Dileas Winslow

Kemi, this is exactly the sort of rot that corrodes public trust, because it relies on the hope that most people will not know how #Motability actually works. Let’s start with the basics. You do not get a @Motability car because you feel a bit anxious. You do not wander into the system with a note saying ADHD and drive out in a shiny hatchback. It has never worked like that, and you know it. And while we are clearing the fog, these vehicles are not taxpayer-funded anyway. People surrender their own enhanced mobility award to lease a car, just as someone else might use that same entitlement on taxis or support workers. The public is not buying anyone a free car, no matter how loudly the headlines try to claim otherwise. To enter the scheme, you must first qualify for the enhanced rate mobility component of #PIP or the higher rate of DLA. That award is not based on diagnostic labels but on function. It is based on whether you can move around reliably, repeatedly and safely, and whether you can plan and follow journeys without risk. These assessments are detailed, intrusive and often overwhelming. They already exclude anyone whose mobility is not severely limited. The idea that someone can simply say they feel anxious and be handed keys to a @MotabilityOps vehicle is political fiction. Fraud exists in every system, but this narrative paints disabled people as opportunists when the truth is that most have fought tooth and nail through a gruelling assessment process just to secure the support they need to live anything resembling a normal life. If we want to tackle fraud, then let us talk honestly about fraud rather than demonising entire groups of people living with real and often debilitating conditions. Then there is this constant rhetoric about the ECHR, as if it is the root of every ill in British society. The ECHR did not design the Motability Scheme. It does not set PIP criteria. It does not sit in the assessment room. Suggesting that leaving it would magically fix domestic mobility awards is theatre of the most desperate kind. Blaming the ECHR for everything from borders to benefit assessments has become the political equivalent of shaking a snow globe. A few dramatic words, a swirl of flakes and the hope that no one looks too closely at the details. A third of car sales in some regions coming from Motability is not the scandal you present. It is a reflection of communities where public transport is limited, disability rates are higher and people rely on mobility support to participate in daily life. Motability is a lifeline. It lets people attend work, medical appointments, education and family life. Removing that support punishes people for being disabled, which is not a welfare reform but an act of cruelty masquerading as fiscal responsibility. There is a serious conversation to be had about welfare. I welcome it. We should make systems fair, transparent and sustainable. We should modernise assessments and make them humane. We should absolutely stop fraud where it exists. Yet none of that requires turning disabled people into political target practice, nor pretending that conditions like ADHD, depression or anxiety are trivial inconveniences. Left unmanaged, they derail education, restrict employment and make the smallest tasks overwhelming. That is why the functional criteria exist. They measure ability, not diagnosis. If the aim is to get Britain working again, start by respecting the people who are already fighting every day just to keep up. Start by telling the truth about how these schemes operate. Start by resisting the temptation to dress up cuts as courage. One fraudulent claim is too many. One dishonest political statement is too many as well. And this one, @KemiBadenoch , did nothing to advance the truth.