| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Parking (Disabled People)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Jamieson.]
10.40 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Faversham and Mid-Kent): I bring to the attention of the House a subject that is scarcely controversial. It is not my intention either to berate or to tease the Government beyond a very small degree, because it is not a subject on which party feelings run high. I wish to probe a little further what the Government intend to do to assist disabled people to enjoy the right that they have acquired to park in places that are barred to the rest of the public.
For many disabled people, this is a precious right. Disability, particularly severe disability, often means that the disabled person cannot walk far. Local authorities throughout the country have provided disabled parking spaces with the intention of making it much easier for disabled people to go about their business. There is a strong sense among disabled people that many of those spaces are wrongly used. They are taken by people who have no disability and unscrupulously park in their place, thus causing them to travel long distances, which they cannot easily do.
To some extent, that is more perception than reality. My local authority, for example, carried out a survey with the assistance of the police and found that, on the whole, the misuse of disabled parking spaces was not as bad as disabled people perceived it to be. That was encouraging. However, a significant number of the people who were found using those spaces had an orange badge, but were using them improperly because they were carrying out functions for a disabled person, not themselves. The rules have changed. They should not do that any more. It is clear--I hope that the Government will remember it--that the message that carrying out a function on behalf of a disabled person does not allow people to use a disabled parking space is not well understood.
My next point, which is where the Government need to show their colours, is that my local authority has discovered that the law does not allow either the police or, in our case, parking attendants--wrong parking there has been decriminalised, so the supervision of parking spaces is carried out by parking attendants--to insist on being shown details of the orange badge. That is absurd. We provide disabled people with a special privilege, but anyone who abuses it can refuse to show the badge. That is clearly a failure of the law.
The Government know this. In May, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) secured a debate on a different aspect of disabled people's parking. The Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), said:
The Minister went on to say:
On 1 January 2000, a blue badge was introduced. The badge is a tribute to the European Union, in that it will entitle disabled people who are eligible to privileged parking right across the European Union. It is another thoroughly good example of the value of the European Union.
My disabled friends in Maidstone and elsewhere are entirely right to complain that, now that they have been given the privilege, it is not open to anyone to challenge someone who is abusing it. Nevertheless, in the legislation--this is rather curious--there is a provision that, if someone commits an offence, he or she can be fined £1,000. However, to be fined £1,000, it has to be proved that that person has committed an offence three times. As one is not allowed to inspect an orange badge, it is quite difficult to see how one could prove that someone has broken the law. I believe that it would be very much better--I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say--if we had a much smaller penalty that could be enforced on the first offence.
I have just suffered from the fact that I committed a parking offence in my local authority, in London. Subsequently, I was away on parliamentary business, and suddenly realised that, rather than being able to pay half the fine within 10 days, I now have to pay double the fine. Although the figure is not colossal, it is sufficiently large to make me wish that I had not incurred it. Nevertheless, I think that it would be very much better, instead of having a notional £1,000 fine for those who have committed three offences, to have a £100 fine that could be levied on the spot. I think that it would discourage people from abusing these privileges.
This is a very simple debate. We are only asking for the Government, if they have not already found time in the legislative timetable, to commit themselves to providing powers for both the police and anyone else empowered by the local authority to police parking arrangements to inspect the badges. The Government should also make it possible for the local authority or police to levy on the spot a small fine if people are found to be breaking the rules.
I should like the Minister also to say that the Government will encourage an education campaign among those who care for disabled people, so that they realise that they cannot use the orange badge to go collecting prescriptions or whatever. Although that is a perfectly benign reason for breaking the law, if we allow such a loophole, it will be too easy to cheat. Moreover, ultimately, it would be disabled people who suffered.
I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill):
I begin, as is usual, by congratulating the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on
Parking for disabled people, particularly the orange badge scheme, is certainly one of the most controversial matters that I have to deal with as Minister with responsibility for mobility issues. It seems that everyone has a view on how the scheme should work, on who should have a badge, and, indeed, on who should not have one. Too often, in arguing about the detail, we tend to forget the enormously important purpose of the scheme: to enable severely disabled people to be independently mobile.
For many severely disabled people, the private car is the only viable transport option, but its value would be greatly reduced, if not lost entirely, if disabled motorists were unable to park as close to their destination as possible. Research demonstrates very clearly that the mobility range of severely disabled people can be as little as 50 m, so even having to park 100 m or so away from a workplace or shops may make the journey extremely difficult, and in some cases impossible.
The orange badge scheme is vital to people with severe disabilities, enabling them to participate in the day-to-day activities that non-disabled people take for granted. My concern is to ensure that the scheme operates efficiently and effectively to deliver real benefit to those disabled people to whom mobility it is essential.
Before I turn to the specific concern raised by the hon. Gentleman, it may be useful to remind the House of the background and scope of the orange badge scheme. The scheme was first introduced in 1971 and it has been reviewed twice since then, most recently in 1992. Eligibility for an orange badge is governed by regulations that have been subject to wide public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.
To qualify for a badge, a person must be in receipt of the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance or a war pensioner's mobility supplement; use a motor vehicle supplied by a United Kingdom Health Department; be registered blind; have a severe disability in both upper limbs, driving regularly but being unable to turn a steering wheel by hand, even if that wheel is fitted with a steering knob; or have a permanent and substantial disability that means being unable to walk or having considerable difficulty in walking. That last category is known as the discretionary criterion.
From that list, it will be evident that eligibility is, in principle, fairly tightly controlled. Despite that, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of badges on issue over the past decade, from 929,000 to 1.7 million: an increase of more than 80 per cent. That total bears no relation at all to the proportion of the population who are disabled--about 10 to 12 per cent.--nor is the growth supported by a corresponding increase in the number of cars over the same period, although I recognise, of course, that not all badge holders will be drivers.
It is also worth noting that two thirds of the badges issued fall under the discretionary criterion. Generally, that means that a general practitioner or other medical adviser will have supported an application.
With such an increase in the number of badges, it is important that eligibility continues to be tightly controlled to ensure that the scheme does not become so oversubscribed as to minimise or even negate the parking
benefits to badge holders. At present, orange badge holders may park free of charge and without time limit at parking meters and pay-and-display on-street parking; may be exempt from limits on parking times imposed on other users; and may park on single or double yellow lines for up to three hours in England and Wales and without time limit in Scotland.
The badge design already has a photograph of the holder, but we have not yet been able to introduce the legislative changes to provide the enforcement authorities with the powers to inspect badges.
I should very much like the Minister, in his reply, to tell us whether the Government have found time in the legislative timetable to give that necessary power. Without it, the orange badge scheme is really deeply flawed.
we have made it clear that we shall introduce the necessary legislation to allow inspection of badges as soon as parliamentary time allows.--[Official Report, 5 May 1999; Vol. 330, c. 919.]
One of the principal purposes of this debate is to discover whether the Government will now--please--introduce that particular legislation. We desperately need it.
10.49 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |