Motability, the scheme set up to provide vehicles, scooters and powered wheelchairs to disabled people, has become something of a monster. By the end of 2024, Motability supported a staggering 815,000 vehicles, up by 200,000 in the last two years alone. It is clear that the scheme has extended way beyond its original purpose and is in dire need of reform. But Motability is determined not to give up its lucrative business model without a fight.
Only five per cent of Motability cars are adapted for those with physical disabilities
Andrew Miller, the scheme’s chief executive, has hit back at criticism of Motability. ‘We’ve been a business all along. Any sense that we’ve become a racket is wrong,’ he told the Sunday Times earlier this month in a rare interview.
Miller was attempting to defend his organisation against the wave of criticism and ridicule it has faced in recent months. But in doing so, he has simply opened up Motability to even greater scrutiny.
At the heart of these concerns is the exponential growth in the number of vehicles Motability now provides; the organisation is so successful it now has a fleet worth £14 billion. Take a walk through your local town centre and it won’t be long before you encounter a Motability vehicle. But whether or not the person driving it really deserves a subsidised car is a matter of debate.
Miller does make one good point in his defence of the scheme: it is not Motability that determines whether someone is eligible for a vehicle. Instead, successive governments have steadily loosened the criteria. This could allow potentially millions more people over the years ahead to access one of the scheme’s vehicle. That has been what has seen the scheme’s vast growth, well beyond its original purpose: helping those with severe disabilities access adapted vehicles. In fact, only five per cent of Motability cars are adapted for those with physical disabilities.
Some may say that Motability has simply ‘evolved’ following its inception back in 1978, but to call this growth an “evolution” is generous. It’s more accurate to say the scheme has mutated. Once an essential lifeline for individuals who could not otherwise drive, Motability now functions as a mass leasing operation. Motability is also not just a passive operation awaiting potential customers as I discovered myself when they wrote to me – I lost my eyesight in my teens – last month to offer me a brand new car.
Meanwhile, many who might benefit more from alternative forms of support fall through the cracks, quieted by incentives to stay in a system that no longer fits their needs. The scale is staggering: one in five new cars sold in the UK is a Motability vehicle. Yet the proportion of physical disability in the population has increased only slightly. This poses a question about how many of these vehicles are being provided to those with mental health conditions. That discrepancy demands scrutiny of the government’s access criteria.
Where Miller cannot evade responsibility is in failing to speak up publicly to alert the government to this explosion in numbers. Surely with billions of public money at stake, it is the job of the person in charge to have an eye on what is in the interests of taxpayers. Instead, he meekly acknowledges Motability has not been “strong enough in enforcing key terms.” The truth is that we need a disability system that provides more help to those with the severest disabilities, whether in financial support or a vehicle, and every penny wasted on those that do not need it leaves less for those that do.
Miller also seeks to highlight the importance of the scheme in supporting the British car industry. Is enabling car companies, including luxury manufacturers, to sell hundreds of thousands of more cars, a good use of public funds?
Miller for his troubles took home more than half-a-million last year alone. But that fat-cat salary – and the sheer number of cars that Motability operates – has become hard to defend.
It is time for a fundamental change. Motability must decide what it is. If it’s a public service, it needs tighter regulation, working to tighter eligibility requirements, with a limited range of models available, and a focus on those who truly need help. If it’s a business, it should compete like one, without leaning on billions in taxpayer support. It cannot be both.
Comments