List of recommendations
Introduction
1. We
welcome the Government's review of the Blue Badge Scheme. If the
Scheme is to continue to contribute effectively to meeting the
transport needs of those with the most serious mobility difficulties,
it must be able to adapt to external changes in transport and
parking patters. Previous reviews of the Scheme have produced
inconclusive research and minor but helpful changes. The Government
must now act decisively to shape a disabled parking scheme that
will serve the needs of modern users. (Paragraph 9)
Eligibility
2. The
Department is right to strive for greater consistency in the way
in which the assessed eligibility criteria are applied across
different local authorities. This is a fundamental matter of fairness:
a person's entitlement to a Blue Badge should not depend on where
he or she lives. However, it appears that adherence to the Guidance
is patchy. We recommend that the Department engage with local
government officers involved in the assessment of Blue Badge applications
in order to establish what more could be done to promote consistent
good practice. The Department should pay particular attention
to variations in practice between those authorities which issue
many Badges and those which issue fewer, especially with reference
to applications from people who are aged under 65 but do not receive
the Higher Mobility Rate Component of Disability Living Allowance.
(Paragraph 17)
3. The use of an applicant's
own GP to assess their mobility, or of any other doctor directly
involved in the applicant's care or treatment, is likely to produce
a bias in favour of approving the application; it is also contrary
to DfT Guidance on the subject. We recommend that the Minister
write directly to those authorities which still use GPs to carry
our mobility assessments, drawing their attention to the aspect
of the Guidance that calls for independent assessments of applicants'
mobility. (Paragraph 19)
4. The three-year
minimum issue period under the assessed eligibility criteria is
in our view unfair, since it excludes those with disabilities
of more limited duration who could in principle have qualified
automatically had they been eligible for, or wished to claim,
Disability Living Allowance. It is also inconsistent with the
definition of "disability" given in the Disability Discrimination
Act 1995. We therefore recommend that the minimum issue period
for a Badge awarded under the assessed eligibility criteria be
reduced to one year. (Paragraph 22)
5. We do not propose
that the three-year maximum issue period be increased. However,
where it is established during the first assessment for a Badge
that the holder's condition is unlikely to improve we do not see
any case for requiring them to undergo potentially intrusive,
time-consuming and, if it is carried out thoroughly, expensive
reassessment. We recommend that in these cases, renewal should
be granted after a review of the evidence submitted with the original
application. Badge-holders should only be required to offer further
proof of their condition where there is thought to be some discrepancy
in the original application. (Paragraph 25)
6. We recommend that
the assessed eligibility criteria be re-drafted to encompass a
wider range of people with severe mobility difficulties. The focus
should be on mobility in the wider sense, rather than simply on
an applicant's ability to walk and should include those who require
help, in the form of physical contact from another person, in
order to cross a road safely. (Paragraph 31)
Concessions
7. We
recommend that highway authorities be given the power to extend
the time-limit for Blue Badge-holders to park on single or double
yellow lines in specified locations, but not to lower it below
the current limit of three hours. In the interests of clarity
and consistency we recommend that the Department for Transport
design a standard sign to indicate the time-limit, where it is
more than three hours. (Paragraph 37)
8. The London concession
was no doubt justified in 1971, but parking, traffic and the nature
of the security threat in central London have changed beyond recognition
since then. The arrangements in London are unfair on those who
live outside central London but drive in occasionally, and particularly
on Badge-holders who live and work in the surrounding boroughs
but who are, uniquely, denied the full range of concessions in
the centre of the city in which they live. It is also confusing
for Badge-holders who are unfamiliar with the London regime. We
are not persuaded that the traffic and parking conditions in central
London are so radically different from those in any other congested
city centre and accordingly we recommend that the Government reconsider
the London concession, with a view to bringing central London
within the remit of the national Scheme. (Paragraph 44)
Enforcement
9. The
confiscation of a Blue Badge has the potential to impose significant
hardship on the Badge-holder. If it is being used fraudulently
by another person, this is manifestly unjust as it penalises a
potentially vulnerable individual for an offence committed by
another person, of which they might be entirely ignorant. This
does not apply, however, in cases where a Badge has been reported
lost or stolen and a replacement has been issued. We recommend
that civil enforcement officers be given the power to confiscate
a Badge which has been reported lost or stolen and for which a
replacement has been issued. If it is not practicable to seize
the Badge—for example, because the vehicle is locked and
unattended—they should have the power to immediately immobilise
the vehicle or to have it removed to a pound so that the Badge
can be confiscated when the owner comes to collect it. (Paragraph
49)
10. We welcome the
Government's proposals for establishing a system for sharing data
about Blue badges between issuing authorities as a major step
forwards in preventing fraud. In the interests of efficiency and
data protection, we recommend that this be implemented by way
of a single, national database, rather than by allowing every
individual issuing authority to hold the others' records. (Paragraph
52)
11. We recommend that
the Minister raise the clamping of vehicles displaying a Blue
Badge as a matter of urgency with the Security Industry Authority
with a view to tightening up enforcement of the licensing conditions
relating to the treatment of vehicles displaying a Blue Badge.
(Paragraph 54)
12. There was widespread
support among witnesses for a public information campaign to shame
able-bodied drivers out of using disabled parking bays and we
recommend that the Department undertake a vigorous campaign to
this effect. (Paragraph 56)
13. We recommend that
the Minister investigate the question of whether car park operators
who fail to enforce the use of their disabled bays are complying
fully with the Disability Discrimination Act. (Paragraph 57)
14. It is clear that
the introduction of a machine-readable Blue Badge has the potential
to make the Scheme considerably more flexible and easier to enforce.
We recommend that the Government undertake a feasibility study
of the various options for "smart" Badges identified
in the Strategic Review. (Paragraph 59)
| 
