HC Deb 25 May 1973 vol 857 cc884-900

12.48 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse (Oxford)

Leaving Scotland where she is, I wish to turn the attention of the House to another subject on which I have spoken frequently in the past, namely, the problems of the disabled. The problems of which I have spoken in the past have been of particular categories, like the haemophiliacs. Today I want to touch on an aspect of the matter which is both broader, in the sense that it affects all categories of disabled, and also narrower, in the sense that it is limited to the choice of suitable vehicles to meet their needs.

I am talking not of recreation or family outings but of the need of these persons to get to work to earn their living, to lead a normal life, and cease to be a burden on the taxpayer. I am well aware that the problem is under examination by Baroness Sharp, and my intention is precisely and frankly to influence the outcome of her inquiry.

Before coming to the central point I want to take the opportunity of saying publicly what every disabled person in the country knows and what will be admitted by both sides of the House—that there has never been a Minister who has done more to help the disabled than the present Secretary of State. I associate with him the two junior Ministers, one of whom will be answering the debate today.

What I say applies to the problem of mobility in the home and in public places, and I want it to be seen to apply also to mobility on the road. I believe that my right hon. Friend has been helped and not hindered by the pressure of many back-bench Members on both sides of the House. I mention particularly the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) whose disciples we all are and who I am glad to see on the Opposition Front Bench, and his hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt)—who I am also glad to see here—and, on this side of the House, my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Mr. Astor) and Banbury (Mr. Marten), besides many others. I hope that we have helped the Secretary of State to stand up to the Treasury, and that we can now help him to stand up to his own expert advisers.

There is one question about which the expert advice given to Ministers is utterly mysterious to everyone outside the Department of Health and Social Security—the reason why the three-wheeled invalid vehicle, of which the latest model is known as the P70, is the standard issue of the National Health Service, instead of an adapted four-wheeled car such as the Mini, which is made in my constituency —I am not advocating it merely for constituency reasons, but because it is the best for the job—and is issued only in exceptional cases.

I do not deny that the exceptions today are much more numerous than they used to be. They include, for example, war disabled persons as of right, and some others, but the figures show some remarkable anomalies. Some calculations which I have based on a number of Parliamentary Questions over recent years, including some as recently as last week, indicate that out of 8,050 cars issued by the National Health Service—Minis or Minor 1000s in the majority of cases—6,290, or just over 75 per cent., are issued to war disabled drivers. Of between 18,000 and 19,000 drivers, only 250—less than 2 per cent.—are issued to war disabled drivers. It is therefore clear, from these same figures, that over 96 per cent. of war disabled drivers who have the choice in this matter prefer a car to a tricycle.

The difference in disabilities between the war disabled and the civilian disabled—I have no doubt there are differences—simply cannot be as great as that disparity would suggest. The Disabled Drivers' Association tells me that about 95 per cent. of its members would prefer a car to a tricycle, which is exactly the same as the proportion of war disabled drivers who, having the choice, choose the car rather than the tricycle. Nevertheless, the principle of the Department remains that the tricycle is the standard issue and the adapted car is a privilege, only for exceptional cases.

My argument in a nutshell is quite simply that that policy should be reversed, that the adapted car should be the standard issue, and that the tricycle should be the exception for those who cannot operate the four-wheeled car. I accept that some disabled persons cannot operate anything but a tricycle, and that the tricycle must continue to be available for their needs, although I admit that I never met anyone who fell into that exceptional category and I should like to know what is the nature of their disabilities that makes the tricycle the only suitable vehicle for them, and they are so much more numerous, as apparently they must be, among the civilian disabled than among the war disabled. But, however numerous they may be, it is an unquestionable fact that they are a minority and that the overwhelming majority of both civilian and war disabled would prefer the adapted car to the tricycle.

The reasons for the preference are obvious. They can be summed up under the two headings of safety and convenience, which overlap. Convenience includes ease of driving and maintenance, freedom from noise, warmth and comfort, room for getting in and Out and, perhaps most important of all, carrying a passenger. Safety is a much more serious matter, and includes stability, strength and protection for both the driver and the vehicle. On the matter of convenience, is it recognised that the P70 tricycle represents some improvement on its predecessor.

On safety, the most temperate verdict that I can quote Is that in the magazine "Which?" in March 1972. It says that Very little has been done to improve safety, and this model is still extremely hazardous". I could quote far more extreme verdicts from a wide range of publications, including letters and articles in professional journals like the British Medical Journal, Doctor, Pulse, World Medicine, Medical News, General Practitioner. In the lay Press the subject has been dealt with recently in The Guardian, the Sunday Times and the Evening Standard.

Also, the Minister will be aware that less than three weeks ago the local Press in Hertfordshire reported the death, in a driving accident, of the secretary of the local branch of the Disabled Drivers Association, Mrs. Florence Paul. The report was accompanied by devastating comments on the P70 tricycle that she was driving.

I also warn the Minister that further devastating comments on his Department's policy in issuing vehicles, based on test driving by myself and by Graham Hill, the racing motorist—who was at one time himself a disabled driver—will appear in the Daily Telegraph colour supplement next month.

The evidence against the tricycle is so overwhelming that I hardly know where to begin extracting it from my dossier. Among the items and components of the P70 which are specifically criticised in these documents, on grounds of safety of convenience, or both, are the brakes, gears, steering, clutch, throttle cable, drive chain, speedometer cable, windscreen seal, dashboard projections, heater, fire extinguisher and fibreglass body and roof. In addition, specific criticisms are made of the unpadded interior layout, the fire risk from the frontally located petrol tank, lack of engine power on hills, rattle of loose components, and in respect of hub caps falling off, the bonnet flying open, instability and noise.

All of these could be more fully documented with examples. At the risk of disappointing those who have supplied the examples I shall confine myself to three or four items, chosen to show not only that the complaints are clear and specific but that they are not made in a spirit of mere bloody-mindedness and perversity. First, there is the Which? report which states that In two years some improvements have been made, particularly in performance and in the ease of driving the car"— that is, the P70— with the automatic transmission, for instance, and improved brakes. We found getting in and out was much easier also. However, there were still major disadvantages. It was very noisy, and could feel unstable when cornering. It was difficult for a handicapped driver to do his own daily maintenance. There was very little space inside. Above all, its size and construction made it vulnerable and potentially very unsafe in a crash. It was also very lonely. We think that this three-wheeled vehicle is now out of place in modern society—and in modern traffic conditions. My other examples come from users, themselves disabled drivers. They have been collected by Dr. Geoffrey Sherliker, in my constituency. He has specialised in their problems. First is a woman driver who says: I have a new P70 automatic which is much better in some respects. The throttle is dreadful and very hard to regulate. When driving in heavy traffic it is very awkward and, in fact. I have corns right along the palm of my hand since driving this vehicle. The worst experience, is to attempt to hold it in a fairly high wind—and I have had had a very nasty experience of nearly being blown over in a strong wind although I was only doing about 20 miles per hour at the time. I was fortunate that I was blown on to my left, where there was no kerb—a few yards further down was the kerb, and I would not have been able to hold it. Another writer, a man, says: A few months ago, while waiting in a line of traffic, smoke started coming up under my seat and seized the engine. A following car, in avoiding my tricycle, tipped me over and if this had been on the side with only one door, I would have been burnt to death as it had a fibre-glass body. A nurse and others at the bus stop pulled me out, as I am a large built man (over 6 feet 4 inches height), but it damaged my shoulder doing so. I have had a clean licence for 45 years and have driven all types of vehicles (including tanks in wartime), and I think this tricycle torture should be scrapped, particularly as they cost as much as a car. Next is a letter from another woman. She says: As a disabled driver of the P.70 for the last twelve months, I was very glad to see that a Dotctor is taking up our case. While I am grateful for the improved features on this model; such as automatic transmission, a sliding seat, two doors and a fuel gauge, the single wheel at the front combined with the light weight of only 8 cwt. definitely makes the vehicle most unstable, especially in crosswinds. I have one final quotation from a man driver who says: I have had a P.70 invalid tricycle since February, and although I have been driving since 1936, it is the most dangerous vehicle I have ever driven—and I have driven just about everything. The road holding is nonexistent, I dare not take it out on a windy day, when I am overtaken by a larger vehicle I find it impossible to hold—with there being little weight and only one wheel at the front. I also get a headache every time I go out in it due to the noise levels. When driving along, I can see the road slipping past through the gap left between the car and the door. I wonder what the cold and draughts will do to my arthritis when winter comes, and many times I have pain in my hips caused through this draught. At the time of writing the tricycle is in the garage for the fourth time in less than three months with something wrong with it. With this letter, you may well think I am a real old grouse, but really I am a very mild, patient fellow, who is very grateful to this really great country of ours for what is done for the sick and disabled, but I do think that people who are really full of pain to start with, do deserve something a bit more comfortable than these. These are representative quotations and I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will agree that the people concerned are not mere grumblers. Where there are good points to be said for the vehicle they are said. But to these comments I should like to add my own. I recognise that as I am not a disabled driver my judgment of the tricycle is necessarily very different from that of those who have to use them. However, having driven all the invalid vehicles which are now on the road I am convinced that the P70 is the most dangerous I have ever sat in, except for its predecessor.

Why was such a vehicle ever designed? It was designed, first, because a small minority of disabled drivers can operate no other. I accept the Department's word for that. It was designed, secondly, to meet a rigid specification laid down by the Department to reduce costs of production. That is the crux of the matter. The only possible justification for preferring a tricycle to an adapted car is the comparative cost. The question is whether this is a valid case. Some would say that cost should not be a criterion at all, but with that I disagree. It can, however, be seriously questioned whether the tricycle is cheaper than an adapted Mini or other small car.

Parliamentary Questions over the past decade strongly suggest that when every relevant factor is taken into account—the initial cost, insurance, running costs, maintenance and repairs, and the probable working life of the vehicle—there is not much to choose between a tricycle and a Mini. But even that verdict needs to be qualified in favour of the Mini. The P70 requires the import of certain manufactured components from abroad, including Austria, Italy and the United States, so that it represents a marginal burden on the balance of payments.

Secondly, the tricycle, unlike the Mini, has no resale value. Thirdly, the unit costs are naturally lower for a vehicle produced in quantity with long production runs. This advantage has been arbitrarily and artificially conferred on the tricycle by making it standard issue. If the advantages of quantity production were transferred to the Mini, which is preferred by the overwhelming majority of the users, its unit cost would certainly be far below the tricycle. Even today it is possible to make out a strong case for the Mini on economic grounds alone.

I understand that the basic cost of manufacture of the tricycle is between £600 and £650. The manufacturers of the Mini have offered before now to operate a scheme of guaranteed repurchase of the Minis after three years or 36,000 miles, whichever is earlier, on very competitive terms. The latest costing by a director of Morris Garages—I have the costings here but they have not yet been formally submitted—shows that a Mini 850 saloon could cost the Government only £328.69 on these terms. The list price is £581, the total invoice cost on delivery is £718.69, and the repurchase price after three years is £390. Similar figures have been quoted for other British Leyland models.

I simply cannot believe that this is not a better economic proposition than plodding or tottering along with the P70. For years I have been puzzled to understand the Department's attitude in this matter, and over 10 years I have at last reluctantly come to suspect that there is but one possible explanation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will refute it and offer a better one. My suspicion is that unless the Department can compel a substantial majority of disabled drivers to take a tricycle, whether or not they want it, its unit cost will be uneconomic. If the Mini were to become standard issue instead, the increased demand, although reducing unit cost, would impose an unacceptable total burden on National Health Service resources. Therefore, the majority must be compelled to accept a vehicle that is not suitable to their needs—a vehicle that, in fact, is suited to the needs of less than 5 per cent. of disabled drivers. If that were to be the Department's reasoning I should have a great many arguments—social, medical, humanitarian and economic—to advance against it, but I hope to hear that it is not.

In any case there can be only one logical conclusion, which is bound to come in the long run, and I urge the Minister to seize the credit for being the first in his office to reach it. It is that the tricycle should be kept in production only as a standby for the minority—that is, the limited group of disabled who cannot operate anything else—and that the adapted four-wheeler should become standard issue for the rest, that is, the majority, instead of vice versa.

I am speaking for many organisations and doctors—for the Disabled Drivers' Action Group, the Spastics Society, the Haemophilia Society, the British Polio Fellowship, the Association for Research into Restricted Growth and, I have no doubt, many others—when I ask the Minister simply to turn his Department's policy upside down.

1.8 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Willesden, West)

The House and, more important, all disabled persons will be most grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) for giving us the opportunity to discuss the subject today. He put his finger on the crux of the problem at the end of his speech when he said that the increased take-up is the main problem that the Ministry must face, but I hope we shall get an opportunity of pursuing that later.

I want to raise three short points. I do not have time to deploy all my arguments here but I hope the Minister will examine what I have to say. The first concerns whether there should be a three-or four-wheeled vehicle in view of the problem of parking, which has been helped by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I am thinking in particular of the way in which the National League for the Blind has been making representations about blind persons and persons who are so severely disabled that the problem of parking and of accompaniment becomes extremely important.

Whether they drive a three-or four-wheeled vehicle, there are other contin- gent problems for which the Disabled Living Foundation has developed a new and wide range of implements—for example, for the person who is mobile and goes to work but needs to carry tools or shopping. Will the Minister give further consideration to spreading the gospel about the equipment that has evolved for a vehicle which enables a disabled person to remain an active member of the community, equipment which the Disabled Living Foundation is able to demonstrate?

My third point arises from my second. As only English people, and Londoners in particular, have the advantage of the wide range of information from the Disabled Living Foundation, I would be glad if the Under-Secretary would bring pressure to bear on the Government for similar facilities to be made available for disabled persons, social service officers and medical welfare people who are interested. These facilities could be provided in Edinburgh, to serve Scotland, and in Cardiff, to serve Wales, in the same way as people in England can go to Kensington to see the range of services available for disabled drivers.

1.11 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) for the timely opportunity he has provided for the very important issue of mobility for the disabled to be debated. The hon. Gentleman enjoys well-deserved respect among disabled people for his work in this field. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), the hon. Gentleman has a genuine and abiding concern to improve the mobility of all disabled people.

The Under-Secretary should take serious note of the strong, indeed compelling, case that has been put to him from both sides of the House. The debate is of strictly limited length and the Minister needs adequate time to reply, so I will not make a long speech.

The main purpose of my intervention is to emphasise to the Government that they will save nothing by restricting the mobility of the severely disabled. There is no saving by running a vehicle service on the cheap. Many of the disabled could work if only their mobility could be improved. They passionately want the dignity of being taxpayers, not the dependence of supplementary benefits.

The percentage of unemployment among employable disabled people is shocking. The current figure is 13.4 per cent. We should link the problem of mobility to the problem of unemployment among disable people who are seeking work. We shall help to solve both problems only if we regard them as being related.

It is argued that a four-wheeled vehicle is more expensive to provide than a three-wheeler. I was strongly convinced by motor manufacturers, who were brought into contact with me by Mr. Graham Hill and others, that a four-wheeler can be provided at a cost, per car, as low as that of a three-wheeler. Ministers say that the total cost to public funds would, however, increase because more, entitled applicants would apply for a four-wheeler. What they are really saying is that it costs less to distribute distasteful sweets, not because they are cheaper but because fewer people want them.

There is also the problem of the disabled passenger, about which the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled is deeply concerned. The more disabled a person is, the less help he receives. One minor concession has been brought about by all-party activity in the form of an amendment to a recent Finance Bill. It is entirely wrong that the more heavily disabled who have cars to enable them to work, or to normalise their lives, should receive no real help whatsoever with their mobility.

The hon. Member for Oxford referred to the report awaited from Baroness Sharp. Here I wish to emphasise that the Government have executive responsibility. We were told recently by the Prime Minister, at No. 10 Downing Street, that we must await the report from Baroness Sharp. We are doing so in the hope that it will contain conclusions and recommendations that will be of enduring help to all disabled people. But the Government must ensure that the report is presented to Parliament as soon as the final draft is available. That will enable Parliament to express its views to Ministers before they make decisions on the report's conclusions and recommendations. Many hon. Members are experts in this field, and it would be wise for the Government to give them an opportunity to say what they think about the report before final decisions are reached.

My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) very much regret that they cannot be here today to participate in the debate. They are extremely well-informed on the problems of mobility for disabled people. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and his hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor) will also be sorry that their constituency commitments have made it impossible for them to participate. The Under-Secretary is himself, of course, a man of much experience in this field, and I want him to appreciate that the House can help him and his ministerial colleagues in reaching the right decisions on the conclusions and recommendations of the Sharp Report.

There are three brief points to which I now turn. The first concerns an undertaking given during the passage of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill in the House of Lords in 1970. The undertaking was given, by a Minister, that advice would be issued to public transport operators and manufacturers on the subject of access to public transport for disabled people. Sir Eric Errington, formerly the hon. Member for Aldershot, took a great interest in this subject during the debates on my Bill. I believe that the Government will be issuing a circular on the question of access to public transport for disabled people. I hope the Under-Secretary will say something about this and also about the implementation of Sections 20 and 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. As he will appreciate, Section 20 is of especial importance to severely disabled children. My hon. Friend referred to Section 21 and to the parking concessions which it provides for the severely disabled. There are still some London boroughs that have not extended the benefits of Section 21 to the disabled people in their areas, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to comment on this.

There will be no objection from the Opposition if the Minister acts decisively to ensure a radical improvement in the vehicle service. I wish finally to pay tribute to Peter McBryan and Nigel Harvey. The Disabled Drivers' Association and Disabled Drivers' Motor Club have come together to press for immediate action on this issue. The disabled are, as it were, on the march on this issue, and there are many of us on both sides of the House who are proud to be marching with them.

1.19 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean)

The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) for raising this important issue today and for the effective and persistent way in which he and many other hon. Members on both sides have focused attention on the problems of mobility for the disabled. The Government welcome this as much as the House will.

The Government approach the matter in the spirit that much has been done but that there is a long way to go before any of us can be satisfied. I hope that the debate will help to provide more information on the points raised by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). I join in the tributes which have been paid to the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled and other organisations for the disabled which help constructively to keep the problem before the House and the country. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for the generous tribute he paid to my right hon. Friend. Brickbats are more potent when mixed with a little praise.

The significance of increased mobility is recognised by all of us because of what it does not only for the disabled but for everyone. It is not so long ago that people worked in the area in which they lived. That was a time when a visit to the nearest town was an event, when a visit to the seaside was a rare luxury and when a venture to foreign parts was beyond people's wildest dreams and, in many cases, their desires. All this has changed. It has meant changing habits, changing expectations and changing necessities, and this has had an influence on the disabled as it has on everyone else. In this modern age we are all caught up with movement and its problems. For the disabled those problems are greater and have dimensions which do not exist for most of us.

The changing pattern is well illustrated in the vehicle service itself. Twenty years ago there were 1,700 cars available through the vehicle service and 8,300 three-wheelers. Now the figures are 8,000 cars, 20,000 three-wheelers and 12,000 people with private car allowances.

To answer some of the criticisms of my hon. Friend, the original concept of the vehicle service 20 years ago was to replace walking ability. It was a fairly modest objective, rather like the artificial limb. As such it was a health provision and was provided by health departments, as it still is. It meant in practice that the vehicle was a single-seater which the disabled person drove for himself. One of the obvious disadvantages of this—and it is one that has emerged increasingly over the years—is that he is on his own and cannot take his wife or companion along with him.

I hope the House will recognise that it would be wrong for me today to attempt to prejudge the future of the vehicle service or to try to reach conclusions about cars or tricycles. What I can say is that the Government recognise the need for change. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognised this when he announced interim changes in February of last year. We were then able to make some modest improvements. For example. we were able to help for the first time those who were not working and who could not walk, not because of anything wrong with their legs but because of a heart or lung condition. We also provided a car instead of a three-wheeler for a few more disabled persons for whom the three-wheeler was recognised to be unsuitable, and we introduced the car allowance, which already has attracted nearly 12,000.

These were interim changes, and we are well aware that the basis of the vehicle service needs re-examination. This includes not only what sort of help should be given but also who should get it. That is the significance of the inquiry now being carried out by Lady Sharp. I know that she is pressing on with this as quickly as is compatible with the complexity of the subject and the need for a report pointing the way to a service which is in line with modern requirements.

I understand that Lady Sharp has received evidence from many voluntary bodies concerned with the subject and has seen those who expressed the wish to see her, including, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford. I am sure that she will take all these views into account, as well as what has been said today, in reaching her conclusions. We expect to receive her report before many months have passed, and it will be published. I entirely take the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). The collective wisdom of people with experience in this House and outside will be valuable to the Government in considering the report that we shall shortly receive from Lady Sharp.

Mr. Alfred Morris

Will it be published before the Government make their decision about its recommendations?

Mr. Dean

I cannot say exactly when it will be published. But I take the hon. Gentleman's point and I assure him that we shall wish to have the views of hon. Members and organisations who clearly have contributions to make before final decisions are put to this House by the Government.

Against what I hope is that responsive background to the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, perhaps I might make one or two points before going on to the broader matters. The first is about the safety factor.

The safety of three-wheelers has been questioned. They conform fully to the relevant construction and use regulations. Some critics maintain that they are unstable and easily blown over. I admit that drivers are conscious of side winds and that three-wheelers, like any other light vehicle, have to be driven with regard to their performance limitations and the prevailing weather conditions. But they are not inherently unstable or unsafe.

There has been criticism of the glass-reinforced plastic body, which it is claimed offers little protection in an accident. Experience does not bear that out. Since this type of body was introduced some years ago, the number of serious injuries to disabled people driving them has remained very small despite the substantial increase in the number of three-wheelers and other vehicles on the roads.

In general these vehicles have demonstrated over many years a good accident record, and insurers are satisfied that they are not a bad risk. It is important to emphasise this to reassure the thousands of disabled people presently driving these vehicles.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford said, mobility for the disabled does not only involve getting from A to B. Perhaps the most important help that the disabled require is mobility in their own home environment. The solution to this lies partly in the right accommodation and partly in suitable aids in the home. My Department has on issue some 130,000 non-powered wheel chairs and nearly 3,000 powered chairs supplied for use in the home to those unable to walk and unable to use an ordinary wheelchair. In addition there are about 1,500 powered chairs on issue controlled by attendants and provided for outdoor use. Constant efforts are made to improve the type of chair which is issued.

Purpose-built housing and adaptations to existing housing can make all the difference between dependence and independence. Under Section 3 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, of which the hon. Member for Wythenshawe was the author, housing authorities have a duty to have regard to the special needs of the chronically sick and disabled. A circular has been sent to all housing authorities drawing their attention to this. The Department of the Environment and my own Department have joint studies in hand designed to provide information on how these needs can best be met.

These are all very important aspects, some of which flow from the hon. Gentleman's Act. Equally the problems faced by the disabled in overcoming immobility are part of the question of rehabilitation. The importance that we attach to this is shown by the recent announcement about the creation of a Chair of Rehabilitation at Southampton University. We have also said that we shall set up two new demonstration centres for rehabilitation at Norwich and Derby, and they will be followed by others later.

Another aspect is parking and getting into buildings at the end of journeys. Here, too, things are on the move, although there is still much to be done. The hon. Member for Willesden, West made special mention of parking arrangements. Perhaps I might remind the House of the orange badge scheme of parking concessions for the disabled. This again is an important contribution towards mobility.

The scheme was introduced on 1st December 1971. Under it orange badges are issued by local authorities to certain categories of disabled people. The badges are for identification purposes and do not in themselves confer parking concessions. Parking concessions derive from exemptions written into traffic regulation orders by the individual local authorities. The effect of the regulations is that vehicles displaying the orange badges can be left free of charge and without time limit at parking metres and without time restrictions in places where waiting is limited to specified periods. The concessions apply throughout the country, apart from certain parts of the City and the West End of London where pressure on the limited amount of parking space is very great. However the London boroughs concerned operate their own schemes of parking concessions for the disabled living and working in their areas.

The Department of the Environment also encourages local authorities to use the orange badges as a means of identification for providing further parking concessions for the disabled wherever possible. For example, some local authorities reserve spaces for orange badge holders in car parks near shopping centres, or allow them to park in their off-street car parks free of charge. The orange badge scheme represents a considerable improvement over the previous yellow badge scheme. Apart from providing concessions for passengers and institutions as well as drivers, it has the force of law, and the orange badges are valid throughout the country, except for central London, whereas the previous scheme was operated on a voluntary basis and the yellow badges were valid only in the area of the local authority which issued them. The scheme has been working well in practice but it is hoped to improve it in the light of experience.

Another recent change concerns the use of invalid vehicles on pavements. Previously, they were forbidden to use pavements; now they are able to use them, subject to certain conditions.

Another aspect to which my hon. Friend referred is access to public buildings and to public transport. This inevitably is a slow business, particularly with existing buildings, but it is important because steps to a public building can be like the Berlin Wall to a disabled person. The lavatory which a disabled person cannot get into can be as much a barrier to him as a no-entry sign.

For new public buildings there is now the obligation to provide for the needs of the disabled as far as practical and reasonable. All of us who move about the country see clear evidence of progress in this respect, not only with these facilities being provided but also with clear signs so that the disabled know where lavatories are available and where there are entrances to buildings which have no steps or other impediments.

I hope the House will feel that, although inevitably in dealing with the vehicle service I have to say that we are waiting for the Sharp Report, the fact that changes have been made in the vehicle service and that Lady Sharp has been asked to undertake this inquiry show the concern of the Government. I hope I have also been able to show the progress which has been made and which will continue to be made in many other aspects of mobility for the disabled, all of which are important if we are to achieve the aim we all share for the disabled—to equip them to lead a life as independent and as near to the life of any other person as possible.

Forward to