§ Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham)I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate an Adjournment debate on a subject which, through their case work, affects a large number of hon. Members. I appreciate the Minister for Transport in London replying to the debate. I have consulted several disablement groups, and all were positive about and appreciative of the knowledge and understanding of their transport problems that she has shown.
The angle from which I shall approach this issue is in one sense narrow. I am concerned, as are most hon. Members, with cases that fall just outside the eligibility criteria, but I do not want to lose sight of the bigger picture as I discuss the specifics. Orange badges are important because access for disabled people is crucial for employment, for shopping and for living a normal life. Access means mobility—and mobility, for almost all of them, means a private car, because the public transport system has not yet adapted to the problems of disablement.
I believe that the regulations applying to buses and to taxis will not fully come into effect until 2017 and 2012 respectively. Even for disabled people who can reach access points, buses and taxis are not practical options. The private car is the key to access and mobility and, in the urban and suburban environments that I represent, that means access to parking, so the orange badge concept is absolutely crucial.
Although I shall discuss a particular aspect of this issue, I hope that the Minister will be able to say a little about the Government's broad approach to the orange badge scheme. It was reviewed in 1989—which led to changes being made in 1991—and again in 1996, specifically in relation to enforcement. Perhaps she will bring us up to date on the Government's thinking. To the best of my knowledge, the orange badge scheme has not been discussed in this Parliament; I may have been inadequately briefed, but that is my understanding.
Although I shall argue for some broadening of the eligibility criteria in one or two cases, I recognise the dilemma—the tension—in this whole problem; it was brought home strongly to me by the disablement groups. Some cases, such as those of which I am aware, fall just outside the eligibility rules. They are hard cases, and my instincts are to seek a widening of the scheme for the benefit of those individuals. However, I recognise that the authorities, the Government and the disablement organisations are concerned, above all, with the integrity of the scheme. That is an important objective in itself.
Fears have been expressed about the proliferation of badges, abuse of the scheme and the system falling into disrepute if it is widened too much. I understand and sympathise with those fears; I certainly do not want to propose anything that would undermine the integrity of the scheme and thereby affect the seriously disabled badge users who take full advantage of it.
As I move to a discussion of the specific categories that I want to raise, it may be useful to hit upon a few of the key trends, which bring the conflict between the broadening of the scheme and its integrity into sharper relief. The first trend, as the Minister well knows, is the 916 considerable increase in the number of badges. I tabled a parliamentary question to her a few weeks ago and the answer suggested that the number had increased from slightly under 1 million in 1989 to about 1.7 million.
I understand that that figure may now have reached 2 million, so it has doubled over a decade and a substantial number of vehicles—probably one in 10 of those on the road — have orange badge specification. My question, to which I do not know the answer, is whether that number is appropriate and whether research has been carried out into whether the disabled community as a whole is fully utilising the scheme.
My research suggests that about 4.5 million people are seriously physically disabled, and they obviously fall into the category of being eligible for the orange badge scheme, so slightly less than 50 per cent. of disabled people are covered. A lot of disabled people are old, live in rural areas or do not have cars, and they would not want to take advantage of the scheme. However, it would be useful to know whether the number of people taking up badges is appropriate, given the incidence of serious physical disability.
Some estimates of the number of disabled people go way beyond 4.5 million and it would be interesting to know whether sample surveys have been carried out in particular areas in respect of supply and demand for facilities for the disabled.
The second trend is abuse. I hear and read in the press apocryphal stories—and also real examples—of abuse of the scheme. I understand that a key objective must be the prevention of abuse and that any fresh look at eligibility criteria, if there is to be one, must not open the scheme to more abuse than already occurs.
I appreciate that abuse can occur in several ways. For example, general practitioners may be excessively liberal in their approach. It is difficult for doctors to say no, just as it is difficult for Members of Parliament to say no, when people ask for help. Perhaps the GP system is excessively liberal, but I find that difficult to believe as I have come across many cases of doctors refusing what seem to be plausible requests for orange badges.
Similarly, it is alleged that many local councils find it difficult to say no and award orange badges too freely. Again, from my experience, I find that a little difficult to believe —certainly of the area for which I am the Member of Parliament. The local authority is quite tough in its issuing policy and many cases of what seem, at first sight, to be unreasonable refusals come to me. Local citizens advice bureaux and other agencies—not only in my area, but in others—report how difficult it often is for those who fall within the eligibility criteria to get orange badges. There may be abuse, but it is certainly tempered by severe application of the rules elsewhere.
There may be abuse by disabled people themselves. We all hear stories of cars with orange badges pulling into parking bays and fit young people bounding out. No doubt some disabled people give their badges to relatives, but such incidents occur simply because many disabilities are episodic. People who have rheumatoid arthritis are more active in some periods than in others. I am sceptical about many of the claims of abuse, and I should be interested to know the Government's assessment of the scale of the problem and of how seriously we need to take it when we consider eligibility criteria. 917 The next broad trend that I want to sketch as background to particular cases is what appears to be—and what the disabled associations believe to be—a breakdown of the national scheme. Implementation of the disabled orange badge scheme locally appears, in some cases, to be resulting in different councils adopting radically different philosophies in their approach to it. We know that green badges are being issued in some local authority areas, for the benefit of local residents as opposed to orange badge holders from elsewhere. A tougher regime is being applied and the scheme has never applied at all in other areas, such as central London.
It is not immediately obvious to me why Kensington and Chelsea, for example, should be exempt from the scheme; its parking problems are quite serious, but so are those in my part of suburban London. I am sure that there are serious problems in Hampstead and Highgate as well. We need to consider why orange badge schemes apply in some areas but not in others, and why the rules are more severe in some areas than in others. That is the context in which I want to place the discussion about eligibility criteria.
This issue has been raised before in the House, but not in this Parliament. It was confronted in 1994 by the late John Watts, when he was Minister responsible, and representations on widening the criteria were made by hon. Members. I want to return to some of the issues that he raised.
There seem to be two broad problem areas and I have encountered both in my work as a constituency Member of Parliament. The first is that of temporarily disabled people. Some people might be described as temporarily disabled for what appear to be trivial reasons. For example, someone may have broken his leg in a skiing accident or injured himself playing football. Clearly, I would not want the scheme to be extended to cover such cases. However, there are other cases of temporary disablement, such as that of the woman in Twickenham who came to me for help. She had been walking along the road and a car had hit her and badly crushed her legs. She is still immobile after 21 months—she tried to walk with difficulty on crutches. She clearly falls within the criteria of substantial disablement, but because she is not permanently disabled the council would not issue her with an orange badge.
Another case is that of a woman with serious cancer. She is undergoing cancer therapy, which has the effect, as does the disease, of greatly weakening her so that she is not mobile and cannot walk 100 yd. She needs help, but cannot get it because that disease is curable and thus the disability is temporary. She does not fall within the disability criteria that the legislation requires. There are also people with arthritic conditions, who are waiting for hip replacement operations. That takes a long time. I am sure that the Government's health policy will improve that over time, but people wait for one or two years for hip replacement operations and, in the meantime, they cannot avail themselves of orange badges because they are only temporarily disabled.
Can the Minister do anything about those categories of people? One suggestion is to issue for one or two years orange badges that would be returnable thereafter. Clearly, the flexibility that local councils have would enable them to judge the severity of particular cases.
918 The second problem area is of a different kind. It covers people with diseases that clearly do not fit into the conventional definition of "physical disability". I do not know whether hon. Members are familiar with Crohn's disease, but it is a serious bowel disorder, such that people must have immediate access to public conveniences. It is a very distressing condition. Although it is not physical disablement in the normal sense, for those with severe manifestations of that illness easy access to parking is absolutely critical. Certain variants of epilepsy have similar implications.
If some of those diseases, which I believe are known to the Government—epilepsy, certain forms of mental illness, Crohn's disease and other bowel disorders—were encompassed in the scheme, we would be talking about large numbers of people and I understand why the authorities would not wish to widen the scheme indefinitely in that way. However, I should have thought that with an independent medical panel to hear appeals against local authority decisions and to look at cases flexibly, there might be some way of offering relief to those concerned.
Do the Government plan to address the question of the eligibility criteria? If they do, it must be done in a way that balances liberalisation against the danger of abuse. Do the Government propose to introduce the changes that were recommended in 1996 for a tougher enforcement code for orange badges; and if so, when? It was proposed that police officers and traffic wardens should be entitled to look at the identification of badge holders and that it should be mandatory for disabled people with orange badges to show them. That would be one way of cutting down on abuse while being flexible in other respects.
In a more general spirit, may I ask the Minister whether this whole area, which I accept is a vexed and difficult one because of the competing pressures, will be reviewed by the Government?
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson)I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for affording the House the opportunity to debate an issue that is of particular importance to many disabled people.
As we acknowledged in our White Paper, for many severely disabled people the private car is the only viable transport option. However, its value would be greatly reduced, if not lost entirely, if disabled motorists were unable to park as close as possible to their destination. That is the primary purpose of the orange badge scheme, which enables people with severe mobility difficulties to park close to the places that they need or want to visit. Research demonstrates clearly that the mobility range of severely disabled people can be as little as 50 m, so even having to park 100 m or so away from one's workplace or from shops may make the journey extremely difficult, and in some cases impossible. The orange badge scheme is therefore vital in enabling the day-to-day activities that non-disabled people take for granted.
The scheme was first introduced in 1971 and, as the hon. Gentleman said, has been reviewed twice since then, the last review being completed in 1992. Eligibility for an orange badge is governed by the Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) Regulations 1982, which were subject to wide public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. 919 To qualify for a badge a person must either be in receipt of the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance or a war pensioner's mobility supplement; use a motor vehicle supplied by a Government health Department; be registered blind; have a severe disability in both upper limbs; regularly drive but be unable to turn a steering wheel by hand—even if that wheel is fitted with a steering knob; or have a permanent and substantial disability, which means that he or she cannot walk or has very considerable difficulty in walking. That last category is known as the "discretionary criteria".
It is clear from that list that eligibility is fairly tightly controlled, yet, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the number of badges issued over the past decade has risen dramatically, from 929,000 to 1.7 million—an increase of over 80 per cent. That total number bears no relation whatever to the proportion of the population that is disabled —some 10 to 12 per cent.; nor is the increase supported by a corresponding increase in the number of cars over the same period, although I recognise that not all badge holders are drivers.
That increase has prompted much concern, not least from our own statutory advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, the majority of whose members are disabled people. The committee recently submitted to me a report that recommends that we review the scope of the scheme with a view to tightening up the eligibility and revising the administration of the scheme.
DPTAC is particularly concerned about the application of the discretionary criteria. Its concern has been prompted by the fact that only a third of badges are issued "as of right" under the specific criteria that I outlined earlier. DPTAC's view is that the discretionary criteria are being applied too widely and should be restricted to people over the age of 65 years who would otherwise have qualified for the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance.
One of DPTAC's proposals is that an applicant's GP should be removed from direct involvement in the process. Many local authorities considering applications under the discretionary criteria consult the GP for further information. DPTAC's view is that there should be some form of independent assessment, either by another doctor or by a qualified health professional.
It is not just the issuing process that has come under scrutiny by DPTAC. Like those of us in the Department, it is also concerned about the apparent abuse of the system—another matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The badge design already has a photograph of the holder, but we have not yet been able to introduce the legislative changes to provide the enforcement authorities with the powers to inspect badges. That gives rise to scope for unscrupulous people to use a badge belonging to someone else—often an elderlym relative—and thus to enjoy the parking privileges that the scheme provides. That is unacceptable, and we have made it clear that we shall introduce the necessary legislation to allow inspection of badges as soon as parliamentary time allows.
DPTAC wants local authorities to strengthen their response to the abuse issue. It has recommended that local authorities should take a firm line with disabled people who knowingly allow their badge to be used by someone else, including withdrawing the badge altogether in cases of persistent abuse.
920 I recognise that DPTAC's recommendations have arisen from genuine concern about the effectiveness of the scheme. Although I share that concern, I am not as yet convinced of the need for a wholesale review of the scheme, as DPTAC has suggested. We have, however, undertaken a survey of issuing authorities to gather more information about how they are currently administering the scheme, particularly in relation to the discretionary criteria. I shall want to consider very carefully the information that is provided before deciding what, if any, further action is necessary.
Having set out the current position and explained our concerns and those of our advisers, I now turn to the particular concerns of the hon. Member for Twickenham, who has suggested that, far from narrowing eligibility, the scheme could perhaps be extended to cover people with temporary disabilities and those with specific conditions affecting their mobility.
I am very sympathetic to the problems faced by people with temporary disabilities, and I have certainly received other representations suggesting that the regulations should be relaxed to accommodate them. Currently, the regulations allow for badges to be issued only for a three-year period. We are not convinced that extending the scheme to allow badges to be issued for shorter periods would be in the best interests of the many thousands of severely disabled people for whom the scheme is an essential part of their mobility.
As I have said, there has already been a dramatic increase in the number of badges. Widening the eligibility criteria would inevitably mean a further rise in numbers. That would contribute to further traffic congestion in town centres, and could become self-defeating if it encouraged more local authorities to introduce local parking schemes that benefit only disabled people resident in their area. A number of local authorities have already introduced such schemes, which have attracted considerable criticism from disabled people residing outside those areas, as they are no longer able to access their town centres.
A significant rise in the number of badges would also make it more difficult for the police and traffic wardens to enforce the national scheme. The associations representing local highway authorities, whose members would have to operate the extended scheme, are opposed to the introduction of temporary badges.
From what I have said already about DPTAC, hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that it, too, shares those concerns, and fears that a move to extend eligibility would lead to the erosion of the benefits for those who currently qualify. It has emphasised the importance of ensuring that the rules of the scheme restrict eligibility to the permanently disabled people who rely on a badge to have at least some of the freedom of movement that non-disabled people enjoy.
It has also been suggested that there could be a two-tier system with a different coloured badge for people with temporary disabilities. Again, that would be difficult for local authorities to administer, and would make enforcement even more difficult for the police and traffic wardens. A two-tier system would also run counter to our 921 decision to implement the European Commission's recommendation for a standard design of parking card for disabled people.
The new badge, which will be blue, will be introduced in this country from 1 January 2000, and all badges will have been replaced by 2003. It will be recognised by all other member states, and will provide disabled people with the assurance that while travelling anywhere in the European Union they will be able to enjoy the parking concessions that apply to disabled people in each member state. The recommendation does not affect the eligibility criteria or the parking privileges that operate in each member state.
Returning to the United Kingdom scheme, I am aware that some authorities issue badges to people awaiting surgery, such as a hip replacement—a point made by the hon. Gentleman. They do so on the basis that, until surgery has taken place, those people are, in effect, permanently disabled. I understand that approach, but, in my view, it would not be appropriate to set national rules in this area. The effect of such conditions vary considerably. Setting eligibility criteria around particular conditions regardless of their effects would increase the demand for parking spaces reserved for disabled people, and could disfranchise the most severely disabled people who rely on them.
One such condition, to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which I know is of particular concern to him, is Crohn's disease. Although I recognise that the condition can be debilitating, those with the disease would be eligible for a badge only if their walking ability was also permanently, not just intermittently, affected. The issuing 922 authority is best placed to make that judgment—supported of course by medical evidence—and to decide whether the applicant qualifies for a badge.
I realise that this may seem harsh to those who are outside the scope of the scheme, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that for severely disabled people, who view the scheme as a lifeline, the main concern is to ensure that it does not become so over-subscribed as to minimise or even negate the benefits to them. They have already been disadvantaged in areas where local authorities have introduced their own badges in response to the increasing number of orange badge holders. They are anxious that that practice should not extend to other authorities.
The orange badge scheme is, without doubt, a key element in the independent mobility of many severely disabled people. Without the badge, many people would be unable to go about their day-to-day business. It is, therefore, vital that the eligibility criteria for an orange badge should be tightly controlled, and that issuing authorities take great care in processing applications to make sure that those who receive a badge are those who have the greatest need for one. I am afraid, therefore, that I can offer the hon. Gentleman little hope that the scheme will be widened to bring people with temporary disabilities within its remit; nor are we likely to specify specific conditions in the guidance that we issue to local authorities to assist them with their administration of the scheme.
§ It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.