How would you describe the British Motability scheme for disabled people and their families?
1. A means by which the most severely disabled people in the country can be transported without relying on the government to cart them everywhere they need to go. These people, who are unable to complete a journey without the assistance of friends or family, are given the choice of an allowance towards transportation for the year or exchanging that money for a leased car for three years. If they want a nicer car, they pay additional money for it.
OR
2. From an article in today’s The Sunday Times: “A scheme costing taxpayers £1.4 billion a year to provide the severely disabled with a new car every three years… abused to provide tax-free motoring for friends and family… Almost 200,000 (cars) are used by the disabled’s friends or relatives.” Followed by a quote from a conveniently unnamed government source, “These cars are incredible deals but they are often not being used for the benefit of the disabled person.”*
I like quotes that use vague words like “often”. Even better when they aren’t accompanied by the source making such an astute point. But, hey! Who needs journalistic integrity when you can use vague quotes from unnamed sources to disparage the most vulnerable people in society?
I have a few other problems with the article ‘State hands out BMWs to ‘disabled’ in £500m scandal’ – not the least of which is that I can’t remember the last time the State knocked on my door and gave me a BMW. Is that happening? Hello?
I should get one. I’m one of the scumbags described in this article. I’m the non-disabled family member who will benefit from the Motability scheme next year when May turns three-years old.
Are they angry because it costs the tax-payer? Because, I wonder how much it would cost to cart around every disabled person in the country on several journeys every day, lifting them in and out of the vehicle and securing them safely, understanding each and every one of their very specific needs. That wouldn’t cost anything.
Or, are they angry because the government doesn’t have the legal right to insist that disabled people only use the money on cheap cars? Are they angry because there people who have paid the extra money necessary to purchase a BMW on the scheme?
If the government set up a scheme whereby they helped disabled people fund their transport, but then only allowed them to use that money if they bought a Ford, they would be setting up a monopoly. I think the other car companies would quickly find fault with a scheme that poured money into their competitor’s pockets.
But, here is the leap in logic that really makes me sick. The article implies that we are benefiting from our daughter’s brain-damage. May will probably never walk, let alone drive a car. In all likelihood, she won’t be capable of ordering a taxi. That would mean dialling a phone number, speaking and relaying directions.
But, what am I thinking? A BMW totally makes up for that.
Despite how insulting the article is, we have a greater concern: Is The Sunday Times pushing its own agenda – despicable in its own right – or, is this propaganda directly from the government before they initiate ending the scheme altogether?
*I would link to the article, but The Sunday Times uses a subscription service. You’ll have to pay for it if you want to read it in full.
Great post… xx
As much as it pains me to say this, I know people who receive the mobility who do not need it. My uncle for one, he has it for his asthma, which apparently is so bad he can hardly walk, yet he mows peoples lawns, cuts mums hedges , paints houses and does very manual work! I cannot see why he needs a free car.
However in your case its different. The scheme is flawed and there are people who abuse it, as with any benefit or scheme that the government provides. It is a shame that the minority spoils it for the majority xx
I’m fine with tightening the system up so people can’t take advantage of it – May would pass every time. I’ve never understood why we are made to fill out a soul-destroying 40+ pages of essays about our daughter’s disability to qualify, when a letter from her neurologist would suffice.
But, I think the “minority spoiling it” argument is the one that the government likes to use when they want to cast disabled people as corrupt. Does it happen – I think it is a given. But, clearly there are very deserving people who use the scheme. That should outweigh the minority – but unfortunately that isn’t what the media focuses on. That they would promote such a point of view when considering the very real and serious problems we face, I find sickening.
This sounds so weird to me. We have nothing like this in the US. My Mom is totally disabled and qualifies for nothing as she has savings. We bought a van for her caregivers to drive. It cost lots of money but it is the best investment we made for her comfort and safety. I would think a van for everyone family who transports their disabled love ones would then be extend to cover senior citizens as well who are no longer able to drive. How would this be funded? I can guarantee you this would never fly in the US. But it is an interesting thought. Here we have transportation systems to get patients to their doctors and services that will take someone shopping to the market but just giving away a free car-never. Because people would be afraid it would go to the poor as well so they could find a job and drive to work. Let me know how this all works. Do they have the ability to do it now and have they implemented this program already?
Here is a link to the scheme so you can read more about it: http://www.motability.co.uk
But, you are right Madge. I doubt very much this kind of scheme would be funded in the US. But here, it has been running since the 70s. All the car manufacturers – or at least most – participate in the scheme. It’s probably a pretty good earner for them as well. In the States, loads of people lease cars, but here not so much. So it is reliable money every month and the car returned to them at the end of three years.
Not to mention, a more independent, disabled person who is less reliant on the government for their every want. I don’t know what is more expensive – but both ways (giving them a car or transporting them) costs money.
Read through this and all I can say is WOW. WE have absolutely nothing like this here in the US. I could hear the outrage now. Older Americans would want it and because of the baby boom from WWII we are all getting older now. Also, the poor would want it as I said to get to work where now they take awful public transportation that seems to go no where near where it should go. And then all the fiscal conservatives would scream just to scream. Personally for someone like May it would be a no brainer (no pun intended:) and she would certainly qualify. I know we have senior citizen passes for the bus system and taxi system but you need to be able to get in one without assistance. For real disability there are medically equipped vans which I think they pay a reduced fare but I think it costs something unless you are very very disabled or so poor as to not get to your doctors. We have programs like Meals on Wheels that deliver meals to home bound people. But her everyone sort of fends for themselves or their relative with extremely little aid unless they are so poor or so disabled. I don’t know how you rule out the cheaters. It seems they find a way to milk the system. Not enough people checking and lots of payoffs to people to get the services I would imagine. Very sad indeed. But with all of England’s financial woes I would think things would be cut off right and left. Here in California where we still have no budget for over 6 months somehow the leaders are getting their salaries but just about everyone else (unless you are the really rich) are suffering and would never, not for one minute allow this scheme (interesting name as well) to ever fly here. Sad really for those that truly need such services.
It’s not a free car as such. The people getting this are making a huge sacrifice on monies that they get to support them in their disabilities. The scheme only covers so much and the much discussed BMW will also involved the person making a considerable down payment on the car themselves. In the past, the scheme has been abused, but the tests are becoming much more stringent. My family has benefitted from the scheme for both my dad and my gran with all the necessary equipment fitted into the cars so that they could drive them safely and be independent. When the time came where gran’s MS and emphasemia got too bad, the car was modified so that she could get in and out easily – this could not have been afforded by her personally.
I hope that this scheme continues, especially as the news this evening was saying that the ‘ring and ride’ services are due to stop soon and that disabled people can use the bus! The bus stop is a mile away from my parents’s house – where is my dad’s independence?
PS My dad works, and works hard. He has a job that he can do despite his disabilities – he has never been out of work and has been severely disabled since birth. In fact, although he was eligible for the motorbility scheme for many years, he only started to use it 3 years ago when he couldn’t afford the modifications needed on his cars.
My feeling is that articles like this are just a cowardly way for the privileged to justify withholding resources from poor and disabled. They’d rather “those people” didn’t exist at all, but the only way they can voice their objections without coming across as despicably selfish sociopaths is to wrap it all in a good wholesome concern for the taxpayer’s money. And preventing abuse of the system, and whatever else.
Maybe that’s overly cynical, but it’s what crosses my mind when I read similarly dishonest garbage out of the right wing here in the US.
This makes me so angry, I am not sure what is worse that or this despicable excuse for a man http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/17/disability-pay-minimum-wage
I read that article too. Seems they are all coming out of the woodwork these days.
The article in Sunday Times seems to crass, insensitive and utterly ridiculous.
Typo correction. “seems to be” , is what i wanted to type, but the “be” got left out.