Chancellor Rachel Reeves told Channel 4 yesterday that she “can’t leave welfare untouched”, as speculation mounts that additional costs will be added to the Motability scheme.

In the interview Reeves said  ‘You know we’ve now committed to doing reform in a different way, but we can’t leave welfare untouched.

‘We can’t get to the end of this Parliamentary session and I’ve basically done nothing.

‘Because if more and more of our money that we spend as a government is spent on welfare, you’ve got less for the NHS, you’ve got less on schools and you have to put more on people’s taxes.’

Reeves gave no details of what she intended.

But the press have been briefed that the chancellor is considering ending VAT and insurance tax premiums for Motability cars.  Whilst this would not reduce the benefits bill in any way, it would increase the amount of tax paid by claimants using the Motability scheme.  This could result in around £1 billion a year in extra revenue for the government.

The possibility of removing luxury car brands such as BMW and Mercedes from the scheme is also being considered, as the inclusion of these vehicles causes such outrage in some sections of the press.

More details about what the Chancellor has planned may not emerge until the budget on 26 November.

You can watch the Channel 4 interview here.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 hours ago
    Motability operations is owned and managed by the 4 big banks. The banks make what they call a ‘modest’ return.The scheme props up the ailing used car market. 
    When leases expire, the profits from sales are used to finance grants for adaptations.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 hours ago
    100billion interest paid to bond holders every year,  thats the ACTUAL problem.

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    The trouble with this ridiculous Motability idea is that it will increase the upfront payments beyond the reach of disabled people. My most recent vehicle, a basic Peugeot van adapted to carry my powerchair, had a £5k upfront payment that I only managed to find by saving up my mobility allowance and adding it to a small inheritance. 

    I won't get another inheritance, and I can't save my mobility allowance because every penny is now paid out to Motability. How in God's name do they expect people on means tested benefits to find even £5k, let alone £5k plus VAT? The stupidity of it just leaves me speechless. People go on about so-called free cars, they always fail to mention that "free" actually means having to pay thousands for a vehicle you don't even own.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    Nobody seems to be drawing attention to the fact that if you want anything other than the basic model, you have to pay extra. Nobody is getting a brand new Merc unless they're paying extra. Why isn't the supposedly independent preaa pointing that out?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    I agree with this to some extent, the luxury cars are not justifiable to any user of the scheme. Larger cars and adaptations absolutely essential, but who really needs a flash Mercedes/BMW/Audi etc who then flashes it all over social media (like someone I know!) behaviours like this is what causes the hatred towards claimants. The scheme should be limited to the standard model of any vehicle, which is perfectly fine for someone who needs a vehicle to help in their day to day lives. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Anon Their paying for that car why should a disabled person not be able to drive a nice car of their choice? Its a joke and once again picking on the disabled. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @Anon Politicians and the media are creating a society where people feel aggrieved and resentful at the sight of a disabled person with a nice car, or wearing nice clothes, or living in a nice house or shopping in a non budget supermarket, or going on holiday. As if disabled people should be pariahs not part of normal society or only begrudgingly tolerated in society if they are poor and grateful to be permitted to live amongst everyone else.

      Disabled people pay extra money towards having an expensive Motability vehicle. And Motability gives them the option because the resale value for expensive vehicles after the lease period ends is higher. It is not costing the tax payers more money or costing the Motability charity more money to give those disabled people who have the money the option of a nicer vehicle if they pay extra out of their own pocket.

      And for someone who qualifies for high rate mobility component the component is not enough money to cover the extra mobility costs they have due disability. It is money towards reducing the inequality they suffer due to disability.

      The point of non means tested disability benefits is not simply to provide disabled people with a safety net. A meagre life where they get to drive a cheap car, live in a poor area in a council flat, dress in cheap clothes, and shop at Aldi.

      The point of non means tested disability benefits is to reduce the financial and social costs/disadvantages they suffer due to disability, so they can take part in society and have more equality. That means not just having poor disabled people, disabled people only able to drive cheap vehicles. That means having some disabled who drive nice cars, live in nice houses, dress in nice clothes, shop at Waitrose, go on nice holidays, etcetera. Because disabled people are being helped towards being equals in society to everyone else and everyone else includes rich and poor not just poor.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @Anon Good point
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    We need to keep punching down. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    “Disabled people cost too much money” is what I’m taking from this
    Ffs Rachel reeves 🤦🏼 She thinks her job as Chancellor is to cut welfare, she doesn’t want to leave it “untouched”
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    There is a robust response to this from “funding the future” from today. Exactly what we are all thinking and no doubt feeling.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    So Motability may lose its exemption from.
    20% VAT on vehicle lease payments.
    12% Insurance premium tax.
    And may pass on those costs to the Motability scheme users.
    Possibly raising the cheapest vehicles from all of users PIP enhanced rate mobility component, to an additional about £14 a week on top of that. If taken as a upfront payment like the current scheme appears to do that would make Motability unaffordable, as over a 3 year lease agreement that would be an upfront payment of £2,184.
    Is Motability supposed to find vehicles that cost thousands of pounds less to buy in the first place? So the scheme can offset the cost of the taxes and people can continue to pay the same as they do now.

    Will Motability also be losing its VAT exemption from vehicle purchases and resale. Further hitting the viability of the scheme. As it relies on being able to offset the lease costs by being able to resell the vehicles to recoup some of the cost of the original purchase of the vehicles.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @John Another half baked idea.... is the motability scheme not practically single handedly holding up the new car market in the UK? 

      I think they need to stop looking of their shoulder at reform and actually start helping people.... its nearly like this parliament was designed to be the most polarising bar brexit, I dont believe ive ever seen a government throw away such a majority inside 12months its shameful.

      Anyone would think this was the PLAN to make Reform more palatable......

      Liz Truss all over again..... smoke n mirrors.... its not what u can see it what you can't....
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    Maybe the best thing she could do as a compromise, is too freeze benefits for the remainder of the parliament.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @John dont forget , state pensioners have paid in for their pensions  all their working lives...... and many still pay tax.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Denby I believe once they freeze something that's in their interested it rarely is ever fixed again... ie they just keep moving the goal posts. Plus if they ever did unfreeze it it would never ever catch up to inflation as its doing a pretty poor job atm. 

      I read an excellent piece in the ft.com the other day, benefits are spiralling as we're all being told, its all in how they choose to interpret the data, raised pension age and removing legacy benefits.... its absolutely shocking that the most vulnerable in society are being demonised! Then Sir Harmer is too busy interfering in a football match to actually do any constructive.... 

      Imo if they bothered to go after the off shore tax dodgers, make big business pay their fair share of tax etc they'd be plenty of money for everything.....
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Denby Benefits are already so low many are in debt or reliant on charity food banks.

      I do not know how those on just UC LCW with no premium survive longterm. Nor how those new claimants from April 2026 on UC LCWRA with half the current premium will manage to survive.

      We have a system where pensioners on £227.10+ a week are considered deserving poor. While working age people who are too ill or disabled to work who get as little as £72.90 a week are demonised as undeserving of support. I could not survive long term on £72.90 a week. 
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.