A shocking government betrayal of the parents of children with special educational needs has set alarm bells ringing that Labour may be following a similar playbook with the Timms review. We ask, is the Timms review a con and how should claimants respond to the recent call for evidence?
SEND review
Parents of children with special educational needs are currently taking part in a major review of provision for their children, which Labour has repeatedly claimed puts parents and young people “at the heart of the process”.
But one extraordinarily important change did not feature in the current SEND consultation, which finishes at the end of May.
This is the proposal to drastically reduce access to SEND tribunals, where parents can challenge the decisions of local authorities.
What makes this especially outrageous is that a staggering 98.9% of SEND tribunals – yes, you read that right -currently find in favour of the parent.
The parents of one affected child launched a legal challenge against the failure to include tribunal changes in the consultation. They were informed last week by government lawyers that the secretary of state had chosen not to consult on this measure, as the decision had already been made.
This, it seems, is what Labour means by putting affected people at the heart of decision making.
An organisation called Measure What Matters has written a piece for Special Needs Jungle about the consultation, which we very strongly recommend claimants read.
One of the shocking claims is that Labour are paying £90 million to a PR firm to promote their SEND reforms.
But most important of all is the process that the organisation calls “manufactured consent”:
“It is what happens when those in power do not discover public support — they construct it.
- They select who sits at the table.
- They define the terms of engagement.
- They write the script.
- They filter the evidence.
- They close the comments.
- They manage the narratives.
- They discipline dissent.
- And then, they point to the resulting silence…and call it consensus.”
Does that sound familiar to readers who have been following Labour’s attempts to reform disability benefits?
We are not going to answer the question we asked in the headline, we’re going to leave it to readers to make up their own minds whether the Timms review is a con and perhaps share their conclusions in the comments below.
What should you do?
In fact we are not going to answer this question either, it will be up to readers to decide on the best course of action for them. But in relation to the current consultation, which we have already written about, we do have some suggestions.
Firstly it’s worth pointing out that the DWP are calling this consultation a “call for evidence”, which is important. Governments don’t have to consult on most changes to the law, but if they do consult they have to make the process fair or it can be challenged in court, as happened last year when Labour failed to get the Conservatives’ flawed work capability assessment consultation upheld in court.
But, as far as we can tell, a call for evidence is not covered by the same requirements as a consultation, so may be much more difficult to challenge in court while still leaving the DWP free to argue that claimants had a say in the review.
So should you take part?
Our own opinion is absolutely yes, but we know that there will be others in favour of a boycott. It will be up to individuals to decide what is right for them.
If you do decide to respond, bear in mind that the call for evidence covers a massive number of topics in four often complex questions, almost as if it was designed to discourage participation from the outset.
So, we suggest that you decide for yourself what issues are important to you in relation to PIP reform and write about those instead.
And be warned that there seems to be a limit of 4,000 characters for each of the main boxes, equivalent to about 600-700 words. Anyone who wants to write more than that may be able to email the review at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
Below are a few ideas concerning what you might want to write about, you may want to make your own suggestions in the comments below.
For the “Please provide your response here” box
- Do you think that any of the PIP activities need changing or new ones adding or do you think they should stay as they are?
- In particular, do you think it should be made harder for people with “less severe” mental health conditions or conditions such as autism or ADHD to claim PIP?
- Do you think that work and PIP should be linked in any way at all and, if so, how?
- Do you think that the Timms Review should be involved with the scrapping of the WCA or should that be the subject of a separate, detailed review of its own?
You may have other issues you want too include in this box.
For example you may have experience of the appeals system you’d like to share.
Or experience of problems contacting PIP by telephone.
You may have theories about why there has been a rise in the number of people claiming PIP.
Or you may want to set out the part you think politicians and the DWP have played in demonising PIP claimants.
Whatever it is, you can include it here. The main thing is to make a contribution about the things you think are most important, rather than trying to answer all the highly complex questions the review panel has asked.
For the “Is there anything else you would like to tell us” box
Do you think that this Call For Evidence is a fair, easy to follow and effective way to ask claimants about their opinions?
Do you think this call for evidence covers too many topics, bearing in mind the amount of time the Timms review has to issue its final report in the Autumn?
Do you think that any specific changes to PIP that the Timms Review eventually recommends should be the subject of a full, formal consultation before any action is taken?
What happens next
We know that the consultation ends on 28 May. That is the point at which panel members will see the responses. Though, as the consultation terms make clear, they are actually planning to feed everything to AI and let that produce a summary for panel members. (Think Amazon’s “Customers say”).
We also know that by the end of May the review members will have a maximum of 30 working days left – at 5 paid days per month with the final report due in the Autumn – to consider all the submissions and come up with their proposals.
The review committee say they will be engaging with people in many other ways in the coming months. So, it may be that a proper consultation on specific proposals is still on the cards.
But it seems very unlikely.
The call for evidence submissions won’t be available until the end of May. If the Timms panel spend just 10 working days considering them and coming up with their own proposals for changes to PIP, taking into account all the new evidence, that would take us to the end of July.
If they then launched a consultation on their own proposals, that would need to last a minimum of 12 weeks to avoid falling foul of the courts.
Which would then give them a maximum of 5 working days to review all the feedback and adjust their proposals accordingly.
That hardly seems possible.
The truth is that the more the Timms review progresses, the harder it is to take it at face value.
