Further supplementary memorandum from
Department for Transport (BBS 11A)
BLUE BADGE CONSULTATION ENQUIRY
During the Committee's oral evidence session
on 2 April, Rosie Winterton undertook to write to the Committee
on a number of points. Rosie Winterton also thought that it would
be helpful to expand upon and clarify a couple of the comments
that she made.
IMPACT OF
THE LONDON
CONGESTION ZONE
ON BLUE
BADGE APPLICATIONS
(QUESTION 103)
Rosie Winterton offered to provide the Committee
with data from TfL on the relationship between the demand for
the Scheme and the 100% exemption from the London Congestion Charge.
The data provided by TfL proved inconclusive; but additional data
gathered by the Department for Transport from the London Boroughs
does suggest a positive impact upon demand.
The Department conducted an ad hoc survey of
London Boroughs, asking them for an indication of whether applications
for Blue Badges rose significantly around the time of the introduction
of the London Congestion Charge (and the Western extension into
Kensington and Chelsea).
Of the 33 London Boroughs (including the City)
questioned, 19 (58%) have responded to date; these are: Barnet,
Bexley, City, Croydon, Hammersmith, Havering, Hillingdon, Hounslow,
Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Lewisham, Merton,
Newham, Richmond, Southwark, Sutton, Waltham Forest and Wandsworth.
Experiences were clearly mixed. Just over half
of those who provided us with reliable back data showed significant
"jumps" in the number of applications made for Blue
Badges, and in the number of badges issued. The effect was far
more pronounced in Inner London boroughs such as Southwark and
Lewisham, where almost every authority told us that there had
been a rise. The effect was far less significant in Outer London
boroughs such as Sutton and Waltham Forest.
The Department asked London Boroughs not only
to provide us with figures, but also to give us their opinion
on whether there had been a significant shift in the level of
interest in the scheme. Of those who responded, just over half
told us that they had experienced increased interest in the scheme,
in general and from those likely to be considered ineligible for
the scheme. Again, this was mostly concentrated in Inner London.
Only two boroughs reported increased interest
in the scheme around the time of the Western Extension (applications
increased in both Kensington and Chelsea, and in Hammersmith and
Fulham). No other borough reported a significant increase in interest
or applications around this time.
TARGETED SURVEILLANCE
(QUESTION 119)
The Blue Badge Scheme has been effectively policed
in Liverpool through the use of targeted enforcement operations.
These operations typically involve the police and parking enforcement
officers working together to inspect badges and detect blue badge
related crime, for example at football matches. However, Manchester
and Wandsworth Councils have taken things even further and have
created their own specialist Blue Badge enforcement teams, who
carry out undercover surveillance on people suspected of misusing
the Scheme. This intensive activity enables the gathering of video
and photographic evidence which has allowed both councils to prosecute
a large number of offenders through the Magistrates Courts. The
Department for Transport sees this as a very effective way of
tackling abuse of the Scheme and has been promoting this approach
as good practice through new local authority guidance.
RAIL FRANCHISE
AGREEMENTS (QUESTIONS
121-126)
Train Operating Companies, as service providers,
have a duty under Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act
1995 to make reasonable physical adjustments so that disabled
people do not find their services impossible or unreasonably difficult
to use. In practice, operators will arrange alternative transport
where necessary.
All licensed train and station operators must
have in place a Disabled Persons Protection Policy (DPPP) which
sets out the services and facilities available to disabled passengers,
and how to book journey assistance using the Assisted Passenger
Reservation System provided by the Association of Train Operating
Companies. We do, however, recognise that the system does not
work perfectly 100% of the time.
The Code of Practice (and incoming Technical
Specification of Interoperability—People with Reduced Mobility)
sets out the standards of accessible infrastructure that operators
should meet when they renew, install or upgrade facilities. This
includes a minimum standard for the overall percentage of blue
badge spaces in their car parks, depending on the total number,
and also a commitment on the operator to monitor usage and consider
increasing the blue badge capacity if spaces are full for more
than 10% of car park opening hours.
Franchise agreements do not weaken the legal
requirements imposed on Train Operating Companies (TOCs) but do
contain differing terms, conditions and obligations relating to
disabled access requirements. Accordingly, the level of investment
for disabled facilities will vary between franchises. Examples
of typical inclusions for a TOC in a franchise agreement are:
— Rolling stock should include facilities
for access by the elderly and disabled, including specific space
for wheelchairs, and be equipped with a toilet with a disabled
facility. Vehicles should be fully compliant with the Rail Vehicles
Accessibility Regulations (RVAR) 1998.
— Station improvements which include
the provision of facilities for the disabled.
— Station to train ramps at each station;
and an induction loop or acoustic window at each Station.
— To use all reasonable endeavours
to secure the provision of alternative travel arrangements in
the event of disruption. The TOC should have particular regard
to disabled persons when making these arrangements.
— Provide a Minor Works Budget for
the purposes of carrying out Minor Works to improve accessibility
at stations for which the franchisee is the Station Facility Owner.
— Work with Local Authorities, local
development agencies and the Lottery Commission to try to secure
funding for station enhancements to improve accessibility for
disabled people.
— Work closely towards access integration
with disability groups and organisations eg Disabled Persons Transport
Advisory Committee, Passenger Focus and London Travel Watch.
DATA ON
THE NUMBER
OF DISABLED
PARKING BAYS
(QUESTION 140)
As indicated in Rosie Winterton's letter of
8 April, there are no national figures available on the number
of Blue Badge parking bays in the country. However, there is an
interactive online service available, referred to as the "Blue
Badge Map" on www.direct.gov.uk, which helps to identify
disabled parking bays. When it was introduced in 2006, this covered
64 towns and cities in the UK. The Office for Disability Issues,
who have the policy lead for this initiative, have just extended
this service to a further 55 towns and cities. However, as the
map does not provide information on all of the disabled parking
bays available in the country, all English local authorities will
be asked to provide details on the number of disabled parking
bays in their area, via an annual survey from 2008 onwards.
REQUIREMENTS TO
PROVIDE DISABLED
PARKING BAYS
(QUESTION 141)
The Department for Transport provides all local
authorities with accessibility guidance in a document entitled
"Inclusive Mobility: A Guide to Best Practice on Access
to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure". This guidance
clearly states that "provision should be made for car parking
spaces for disabled motorists ... wherever conventional parking
spaces are provided".
The guidance, which is currently under review
and will be updated shortly, also advises that car parks open
to the general public should have one space for each employee
who is a disabled motorist, plus 6% of the total capacity for
visiting disabled motorists.
Separate guidance exists for rail stations,
where we recommend the following:
— Fewer than 20 spaces, a minimum of
one reserved space.
— 20-60 spaces, a minimum of two reserved
spaces.
— 61-200 spaces, 6% of capacity, with
a minimum of three reserved spaces.
— Over 200 spaces, 4% of capacity,
plus four reserved spaces.
— 500 or more spaces, 24 designated
spaces.
We are currently consulting on a revision of
the Train and Station Design for Disabled Passengers Code of Practice,
which in the case of parking spaces is proposing a slight drop
from the 6% in the current Code to 5% in the new one, should it
be accepted in its current state.
USE OF
THE PLANNING
PROCESS TO
AID OFF-STREET
ENFORCEMENT (QUESTION
156)
Planning conditions can be used to ensure that
disabled parking is provided, but planning enforcement would only
apply if the condition had been breached and the disabled car
parking spaces had not been provided.
However, it may be possible to impose a condition
requiring the submission of a car park management plan for the
approval of the local authority. The provisions of such a plan
could include measures for ensuring a prescribed number of spaces
are reserved for, say, disabled badge holders, the bays are properly
marked out, and for regular patrolling of the car park and enforcement
of its "rules" by the operator's staff.
More sophisticated schemes can be provided by
using a planning obligation as this could cover matters such as
tariffs to deter long term parking or inappropriate use of bays,
and requirements to make spaces available for public use outside
shopping hours (though this may be unnecessary in the age
of 24 hour trading!). Unless the car park is provided by the local
authority (who can make orders under the Road Traffic Regulation
Act 1984 to regulate its use), the local authority could not police
the car park in its capacity as a traffic/parking authority.
LOCAL AUTHORITY
ENFORCEMENT IN
OFF-STREET
CAR PARKS
(QUESTIONS 158)
The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee
(DPTAC) gave evidence suggesting that local authority parking
attendants should be legally able to patrol off-street disabled
bays in locations such as supermarkets. The Department for Transport
does not believe that this is legally possible at present on either
public or private land, although the issues differ as follows:
Enforcement by local authority personnel on public
land
Local highway authorities can, by order, provide
on-road or off-road parking places, and may also regulate their
use by order, including setting aside disabled parking bays.
Historically, the enforcement of parking restrictions
set out in these orders has fallen to the Police, and their contravention
has been an offence. This remains the position in some parts of
the UK. However, the Road Traffic Act 1991 paved the way for the
introduction of decriminalised parking enforcement (`DPE') and
this scheme was further developed by the Traffic Management Act
2004. In those local authority areas where DPE has been introduced,
contravention will no longer be an offence, and the responsibility
for enforcement of parking restrictions is transferred from the
police and police traffic wardens to attendants employed by local
authorities.
It is the contravention of road traffic law
and restrictions set out in local authority orders that falls
to be enforced by the police or by local authority personnel (depending
on whether parking has been decriminalised in that area).
Private land
Parking on private land is a contractual matter
between the landowner and the driver. The landowner may set out
conditions upon which they permit a driver to park on their land,
and, providing that those conditions are clearly advertised, a
driver is deemed to have accepted them as a contract when parking
on the land.
Failure to display a disabled person's badge
when parking in a designated disabled parking bay when on private
land may be a breach of contract. It will not be an offence, or
a contravention of a traffic regulation order, as those apply
to on-street and municipal parking only.
As the police and local authority personnel
only have powers to enforce offences and local authority orders,
they cannot enforce the wrongful use of a disabled parking bay
on private land, even with the landowner's consent and invitation,
because they lack the power to do so. The relationship between
the landowner and driver is of a private law nature, rather than
criminal or regulatory.
OFF-STREET
PARKING ENFORCEMENT
AND THE
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
ACT (QUESTION
161)
Under section 19 of the Disability Discrimination
Act 1995 (DDA), a service provider discriminates against a disabled
person if they fail to comply with a duty to make adjustments
where that failure makes it unreasonably difficult or impossible
for that person to use those services. The provision of disabled
parking areas is one such reasonable adjustment that could be
taken to improve accessibility for disabled persons.
The extent of "reasonable adjustments"
as regards enforcement of disabled parking areas on private land
is unclear. However, if the service provider is aware that disabled
parking areas are being abused, so that disabled persons are unable
to access the premises, then there is a good argument that the
service provider must take reasonable steps to reduce or eliminate
that abuse.
The extent of that duty must be balanced against
the costs and practicality of enforcement, and will depend entirely
on the level of abuse and the facts of the particular case.
In circumstances where a service provider is aware
that disabled parking provision is being abused, so that disabled
persons are unable to access the services, but is unwilling to
take remedial action, then it is open to any affected person to
bring proceedings under the DDA. The prospects of success in any
action will depend entirely on the facts of the particular case.
I hope that this helps to clarify matters.
May 2008
| 
