1. The Joint Scrutiny Committee has invited the Disabled
Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) to comment on the
extent to which it still needs to consider the addition of new
provisions to the Draft Disability Discrimination Bill in respect
of the Blue Badge Scheme. The Scrutiny Committee is seeking to
establish if there is a need for it to recommend further provisions,
in the light of the Secretary of State for Transport's recent
introduction of an amendment to the Traffic Management Bill relating
to the Blue Badge Scheme.
2. DPTAC very much welcomes the Government's amendment
to the Traffic Management Bill. The powers of inspection that
this will create for police, traffic wardens, parking attendants
and the new civil enforcement officers, have the potential to
lead to robust enforcement of the Blue Badge Scheme. This could
greatly increase the Scheme's credibility and effectiveness.
3. However these consequences will only follow if
the new provision is coupled with: (a) advice to enforcement officers
on good practice in using the powers, particularly in relation
to people with disabilities who are young and who are from black
and ethnic minorities whose experience with law enforcement authorities
may not be wholly positive; (b) advice to Blue Badge Holders that
they may be asked to produce the badge by enforcement officers;
and (c) effective monitoring of how enforcement works in practice.
The guidance and advice need to make it clear that the check is
not on the eligibility for the badge, but on the validity of its
use. The advice and guidance must also be issued well in advance
of the change.
4. However, the power of inspection was only one
of our 47 recommendations made in 2001 as part of the review of
the Blue Badge Scheme that we conducted at the request of the
Department for Transport. In December 2002 the Government accepted
34 of them, and we are pleased that this one is now being acted
on. The recommendations, together with the Government response,
are attached at Annex A.
5. We remain concerned about slow progress in implementing
a further 31 of our recommendations that the Government has accepted.
In fact the only ones which we consider to have been fully implemented
are those where we recommended the retention of the status quo.
They are retention of both the three year maximum period for
the issue of badges (Recommendation 14), and of the three hour
period for parking on double yellow lines (Recommendation 33).
6. We would like to draw the Committee's attention
to two of our recommendations, together with one later proposal
that we support, which require primary legislation and which should
be considered for inclusion in the Draft Disability Discrimination
Bill.
7. The first is adopting a less ambiguous and stigmatising
term to "institutional" to better reflect eligible organisations.
We welcome the Department for Transport's expressed intention
to replace this with the term "organisational". The
Department has said that it is seeking a suitable legislative
opportunity to make this change, but DPTAC remains to be convinced
that the draft Disability Discrimination Bill is not such an opportunity.
8. The second is the creation of a national database.
The Department for Transport does not plan to legislate for this
at present as it is about to embark on research to investigate
the feasibility of such a database, and does not wish to pre-empt
the result of this research. DPTAC's view is that this research
need not prevent a clause being introduced that would give Ministers
the power to set up a national database and to appoint an organisation
or agency to manage it. After all, the Government is seeking
powers that will enable it to lift the exemption of shipping and
aviation services from Part III of the Disability Discrimination
Act 1995. It has not felt constrained from doing so by the fact
that research is still underway to establish whether or not the
voluntary codes for these transport modes have been effective.
9. A third change requiring primary legislation,
which did not arise from DPTAC's review of the Blue Badge Scheme,
is the formalisation of reciprocity agreements with EU member
states for the recognition of disabled persons' parking badges.
Under a system of reciprocal arrangements, disabled visitors across
the European Union and from other countries can enjoy the parking
concessions provided in the host country by displaying the badge
issued under their own national scheme. DPTAC considers this
an important arrangement for the many badge holders wishing to
travel abroad. This is one of the least contentious aspects of
the Blue Badge Scheme, and, if introduced, would be widely welcomed.
10. DPTAC recommends that the Scrutiny Committee
considers whether these three areas of change to the Blue Badge
Scheme, which all require primary legislation, should be proposed
for inclusion in the Disability Discrimination Bill.
*Government is DfT, the devolved administrations
and the Northern Ireland Office.
|
| 1 | Eligibility should remain linked to the higher rate mobility component of the Disability Living Allowance and other existing automatic criteria, these being;
- People who receive a War Pensioners' Mobility Supplement; people who use a motor vehicle supplied for disabled people by a Government Health Department;
- People who are registered blind; and
- People who have severe disability in both upper limbs, regularly drive a motor vehicle but cannot turn the steering wheel of a motor vehicle by hand even if that wheel is fitted with a turning knob.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation.
|
| 2 | Eligibility is considered in terms of either being "automatic without further assessment" (under the criteria described in recommendation 1) or "eligible subject to further assessment". The terminology `Discretionary' should be replaced with `Assessed Eligibility'.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation.
|
| 3 | Eligibility criteria under "further assessment" should be consistent nationally.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation (see also recommendation 6).
|
| 4 | Eligibility criteria under "further assessment" should only be used for those who;
- Are aged 65 or over who, but for their age, would have met the criteria for the higher rate mobility component of the Disability Living Allowance (HRDLA) or ,
- are under 65 but would qualify for the HRDLA or to be registered blind but have chosen not to do so.
|
| The Government does not accept this recommendation and notes that there was no consensus of opinion amongst respondents on the proposal. The Government plans instead to issue comprehensive new guidance to issuing authorities on how to apply the existing eligibility criteria (see recommendation 6). We will also implement a monitoring programme to assess the impact of the new guidance on the Scheme and consider the need for changes to eligibility based on that evidence.
|
| 5 | Children under two whose medical needs require the transport of bulky medical equipment at all times should be eligible although this must be subject to further assessment and will need clear definition.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation and will seek the earliest opportunity to amend the legislation governing the Scheme.
|
| 6 | DfT on behalf of all four UK administrations issue guidance tightly specifying the criteria for further assessment and support training in its application.
|
| The Government accepts the need for clear, common guidance across the UK and the DfT will be working with the devolved administrations to agree common guidance that each administration will issue. Although guidance was issued to local authorities after the last review (1991), we recognise that more detailed information is required on the assessment of applicants to reduce inconsistencies between issuing authorities' interpretation of the criteria. Local authorities are responsible for training their staff but the issue will be included in the new guidance.
|
| 7 | There is further research into the independent mobility needs of certain groups of people to determine whether there is a need for extending the eligibility for a Badge. These groups include; people with mental health problems, partially sighted people, people with severe learning difficulties or severe behavioural difficulties and people with severe autism.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation and will take forward research in this area.
|
| 8 | A transitional arrangement be established to enable those people immediately affected by the revised eligibility criteria to retain their Badges until expiry of their current Badge or their next assessment (3 years or less).
|
| This recommendation is linked to recommendation 4 which the Government rejects but we would have no intention of advising authorities to withdraw badges before their expiry date.
|
| 9 | Assessments of independent mobility are required where people do not automatically qualify and should be undertaken by an accredited health professional, other than the applicant's GP, in line with DfT guidance.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation which is in line with the Cabinet Office's report on 'Making a Difference: Reducing General Practitioner (GP) Paperwork' and widely supported by GPs themselves. Many issuing authorities, who are responsible for the procedures for assessing applicants, already employ independent health care professions (such as Occupational Therapists) to undertake assessments. This will also be picked up in the guidance to be issued under Recommendation 6.
|
| 10 | Local authority staff should, following appropriate training, process the application on the basis of DfT guidance and the independent mobility assessment.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation, which ties closely with recommendations 3, 6 and 9.
|
| 11 | The Scheme should continue to be a national Scheme for on-street parking concessions administered locally.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation.
|
| 12 | Local authorities should continue to be responsible for administering the Scheme but there should be no rigid determination of which Department should be responsible within any one authority.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation and recognises that individual issuing authorities are best placed to decide which department within an authority should handle the Scheme.
|
| 13 | There should be a national (centrally funded) database of Badge holders operated by a relevant body, such as Driver Vehicle Licensing Authority.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation in principle and will be initiating further research to assess the viability of a national database.
|
| 14 | The period of issue for Badges should be no more than three years before renewal is required and no less than 12 months.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation except in cases where an award of Disability Living Allowance may be given for a period of less than 12 months (see recommendation 15).
|
| 15 | Where entitlement is linked to the higher rate mobility component of the DLA, the period of issue should be linked to that of receipt of that allowance.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation and will be discussing the matter further with the Department for Work and Pensions.
|
| 16 | Where automatic entitlement to a Badge is linked to the higher rate mobility component of the DLA all applicants should give explicit consent to agreeing to the sharing of personal data under the Data Protection Act.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation in principle and will be discussing the matter further with the Department for Work and Pensions.
|
| 17 | The Scheme must be properly resourced by Government at both national and local level to make the Scheme effective.
|
| See recommendation 18.
|
| 18 | There should be no fee to the applicant for the issue of a Badge.
|
| The Government does not accept this recommendation. The consensus amongst respondents was that the fee, which has remained at £2 since 1983, should be raised to a more appropriate level. This could support other improvements to the Scheme and we will be consulting further on the level of fee to set for a badge.
|
| 19 | A refusal by the local authority to issue a Badge should be accompanied by a statement of the reasons for refusal and an explanation of the appeals process.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation and will be including details in the new guidance on the Scheme (see recommendation 6).
|
| 20 | There should be a uniform two-tier appeals system throughout the UK as follows;
- An initial right of appeal to the local authority to review the grounds of refusal; and
- A subsequent right of appeal to a local government ombudsman if the applicant believes that the local authority has not followed the due process correctly.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation in principle and the need to strengthen the appeals structure. Further work will be required to establish the best means of taking this forward.
|
| 21 | DfT should issue guidance to Local Authorities on; (a) establishing an appeals Scheme (b) the grounds for appeal.
|
| See recommendation 6 & 20.
|
| 22 | Renewal reminders should be issued automatically through the central database 3 months before expiry to ensure no gap in usage before a new Badge is issued.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation in principle subject to the outcome of research on recommendation 13. Issuing authorities are already required under The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and CSDP (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 to keep records of all badges they have issued and reminder notices will be covered in the new guidance to be issued (see recommendation 6).
|
| 23 | Return of the Badge should be added into the action pack when registering a death.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation and will hold further discussions with the Home Office for its inclusion.
|
| 24 | There should be no charge for replacement for Badges stolen or otherwise damaged provided the applicant produces a crime number or returns the damaged Badge.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation. Regulations are already in place describing the circumstances under which issuing authorities can issue a badge and governing regulations do not allow them to charge for this service. This will be covered in the guidance (see recommendation 6).
|
| 25 | Replacement Badges should have a new serial number.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation and we will seek to include this in the new guidance issued as best practice.
|
| 26 | Persistent loss of a Badge may require the removal of entitlement.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation in principle and will consult on the criteria to be applied in such cases.
|
| 27 | Temporary Badges should be available for people with a clearly defined temporary mobility impairment for a period as specified under Recommendation 14 (over 12 months but less than 3 years) but requiring an independent mobility assessment.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation subject to the development of additional eligibility criteria (see also recommendation 14).
|
| 28 | An alternative wording to `institutional' should be used, such as organisation or group.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation that will require an amendment to The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and CSDP (Northern Ireland Act 1978. We will consult further on this issue.
|
| 29 | The issue of such Badges should be restricted, perhaps equivalent to Disabled Passenger Vehicle tax-exempt class process for organisations.
|
| The Government accepts that the qualifying organisations need to be better defined in guidance. The suggested link to Disabled Passenger Vehicle tax-exempt class would not be appropriate as this is not linked to disabled people who would meet the qualifying criteria for a blue badge.
|
| 30 | There should be no charge for such Badges.
|
| The Government position is the same as that for recommendation 18.
|
| 31 | Local Disabled Parking Schemes involving further application for exemption from parking restrictions for on-street parking should be abolished.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation in principle and will continue to encourage local authorities who have introduced such restrictions to reconsider their position. It is noted that Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act may have implications in this area.
|
| 32 | Central London Boroughs should not be exempt from the national Scheme.
|
| The Government considers that this is an issue that needs further, more specific, consultation particularly in light of congestion schemes for London.
|
| 33 | The existing restrictions of three hours for parking without charge on single or double yellow lines in England and Wales with the use of a parking disc (time clock) should remain. There should continue to be no time limit introduced in Scotland.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation which is well understood by badge holders and enforcement officials.
|
| 34 | Legislation be introduced at the earliest opportunity in England and Wales to enable Badges to be checked by police officers, traffic wardens and parking attendants.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation and will seek the earliest opportunity, in discussion with the Home Office, to introduce a power for the Police, traffic wardens and local authority parking enforcement officials to check the holder's details on the reverse of the badge.
|
| 35 | Consideration be given to the early introduction of smart cards linked to the national database to aid enforcement and facilitate concessions on payments.
|
| The Government will consider the introduction of smart cards as the Scheme develops and the infrastructure is available to support them (see also recommendation 13).
|
| 36 | Illegal use of Badges should be prosecuted.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation. Issuing authorities already have powers to prosecute offenders and we will seek to make their obligations with regard to misuse more widely known by incorporating it into future guidance.
|
| 37 | Penalty notices should also be issued to Badge holders parking on street illegally.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation. Powers already exist and badge holder are not exempt from penalty notices.
|
| 38 | Guidance should be issued on appropriate penalties for abuse by Badge holders and when it is appropriate to withdraw a Badge.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation and will publicise these in the new guidance (see recommendation 6).
|
| 39 | Penalties should increase with the incidence of abuse, leading to the withdrawal of the Badge.
|
| Powers already exist under which issuing authorities can withdraw badges if they are consistently misused.
|
| 40 | Penalty notices should be issued to every vehicle owner not displaying a Badge when the vehicle is parked in an on-street parking space designated for Badge holders.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation and would expect enforcement officials, under their existing powers, to issue penalty notices and prosecute offenders to the full extent of the law.
|
| 41 | Penalties should be increased and include points on driving licences to strengthen the deterrence for misuse of designated disabled persons parking spaces on the street by non Badge holders and for misuse of Badges by non Badge holders.
|
| Further discussions with the Home Office will be necessary to explore the possibilities presented by this recommendation.
|
| 42 | There should be more information, training and publicity about the purpose of the Scheme for Badge holders and non-Badge holders, including those responsible for administering and enforcing it.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation and the need for revised guidance is already covered in a number of recommendations.
|
| 43 | This information should be available in alternative media and targeted at specific audiences.
|
| The Government accepts this recommendation and already has a commitment to making publicity material as widely accessible as possible.
|
| 44 | Local authorities must be required to include policies on designated parking provision for Badge holders in their local transport planning process (Local transport plans, strategies and implementation plans).
|
| Local authorities are already required to take account of the needs of disabled people in their Local Transport Plans. It is noted that Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act may also have implications in this area.
|
| 45 | The provision of parking for Badge holders should be enhanced by:
a) requiring Local Authorities through their planning policies and procedures to include parking strategies in all developments to determine the percentage and/or minimum numbers of designated parking spaces available for Blue Badge holders.
b) requiring service to provide and manage off-street car parking to maintain accessible parking for Badge holders to the agreed standards contained within current National Planning Policy Guidance notes PPG13 and DfT Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/95 and the equivalent guidance in other parts of the UK.
|
| This recommendation falls outside the scope of the review that is concerned only with on-street parking. Further discussions are needed with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on this issue.
|
| 46 | Employers should be required to make parking places available to disabled employees and visitors with Badges to reduce pressure on public parking provision and to ensure that their parking provision is respected.
|
| Employers have certain duties under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 with regard to making reasonable adjustments for disabled staff.
|
| 47 | Badge holders should be exempt from congestion charging.
|
| Where it has powers to introduce congestion charging the Government has already committed to a uniform minimum standard of concession or exemption from congestion charging for disabled motorists. In N Ireland, there is currently no legislative provision for congestion charging, and policy development in this area is still under consideration
|
| |
|
|
| |
