PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Motability - 8 December 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Changes announced at the Budget will improve value for money for taxpayers while ensuring that the Motability scheme continues to provide outstanding support for disabled people.

The Motability scheme stems from the vital principle that people with disabilities should be able to live a dignified and independent life. I have heard from several constituents about how accessible cars can help them into work and healthcare, which I welcome, but I have also heard from a number of others about those with questionable conditions being provided with cars that, quite simply, the average working family could not afford. In many cases the cars are not even made in Britain. Does the Minister agree that, in order to keep faith and confidence in the scheme, it is really important that the scheme addresses real need across the country and in my constituency? Will he meet me to discuss some of the extreme cases that I am hearing about in Telford?

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I would be happy to meet him. Motability is an important scheme that does an important job. Some tax reliefs will be removed in July. Existing leases will not be affected, and neither will wheelchair-adapted vehicles. There will still be vehicles, with no up-front payment, that are affordable solely through the mobility component of personal independence payment, so the scheme will continue to do a great job but will give better value for money for taxpayers.

The shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions recently stated that

“millions are getting benefits for anxiety or ADHD along with a free Motability car.”

That is clearly nonsense, because only 200,000 claimants—at most—would be eligible to apply in the first place, and many of them also have a physical disability, which is the real reason for the car. Does the Minister agree that this must rank as one of the least accurate claims ever made by a politician, despite the strong competition?

Well, choosing the most misleading claim is a tough contest, but the hon. Gentleman is right. The shadow Secretary of State’s colleagues introduced PIP, with the current criteria, in 2013. They then had 11 years to change it if they thought doing so was necessary, but they did absolutely nothing. My review will look at the eligibility criteria for the mobility component of PIP.