidelines also state that on-board portable
“aisle wheelchairs should be used for this purpose where available.”
However, that is only guidance.
The Civil Aviation Authority suggests that
“providing assistance without the use of an on-board wheelchair should be avoided unless airlines are able to overcome inherent health and safety concerns.”
Some airlines are doing very well in that regard and I commend British Airways, Thomson, Thomas Cook, Virgin Atlantic and Ryanair—I know that some people may be surprised by that. However, Jet2, Flybe, easyJet, CityJet and Aer Lingus do not provide on-board wheelchairs and Monarch does only if a special request is made. I say to those airlines: get into the 21st century and get your act together because your competitors are providing those services and you need to, too.
Finally, since the events that I described and the publicity surrounding them, Barrhead Travel has updated its website on accessibility guidance, and I encourage other travel agents to do so because some of them are making poor provision for disabled passengers. New accessibility guidance has come from ABTA for its members.
The reality is, though, that space and cost factors appear to be the only ones preventing airlines from adopting on-board aisle wheelchairs as a standard feature. However, given that Ryanair, one of the lowest-cost carriers, provides aisle wheelchairs on board its entire fleet, space and cost arguments simply do not stack up. Barring the physical limitations on smaller aircraft, all airplanes flying from and to Scotland, the United Kingdom, and all European countries should be equipped with on-board wheelchairs. It is only fair to say that the airline industry now has no plausible argument to further delay adopting on-board aisle wheelchairs as a standard feature on board each and every aircraft that has the ability to carry and use them.
In this year of all years, when the Commonwealth games and the Ryder cup are coming to Scotland and disabled passengers will come from all over the world to visit Scotland, every aeroplane landing in Scotland with over 60 seats that is capable of carrying on-board aisle wheelchairs should have them. That would allow every passenger to travel with some level of dignity.
12:42
I thank Neil Findlay for bringing this important debate to the Parliament. Over the past number of years, we have seen difficulties with the transportation of disabled passengers with special needs. I certainly hope that the companies that dealt with Mr Findlay’s relative are responding to the issue in a proper manner.
Mr Findlay raised the issue of disabled people travelling on aeroplanes and, indeed, the whole experience of disabled people travelling through an airport. It is vital that we get that issue right. As Mr Findlay may or may not know, I chair the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on aviation. I asked some carriers for their comments on this issue, and some of them were quite interesting. I was reminded of my days working in the bus industry, because it took Lothian Buses here in Edinburgh—I worked for the company for a number of years—the best part of 10 years to move its fleet from the old Olympian buses, which for various reasons could not be adapted, to the point at which every vehicle in the fleet is now disabled compliant. Making that kind of adaptation is not easy and there is obviously a cost implication in doing so for older aircraft.
I am obviously delighted that companies such as BA and Virgin have done their best in that regard. Such is the seriousness of the issue that Mr Findlay has raised that, to be fair on easyJet, which Mr Findlay mentioned, Mr Andrew McConnell from easyJet has come up to listen to this debate. He is willing to talk to any MSP who has an interest in disabilities and the likes.
I have two points. First, we are not asking anybody to adapt any plane; we are asking them to purchase a very small piece of equipment and train their staff to use it. Secondly, not one airline has made an approach to discuss the issue with me. I have had correspondence with some of them, but not one person from any airline has made an approach to discuss any of this with me.
I thank Mr Findlay for his comments—I am just saying that, when I saw that there was a debate kicking off on the matter, I thought that I would put a call out, and Mr McConnell from easyJet is here if Mr Findlay wishes to speak to him after the debate.
I am aware that easyJet is commissioning a new fleet. The company has a disability forum that runs independently of it and is chaired by David Blunkett. He will be advising the company in the springtime and the new fleet will apparently deal with some of the issues.
It is vital to consider other issues, such as staff training. It is shocking that anyone can go through the experience that Mr Findlay’s relative went through, and it is not surprising that they would view such an experience as nothing less than a damning indictment of the carrier that was involved. It is vital that we get the facilities right for people who are disabled.
My late father had a long-term degenerative illness, and I know that it is vital that people are allowed the dignity to travel on aircraft while they are fit and healthy enough to do so, and to have an enjoyable experience. I know about that from the difficulties that I had in bringing my father back through Heathrow, for instance, where the arrangements that had been made—it was some years ago—were certainly not satisfactory for someone who had a long-term degenerative illness and required transport between terminals. That was not easy to arrange. I have every sympathy with Mr Findlay’s relative and there is no reason for that sort of thing to happen.
The member should draw to a close.
As a result of my investigations, companies such as BA, Virgin and easyJet, and the airports that have replied to me, have given me plans of action. I am happy to pass those emails on to Mr Findlay if he wishes me to, and Mr McConnell from easyJet is up in the gallery. I think that the way forward looks a bit better than what we have had so far.
12:47
I congratulate Neil Findlay on bringing the debate to the chamber, and I commend him for a very personal and thoughtful contribution. I am privileged, as the convener of the cross-party group on muscular dystrophy, to have already had a presentation on many of the issues from the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign’s trailblazers network at one of our recent meetings.
The network is a group of disabled campaigners from across the United Kingdom who tackle the social issues that affect young disabled people, such as access to higher education, employment and social and leisure facilities. They campaign tirelessly to fight what they see as obvious social injustices, and there is really nothing like lived experience to inform our debate and highlight the reality of what they face.
The trailblazers network published a report in October 2012 called “Up in the air”. I am disappointed that the industry has not rushed to pick up on the report’s recommendations. It is only as a consequence of some of the activity that Neil Findlay has spoken about that we are starting to see some change. However, being a generous soul, I will put that to one side.
Neil Findlay highlighted some of the issues that the trailblazers network described at the cross-party group meeting, such as being unable to take flights on most budget airlines because they do not carry wheelchairs above a certain weight. He rightly made the point that space and cost are the excuses that are used, but frankly those excuses can be dismissed—we see that Ryanair has aisle chairs—despite what the other airlines may say.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am not sure if I have time—but I see that the Presiding Officer is willing to be generous.
It is commendable that Ryanair has such facilities. However, the airline has had a high level of growth over the past eight to 10 years, which has enabled it to purchase brand new planes. The storage implications of someone having a wheelchair are therefore a lot easier for Ryanair, as the company can have the facilities fitted at the point of delivery.
That is helpful, but the point is that action can be taken now; there is no excuse for inactivity and delay. While I am sure that companies can do things that are much more imaginative as they renew fleets, something should be done now.
I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer, but I want to talk about some of the issues that have been highlighted. Those include wheelchairs being damaged beyond repair; holidays or business trips being ruined; people being physically hurt or feeling humiliated when they are carried from wheelchairs to airline seats as staff members ignore advice about best lifting techniques; and people having very low expectations of airlines with regard to understanding—or even beginning to understand—their medical and mobility equipment.
Let me give members some examples from the trailblazers report. Emma Muldoon from Grangemouth said:
“Jet2 refused to take my wheelchair when I was flying to Prague from Newcastle because of the weight of the chair. Jet2 blamed Swissport (the ground staff for special assistance) for refusing the wheelchair. After many phone calls and arguing, they agreed to take my wheelchair as long as the height of the wheelchair was under a certain height. I’ve also had to wait up to a week to know if I can get booked on to a flight.”
Lauramechelle Stewart from Port Glasgow said:
“Jet2 have broken my wheelchair and are only taking responsibility for £1,000 of the damage. My chair is worth £5,000-£6,000.”
Hayleigh Barclay from Prestwick said, in relation to the idea of travelling on a plane in her own wheelchair:
“It would be a lot more comfortable as my own chair has been designed around my scoliosis etc. I also wouldn’t have to be transferred so this would eliminate more discomfort and humiliation. I also wouldn’t have to worry about my wheelchair being damaged or broken in the luggage bay.”
Turning to the future, here are a couple of suggestions that came from the group who were involved in the report. Karis Williamson from Inverness said:
“Stop charging money for things that you can’t help, e.g. equipment, wheelchairs and oxygen. Stop making me feel inhuman and like cargo. Take better care of wheelchairs and equipment.”
Hayleigh Barclay went on to start a campaign called plane fair to encourage the aviation industry to put in place the new technology that would allow wheelchair users to remain seated in their chairs.
Let us at least have on-board aisle chairs—Ryanair, Monarch, Thomson and Virgin all do it. There is nothing to prevent the other airlines from following suit. Let us get the industry to take action to make travel easier for disabled people. It does not take a lot of effort or money and it is absolutely the right thing to do.
12:51
I thank Neil Findlay for bringing this matter to the attention of Parliament. It is, for many of us, an easy thing to get on an aircraft, fly to the other end and get off without thinking about it. However, the difficulties that are faced by those who are physically disabled are often brought home to able-bodied passengers when we have to observe the difficulties that disabled passengers have to put up with on flights—sometimes to our embarrassment. Sometimes we are able to help, but most of the time it makes us realise how difficult it is to travel—even on modern aircraft—for someone who is disabled and in a wheelchair.
For that reason, it is very encouraging to hear that many airlines are extremely successful in dealing with the problem. Ryanair was included in the list of airlines that have on-board aisle chairs. Dare I be the one who makes the joke that suggests that Ryanair will stop at nothing to get an extra seat on an aircraft? However, in this case it is an example of a low-cost airline that can achieve the objectives within the low-cost business model.
A trend that has occurred in aviation in recent years is that low-cost airlines have been the most successful. We want low-cost airlines to be able to keep their costs down, but, as Neil Findlay has pointed out, he is not asking for expensive conversions or expensive changes to the aircraft. He is simply asking for the provision of basic equipment that allows the job to be done on the aircraft itself, along with appropriate staff training so that they can use that basic equipment for the purpose required on the aircraft.
I also agree with Jackie Baillie’s point about people being lifted properly, which also relates to training. The ability to lift properly is taught in our hospitals and through many other organisations in Scotland. Surely it is not beyond the realms of possibility that airline cabin staff can be taught basic lifting techniques, even if for no other reason than to protect themselves from the potential injury that may be achieved by doing it wrong.
We are in a situation in which we have a problem in front of us. We have guidelines in place but those guidelines are not being observed. The suggestion has been made that those guidelines should be incorporated into legislation. I may ultimately find myself supporting that proposal, but in the first instance it would surely be easier to ensure that the guidelines are properly observed. The work that ABTA has already done to encourage travel agents to do proper checks and proper inquiries into the availability of equipment and trained staff is a start.
It is also vitally important that we ensure that travel agents do all that they can to give accurate information. There is nothing more annoying than situations such as the one that Neil Findlay described: when someone checks in advance that the equipment and service is available and then, when they are on the plane, they discover that in fact that is not the case. Inaccuracy of information is one of the largest parts of the problem. People can always book with an airline in the belief that it will provide the service, but if it does not, that is the most difficult situation in which they can find themselves.
I am glad that Neil Findlay has been able to bring the issue to Parliament. He has identified a problem and he has identified a solution, which is inexpensive and can be effectively introduced quickly, without damaging the business model of our most successful low-cost airlines. I therefore think that this is a perfect opportunity for everyone in a position of authority on this matter to get their heads together and get something done at short notice, to ensure that no passenger who boards an aircraft in Scotland, the UK or across Europe has to suffer such indignity. Perhaps, even with the difficulty of worldwide regulation, we might get this spread across the world.
12:56
I welcome Neil Findlay gaining time for the debate, which has allowed us to discuss what the Sunday Mail calls “reduced mobility rights”. The interesting word “rights” on the end is perhaps the nub of the whole matter.
I would like to highlight the experience of one of my constituents a couple of months ago. She suffers from MS and was attempting to fly from Wick to Edinburgh on Flybe. The flight lasts only an hour, but the alternative is eight hours on trains and, when someone is on business, it is obvious that they need to use their time as best they can.
My constituent called the Flybe call centre to book special assistance on that flight but was told not to turn up for it, because as Flybe then knew that she needed assistance, legally she could not travel, as it had met in full its quota of people needing assistance. That situation certainly put her blood pressure up to a great extent, but eventually she got a phone call to say that yes, indeed, she could travel.
It would be excellent if on-board wheelchairs were available, but that is a little less urgent for one-hour flights than the ability to get customer relations correct, so that people know exactly what their situation is with regard to airlines. That flight is the equivalent of a lifeline flight. It is only Flybe’s small aircraft flights that reach many of our north mainland and island airports. A large number of people have MS—the proportion of the population is perhaps higher in the north of Scotland than it is anywhere else—so the need to have a clear set of guidelines that are followed is very important.
It is not a question of whether guidelines will work, because I think that the Sunday Mail is right: we should write reduced mobility rights into the way airlines should behave. Airlines are given the chance to collect passengers who need to get to the centre of Scotland for business, hospital appointments and other more leisure-related purposes. It is necessary that we ensure that people such as my constituent are not treated as she was and that we all get together to back the campaign for reduced mobility rights and turn the situation into one of rules rather than privileges.
12:59
Like other members, I thank Neil Findlay for securing the time to discuss this very important issue and for his very insightful speech, which highlighted the challenges that his brother faced—a totally unacceptable experience. Other members have highlighted other cases.
First of all, we recognise that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities sets an internationally recognised benchmark for disabled people’s human rights, including on accessibility and personal mobility issues, and that our work will be measured against that very important standard. Our “Framework of Action for Independent Living in Scotland 2013 to 2015”, which was published in October 2013, lists as a key output that
“We will actively promote the needs of disabled people and work towards equal access for disabled people to services, housing and transport”,
and we are committed to working with disabled people in the design of those services.
The case that has been highlighted today shows that, despite the existence of European Union regulations that require airlines to provide assistance in moving passengers to toilets and providing information on access limitations prior to travel, the legislation needs to be better understood by airlines and travel agents and better publicised to passengers. Although I understand that there is no legal requirement for an airline to carry on-board wheelchairs, it is essential that the needs of disabled passengers, including assistance in moving them to the toilet if required, are fully catered for during a flight.
The provision of information by airlines and travel agents is clearly of significant importance. A 2013 audit of selected travel agents’ websites assessed that only 10 per cent of them provided sufficient information to disabled passengers. That is a clear marker that a lot of hard work remains to be done to ensure that disabled customers are provided with the necessary information before flying. I understand that the Civil Aviation Authority is considering these issues, which is an appropriate course of action. Although this area of policy is reserved, the Scottish Government will continue to monitor the impacts on disabled passengers travelling to and from Scotland’s airports and work with the relevant parties to ensure we promote best practice. I will certainly pick up with the Commonwealth games organising committee and specifically the transport group overseeing such matters Neil Findlay’s point about passengers travelling to the Commonwealth games and the Ryder cup.
I am grateful for the minister’s comments so far, but will she consider writing to the various organisations and Governments, the European Commission and the airlines themselves to see whether this proposal could be taken forward on a voluntary basis instead of waiting for legislation?
I am certainly happy to do that and think that the debate provides a useful platform in that respect. We can certainly communicate the Parliament’s views in that correspondence.
We need to reach a position where disabled passengers receive a consistently better service and to highlight and act on the many examples of good practice, some of which have already been mentioned in the debate. Many airlines, including the low-cost ones, already carry portable aisle wheelchairs on board and other initiatives include free seat allocation for passengers with disabilities or reduced mobility; unlimited mobility and medical equipment and supplies carried free of charge in addition to regular baggage; and crews trained in moving and handling techniques and disability awareness and communication skills. There is good practice out there, but it needs to happen on all airlines.
As an example of good practice, one transatlantic airline that has recently located to Scotland—Virgin—worked with the family of a severely disabled passenger, healthcare professionals and airport staff to ensure that her journey was safe and comfortable and that the necessary equipment was in place. That might be the gold standard, but there are basic things that all airlines could be doing and which really would not cost them anything at all.
Scottish airports are also doing good work. For example, in 2013, Aberdeen airport launched a partnership with Grampian Employment Opportunities that is designed to allow it to work with disabled users to ensure that the airport experience is as comfortable and stress free as possible. Glasgow international airport employs dedicated help to assist with the estimated 90,000 passengers a year who require assistance with restricted mobility, and its service level agreement with the company involved includes challenging targets for ensuring that passengers do not have to wait for assistance. As for Jet2, which was highlighted by Neil Findlay, I understand that it is now in active discussion with the CAA about the provision of aisle chairs to passengers with reduced mobility. Although that is to be welcomed, we need action from the other airlines.
For our part, we will continue to put disabled people’s rights at the top of our agenda. After all, it is our duty to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to monitor progress. We will also continue to work with the CAA, airlines and airports to ensure that disabled passengers and passengers with restricted mobility have a comfortable and safe experience when travelling to and from Scotland. As I said to Neil Findlay in response to his intervention, I am more than happy to use this debate to ensure that those organisations, agencies and businesses are well aware of the Parliament’s views on this matter. If we can make some progress on that, this debate will have been very worth while indeed.
Meeting closed at 13:05.Previous
First Minister’s Question Time