• Search
  • You are here:  
  • Home
  • News
  • Preparing for Timms, Milburn and Streeting

News

Preparing for Timms, Milburn and Streeting

Details

With final reports due from Timms, Milburn and Streeting which could have significant effects on benefits, we’ve begun updating our resources for readers who want to have their say. 

We’ve started with our overview of “What’s changing, when” and also updated our list of All party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) who may wield influence when changes are proposed.

The What’s changing, when page gives details of:

  • Changes already in force
  • Reviews currently under way
  • Possible future changes

It allows you to get an overview of what Labour have already done and what they may do in the future. 

We’ll be keeping the page updated whenever there are relevant changes, so make it one to visit when rumours and half-truths appear online.

From there, we have  a link to our What you can do page which has sections on:

  • Contact your MP
  • Contact your councillors
  • Contact a member of the House of Lords
  • Contact an All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG)
  • Contact your local political parties
  • Contact local media
  • Contact organisations you have a connection with
  • Offer to be a case study
  • Support a campaign
  • Sign a petition
  • Take part in a protest

We’ll be relying on readers to keep us informed about any campaigns, petitions and protests that might be set up once Timms or any of the other reviews are published, so please put us on your mailing list.

We’ve fully update our list of APPGs that you may want to contact when changes are proposed.

We’ve added nine new groups:

  • Access to Disability Equipment
  • Adult Social Care
  • Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
  • Cancer
  • Disability
  • Disability Employment
  • Learning Disability
  • Poverty and Inequality
  • Wheelchair Users

And we’ve removed three that didn’t appear in the latest register:

  • Genetic, Rare and Undiagnosed Conditions
  • Special Educational Needs and Disabilities
  • Usher Syndrome

There’s also a link to the full register of APPGs, because there may be some we have missed that you consider relevant.

We’ll be updating other resources on the What you can do page over the coming weeks.  Do get in touch or post a comment below if you think there’s something we should add.

We’ll continue to hope that none of this will be necessary and that any changes proposed will be overwhelmingly beneficial to claimants. 

But, just in case, we’ll be prepared to support your protests.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Lancashire Artist
    · 5 days ago
    While the politicians are looking into cuts in welfare from disability to work has to get businesses to take people into work instead of making excuses not to employ them. The benefits system does need changing but not to restricted people with real disabilities but the ones abusing the system to not want to work.

    Unfortunately the housing benefits system is out of date while private landlords are increasing rents above the LHA forcing people to homeless or food banks. Local government under Labour has ether sold or demolished council homes due to disrepair forcing social housing to try to repair them.

    The rental rights act is a small step to tenants right but not capping rent increases that people cannot afford examples housing benefit £400 a month while rents are above £500 to £1000 a month.

    I will support rebuilding council housing but as long they help people on low income to avoid private landlords ripping people off!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Wayne
    · 6 days ago
    What's the chance of the pip 4 point rule coming back and maybe face to face assessment every year more strict assessments and daily living cut amount 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      JBob1234
      · 6 days ago
      @Wayne
      All we have at the moment is speculation. No one knows what the various reviews will recommend.

      Personally I think it is unlikely they will increase the frequency of assessments or make them all face to face or increase how stressful they are. I think it is more likely they will decrease frequency and increase the reliance on medical history and try and de-stress the assessments. So they can claim they have improved the PIP experience for claimants.

      I think it is likely they will narrow PIP eligibility to save money. The problem the government has is how.

      The problem with using health conditions rather than level of incapability is the equality act. You currently cannot treat two disabled or ill people with the same incapacity differently based on the type or name of their illness or disability. That makes targeting specific health conditions the public views as less deserving difficult.

      The problem with using descriptors is you end up catching people with illnesses or disabilities the public view as deserving. I think the optics of this are made worse if pre existing claimants are effected as it would be the government taking money off the deserving.

      As UC for new claimants already has three tiers of incapacity. A high rate for severe lifelong disability never expected to be able to work. A lower rate for those deemed not life long disabled or life long but due to likely substantial risk to health. A zero premium rate that just reduces conditionality for those deemed incapable of work but capable in theory of appropriate activities towards work. I think it is possible PIP could have a similar three tier system. A high rate for life long disability that requires a high level of help. A lower rate for those whose disability is less severe or not life long. A zero premium rate that just gives eligibility to UC health or reduced conditionality possibly aimed mostly at claimants with mental health or neurological developmental conditions where the claimant can live independently or with minimal ongoing help or just occasional emergency crisis help.

      I think it is also possible they could have four tiers of conditionality not the planned three. The current planned tiers appear to be severe condition rate never expected to work probably no conditionality. Standard rate required to participate in periodic support conversations about their aspiration to work with no requirement to take any steps towards or into work. Not on UC health full conditionality with adjustments due to health made by the work coach. The third group looks like a disaster waiting to happen to me. They need something better than work coach discretion to prevent people from being required to do things they are incapable of or that are likely to be detrimental to health.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Jon
    · 6 days ago
    By the sound of it Labour under Burnham won't cut Benefits,so we could be safe until 2029 when we could face a Tory/Reform Government.Time to save an Emergency Fund.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      pollenpath
      · 6 days ago
      @JBob1234 Yes, Burnham has only said that he won't be touching benefits in this coming budget. I wonder if the plan is to give the recommendations from the autumn Timms Report a bit of time to sink in before wielding them in the Spring Budget next year. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      JBob1234
      · 6 days ago
      @Jon Labour's plan is still to cut spending on disability benefits. It is just a question of how they plan to achieve that. We should find out soon when the various reviews report
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    queenmalka
    · 6 days ago
    why are they forcing disabled elderly people on DLA indefinite claims onto PIp which is a benefit not fit for purpose?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Julie
    · 6 days ago
    All way disable who need help get raw deal from  the government I'm disabled who wish could work ,but I can't 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Matt
    · 7 days ago
    Potentially good news for this forum: according to the DT, only 11% of reform votes, and 7% of Conservative voters want to see cuts to disability benefits, in very sharp contrast to cuts in unemployment payments. Hopefully Timms and Burnham will take note.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      JBob1234
      · 6 days ago
      @rtbcpart 2 Yes that the BSA survey is part funded by government departments including the DWP and is trying to keep them happy becomes a bit obvious when reading the BSA's full report. Despite the BSA trying to sound impartial.

      The BSA's report rather than just reporting that the public think PIP eligibility should be wider than in the current PIP system. Feels the need to also detail how the findings could also be interpreted to show the public support more severe restrictions to PIP eligibility than were proposed in Stamer's abandoned 4 point rule. And say the findings are therefore unclear. It is pretty obvious the BSA on the face of it is looking at results that are the opposite to the ones the DWP expected.

      And the BSA rather than just reporting that the public overwhelming think disability benefits should not be cut. Even after the DWP question had been changed to link benefit cuts to tax cuts. Feels the need to repeatedly make clear that the public's objection is only to cutting benefits for those unable to work due to disability. And feels the need to then go on about how other countries have successfully cut disability benefits by narrowing who they consider incapable of working. It is pretty obvious the BSA on the face of it again got the opposite result to the one the DWP expected.

      The BSA report also omits its results for the DWP questions on if people with mental health conditions should receive more or less or the same money as those with physical health conditions. And if people with neurological developmental conditions should be paid more or less or the same as people with mental health condition. But feels the need to say other polling has found public support is dependent on the health condition with wheelchair users and schizophrenia at the top and asthma and depression at the bottom. I have to wonder what the BSA survey found that they omit it. I am going to hazard a guess it was not the result the DWP expected.

      The BSA do say public opinion is shifted by political and media narratives on welfare spending increasing and being out of control, and the perception of people abusing the system. Regardless of if the narratives are true. Then details how working age welfare spending is not rising and is not out of control. But feels the need to detail that disability benefit spending is increasing, while failing to do a comparison to other nations. And omits information on actual disability benefit fraud rates. So the BSA report does not undermine the government's narrative on disability benefits. When they could if the aim was to compare the political and media narratives to reality. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      keepingitreal
      · 6 days ago
      @JBob1234 It's still only 11% of reform votes, and 7% of Conservative voters, though, and cuts to those deemed incapable of working due to disability still means cuts to the disability benefits bill. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      rtbcpart 2
      · 6 days ago
      @JBob1234 "...data could be interpreted...can be interpreted...That is not clear". Ah, 🤔
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      JBob1234
      · 7 days ago
      @Matt Cuts to those who are incapable of working due to disability not cuts to disability benefits.

      Which is why the government keeps redefining who is genuinely incapable of work. As if someone gets redefined as potentially able to work the public supports their benefits being cut.

      And the BSA survey report that also looks at other data says other countries have succeeded in cutting disability benefits by narrowing who is defined as not capable of working.

      The report also repeatedly mentions that public opinion is shaped by politicians and the media shaping public perception on if benefit spending is rising and is out of control, and if those claiming disability benefits are genuine. Regardless of the actual reality.

      The BSA survey is part funded by the DWP and the DWP questions are a bit concerning. The DWP section asks if people with mental health conditions should receive more or less or the same money as those with physical health conditions. And asks if people with neurological developmental conditions should be paid more or less or the same as people with mental health condition. Which implies the DWP is looking at if there is public support for a two or three tier disability benefits system not based on need but on public opinion on the type of disability they have.

      The survey report that looks at other data also goes on about public support being different for different health conditions. With wheelchair users and schizophrenia at the top and asthma and depression at the bottom.

      The survey also tied tax to some of the welfare questions, so supporting increasing benefits = supporting tax rises, and supporting benefit cuts = supporting tax cuts.

      The survey findings report which also looks at other data also says data could be interpreted as indicating the public supports a tighter narrowing of PIP eligibility than the abandoned Starmer 4 point PIP rule. Or can be interpreted that the public supports a broader eligibility than the current PIP system. That it is not clear.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    D
    · 8 days ago
    I’m flagging this post up from the guardian politics live chat as these proposed changes would have huge repercussions to any future welfare cuts and reforms (we need more consultations not less - very worrying):


    Ministers told to axe many consultations, and tolerate more legal risk, so they can drive through change more quickly

    In his speech, towards the end, John Healey gave a bit more detail of how he intends to cut the burden of business regulation by 25%. (See 10.25am.)

    He said that, as well as taking forward the recommendations of the Fingleton review to speed up the construction of nuclear power stations, he would apply those findings to some other sectors. He said there would be a review of the costs involved in rail infrastructure projects.

    And he said he wanted to “end the consultation culture at the Treasury and beyond” by getting ministers to speed up decision making. He said new guidance has gone out today to ministers on this from the Treasury and the attorney general, Ellie Reeves.

    The Treasury has now published this guidance, which has been sent to ministers as a letter from Healey, Reeves and Louise Haigh, the first secretary of state. It is potentially quite radical.

    It starts by saying that in the past “administrative frictions” have stopped the government acting on behalf of the British public.

    We want to be clear that the government will act with the full agency that sits with the executive, and which flows from our command of a majority in the House of Commons … We are also determined to overcome the administrative frictions that past administrations have allowed to accumulate, often with good intentions but which have served to slow the work of government, and which we must not allow to frustrate the speed of change.

    Healey, Reeves and Haigh then go on to propose three changes.

    Ministers are being told to reduce the amount of consultations they hold before decisions are taken and implemented. The letter says that “habitual, box-ticking consultation” has become a problem, and it says that “thousands” of unnecessary consultation requirements should be scrapped. It also implies formal consultation should be the exception, rather than the norm.
    Consultation culture has turned a sensible mechanism for sourcing external input into an industry of dither and delay, which too often fails to hear from those whose perspectives are most relevant to the issue under consideration, and can drag policies to a lowest common denominator outcome.
    We will end this trend by reasserting that there is no general duty of consultation, and that the default position should be that ministers reach decisions and proceed to act on them …
    Habitual, box-ticking consultation does not serve people or business and is a distraction to government …
    New general guidance will be circulated by officials and more detailed guidance on approaches to public participation will follow in due course. Within this parliament, we will then go further and seek to unwind the thousands of unnecessary consultation and reporting requirements that have come to litter the statute book.
    Ministers are being told that a “high” risk of a policy being ruled unlawful should not necessarily stop a policy being implemented. The letter says No 10 wants ministers to feel that they are “trusted” to take decisions even when there is a legal risk, and advice to government lawyers is being changed accordingly. It says:
    In support of this approach, we will this week update the legal risk guidance that is used by government lawyers, and which amongst other changes will be clear that it is wholly proper for ministers to take decisions where there is a tenable legal argument even where there is a high legal risk, as well as encouraging lawyers proactively to suggest alternative options where there is a significant barrier or risk to a proposed policy.
    Ministers are being told that the government will extend the list of projects exempt from judicial review (JR), building on decisions already taken to stop infrastructure projects being blocked by JR.
    The arguments in the letter echo complaints about Whitehall and the civil service more usually heard on the right. When Suella Braverman was attorney general, she also encouraged government lawyers to worry a bit less about the risk of government decisions being found unlawful in the courts. Braverman is now a Reform UK MP, and at its party conference last week Reform also suggested elected politicians were being obstructed by officials – but using much more extreme language.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 6 days ago
      @JBob1234
      "They plan to change legislation in some policy areas to remove the legal requirement for consultations and remove the right to have judicial reviews. So making legal challenges impossible."

      It depends what sort of thing this applies to, but if they try to remove the need for consultations on highly controversial subjects that doesn't look good, and might itself be subject to challenge.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      JBob1234
      · 7 days ago
      @tintack My post got edited

      They plan to change legislation in some policy areas to remove the legal requirement for consultations and remove the right to have judicial reviews. So making legal challenges impossible.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      JBob1234
      · 7 days ago
      @tintack
      I doubt they will try to apply the plan to welfare. I think the target is things like planning permission for infrastructure projects.

      As well as having ministers do things they think have a high risk of being unlawful. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 7 days ago
      @D At first glance this looks like bad news, but it may not be. We know that even now, consultations are usually nothing more than window dressing and cynical shams. But if they press ahead and try to ram something through without checking that it's legally sound, it increases the likelihood of successful challenges in the courts. It may be a stupid way to govern, but stupidity does not seem to be an impediment to the attainment of high office. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      rookie
      · 8 days ago
      @D
      Then there's this, from Simon Pinion on Linkedin:

      "You couldn't make it up. John Healey vows to take an axe to consultation culture minutes before the Government announces a 70 page consultation on corporate reporting".

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    JBob1234
    · 11 days ago
    In related news the Independent review into mental health conditions, ADHD and autism comissioned by Streeting and headed by Professor Peter Fonagy, is now expected to publish it's final report in a few weeks. This is the review controversialy looking at if mental health conditions are over diagnosed and if help/treatment is over medicalised. Burnham at the time the review was commissioned was critical that the review should not be used as an excuse for crude cuts to welfare. That would leave people still on benefits just poorer.

    The review is controversial as it was commissioned despite at the time a recent expert review into ADHD headed by Professor Tamsin Ford, Head of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Cambridge along with many other experts finding there was no evidence of over diagnosis of ADHD. Which created the impression the government looked at the expert evidence did not like it and commissioned a new review headed by someone whose opinion was known to agree with the findings the government actually wanted. The trimming of the review also made it look like a leadership PR ploy by Streeting, trying to appeal to the right wing of the Labour party.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Wayne
    · 12 days ago
    Y does the government need more 
    defence spending. When we r not at war with anyone every party attacks the disabled disgusting 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Bob
      · 12 days ago
      @Wayne The UK already spends 70 billion pounds a year on defence spending, it's so shady how they want more, more more..
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    JBob1234
    · 13 days ago
    In other news the Conservatives have said if they become the government in addition to their previously announced £26 billion of welfare cuts, and previously announced reinstating of the two child benefit cap, they will also reduce housing benefit by 10%, and remove all VAT exemptions from the Motability scheme. These additional cuts would be to used to increase defence spending. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Paul Smith.
      · 12 days ago
      @Mike I agree 100%, the same goes to listening to the hate speech and propaganda the Tories are spewing out to get attention because they were made irrelevant in comparison to their former selves. 

      At the moment speculation creates worry about issues that may not arise, this is exactly what those in power want, it is far more easy to control a frightened population, create a common enemy to fear while the enemy within subjugates the masses.  It is better to put our energy into dealing with what arises if or when it arises so we can form a battle plan. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      JBob1234
      · 12 days ago
      @keepingitreal The Conservative plan appears to be for them just to be poorer, so in some cases being unable to pay their rent and getting evicted. Presumably resulting in more people ending up living in unfit or overcrowded housing or being homeless. 

      In the area where I live for a non working one parent one child household in a two bed home it would result in the shortfall between housing support and rent increasing from just over £200 a month to just over £300. Leaving the household after making up the shortfall with about £500 a month. After other bills maybe £350 a month. A meager life.

      Still about a £100 cut a month is far less in cash terms than the cuts we have already had to disability benefits. The abolishing of the independent living fun (on average about £860 to £1,300 a month), severe disability premium (about £350 a month), reduction to lower rate disabled child element (about £160 a month), reduction of the LCW element to zero (about £160 a month), the more than halving of the LCWRA element for new claimants (about £200 a month).
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Mike
      · 12 days ago
      @JBob1234 No point doom-scrolling 'other news' and worrying about the 'what ifs', we should just focus on the issues which are immediate and confirmed. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      rookie
      · 13 days ago
      @JBob1234 @JBob1234 You do know we can read other news in other news?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      keepingitreal
      · 13 days ago
      @JBob1234 They say that now. We're not even at the manifesto stage.

      Housing benefit is already inadequate for private rents, and already reduced by the bedroom tax on some social rents. How do the Conservatives propose to address the increase in rent arrears and evictions that further cuts would inevitably cause?

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    D
    · 13 days ago
    https://committees.parliament.uk/event/28103

    No transcript yet but the subject is interesting considering upcoming welfare reform battleground 

    2 September 2026 - Safeguarding Vulnerable Claimants: One year on - Oral evidence



  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    D
    · 13 days ago
    https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2026-09-01/debates/2D2EC284-8B89-4BEC-B70E-20390F0CB98F/Working-AgeWelfareSystem?highlight=timms#contribution-18BC10F5-C746-448A-95EB-EE09329BA609



    Still trying to find the timms transcript from earlier today (9.30am: Stephen Timms, the social security and disability minister, gives evidence to the Commons work and pensions committee.)
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    D
    · 13 days ago
    This is really well organised and easy to read benefits&work admin.

    Hopefully a huge percentage of disabled & their loved ones find this post as the more ppl we have on the same page & organised in repelling the worst case scenarios the better

    The key battleground is where each Labour MPs backbenchers stand and which side is most successful turning heads.

    If McFadden and co can’t get enough backbenchers onside reforms and the damage they could do to this community is limited.

    It’s up to us to write to our MPs and discredit the findings and recommendations from the 3 studies commissioned by the gov as McFadden plan is clearly to weaponise findings/recommendations of the streeting/milburn/timms review to justify reforms (aka cuts and condition exclusion)

    As I said before - whichever side ‘collects’ the most Labour backbenchers to their cause will have won a massive battle which will impact how the larger ‘war’ plays out.

    But we’ve got to be proactive both before and after the recommendations of each of the 3 reviews get dropped within the next 3-4 months

    Burnham highlighted in his first pmq’s today his desire to reduce the welfare bill as a top priority - I still don’t know if burnham would be willing to throw disabled under the bus like Starmer was but we got to presume for now that he’d be willing to target disabled claimants in wide ranging numbers to reduce the bill (though I hope Burnham will give reason to retract this concern at least somewhat)
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Neil Barry Cook
    · 13 days ago
    Let's hope Labour stay in Power.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Clockoholic
    · 13 days ago
    I fall under the "Genetic, Rare and Undiagnosed conditions" so it's blinking nice they've removed that from the register for people like me. Do we not count?

    Having had a quick look at the list I've no idea which one to choose should I wish to contact them regarding this.
    I do have other conditions that fall under other various lists so assume picking "health" might be the best option to cover them all.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      denby
      · 13 days ago
      @Clockoholic Me too, one in 15,000 I'm told. Just as well I'm a now-pensioner with a long award.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Paul Smith.
    · 13 days ago
    This is positive, hope for the best and only look for facts not speculation, so no unnecessary worry adding to those who are already concerned.  Be prepared to fight in anyway we can not only individually but has a community that needs to stick together, we are millions and we need to use those numbers and also create allies to fight discrimination. 

PIP & The WCA Are Changing- Get The Latest News

Stay updated with our free, fortnightly newsletter.

Over 140,000 claimant and professional subscribers.

 
iContact

Latest news

We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.

Ok Decline
More about cookies