The Countryside Alliance has written to the Chair of the Motability Foundation warning that planned changes to the Motability Scheme risk unfairly penalising disabled people who live in rural areas and depend heavily on private transport.

From 1 July, the annual mileage allowance for new Motability leaseholders will be reduced from 20,000 miles to 10,000 miles before excess mileage charges apply. While the Foundation has said that most users already drive below the new limit, the Countryside Alliance argues that the change fails to account for the realities of rural life.

People living in the countryside routinely have to travel further to reach work, healthcare, shops and essential services. For disabled people, who are often more reliant on private vehicles because public transport options are not sufficiently joined up to meet their needs, those challenges can be greater still.

Official Department for Transport figures show that people in rural England travel substantially further each year than those living in urban areas. In some rural areas, the average annual distance travelled per resident exceeds 9,000 miles, compared with around 5,500 to 6,500 miles in urban areas. Those figures alone strongly suggest that rural Motability users are likely to be disproportionately affected by the new policy.

In his letter to the Chair of the Motability Foundation, David Bean, Parliament and Government Relations Manager for the Countryside Alliance, noted that concerns about the change have already been raised in Parliament on a cross-party basis by MPs from Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, as well as through a parliamentary petition.

The Countryside Alliance recognises that there is a wider public debate surrounding the Motability Scheme. Press reports and public commentary have raised questions about whether some vehicles are being provided, at taxpayers’ expense, to people who may not genuinely require them. Those concerns are legitimate matters for scrutiny and discussion.

However, that debate is entirely separate from the issue at hand. Unless there is an argument for abolishing the Motability Scheme altogether, it is plainly wrong for people who legitimately qualify for support to be unfairly disadvantaged simply because they live in rural areas where longer journeys are unavoidable.

The government has stated that Motability intends to introduce an exceptions process for “very limited situations” and to provide further details before the changes come into force. The Countryside Alliance has therefore urged the Foundation to apply a general exemption for rural residents so that disabled people in the countryside are not penalised for circumstances beyond their control.

In the letter, David Bean wrote:

“The realities of both rural life and disability necessitate that those in both sets of circumstances travel a greater proportion of those miles by private transport.”

The Countryside Alliance will continue to press for a fair and practical approach that recognises the realities faced by disabled people living in rural communities.