Are millions of people getting Motability cars for anxiety and ADHD?

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

Living sustainably can feel overwhelming.

Most people don't have time to overhaul their whole life, but that's where Kleenomic comes in.

Kleenomic isn't about perfection, it's about progress.

It's about those small switches that add up, like trading plastic bags for compostable ones or ditching toxic detergent jugs for a slim sleeve of laundry sheets.

If you're ready to make small switches with a big impact, go to cleanomic.com and check out their curated bundles.

You can even take 20% off with code switch20, cleaner, safer, smarter.

Kleenomic.com.

Your global campaign just launched.

But wait, the logo's cropped.

The colors are off.

And did Legal clear that image?

When teams create without guardrails, mistakes slip through.

But not with Adobe Express, the quick and easy app to create on-brand content.

Brand kits and lock templates make following design guidelines a no-brainer for HR sales and marketing teams.

And commercially safe AI powered by Firefly lets them create confidently so your brand always shows up polished, protected and consistent everywhere.

Learn more at adobe.com/slash go slash express.

Hello and welcome to More or Less.

We're the program that takes the BS out of numbers, leaving us with NUMA, nailed it at last.

I'm Tim Harford.

And in this, the last program in the current series, we'll be asking how many people will be affected by plans to change inheritance tax for farmers.

The Conservative Party Conference have been told that millions of people are getting free cars from the government because they have anxiety and ADHD.

Can that be right?

Are two in five men dying too young?

What does that even mean?

And my midlife crisis has manifested itself in a marathon run.

I mean, I don't really like to talk about it, but can the data help me run faster?

Or for that matter, help me finish in one piece?

But first, at the end of September, Anna Turley MP, the chair of the Labour Party, was on Radio 4's Any Questions, which came from one of the UK's agricultural heartlands, Lincolnshire.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Anna Turley was asked about the government's proposed changes to inheritance tax for farmers.

Her response?

97% of farmers aren't affected by that, but I also know that there are a number who are.

And we have to have this conversation.

Loyal listener Alison Garn got in touch.

This does not ring true.

Can you shed any light on where the 97% of farmers will not be affected comes from?

97%

unaffected.

Or to turn it around, only 3% of farmers would be affected.

We put our most rural member of the team on the case, which apparently is Nathan Gower.

Hello, Nathan.

Hi, item.

Nathan, remind us of your rural credentials.

I saw a cow this morning.

The job is yours.

So what did you find?

Last year, the government announced that from April 2026, it was going to cap the value of farming-related assets that an individual can hand on without incurring inheritance tax, and they would cap it at £1 million.

That's on top of the standard tax-free allowances available to everyone that are typically worth half a million.

Anything beyond these allowances would get taxed at 20%.

That's lower than the 40% rate for normal non-farming assets.

This introduction of a cap is a big policy change.

At the moment, there's no cap on how much farming-related wealth can be exempted from inheritance tax.

And this all prompted an outcry from farmers, who argue that the changes could lead to the breakup of family farms.

Farmers drove to Whitehall in their tractors, Jeremy Clarkson got involved, it was a whole thing.

Okay, so Anna Turley says that only 3% of farmers will be affected.

So what should we make of that figure?

Quick definitional quibble here.

What Anna Turley is talking about is not really 3% of farmers, but 3% of the potentially taxable farm estates that people leave behind when they die.

Okay, quibble accepted.

So what should we make of Anaturley's 3% figure?

It's wrong.

Tell me more?

It's very wrong.

I spoke to Dr.

Aaron Advani.

He's director of the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation and a Professor of Economics at the University of Warwick.

He's one of the authors of a recent report on the impact of these changes.

He looked at past data on farm inheritance tax to estimate how many farm estates might be affected.

About 1500 estates go through the inheritance process each year.

There's about 480 farm estates that would be affected every year where they'll actually have to pay more tax as a result of the reform unless they take some action.

So that number is actually closer to 31%.

31% affected, not 3%?

That's a big difference.

So do we know what happened?

Apparently, Anna Turley misspoke and meant to say that the majority of estates would be unaffected.

I'm not sure that's a a misspeak.

I think that's just a plain old mistake.

It may be that Anatoly got confused and gave a rate for how many of the general population are subject to inheritance tax.

That's about 4%.

Dr.

Advani's figures are his own independent estimate, but they are very much in line with the government's figures.

Okay, so it's more like 30% affected rather than 3%.

But the impact of a tax change could mean radically different things for different people.

So it could be a modest impact for some or a huge blow for others.

So can we say anything with more detail?

One of the fears that's been raised by farming groups like the National Farmers Union is that some estates might have to sell off parts of a farm or borrow money to pay the inheritance tax bill.

Aaron's been running the numbers on that too.

Assuming the reforms go ahead as announced last year, then there are 70 estates roughly per year.

that will not be able to pay the inheritance tax bill they face just out of non-farm assets in their estate.

So if you think of an estate as somebody dies and they might have a farm and they also have some cash and some other things around,

and you think, well, if you keep the farm together and just get rid of those other things, can you pay off your inheritance tax bill with those other things?

There are about 70 estates a year that won't be able to just use the other stuff and so would then be at risk of either having to borrow against the farm, potentially sell some part of the farm or find some other solution.

Those 70 estates equate to about 4% of all farm estates claiming inheritance tax relief every year.

It's also worth pointing out that a farmhouse on a farm would count as a farming asset.

They're not counting that as something you can sell off to pay the tax bill.

Okay, so to summarise, about 30% of all farmer states might end up paying more tax after these reforms, but in terms of how many might be at risk of being broken up because of a big tax bill, that could be a much smaller figure, say 4%,

if beneficiaries are prepared to sell other assets to keep the farms intact.

The estimates for how many farm estates will be affected by these changes are all based on the assumption that the owners of the estates don't change their behaviour to try and avoid this new tax.

And this is the real world.

So we know that changes to tax create incentives to arrange your affairs differently, and that's perfectly legal.

Perfectly legal.

There are various options available.

This is Dan Needle, a former tax lawyer, now the founder of the think tank Tax Policy Associates.

Inheritance tax is often said to be a tax on people who don't trust their children.

That's because if you give stuff to your kids and then you live seven years, you're entirely outside inheritance tax.

What a life hack.

But if it's that simple, I'm surprised that this tax would affect anyone or raise any money at all.

Well, not everyone can use this strategy.

So for example, you might not be able to give large amounts of assets to your children.

You might need those to actually live on.

And people do, of course, sometimes die young without much warning.

But there's another reason why farmers might struggle to avoid this tax, at least in the near future.

So if these rules had been around forever, then farmers would have given their farms to their children when they were still relatively young.

But of course, it's recently come in, and if you're a farmer in your early 50s, you can still do that.

If you're a farmer in your 70s, then there's a real chance that you will die within seven years, and that planning won't work.

And we can see this effect in the revenue projections for this tax from the Office for Budget Responsibility, the OBR.

They're the independent body that costs government policies.

So the OBR factor in what they call a behavioural response, the stuff that people will do that mean they'll pay less tax.

Normally the behavioural response is kind of constant over time.

Here the behavioural response ramps up, it triples over three years.

And the reason for that is that the strategy of giving all your stuff away is unavailable to elderly farmers now.

They're locked in.

And so you'll get an artificially high revenue from the tax in the early years.

Over time, as you get into the years where people will already have given their stuff away, the revenues from the tax decline.

Thank you, Nathan, and thanks to Professor Aaron Advani and to Dan Needle.

At the recent Conservative Party conference, the shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Waitley made a speech decrying the millions of people who are sitting on the sofa at home instead of working.

Her speech included this claim.

Millions are getting benefits for anxiety and ADHD along with a free motability car.

Motability has become big news in recent months.

For years it was a low-profile scheme that allowed disabled people who are assessed as needing extra support with their mobility to get a new car with insurance and servicing through the motability scheme.

In exchange for that, they accept a lower cash payment from their disability benefit.

But then this year it came to light that 20% of new cars are now bought through the motability scheme.

In Northern Ireland, the figure rises to 50%,

and that sounds like a lot of cars.

But is it true that millions of people are getting motability cars for conditions such as ADHD and anxiety?

Tom Waters is the man from the Institute for Fiscal Studies who knows his way around the benefits data.

So if we look at the number of people who are working age who are getting disability benefits, there there's about 600,000, a little bit less than 600,000 that are getting it for things like anxiety disorders and ADHD.

Of those, about a third or so, about 190,000, get what's called the enhanced mobility element.

of the benefit.

And that's what's required to get a car through motability.

But it's worth noting.

Certainly not everyone who gets that will have a car, but that's the minimum requirement.

Right.

So we can put an upper bound on it and say that there are 200,000 or fewer people

who might be getting a motability car because of anxiety, ADHD or similar.

I think that's about right.

Okay, right.

So definitely not millions.

I mean, is there any other way of looking at the data that

might make that claim true?

So motorities say that they have 860,000 people who currently have a vehicle through them.

It's worth noting that's not all cars.

They also provide scooters and wheelchairs.

So that's most of the way to a million.

But that's for any reason, right?

For any reason, exactly.

And they're not all cars.

And they're not all cars.

Tom says there's another group of people who claim benefits for health conditions.

The people who get the health element of universal credit.

But the data on that group is not good.

We don't have particular data on what kinds of conditions people have.

And what's more, you can't use universal credit to get a motability car.

So I'm going to call it that claim about millions of people getting a motability car because of anxiety and ADHD isn't true.

Fewer than a million people have a motability car for any reason at all, and far fewer because of anxiety and ADHD.

However, the theme of motability, benefits and ADHD came up again at the conference, this time in the big speech of Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch.

We will restrict motability vehicles to people with serious disabilities.

Those cars are not for people with ADHD.

Now, after she gave that speech, people popped up on the Twitter to say, this is absurd.

Nobody gets a motability car when they claim PIP for ADHD.

I mean, is that right?

So I don't think it's true.

There's nobody who gets it.

If you look at the benefit as a whole that gets you onto motorbikes, so person independence payment, there's about 88,000 people who are getting it for ADHD.

Of those, about half of them, 43,000 get this enhanced mobility award.

So that means they could, in principle, they could get a car through motability.

But 43,000 in the grand scheme of...

the number of people claiming the benefit is fairly small.

And again, as we've been saying, it won't be all of of those 43,000 who do get a car through the skin.

These 43,000 claimants are quite interesting from a data perspective.

21,000 of them, nearly half, are very young, aged 16 to 19.

Only about 7,000 are over 30.

And you may still be wondering how this works, because unless you know how PIP is assessed, you might think the mobility payment is for people who are less mobile, in that, for example, they can't walk and need a wheelchair.

But that's only half of the mobility assessment.

So in order to get this enhanced mobility payment, they assess you on two kind of categories of things.

One is, are you able to plan and follow journeys?

And the other one is moving around.

So the moving around one, in one sense, is a bit simpler.

It's about how far you can walk, aided or unaided.

The planning and following journeys category, they're trying to assess you on, you know, are you able to follow a familiar journey without the help of another person, things like that.

And so perhaps it might be that for some people with ADHD, that that condition makes it more difficult for them to plan and follow journeys, for example.

I think another important point just knocking around in the background here is we've been talking about the number of people who get this benefit for a particular condition, for ADHD or whatever else.

But of course, people can have lots of different health problems.

And all we know in the data is what the DWP calls their main disabling condition.

But it could be that you have ADHD and actually you've got several other health conditions and those ones could make it more difficult for you to get around.

To receive the enhanced mobility part of PIP, which could get you a motability car, you have to score a combined 12 points on the two mobility questions, each of which score a maximum of 12.

If you score zero for the part assessing whether you can physically move around, then you'd need 12 points on the planning part by being assessed that you cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid.

The key thing to understand is that PIP is assessed on the basis of what you can do rather than what condition you have.

So medical assessments can be part of the evidence that the decision makers at DWP use to make their assessments, but fundamentally you get points in the assessment for inability to do particular activities.

This means that it's not at all clear how Kemi Badenock would fulfil her promise of preventing people with specific conditions, such as ADHD, from receiving motability cars, because PIP assessments aren't determined by specific conditions.

That promise wouldn't just be a tweak, it would require a radical rethinking of how disability benefits work.

Thanks to Tom Waters of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Loyal listener Joseph got in touch to ask us about an advert for this year's Movember charity fundraising drive.

You might have heard of Movember.

It's a campaign where people who are folically blessed grow moustaches to raise awareness for male health issues such as prostate cancer, testicular cancer, and suicide.

The advert claimed that two in five men die too young.

A sobering stat.

But also not a very clear one.

What does too young young actually mean?

Younger than we'd prefer?

That's a lot of people.

Younger than the average life expectancy?

That's also a lot of people.

It's all quite vague and we really do not like vague like a bodybuilder.

I'm craving definition.

Specifically, what do they mean by too young?

Yeah, so there's the key question, Tim.

Ah, good.

We are in the capable hands of Stuart MacDonald, who as well as being an actuary and a partner at the consultancy LCP, is also a friend of the programme.

He's looked at the report the statistics originated in, The Face of Men's Health, published by Movember.

The definition used here is under the age of 75.

Under 75?

It's a number that's been used historically by the Office for National Statistics and others as a definition of premature deaths.

So it may not be exactly what people are thinking of when they think about people dying too young.

Now, we're not suggesting that anyone over the age of 75 is basically disposable.

Lots of people live full, happy lives well beyond the age of 75.

And it's sad when someone doesn't make it that far.

But 75 is only three years off the average life expectancy for men.

So, statistically speaking, should we really be surprised that a lot of people don't live longer than that?

So they're really just saying that 40%, 4 in 10, are dying before 75 and 6 out of 10 are dying after.

It's just an analysis of the distribution of the deaths in the sense that the 75 is close to life expectancy.

It's almost a half of people die before life expectancy, half of people die after type analysis.

Now, Movember do not mention the 75 age limit in their advertising, but it is mentioned within the report.

They use data from well-known institutions to back up this claim.

They've used the distribution of deaths in 2021.

So they've looked at the Office for National Statistics and the equivalent statistical bodies for Scotland, Northern Ireland, and looked at the deaths in 2021.

I would say that what they've done, while true, is not the ideal way to consider this because when you look at at just the number of people that die in a particular year, this depends as much on the age distribution of the population as it does on the death rates.

And it's particularly interesting when we're looking at an underage 75 statistic that in 2021, the year they've used, the post-World War II baby boom cohort were aged 74.

So you have this very large group of people towards the upper end of that underage 75 age group.

And indeed, these dominate, if you like, the under 75 deaths.

So about two-thirds of the people who died below age 75 were over the age of 60.

Stuart's point is that if you're looking at how many people died this year as a way of estimating how many people die before the age of 75, your answer is hugely dependent on the shape of the population pyramid.

If lots of people are under 30, you're not going to see many deaths.

But if there's a bulge in people between the ages of 60 and 75, and right now there is, then you'll see a lot more deaths before the age of 75.

But should we really conclude that the ages between 60 and 75 are extra risky right now, just because there happened to be a lot of people born between 1950 and 1965?

A better approach I would say would be to use the national life tables.

The national life tables measure how long people can expect to live by looking at data on population sizes and births and deaths over a three-year period.

It helps smooth out any bumps from larger than usual cohorts.

And if you use this data set, the likelihood of men dying before age 75 falls.

The chance of a man dying before age 75 is about 3 in 10, so quite a bit lower than the 4 in 10 implied by the Movember statistic.

Still lower, still possibly too high.

What happens if we break those deaths down by age brackets?

The chance of dying before age 40 is around 2% for men today, and the chance of dying before age 60 is around 10%.

Death rates then start to increase and as we've said the chance of dying before age 75 is about 30%.

One final thing for your consideration.

We've been talking a bit about life expectancy as if it's one thing, but it's actually all sorts of different things depending on the measure you're using.

Yes, exactly.

That's one of the reasons that life expectancy is what we call a skewed statistic.

You can think of period life expectancy as a mean average.

So it's about 79 currently for men and 83 for women.

But actually, the median, the age that half of us live to, is higher than that.

It's 82 for men and 85 for women.

And actually, the age at which you are most likely to die, the mode, is higher still.

So that's 87 for men and 89 for women.

Thank you, Stuart.

Always good to discuss death with a teary and upbeat conclusion.

Hey, everyone, Ed Helms here.

And hi, I'm Cal Penn, and we're the hosts of Earsay, the Audible and iHeart Audiobook Club.

This week on the podcast, I am sitting down with Jenny Garth, host of the iHeart podcast, I choose me, to discuss the new audible adaptation of the timeless Jane Austen classic, Pride and Prejudice.

This is not a trick question.

There's no wrong answer.

What role would I play?

You know what?

I can see you as Mr.

Darcy.

You got a little Colin Firth.

Okay, that's really sweet.

I appreciate that, but are you sure I'm not the dad?

I mean, I'm not Mr.

Bennett here.

Listen to Earsay, the Audible and iHeart Audiobook Club on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.

Homeowners, if you want to sell your house fast for all cash, stop what you are doing and listen to this because Osbourne Homes wants to buy your house right now.

I'm Alec from Osbourne Homes and we want to buy your house.

Nobody buys more homes in California than Osbourne.

Whether it's a total fixer upper or in perfect condition, Osborne Homes is the easiest way to sell your house fast, all cash.

Best of all, when you sell your house to Osbourne Homes, there are zero commissions, zero fees, plus no banks, no realtors, no repairs, and no waiting to close.

We buy your house as is all cash.

Just go to osbornhomes.com right now to get your free, no obligation, all cash offer.

We are here and ready to buy your house 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Just go to osbornhomes.com.

Go to osbornhomes.com right now.

Don't wait.

Sell your house to Osborne Homes and put the cash in your pocket right away.

Just go to osbornhomes.com.

That's osbornehomes.com.

Osbornholmes.com.

Osbornholmes.com.

In ancient Greece, one man, nay, one legend, completed a task so utterly beyond human comprehension that the effort of physical exertion was his final act.

His name, Phydipides.

His feet.

He ran from the battlefield at Marathon through the hills to Athens to bring news of the Athenian victory over the Persian invaders.

And that's 26 miles, more or less.

It's a long way anyway.

And in London, each spring, tens of thousands embrace the spirit of brave Phydipides, taking on this impossible distance.

Those who dare are ranked among legends.

And next year, dear listener, I hope to join them, having, like many a man with a midlife crisis before me, got myself a charity place on the London Marathon.

But unlike most, I have a radio programme about numbers and an editor who let me use our precious airtime to answer my most urgent question.

How should I train to get a good time?

Full disclosure, I have never run a marathon.

I've done a few half marathons, but I've never done one.

It's on my bucket list.

Well, never mind about that.

This is Dr.

Danny Munith, a lecturer in exercise physiology at the University of Hertfordshire.

And Danny has done exactly the study I wanted to look at.

We've looked at a very large data set of recreational runners, just over 100,000 of them, prior to the marathon.

This is data from the running app Strava, by the way.

And the data set contains all of the running training for the 16 weeks prior to the marathon.

It contains basically how far did they run, how fast did they go, and so on.

Wow, okay.

We did this analysis on basically how people train, what do you do, and how that is associated with your performance on the marathon.

By analyzing this massive data set, which included some very fast runners, along with ordinary Joes like me, Danny found two key themes.

Theme one, I need to run a lot.

Those that did the marathon quicker also were those that trained more.

So there is a clear dose-response relationship between what do you do in your training and what can you do on the day of the marathon.

That seems obvious.

The more you run, the faster you run.

And this isn't necessarily a one-way causal relationship.

Maybe more talented runners get better times and also choose to run more for the joy of it.

But let's be realistic.

Broadly speaking, running more in training probably does cause faster times on race day.

Got it.

But it's not just how much you run, it's how you run.

Danny's research broke his training data down into different levels of exertion, known as zones one, two and three.

There are all kinds of much debated biological markers for these zones, but to give a rough idea, Danny gave this example.

So let's say that you go out for a run with your mate.

If you can go out and have a bit of a conversation during that run, that means that you're probably probably in zone one.

If during that training session you start to struggle to keep the conversation and it's your friend doing most of the talking and you are just listening, that probably suggests that you are starting to transition into zone two or zone three.

So zone one is a gentle jog, zone three is hardcore, maximum pace for a few minutes or maybe even a few seconds.

And the question, which is definitely for general interest and not just something I'm going to obsess over during training, training.

Is there an optimal split in terms of time?

In the media, it's been portrayed that the 80-20 split is the kind of the best or the optimal training strategy.

That means that you do 70-80% of your training in Zone 1.

Crucially, you do very little in Zone 2 and you do the remaining 15-20% in Zone 3.

That has been criticized and I think what most

researchers

agree is that you need to do a lot of high volume in Zone 1.

Then the exact split of Zone 2 and Zone 3 is likely to be dependent on the specifics of the event.

And it's something that people still argue.

I am of the opinion that, for example, for the marathon, the marathon is likely to be done in Zone 2.

And that's what our data shows as well: that you need to accumulate most of the training in Zone 1, a little bit in Zone 2, and do still a little bit of training in Zone 3, as we've been discussing.

Now, I am curious.

You've got a little bit of data about my training habits.

Can you give me

a sort of target or an estimated performance at the London Marathon in April?

So that's a difficult question, I have to say.

But what I've done is calculate how much training you've been doing.

On average, it's around 30 to 40 kilometers per week.

And what we've seen in the data set that we've got access to is that those that do similar training to what you are currently doing do the marathon in around close to four hours.

I'd be happy with that.

Danny did what he could with the data he had, but to be honest, we all need better data, so I might just pop down to his lab sometime and do all the proper tests with the treadmill and the face mask and all of that.

A few listeners, of course, not for my foolish pride.

Oh no.

Thanks to Danny Munith.

And that's it for this week, and indeed this series.

But you can find our shorter Saturday podcast by searching for More Orless Behind the Stats on BBC Sounds, which is also the place to find my other show, Cautionary Tales with Tim Harford, and The Briefing Room, which from Thursday this week is about the UK's data crisis.

We'll be back on Radio 4 in December.

Until then, goodbye.

More or less was presented by me, Tim Harford.

The producer was Tom Coles with Nathan Gower and Lizzie McNeil.

The production coordinator was Maria Ogunderley.

The programme was recorded and mixed by Gareth Jones.

Our editor is Richard Varden.

Can you speak for 60 seconds on the time I went to Sue Perkins' birthday party, starting now?

I wasn't invited.

Sue Perkins returns with the one-minute speaking challenge.

That was the start of my secret journey into the chasm of art.

What is he talking about?

With panelists including Stephen Mangan, Patterson Joseph, and Zoe Lyons.

I was only once invited to Sue Perkins.

Oh, aren't you lucky?

The news series of Just a Minute from BBC Radio 4.

It's all quite bitter, isn't it?

Welcome to the game.

Oh, yeah, so.

Listen now on BBC Sounds.

It's time your hard-earned money works harder for you.

With the Wealth Front Cash account, your uninvested cash earns a 3.75% APY, which is higher than the average savings rate.

No account fees, no minimums, and free instant withdrawals to eligible accounts anytime.

Join over a million people who trust Wealthfront to build wealth at wealthfront.com.

Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC, member FINRA SIPC, and is not a bank.

APY on deposits as of September 26th, 2025 is representative, subject to change, and requires no minimum.

Funds are swept to program banks where they earn the variable APY.

Looking for adventure, culture, and craft beer?

Head to Fort Collins, Colorado.

Start your day with a hike around the stunning Horsetooth Reservoir or a trip to the farmer's market.

Quench your thirst at one of Fort Collins' world-class breweries.

Then soak up live music all night at a local venue.

Fort Collins is a bike lover's paradise with more than 285 miles of trails and lanes.

Fort Collins, Colorado, where open spaces create open minds.

Start your adventure and book your stay now at visitfortcollins.com.