Rip up the benefits system and start again

Times

16 hours ago

As a fan of Jeremy Clarkson's writing I asked ChatGPT to compose, 'in the style of Jeremy Clarkson', some thoughts on a monstrosity reported often enough in this newspaper: the state-funded Motability scheme.
AI's Clarkson impersonation began. 'Disabled? Have a BMW on me.' Sharp and amusing; but not what I want to say. You cannot (I maintain) get to grips with where state assistance has ended up without getting to grips with where it started. My column takes the Motability scheme as an illustration of this wider argument.
Let me set out how we got to a situation in which one fifth of all new car sales in Britain are Motability cars, and disabled claimants whose conditions range from acne to neurodiversity may indeed get all or part of the cost of a new car that is replaceable every three years. Outrageous? Well, I think so. But we got here by a series of 'if — then' judgments, each of which has seemed fair and rational at the time. Read on, and tell me which was a misstep …
• Just 900 people on top-level benefits joined work coach scheme in June
We start just after the end of the Second World War, from which many servicemen returned disabled. The Labour government hit upon what became known as the Invacar (older readers may remember those weird little one-person, pale blue three-wheelers) for those war-wounded who could neither walk easily nor afford a conventional private car.
Fair enough, don't you think?
Invacar production continued for decades as governments of both parties introduced disability benefits for those who struggled to get about; and whether a disability stemmed from war service or some other cause seemed irrelevant. A system of disability benefits evolved which entitled all seriously mobility-impaired claimants access to an Invacar.
Fair enough, don't you think?
But the Invacar was dangerously unstable, underpowered and could take no passengers. What if a disabled mum wanted to take her toddler with her? The mobility allowance that was introduced in 1976 started at £5 per week (more than £40 at today's prices) and has crept up to the present rate for 'enhanced' impairment to mobility: £77.05. Naturally, many claimants entitled to these regular extra benefits have wanted to use the money to get a proper car.
Fair enough, don't you think?
• Artist misled NHS about disability when seeking £3m payout
So the government arranged for a company to be set up. Motability Operations Ltd deploys claimants' benefits to lease cars for them. Using economies of scale and financed by the individual's benefits, it gets a better deal with a simpler process than a claimant could manage individually. It oils the wheels and costs the taxpayer nothing. If the whole Motability scheme were abolished tomorrow, there would be no saving for the taxpayer. The mobility-impaired would still get the same benefits, but if they wanted a car they would have to make their own arrangements, probably on worse terms than the company can get them.
Fair enough, don't you think?
So here we are today. The company operates the largest fleet in Europe, spending almost £3 billion of taxpayers' money last year on car leases, insurance and breakdown cover. TikTok influencers boast about how you can get a new car virtually free; online critics mock a scheme to benefit 'bed-wetting boy-racers'; the benefit is available for acquiring even BMWs and Ford Mustangs; complaints abound about Motability cars' use for purposes beyond transporting the disabled; and The Times reports that the 'scheme now has vast eligibility, allowing people with anxiety, dyslexia, severe acne and Munchausen syndrome to claim. Hundreds of thousands of people receive the enhanced mobility award on Pip (personal independence payment) for mental health conditions, learning difficulties and skin conditions to get around.'
Few across the whole political spectrum would fail to be disturbed. We on the right speak of 'the bloated state'. We talk about trimming, snipping, pruning, reforming, cutting back.
But how? Reduce the benefits? That hits even the most appallingly impaired claimants. Stop the misuse of Motability cars for purposes unrelated to disability? How? Fitting vehicles with transponders would be impossible. Oblige owners to have the Motability logo painted in large letters on the side of their cars? Invite neighbours to squeal, or make DWP swoops? Cries of 'shaming' or 'Stalinist' would fill the air.
So how about removing mental problems as a qualifying disability? But the most common, from autism to anxiety to depression may in severe cases be genuinely confining without a car.
• Pensions sector seeks Gen Z talent amid recruitment challenges
I've zeroed in on Motability only as a parable for the expanding reach and ballooning cost of benefits right across our welfare state. I read, for instance, that the Welsh government is introducing a prepaid subsidy card for those whose food intolerances add to their food costs.
Things are spinning out of control. Indignant at manifest abuse, we call for a 'crackdown on scroungers'. We argue that the welfare state should 'sharpen its focus' so that it can 'address genuine need' and exclude 'the undeserving'.
Yes, the undeserving predictably muscle in, and whenever the government gives there will be scroungers among those who take. But the core problem is not the undeserving but the deserving. The weight of their numbers and the burden of meeting their entitlements is in danger of toppling the whole economy supporting them. Kemi Badenoch was right to say last month that it's 'not about cutting bits of the state' or 'top slicing' spending. 'It's about looking at what the state does; why it does it.'
I take my triple-locked state pension and concessionary travel pass, though I could easily manage without. But even as every such snipping around the edges dies in the Commons voting lobbies or falls victim to second thoughts at No 10, we still shrink from the alternative: abandoning the pruning shears and pulling things up by the roots.
The scandal is that there is no scandal. Though cheating, gaming the system and over-claiming do exist, they're not the root of the problem. The root is that the state has taken on responsibilities it should not bear. Governments have tried to level the ups and downs with which time and fate may curse or bless any human being, but we cannot level that landscape; and even if we could, we wouldn't like the result. We cannot entitle everyone to compensation for their difficulties. Entitlement has crept, step by understandable step, too far.
Hearts must harden. But I'm convinced that our fellow citizens are not yet ready for this. Your choice and mine, therefore, is between joining the bandwagon as it careers towards the abyss or adding our voices to a small chorus doomed to be drowned out until after the crash.