The recent Right To Try collaboration committee, which aimed to make disabled claimants feel safe trying work, appears to have been a con in which the DWP heaped praise on members for suggesting something that the department always intended to do. The fact that all that made it from the committee into the final legislation were the four words “or doing voluntary work”, bodes ill for the outcome of the Timms review.
Five collaboration committees were announced in the Pathways to Work green paper last year. They included: Right to Try; Access to Work; raising the age at which people can claim PIP to 18; and delaying access to the UC health element until age 22
They are made up of DWP staff and disabled people and their representatives.
The green paper claimed “They will have a genuine ability to influence our outcomes and we will ensure there is a level of visibility of the work of these groups to demonstrate the impact they are having.”
The visibility did not include revealing the identify any of the individuals or organisation on the committees. Nor will the DWP supply the minutes of collaboration committee meetings when asked to do so via the Freedom of Information Act, although the minutes of the very first meeting of the Right To Try committee are available.
However, Lived Insights was on of the members of the Right To Try committee and they have published a brief case study of what was discussed in the meetings.
It is clear that volunteering was one of the subjects discussed, but the WCA was also spoken about "at great length”, as were “real safety net options”, training for DWP staff, a benefits calculator and more.
But none of this is apparent in the tiny measures the DWP has actually taken, which consist solely of putting into legislation what they were already doing.
Indeed, in a meeting held between the SSAC and DWP staff in January 2026 to discuss the draft legislation, the DWP admitted that the it changed nothing about taking up paid work, but claimed that “The main innovation in regulatory terms is the explicit reference to voluntary work, which is not currently articulated in legislation and is dealt with less clearly in guidance. This later change is a direct consequence of a recommendation by the Right to Try Collaboration Committee.”
And in a press release after the legislation was announced, the DWP claimed:
“Following recommendations made by disabled people and their representative organisations during extensive stakeholder engagement, the legislation also includes a guarantee that those looking to volunteer will be able to do so without fear of benefit reassessment – helping people move closer to, or into, work.”
It seems that the DWP is desperate to stress the vital role of the collaboration committee and the difference it made.
Yet, information published online by the DWP seven years ago about volunteering and benefits clearly states: “If you have a health condition or disability, you can still volunteer. You will not need to have a Work Capability Assessment, just because you start volunteering, and you don’t need to provide evidence from your doctor about your volunteering.”
It is almost beyond belief that it had not occurred to the DWP that if they were going to give a right To Try guarantee to disabled people attempting work, it would also include voluntary work.
We know that the collaboration committee discussed other ideas, but none of these are being mentioned by the DWP. Instead, the department is desperately pretending that the four words “or doing voluntary work” were an inspired suggestion by the committee that would never otherwise have crossed civil servants’ minds.
The entire process appears to be a sham. And it may well be a blueprint for the DWP’s handling of the Timms review.
Members of the Timms review are not anonymous. But like the collaboration committee, their work is shrouded in secrecy and the secretary of state will have the final say in what goes into the resulting legislation.
The DWP staff connected to the review are working full-time and they almost certainly started months before the review even appointed its members. They are a team, able to work together every day and have undoubtedly been told what outcomes they must aim for.
The review members work only 5 days a month and probably have little interaction in-between. They are a disparate group with no common goal in mind.
It gives the DWP staff immense advantages in preparing strategies for Timms to handle meetings, anticipating possible suggestions for change and coming up with reasons why they won’t work, carrying out research in a way that favours the conclusions they are aiming for and generally managing every stage of the process.
The Right to Try committee shows how effective the DWP can be in manipulating collaboration with disabled people. What efforts are the disabled members of the Timms review taking to ensure that they do not fall victim to the same manipulation, with serious consequences for potentially millions of claimants?
