DPTAC response to Department for Transport consultation on Developing a Comprehensive Blue Badge (Disabled Parking) Reform Strategy

This Document has also been made available in Adobe Acrobat and MS Word formats for downloading.
The Adobe® Acrobat Reader® can be freely downloaded.
Viewers with visual difficulties may find it useful to investigate services provided to improve the accessibility of Acrobat documents - www.adobe.com/accessibility/index.html

Adobe Acrobat version: DPTAC response (206k)
MS Word version: DPTAC response (156k)

Eligibility for a Badge

Q1: Do you think that the Scheme's assessed eligibility criteria should be brought into closer alignment with that used for the Higher Rate Component of Disability Living Allowance (HRMCDLA) by:

DPTAC response: The assessed eligibility criteria account for almost two out of every three badges that were issued in England in 2007 (1.451m out of a total of 2.318m). Indeed the number and proportion of badges that are issued under the criteria is higher than it has been at any time since 1995. There are also now almost twice as many badges issued under the assessed eligibility criteria (1.451m) than there were in 1995 (0.783m). We believe that this is both placing a strain on the availability of parking spaces and devaluing the badge in the eyes of many disabled people who have significant difficulty in walking. We therefore have concerns about any suggestion that the net should be spread wider unless consideration is also given to the adoption of much more rigorous regimes for assessment and for enforcement of abuse of the scheme.

We accept that there are good reasons for amending the assessed eligibility criteria - not least of which is to eliminate some of the differences and discrepancies that exist between the different criteria that are deployed for different purposes by both national and local government. An obvious reason, and an example recognised in the consultation document, is the discrepancy between the current assessed criteria and those used for assessing eligibility for the Higher Rate Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance (HRMCDLA). This discriminates against many people over the age of 65 and this, we believe, is an aspect that must be clarified.

We can also see the logic of increasing the age criterion from 2 to 3 years as this is in line with the regulations relating to the Higher Rate Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance (HRMCDLA). Under the age of 3, we believe that irrespective of the walking ability of the child, the mobility of all young children relies significantly on the use of a pushchair.

While sympathetic to the problems experienced by parents and carers, we are not necessarily convinced of the mobility benefits that would derive from including people with severe mental impairment or disruptive behaviour patterns. We are not persuaded by the argument that possession of a Blue Badge would have a major benefit in terms of minimising the need to cross the road. This pre-supposes that a parking space will be available on the right side of the road at the time it is needed against a background where the number of spaces is already under pressure as a result of the ongoing increase in the number of badges on issue. However, we do acknowledge the benefit of including these conditions in the assessed eligibility criteria as helping to align the criteria with those pertaining to HRMCDLA. Before we could come to a definite opinion on this matter, we would need to have more information on the likely numbers of applicants and the manner in which these applications were to be assessed.

Q2: What do you perceive the impact would be of making the above changes on:

(a) The number of people granted badges:

DPTAC response: We understand the Department has commissioned research into this matter and we would seek details of the outcome when it is available. Even as it is, under the present criteria, the number of badges on issue is increasing and the number issued under the assessed criteria has virtually doubled since 1995. We believe that this trend is likely to continue as a result of demographics (the number and proportion of older people in the populations is projected to continue to increase) and also due to recent extensions to the eligibility criteria.

(b) Availability of disabled parking spaces:

DPTAC response: As we have indicated above, the continuing increase in the number of badges on issue is both placing a strain on the availability of on-street parking spaces and devaluing the badge in the eyes of many disabled people who have a really significant physical difficulty in walking.

We would draw attention to the original purpose of the Orange (now Blue) Badge when it was introduced in 1971 which was to assist those who qualified for a Badge to visit shops and other places (mainly in town centres). The basic concessions then and now relate solely to parking on-street and are intended to allow Badge holders to park on-street closer to their destination than might otherwise be the case.

There have been significant changes in the nature of our town centres since 1971. Many town centre streets have been pedestrianised while current Government policy encourages giving pedestrians increasing priority over vehicles on many streets in and around town centres. We have no difficulty with this in principle but it means that the opportunities to park on-street are reducing at the same time as the number of Badges on issue and hence the demand for parking is being increased. Meanwhile, we have seen a massive growth in the number of supermarkets and out of town shopping centres served by large off-street car parks.

The context in which the Blue Badge operates has therefore changed and the value and extent of the on-street concession has therefore been diminished. At the same time, the Blue Badge has become a proxy to help service providers such as the operators of the supermarkets and out of town shopping centres to meet their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 by designating spaces in their car parks for use by Badge holders.

In practice, many of the complaints that we receive on the subject of availability of parking relates to the lack of designated off-street parking spaces. Off-street parking is of course not part of the current Blue Badge scheme. We believe that it is therefore essential that off street parking be brought within the scope of the Blue Badge scheme (see also our response to Q5). The upside for badge holders is that it is then relatively easy to increase the number of spaces available to them by encouraging the operators of these spaces to devote more of the total supply of spaces to use by Blue Badge holders. This will inevitably put more pressure on the availability of more general spaces which in turn means that attention also needs to be given to enforcement powers in off-street parking areas.

(c) Local government administration and costs:

DPTAC response: Any increase in the number of people eligible for badges, under the assessed criteria in particular, is bound to have adverse implications for local authorities in terms of both staffing and costs. However, any increase might be expected to be proportionate to the increase in numbers and therefore should not be considered a reason for not extending the eligibility criteria.

As local traffic authority, Councils have a duty to enforce parking regulations including the validity of the use of Blue Badges. Increased activity on this front will also inevitably mean increased costs. However, there should also be opportunities for more streamlined operations and increased income from fines for abuse. There is, however, an issue with some two tier authorities where the authority issuing the badge is not the same as the one that receives the penalty charge notice income!

Much will depend on whether the role of administration of the badge remains with individual local authorities or is transferred to regional or national organisations.

We believe that collective means of administering the Badge could be both more cost effective and give more rigorous and consistent assessments. However, we would expect that there would still be a need for local service points for applicants who wished to call in on a personal basis and to facilitate assessments where required. These could be centred on existing facilities such as post offices which is the practice in a number of authority areas at present.

Concessions Provided to Badge Holders

Please note; there are no current proposals in this area. These questions are purely for debate:

Q3: Do you think that local authorities should have more discretion to vary the yellow line and on-street parking concessions (e.g. allowing badge holders to park without charge for more time in some areas and less in others depending on local traffic conditions and disabled access?)
- No

DPTAC response: One of the strengths of the current scheme is the fact that it is a national scheme and the basic concessions in terms of how long a Blue Badge holder may park, where and how much it will cost (on-street) are the same throughout England (apart from the four central London boroughs). We believe that in the interests of clarity, consistency and fairness for disabled people, this should continue to be the case.

We can also foresee practical issues if Blue Badge holders were to be charged for on-street parking. Some Badge holders who have upper limb disabilities have reported difficulties to us in terms of their physical ability to pay for off-street parking whether this be at a meter or by prepaid systems relying on the use of mobile phones. People with hearing impairments have also reported difficulty with phone payment systems. Therefore any move towards encouraging local authorities to consider introducing charging for longer on-street stays by Blue badge holders would be discriminatory. It would also seem impractical to have situation whereby parking on a yellow line was free but parking in a designated on-street space incurred a charge.

However, we would have no objection, in principle, if an authority were to choose to offer a more favourable concession - so long as this concession was available to all Blue Badge holders and not just those who lived in the local authority area. There is always the possibility that other authorities would also seek to match these more relaxed concessions!

Q4: Would you support redrawing the London Concession (the regulations that exempt the four Central London boroughs from the national Blue Badge Scheme) so that it is aligned with the clearly marked, London Congestion Zone - recognising that the zone may alter in size?
- No

DPTAC response: We believe this is the wrong question and one which only arises because the current Congestion Charge regime gives exemption for vehicles occupied by Blue Badge holders.

One of our key recommendations in 2002 was that the London boroughs be brought into the national scheme. This was in the interests of clarity, consistency and fairness for the many disabled people who are still not able to use public transport options despite the acknowledged improvements. This argument was not accepted by Ministers at the time and the four boroughs in question have themselves continued to oppose the suggestion.

We believe that extending the London boroughs exemption zone to match the Congestion Charge boundary would exacerbate the situation for Blue Badge holders by merely increasing the area that is not part of the national scheme. What if the Congestion Charge area was then to be further increased? Would the Blue Badge exemption zone again be extended?

We would draw attention to the fact that although London buses may be wheelchair accessible, the lack of audio-visual announcements continues to discriminate against the much larger number of disabled people who have sight and hearing impairments. Current footway and bus stop infrastructure also needs considerable work before it can be considered in any way to be fully accessible for disabled people.

Instead, we still strongly believe that the London boroughs should be brought into the national scheme. The issues that have been raised by the boroughs relating to parking and security are not unique to London city centre and could be claimed by other cities such as Edinburgh, Manchester and Birmingham. These cities have however, come up with more imaginative solutions to accommodate the needs of disabled visitors and this is what is also needed in London.

Q5: Do you have any further suggestions in relation to the future concessions associated with the Blue Badge?
- Yes

DPTAC response: There are two aspects to this issue. The first is the nature of the concessions and the other relates to the role of the Badge itself.

Regarding the first, as we have indicated above, many of the issues relating to the use of the Blue Badge relate to off-street parking at supermarkets and in other off-street parking areas. However, these currently fall outwith the scope of the Blue Badge scheme. It would seem sensible and pragmatic to amend the scheme to include off- street parking areas. We believe that there is nothing in the current legislation to prevent Ministers extending the Blue Badge scheme to include off-street parking areas without the need for primary legislation.

There are, of course, issues relating to enforcement and the powers of inspection that are currently available to enforcement officers employed to deal with on-street waiting restrictions. We believe again, however, that there is nothing in principle to stop these powers being extended under existing legislation to include enforcement of off-street parking areas that are managed by local authorities.

In terms of the second issue, the Blue Badge is only one of the tools available to improve mobility for disabled people. Accessible public transport, community transport, concessionary transport and taxicard also form part of the overall palette or menu of measures that should be considered.

There is also the issue of road user charging and we believe that there should be concessions for Blue Badge holders in all road user charging schemes and that these should be made on a consistent basis in the interests of clarity and equity for disabled people. We would draw attention to the position statement which we published and submitted to Ministers in August 2006.

Administration and Enforcement

Q6: Do you support the introduction of:

1. A national framework for sharing Blue Badge data between issuing authorities and with on-street enforcement agencies?
   -Yes
2. New technology features to the badge e.g. a machine readable badge that can be read by local authority hand held devices?
   -Yes

DPTAC response: The creation of a national database was one of our recommendations to the Blue Badge review in 2002. We remain convinced that this is critical to the development of a rigorous system for administration and enforcement of the Blue Badge and indeed for any other concessions /benefits that may be integrated with the Blue Badge.

The use of machine readable badges in combination with a national database would not only assist enforcement but it would also facilitate the introduction of other concessions and benefits. This would include the development of road user charging schemes. For this purpose it would be essential to have a Smart Badge that can be read from a remote location such as a roadside beacon rather than a machine held close to the windscreen. This would mean the use of the sort of devices which we understand have already been developed for general use in road user charging schemes in various parts of Europe. The advantage of such devices is that they can be programmed to deal with local concessions (see also the response to Q7 below).

Q7: Do you think that parking enforcement officers should be given a legal power (like the police) to remove misused badges on the spot?
- No

DPTAC response: We maintain our previous view and recommendation to Ministers that only the Police should have the power to remove a misused badge on the spot.

There are two very cogent reasons why the power to remove Badges should not be given to enforcement officers. The first relates to the situation in off-street parking areas. The Blue Badge scheme does not apply to such areas at present (though we have pressed for this in response to Q8) and we believe that abuse/misuse in off street parking areas is prevalent as it is on-street. It would therefore be anomalous to have a power that applied in one situation but not in the other.

The second is linked to the first. Many off-street parking areas are managed by private companies and indeed, we understand that in some local authority areas, civil enforcement officers employed on-street actually work for private companies. The suggestion that parking enforcement officers should have the powers to remove badges would seem to us to be fraught with dangers of abuse of power.

Many local authorities seem to work on the basis of "three strikes and out" in terms of considering withdrawal of badges. Technology in the form of Smart Badges as discussed in the response to Q6 above would seem to offer a more practical solution to the issue of misuse of badges. It would seem to us to be easy to devise a system that automatically deactivates such a Badge when the conditions applying to its use are blatantly and persistently infringed.

Q8: Do you have any other ideas for improving enforcement and/or public understanding of the Scheme?

DPTAC comments: Many of the complaints that we receive regarding abuses of the Blue Badge scheme relate to off-street parking areas. The public and indeed many badge holders seem to be unaware that the Blue Badge scheme actually relates to on-street parking only. Extending the Blue Badge so that it includes off-street parking areas would, we believe, improve public understanding and respect for the scheme and help enforcement. It would also, crucially, enhance the lives of disabled people.

Q9: Do you think that local authorities should be able to charge more than the existing £2 maximum badge issue fee - to more appropriately cover costs?

DPTAC response: We believe there is no simple answer to this question.

The current regulations are worded such that the £2 fee is the maximum that an issuing authority may charge. There is no obligation to levy this charge and we understand that a number of local authorities do not currently charge for the issue of the Badge for the very good reason that it costs much more than this to collect this sum.

If a charge is to be levied at all, it would seem to be sensible to ensure that the charge is not actually less than the cost of collecting the fee!

For the applicant the most significant costs are likely to relate to the cost of travelling to the issuing centre and the cost of supplying a passport type photograph!

For the administering authority, on top of the cost of the fee transaction there are the costs of actual administration of the badge and the fees for any physical assessment where this is necessary. Often these latter are borne by the Primary Care Trust but it is still a cost to society. These costs are incurred once every three years.

There are further ongoing costs for the local traffic authority - which may or may not be the same as the administering authority. These relate to the costs of parking revenue forgone. The City of Edinburgh has published figures which suggest that each year, the use of the Blue Badge in the city centre costs £5000 in lost revenue per vehicle compared with those that have to pay parking fees. Even in peripheral areas where parking charges are lower, there is a loss of around £2000 per vehicle over a year. In Scotland, Blue Badge holders may park without time limit so these figures may be higher than for an equivalent English city but they do indicate the potential nature of sums involved.

The loss of parking revenue for the traffic authority is of course also a measure of the benefit to the Blue Badge holder and it is obvious that the use of a Blue Badge can have major financial benefits for the badge holder. Indeed it is possible to argue that the cost of the badge should in some manner reflect the benefit. However, any benefit will only materialise where and when the Badge holder is parking in an area or town/city where parking charges are levied and this is not necessarily the area in which the badge was issued.

The £1 that was levied on applicants under the original scheme would have bought 3 gallons of petrol at prevailing prices. On this basis, the equivalent price today would be £15. This figure is within the range of the costs for a cash or cheque transaction by a British bank (£12 - £25) as quoted in the 2006 Department for Health Care Services Efficiency Delivery report on the Blue Badge. £20 is the maximum figure that has been authorised by the devolved Scottish Government.

On the other hand, we note that in both Scotland and England, the respective governments have authorised the issuing of concessionary bus passes at nil cost to the user (other than the personal cost of supplying a photograph). The subsequent financial benefit that is derived by users of not having to pay a fare can again be substantial.

There is one further potential complication and that relates to the length of time for which a Badge is issued. If Ministers are minded to encourage the issuing of Badges for periods shorter than 3 years, should the charge be the same as for the full three year period?

On balance, we believe that a pragmatic solution may be to have a zero charge for the issue of a badge for those applicants who qualify under the automatic criteria (where there is no need for an assessment) and a maximum of £20 for those who wish to apply under the assessed criteria.

Alternatives and Choice

Q10: Do you have any suggestions for alternatives to the Scheme for meeting the mobility needs of people that do not qualify for a badge (e.g. people with Autism, Alzheimer's, mental health problems, Crohn's or Colitis, learning difficulties and partially sighted people).

DPTAC response: Firstly we would emphasise that we do not regard the mobility needs of many of these people to be on a par with the needs of the most deserving Blue Badge holders. If, for example, the families in question have access to a car, they should be able to meet their mobility needs as well as any other family with a car.

If they do not have access to a car, we would draw attention to our response to later question (Q12) which asks if there is anything that the Government could do to encourage Blue Badge holders to use public transport more often. We believe that the response to Q10 is similar.

In order to use public transport options, all users need to have confidence that they will be able to complete the journey for door to door without excessive effort and cost. This implies having sufficient information to enable them to plan the journey beforehand, being able to call on appropriate support during the journey and having access to appropriate infrastructure (such as, say, toilets) when required.

Q11: Is there anything else that the Government could do to improve the wider personal mobility of badge holders (e.g. enhanced local taxi voucher schemes)?
- Yes

DPTAC response: The Blue Badge should be regarded as part of an overall palette or menu of transport options for disabled people. At the present moment, we believe that, too often, the administration of the Blue Badge scheme by Social Services or local authority administrative teams is divorced from the operation and enforcement of the parking benefit that it confers. These two operations are then divorced from the teams that consider other aspects such as public transport, community transport, hospital transport, highway and footway improvements and so on. Some local authorities do seem to have integrated their approach to these services in order to promote a joined up service. We would commend this approach to the delivery of services which would also seem to meet the obligations on local authorities under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. Encouraging this sort of action would also help Government to meet its obligations under the DDA 2005.

Q12: Is there anything that the Government could do to encourage badge holders to use public transport more often?
- Yes

DPTAC response: In order to use public transport options, disabled users need to have confidence that they will be able to complete the journey for door to door without excessive effort and cost. This implies having sufficient information to enable them to plan the journey beforehand, having appropriate support during the journey and having accessible infrastructure at every turn. The information that is needed includes the availability of accessible toilets en route. This may seem mundane but can be critical to decisions on travel for many disabled people.

Having said that, it is essential to note is that for some disabled people, conventional public transport options are unlikely ever to be a practical proposition no matter how far they may be enhanced.

We would refer to our comments above regarding the Central London boroughs. Despite the acknowledged improvements to public transport in London in terms of the widespread use of low floor buses we would draw attention to the fact that although London buses may be wheelchair accessible, the lack of audio-visual announcements continues to discriminate against the much large number of potential disabled users who have sight and hearing impairments. We understand that Transport for London intend to roll out audio-visual announcements on all buses but this is still some way off. For wheelchair users, current footway and bus stop infrastructure also needs further considerable work before it can be considered in any way to be fully accessible.

Outside London, the current position regarding the introduction of low floor buses with audio-visual announcements is much more bleak with little consistency in any area or on any route. Again, there is also a need for much more urgent attention to be given to promoting accessible bus stops and footway infrastructure but outside the PTE areas, there is not the same comprehensive administrative infrastructure in place. We note that Government has recently announced the availability of funding for schemes to encourage cycling. We believe there is an opportunity for Government to encourage the development of accessible footway infrastructure in a similar manner.

One further revenue stream is that which might accrue from road user charging schemes and we would refer to our position paper for further details.

On rail, while much emphasis continues to be placed on accessible stations and accessible trains, the transfer from platform to vehicle and vice versa for some users will still require staff intervention and hence pre booking. This militates against freedom and spontaneity of movement by many disabled people and the situation compares poorly with the accessibility of local rail systems in, for example, Germany and Austria. We note that there is an opportunity to start to redress this situation in the current consultations on train design, station design and Disabled Persons Protection Policies and we will be commenting separately on these.

General Comments

Q13: Do you have any other comments or suggestions for reforming the Scheme?
Yes

DPTAC response: As we have indicated above, the principal concern of DPTAC is to ensure full accessibility for disabled people to enable them to go about their daily lives with as much ease and comfort as possible.

We believe that the Blue Badge still has the potential to make a significant contribution towards these aims as part of an overall menu of complementary measures. We appreciate that some of the possible enhancements to the Blue Badge scheme may require primary and others secondary legislation. We would, however, expect that any measures that may come out these deliberations will be pursued and implemented as soon as possible.

We note that separate consultations are being carried out in Scotland and Wales. One of the strengths of the Blue Badge scheme is the fact that it is a UK national scheme (while still recognising the differences in parking duration in Scotland). We would urge that this remain the case after this review and that there should be no significant differences in the eligibility criteria and the concessions between these parts of the UK.

Lastly, but by no means least, it is vital to remember that the Blue Badge scheme is about delivering a service to disabled people and the three parts to this consultation need to be addressed in that light. The tests will be:

• whether increasing the number of Badges on issue improves the quality of life for those people who genuinely need it for personal mobility;
• whether local authorities and other service providers monitor use and take appropriate steps to ensure that the supply is adequate to meet the demand for parking;
• whether any increased costs also result in a significantly better quality of service for applicants.

• Responses to consultations

• Top of page