Blue Badge (disabled parking) scheme eligibility consultation: summary of responses and outcome
Outcome to the Department for Transport’s consultation on proposals to extend Blue Badge eligibility to people with non-physical conditions.
No Automatic eligibility for those scoring 12 points on ‘cannot follow the route of a journey without another person’ criteria means
most ASC people will not qualify for a Blue Badge under new proposals. Allowing only those that score 10 points automatic eligibility, whilst specifically
excluding those that score 12 points, who paradoxically have greater disability, excludes most people with autism who will score either 8 points or 12 points on this question.
The people who score 12 points are those that can access the motability scheme to get a car but they will not be entitled to a blue badge, whilst those who score 10 points can have a blue badge but no Motability car (making the blue badge useless). Simple rules in Scotland and Wales provide automatic eligibility for 12 points under ‘cannot follow the route of a journey without another person’ criteria but not in England under the Conservative Party which exclude those most in need from any help (as usual), whilst of course claiming they will improve the system to help those with invisible disabilities. A change only forced on the government by an anti-discrimination legal court ruling, not through fairness
PART 2 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7. The Department was delighted to receive over 6300 responses to the
consultation and for the time that individuals and organisations took to provide
8. The Blue Badge scheme plays a vital role in allowing 2.4 million disabled
people in England to maintain their independence through special national
parking concessions. Blue Badges enable their holders to visit their families
and friends, and to access jobs, healthcare and leisure activities.
9. Although the Department considers that people with non-physical disabilities
are not excluded from receiving a Blue Badge, a problem arises from the
wording in the regulations providing eligibility for: “a permanent and
substantial disability which causes inability to walk or very considerable
difficulty in walking”. This does not specify whether the disability is physical or
non-physical – and can therefore be either. However there is confusion
around whether this only means physical difficulty in putting one foot in front
of the other or can include difficulties or challenges when walking, including
safety risks, which may arise from non-physical disabilities.
10. The Government wants to ensure that the rules and guidance are clear. It
wants to give parity of esteem to mental and physical health conditions. It
wants a scheme that is sustainable and works for all who are eligible for it,
whatever their disability. It wants it to be fair, consistent, inclusive and nondiscriminatory.
11. We are delighted that 89% of respondents are, in principle, in favour of our
proposals to amend the eligibility criteria. This support applies to all groups –
local authorities 71%, groups representing disabled people 84%, other
organisations 87% and individuals 89%. The main points raised were more to
do with implementation and consequential impacts. There was a call for
clarification of certain terms and the provision of clear guidance so that local
authorities can administer the scheme consistently. There were also concerns
about administration costs for local authorities, the impact on parking, and
abuse of badges.
12. Based on responses to the consultation, the Department continues to believe
that including people who have very considerable difficulty “when walking” as
opposed to just “walking” as now, will make it clear that people can qualify not
just because of a physical difficulty in walking but for non-physical reason
14. There is one area where the consultation has persuaded the Department to
change its proposals. We had proposed specifically including people who
‘cannot follow the route of a journey without another person’. However, it has
been made clear that this would mean including some people who need
another person with them, but can otherwise physically walk well and also
without psychological distress or challenging behaviours. The Department
believes that where people suffer very considerable psychological distress or
other difficulty when walking, or have a risk of very considerable harm to their
health or safety (including people with dementia), they should be eligible for a
badge. However, where the applicant would not go out alone and the
presence of another person negates the above mentioned issues, then we do
not believe badges should be issued. Needing another person on every
journey does not necessarily equate to needing to park nearby.
15. The primary aim of the scheme is to give disabled people who rely on car
travel but face particular challenges in getting from the car to their
destination, the ability to park close-by. The Department believes the badge
should directly benefit the individual; to ensure the sustainability of the
scheme we do not believe badges should be awarded in situations where the
carer is effectively the beneficiary.
16. For the same reason the Department intends to provide an automatic link to a
badge for people who score 10 points under the ‘Planning and following
journeys” activity of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) because cannot
undertake any journey without overwhelming psychological distress to the
claimant. We had proposed to link to 12 points under this activity, for people
who cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, but
this would include people who do not have very considerable difficulty when
with another person and do not need to park close to where they are going. It
would not be sensible to award an automatic badge in this scenario.
This PIP criterion is not about needing to park a vehicle near to one’s destination. The
Department recognises that some people with significant challenges who
receive different levels of PIP may not have an automatic route to a badge.
This is because PIP and Blue Badge are different schemes that are not
completely compatible. However under our proposed new and expanded
eligibility criteria we are confident that people who experience very
considerable difficulties because of non-physical disabilities will now have a
clear route to a badge following assessment by their local authority.
17. Since 2012, the Government has required that where eligibility against the
walking criterion is not self-evident and an expert opinion is needed to help
determine eligibility, the local authority must use an Independent Mobility
Assessor who is independent of the applicant.
18. Following consultation, the Department continues to believe this role should
be widened. An independent mobility assessor may not be suitable for
certifying whether or not a person’s mental or cognitive disability has the
impacts that would meet the eligibility criteria. In the first place, the assessor
would not be assessing the physical ability to walk. So we believe the
assessor should become an eligibility assessor rather than a mobility
assessor. Furthermore, whereas a person with a physical disability may be
adequately assessed without the assessor having prior knowledge of their
disability, this may not be the case for a person with a non-physical disability.
Often such an assessment would require knowledge of the person’s
functional limitations when outdoors. We are therefore proposing to remove
the requirement for independence, but that does not mean a local authority
should not use an independent eligibility assessor where deemed
appropriate. This will allow the local authority to use a range of suitably
qualified healthcare professionals with specific expertise. The assessor role
does not have to be performed by a specific person – the authority will have
the flexibility to choose who they recognise as being suitable to provide an
expert opinion and it may vary from case to case, so long as the assessor
has relevant qualifications and experience to assess whether or not the
applicant has an enduring and substantial disability within the meaning set
out in the regulations. Respondents called for guidance as to who could fulfil
the assessor role and what qualifications they should have.
19. Respondents also called for clarity on a number of terms used across our
proposals, including “walk”, “journey” and “enduring” amongst others. The
Department will seek to define what these mean in guidance.