Right now is the time to challenge Timms review

Details: Published: 06 October 2026

Benefits and Work is urging readers to begin challenging the Timms review right now, rather than waiting until its final report is published. We’re providing some suggestions about issues you can raise with your MP.

Many people feel that it is best not to speculate about what will be in the final Timms review and only respond when we see what it recommends. But there is a danger of leaving things too late if this approach is taken, for at least three reasons

Backbench opinion is changing

Firstly, it is clear that the government have been working hard to move backbench opinion in favour of welfare reform, having learnt the hard lessons of their disastrous four-point PIP proposal. Some of the MPs who were at the forefront of the rebellion last year are now talking much more positively about benefits change.

As far back as June of this year, Meg Hillier – a leading rebel against the PIP four-point plan - said that Alan Milburn’s interim report on youth unemployment was a “game-changer” and that opinion in the Labour party on welfare reform is “worlds apart” from last year.

Louise Haigh, another leading welfare rebel, who the Guardian calls “an influential adviser to Burnham”, said on the eve of the release of the Timms review interim report that welfare reform is essential to tackle the ballooning welfare budget.

Lack of real detail

Secondly, it seems increasingly possible that the final report will tell us very little more than we already know about two of the most important issues: assessment pathways and disability-related costs.

With so little time left after the current workshops conclude, it is now looking more likely that the Timms review will only set out the broad principles of a wholly new disability benefit. The details of how it will actually work – where pathways will lead, how eligibility for PIP or its replacement will be decided and how disability-costs will be calculated - may be left to the DWP to decide later, perhaps with some token consultation.

There is no point in waiting for a detailed report that may never appear.

Failure to consult

Thirdly, there is no need to even address the possible recommendations of the Timms report. The utter failure to genuinely consult with disabled claimants, let alone co-produce the report, is grounds for objections right now.

Once the final report is out, attention will be on what is in it, rather than how it was created. The opportunity to question the whole legitimacy of the report may be lost once it is published.

Challenge now

So, we are encouraging claimants to begin contacting MPs now, in order to challenge the legitimacy of the whole Timms review process before it is complete.

Because we can be certain that the Timms review final report will insist that disabled people have been involved at every stage of the review. This is one of the major ways they will aim to get backbench support.

This slide, shown to participants of the September to October workshops, demonstrates the kind of claims they will make.

It lists:

A Call for Evidence submitted by 38,713 people
A national survey with disabled people
DWP administrative data
Workshop in a box submissions
Sessions with experts and resources shared by SG [steering group] members

This is the kind of evidence that the DWP will be thrusting at MPs, but the reality is very different.

Above all, the DWP will claim that the report was co-produced with disabled people and Disabled People’s Organisations. Timms himself gave repeated undertakings to co-produce the review with disabled people, such as:

“The Timms Review will be co-produced with disabled people, the organisations that represent them and other experts to ensure that expertise from a wide range of perspectives is drawn upon. This means the Government will share ownership and responsibility for how the Review runs and what it recommends.”

(Stephen Timms, Parliamentary written answer. 20 October 2025)

“Hearing from disabled people across the UK is vitally important to inform the Review.

“That is why we are co-producing this review with disabled people every step of the way — to make sure that PIP is truly fair and fit for the future.”

(New engagement toolkit puts disabled people at the heart of the Timms Review 8 June 2026)

In reality, there is overwhelming evidence that this level of shared ownership and co-production never happened. Below are some of the issues we think are worth raising with MPs.

Co-chairs were recruited by an unexplained process

The two co-chairs were appointed by the DWP using a process that was never open to scrutiny, with no published selection criteria or account of how they were selected or by whom. That is secrecy, not co-production.

The steering group member selection criteria ruled out most PIP claimants

The Timms review steering group members were selected by Timms and the co-chairs using criteria that were always likely to rule out many ordinary PIP claimants who had much lived experience of the benefit, but not of policy or strategic engagement. One of the essential criteria was that applicants needed:

“Experience being involved in strategic engagement on matters relating to disability, long-term health conditions or social security-related issues.”

This was always likely to rule out most applicants, as the DWP would have been aware.

The steering group members are not representative of most PIP claimants

Because of the criteria used to select steering group members, they are extremely unrepresentative of the majority of PIP claimants. Around 80% of PIP claimants are not in employment, although many will have been employed in the past.

Yet the review steering group is made up of high-achieving Paralympians, company directors, academics, policy specialists and entrepreneurs. There is no reason why such people should not be on the steering group, but there is every reason for them not to make up the entire steering group.

Only two of the steering group members could be regarded as welfare benefits specialists, according to the biographies published by the DWP.

One of these, Jean-André Prager, was a Downing Street special adviser covering the DWP in 2024, when Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government published their infamous Modernising Support for Independent Living Green Paper, which called for a disability-costs based PIP system with some cash payments being replaced by vouchers, equipment or services.

He is also the lead author of a report published this October by a right-leaning think tank calling for savage cuts to reduce the number of children getting DLA for mental health, learning difficulties and neurodevelopmental conditions by up to 70%.

The other benefits specialist is Professor Ben Geiger who was seconded to the DWP in 2015-16 and who had already told Timms years before the review that the DWP should “have a look at the extra costs that people face and how those match up to the assessment”. If the DWP already had in mind a disability-related costs-based replacement for PIP, these are two experts they would have been happy to have on the review.

There has been no general consultation with disabled people

There has been no general consultation with disabled claimants about the September proposals for cost-based assessment system.

There was a confusing Call for Evidence with just four questions, including some extremely complex ones, such as:

“Does the PIP assessment, including the assessment criteria, effectively capture the impact of long-term health conditions and disability in the modern world, and provide fair access to the right support at the right level across the benefits system?”

The DWP have made much of the fact that the Call for Evidence received over 38,000 responses. But this was not a consultation and it did not set out options for change and ask respondents to say which they preferred.

The review also commissioned a survey of 2,000 working-age disabled people which allegedly asked for their views on welfare reform. But the survey ended on 17 August 2026, before the review unveiled its costs-based PIP awards recommendation in September, and absolutely no details of the questions or results have so far been made public.

Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) were not involved in creating the Timms review recommendations.

DPOs were not given any opportunity to shape the recommendations of the Timms review, according to Disability Rights UK, they are only being asked to comment on them now they have been published:

Sophia Kleanthous, Campaigns and Policy Officer at Disability Rights UK said:

“The Government has consistently failed to properly include Disabled People’s Organisation’s in decisions and processes that affect us, including a lack of notice of significant updates and decisions during the Timms Review process, and not co-producing any part of the Review with DPOs despite promises to do so. The next stage is for the draft Review recommendations to be considered by Disabled people, DPOs and charities at a number of round tables, to gain feedback on the draft Review recommendations”

DRUK have produced a briefing paper for disabled people who want to challenge the Timms review, which you can download from this page.

The Timms review workshops were not co-produced and the Timms review has admitted this.

The Timms review scheduled a series of workshops between 15 September and 7 October.

However, these were not co-produced with disabled people, as the DWP admitted in the slides sent out to attendees which explained:

“The steering group recognise that these workshops have not been co-produced but are important opportunities to hear directly from people who interact with PIP."

The Timms review workshops asked for responses to proposals that were meaningless because of lack of detail.

Disabled people have never had an opportunity to give their opinions about the final proposals because these have never been set out in sufficient detail to be able to assess them.

On the massively important issue of PIP awards being calculated on the basis of disability-related costs in the future, the only information given at workshops was:

“The award will contribute fairly to the extra costs that arise from disability and long-term health conditions and reflect fluctuating and cumulative impacts.

“Cost categories used to discuss the person’s circumstances, and therefore determine their award, could include: equipment and aids; mobility and transport; clothing and bedding.”

It is nonsensical to claim that such scant information could form the basis of a genuine consultation, let alone co-production.

It’s also worth noting that when we put these few details to Benefits and Work readers, 80% of over 5,000 respondents did not support the idea of a disability-costs related award.

The DWP only wanted to fund Timms initiatives it selected

The DWP awarded £1 million to a private sector company, The Public Service Consultants (PSC), for assistance in the co-production of the Timms review. PSC facilitated the workshops at which attendees were asked to put counters on a stripey sheet of paper to show their degree of support for different proposals. Funding was provided to ensure venue accessibility, pay transport and support costs and make payments to each individual attendee.

By contrast, when it came to the “Workshop in a box” initiative in which disability groups were given access to some slides and other material to run their own workshops, the DWP initially failed to provide any funding whatsoever.

After protests, the DWP agreed to fund some “Workshop in a box” events, but only “up to 50” organisations selected by the Timms review itself and “proactively contacted by the DWP”.

In other words, these were not even necessarily the organisations that had initially wanted to run the workshops. Instead, cash-strapped organisations not hand-picked by the Timms review were left to cover all the costs of organising and facilitating the events themselves - or not run them at all.

The Commons Work and Pensions Committee (WPC) has concerns about the degree of co-production by the review.

On 17 September 2026, the WPC wrote to the Timms review asking a series of questions. The WPC said they were concerned that the review’s approach to co-production “does not ensure, for example, disabled members of the Review have shared power in decision-making”.

In other words, MPs are worried that even Timms steering group members may not have real power to decide how the review is run or what recommendations it makes.

Tellingly, the letter also asks for information about “how many of the 63 UK DPOs were engaged in the review” and “when you will publish proposals on assessment criteria and descriptors”

Contact your MP

It is overwhelmingly clear that disabled people and their organisation did not “share ownership and responsibility for how the Review runs and what it recommends”.

It is also the case that no detailed proposals will have been consulted on – they probably won’t even have been published - prior to the final report being passed to the secretary of state.

You might want to raise some or all of the issues above with your MP.

Or you may just want to tell your MP that you don’t consider that there has been any real effort to consult with disabled people about the actually recommendations of the Timms review and you want your MP to be clear about this when the Timms review final report is published.

There’s more on how to contact your MP here

If you do contact your MP, please consider posting a copy of what you wrote below - removing any personal details - to give other readers ideas and encouragement. It may be worth trying to avoid using AI to write your email, as MPs are probably getting very adept at spotting AI generated content and may pay it less attention. Something short and from the heart may be more effective.

And if you do get a response, we'd love to see that too.

Comments

34 Comments
Terms
RSS
Register

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.
Bern400 · 6 days ago
Today i received the following response from my MP regarding my letter of concern about the Timms Review:

Thank you for your recent email enquiring about the inclusion and participation of disabled people and their advocates in the Timms Review of Personal Independence Payment.

As you request, I have shared your email with Stephen Timms and asked for his comments on the points you raise.

I will get back to you on receipt of a reply but I agree it is essential that we strengthen trust in the design and delivery of the social security system. Services should always be responsive and inclusive and the voices of disabled people should shape this policy at every level.

In addition to the consultation you refer to, which generated over 38000 submissions, the PIP review has three Co-Chairs, who lead a steering group of a dozen people responsible for setting strategic direction, priorities and workplan, almost all of whom have lived experience of disability or long-term ill health.

No single method of engagement and evidence-gathering will allow for every voice to be heard. That is why the steering group has adopted a mix of approaches combining lived experience, expert insight, quantitative research, workshops and deliberative events. Disabled people’s organisations, charities, community groups and representatives have been given resources to run their own ‘Workshop in a Box’ sessions. These have helped receive input from a wide range of people living with disabilities and long-term health conditions on key parts of the review.

The review is expected to report over the coming weeks, and Parliament will have the opportunity to debate its findings. This will ensure appropriate scrutiny and that the voices of disabled people are heard throughout the legislative process. Please be assured that I will follow any developments with close interest.

Best wishes
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Bern400 · 6 days ago
  
  @Bern400 Below is my reply to the above response i received from my MP.
  
  Thank you for your response and I very much appreciated the fact that you shared my email with Stephen Timms.
  
  In your response you state:
  
  "The PIP review has three Co-Chairs, who lead a steering group of a dozen people responsible for setting strategic direction, priorities and workplan, almost all of whom have lived experience of disability or long-term ill health. Disabled people’s organisations, charities, community groups and representatives have been given resources to run their own ‘Workshop in a Box’ sessions."
  
  However
  
  Co-chairs were recruited by an unexplained process
  
  One of the 3 co-chairs is Stephen Timms himself and the other two co-chairs were appointed by the DWP using a process that was never open to scrutiny, with no published selection criteria or account of how they were selected or by whom. That is secrecy, not co-production.
  
  The steering group members are not representative of most PIP claimants
  
  Because of the criteria used to select steering group members, they are extremely unrepresentative of the majority of PIP claimants. Around 80% of PIP claimants are not in employment, although many will have been employed in the past.
  Yet the review steering group is made up of high-achieving Paralympians, company directors, academics, policy specialists and entrepreneurs. There is no reason why such people should not be on the steering group, but there is every reason for them not to make up the entire steering group.
  Only two of the steering group members could be regarded as welfare benefits specialists, according to the biographies published by the DWP.
  One of these, Jean-André Prager, was a Downing Street special adviser covering the DWP in 2024, when Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government published their infamous Modernising Support for Independent Living Green Paper, which called for a disability-costs based PIP system with some cash payments being replaced by vouchers, equipment or services.
  He is also the lead author of a report published this October by a right-leaning think tank calling for savage cuts to reduce the number of children getting DLA for mental health, learning difficulties and neurodevelopmental conditions by up to 70%.
  The other benefits specialist is Professor Ben Geiger who was seconded to the DWP in 2015-16 and who had already told Timms years before the review that the DWP should “have a look at the extra costs that people face and how those match up to the assessment”. If the DWP already had in mind a disability-related costs-based replacement for PIP, these are two experts they would have been happy to have on the review.
  
  The DWP only wanted to fund Timms initiatives it selected
  
  The DWP awarded £1 million to a private sector company, The Public Service Consultants (PSC), for assistance in the co-production of the Timms review. PSC facilitated the workshops at which attendees were asked to put counters on a stripey sheet of paper to show their degree of support for different proposals. Funding was provided to ensure venue accessibility, pay transport and support costs and make payments to each individual attendee.
  By contrast, when it came to the “Workshop in a box” initiative in which disability groups were given access to some slides and other material to run their own workshops, the DWP initially failed to provide any funding whatsoever.
  After protests, the DWP agreed to fund some “Workshop in a box” events, but only “up to 50” organisations selected by the Timms review itself and “proactively contacted by the DWP”.
  In other words, these were not even necessarily the organisations that had initially wanted to run the workshops. Instead, cash-strapped organisations not hand-picked by the Timms review were left to cover all the costs of organising and facilitating the events themselves - or not run them at all.
  
  I would be grateful if you could share the above with Stephen Timms.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
keepingitreal · 15 days ago
@Dave - Adviser 'Lets have clarity and NOT media propaganda and unsubstantiated hype'

Well lets, but the media hype is there, isn't it, spewing anti- disabled hate. The anxiety expressed in the comments here is in response to that, and to the draft recommendations in the latest preview of the Timms review report.
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Dave - Adviser · 12 days ago
  
  @keepingitreal Then its the 'hype', that should be addressed and the purveyors of such miserable, anti disabled and unacceptable spew, should be made aware of the anxiety, stress and upset, their vile, uninteresting and factually incorrect BS creates and causes. Stand as one (DPAC etc) and make voices heard. use complaints procedures, write to editors and be the squeaky wheel of discontent.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
Dave - Adviser · 15 days ago
Lets have clarity and NOT media propaganda and unsubstantiated hype:

A review of the PIP Assessment Process to be coproduced with an Independent Disability Advisory Panel (see Rightsnet story for membership):
• PIP assessment as a single gateway to health related benefits
• Do assessment criteria effectively capture the impact of long-term health conditions? • Other evidence alongside the functional assessment
• How can PIP assessment provide fair access to the right support at the right level across benefits What role should/could PIP assessment play in unlocking wider support to higher living standards and greater independence? Potential to significantly improve the claimant experience of applying for or being re-assessed for PIP.

Potential Impacts: this will of course depend on what final proposals will come out of the review and how much of these are accepted by the Government.
There is a caveat that any proposals for change must not have any additional costs implications.
There will be aims to restore reputation and working relationships with disability organisations damaged by the proposal for a 4-point rule.
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  bronc · 13 days ago
  
  @Dave - Adviser "There will be aims to restore reputation and working relationships with disability organisations damaged by the proposal for a 4-point rule.''
  The government has done nothing to restore relationships with disability organisations. I'm involved in several DPO's and the majority feeling is that this government has worsened relationships due to its refusal to:
  engage in genuine co-production over the PIP review
  its relentless anti claimant rhetoric,
  refusal to address disability hate crime
  cuts to access to work
  I could go on.
  This government is no friend to disabled people quite the opposite.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  bronc · 15 days ago
  
  @Dave - Adviser
  "Meaningful Co-production and Disabled People’s Expertise Must Be Central- The review has not demonstrated genuine co-production with Disabled people.''
  
  Its briefing called on other DPO's to oppose the draft recommendations from the Timms Review.
  Key points of opposition in brief:
  
  "Changes must not reduce financial support, create new inequalities or be means teste
  Cost categories such as equipment and aids; mobility and transport; clothing and bedding would create an impairment hierarchy and would be based on the government’s perception of who needs PIP vs actual need
  There should not be differential pathways or different types of assessments for PIP, that depend on impairment type or health condition
  Culture Change must go hand in hand with process change - governance and guidance must be fairly applied
  PIP must not be used as a passport to the health component of Universal Credit. PIP is not a benefit that assesses the potential to work. The Work Capability Assessment must be retained and reformed
  The draft recommendations are based on the Conservative Government’s 2024 proposals.''
  
  Sophia Kleanthous, Policy and Campaigns Officer at Disability Rights UK states that,
  “The draft recommendations create a very worrying prospect, that PIP would no longer be a fully cash-based benefit. Differential pathways based on impairment groups and cost categories risk creating a hierarchy of disability and will not create the choice and control the Review purports to want to embed in an updated PIP system. Cost categories would create extensive administrative burden, and it would be impossible for all categories to be covered, such as physical activity, a trap Disabled people are already facing.”
  
  “Disabled people have already told us that their needs are not being met by PIP and further reductions in cash support would result in worsening wellbeing, health and poverty outcomes for Disabled people. The Review must ensure that PIP remains a cash only benefit.”
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Dan · 15 days ago
  
  @Dave - Adviser @Dave-Adviser Except it wasn't supposed to be only "coproduced with an Independent Disability Advisory Panel" was it? It was supposed to be co-produced with disabled people and DPOs, that's what they paid a million quid to consultants for, but have signally failed to actually do.
  
  As for "independent" advisory panel. Well one of them has just called for up to 70% of all DLA awards for children with ADHD and autism, amongst other conditions, to be axed. They have advised Tory prime ministers on benefits cuts and work for a right-wing think tank. How did they get appointed to an independent advisory panel whilst not one single, ordinary, unemployed PIP claimant got a place? The longer it goes on the more of a stitch-up it looks.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
N.B.C (real one) · 15 days ago
This is getting extremely worrying all these attacks on disabled claimants respecting the last 72 hrs is absolutely relentless and likely deliberately instigated by the government to back up their monstrous assault in us as justification for the obscenely unnecessary cuts that are undoubtedly coming in the future. It's this sort of thing that is scaring the living hell out of people, myself included
- Reply
- Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
D · 15 days ago
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10/11/we-cannot-allow-another-generation-inherit-life-dependency/

This is a brutal number of different media articles targeting welfare claimants and disabled in the past 48hr

It’s relentless- don’t they have anything to write about?!
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  bronc · 15 days ago
  
  @D Here's an article in the Morning Star which attacks the government and defends claimants. It quotes from articles by Benefits and Work to make its case.:
  
  https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/phone-calls-could-decide-pip-claimants-fates
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  JBob1234 · 15 days ago
  
  @D Most newspapers are owned by the wealth for the purpose of promoting a political agenda. Sadly the TV media just take their lead from the newspapers. And politicians who rely on donations from the rich are all to happy to promote the same narratives via their own rhetoric or government briefings. All with the aim of shaping and getting past policies beneficial to the rich. Cutting welfare for the poor helps keep taxes down and wages down, and focuses public hate on the poor not the rich.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
D · 15 days ago
https://frasernelson.substack.com/p/introducing-the-times-welfare-inquiry
- Reply
- Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
D · 15 days ago
Great - another study popping up from nowhere justifying heavy criteria tightening and welfare cuts

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/welfare-inquiry/article/revealed-how-2m-people-on-benefits-may-not-even-qualify-b3lhdg7wk

It never ends

(Where I live there is so much chatter on how most people don’t deserve pip and aren’t actually disabled - I can’t use public disabled toilets in fear of ousting myself as disabled and visibly disabled ppl are getting corner out and about - in my parts I’m wondering if disabled have overtaken the boat migrants are least popular uk social group) it’s gotten to the point where I’m avoiding going out along so I don’t have to keep hearing locals slam pip claimants whilst doing a supermarket and Labour are 70% responsible for all this ba
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  bronc · 15 days ago
  
  @D I am sorry to hear that. Disabled people must report any harrassment/hate crime they encounter to the police and to their local MP. I am physically very fragile but there is no way I am not going to use disabled toilets due to bigoted comments from ill informed members of the public.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
D · 18 days ago
https://www.campaignfordisabilityjustice.org.uk/inside_the_timms_review_workshops?utm_content=buffer088b0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=cfdj

More from the timms workshops
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  godgivemestrength · 18 days ago
  
  @D Well that tells us nothing.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
Harry28 · 19 days ago
I might use one of these templates hopefully they won't confuse my MP and his secretaries.

From DPAC Website

https://dpac.uk.net/2026/10/nows-the-time-to-challenge-timms-review-write-to-your-mp/?fbclid=Iwb21leAU0k41jbGNrBTSTEGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHBkb2YBc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQMMzUwNjg1NTMxNzI4AAEeO6t7h2I0uRSKvCkbEbzN0bLR1kEN89YlgWa4_pr1YPQByiGAkLPBE-uz5YM_aem_PeHLqgKX61veHbuYpZuJgQ

Here are some template/example letters by DPAC:
How to contact your MP here

It is always better to use your own words, but these may help give you some ideas.

Always be respectful in your email, because otherwise the MP will have an excuse to not even read it.

Always give your postcode. Ideally give your full address. MPs will not respond if they cannot check you are their constituent.

Template/example 1
Dear [MP’s name],

The Government is looking at the money given to Disabled people. This is called the Timms Review.

The Government said it would listen to disabled people and we would work together to write the review. This is called coproduction.

But this has not happened properly. Disabled people are worried that some of the changes will be bad.

Please stand up for Disabled people like me. Tell the Government to listen to us. Don’t let the Government lie about coproduction.

From

[Name and address]

Template/example 2
Dear [MP’s name],

I am writing as your constituent about the Timms Review and potential cuts and changes to disability benefits like PIP.

Sir Stephen Timms promised that the review would be coproduced with Disabled people and our organisations. I want you to be clear that this has not happened at all.

Instead, £1 million of public money went to private consultants to manage us.

I hope that you will vote against any future disability cuts, even if purely on the principle that the promise that Mr. Timms made to MPs like you in parliament should mean something.

PIP needs to change, but please don’t support short-sighted proposals designed over the objections of Disabled people.

When PIP was first introduced, it was intended to save 20%. Instead, it delivered a punitive system that ended up costing even more.

I’m worried the same thing is going to happen again.

We need a genuine review, led independently by Disabled people and our organisations. That’s the only way we will create a better system that works for everyone.

Yours sincerely,

[Name and address]
- Reply
- Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
Dave - Adviser · 19 days ago
There is a great deal of misunderstanding and scaremongering in this article. Your assumption that " The utter failure to genuinely consult with disabled claimants, let alone co-produce the report, is grounds for objections right now". Is wholly incorrect. Every meeting around the country has disabled people invited to the events.
You further state that, "“The Government has consistently failed to properly include Disabled People’s Organisation’s in decisions and processes that affect us". This is also incorrect, as DPO's were invited to meetings and offered the opportunity to input evidence.
The outcome of the review in November, will lead to a report that will be presented to DWP "for consideration". There will not be any hard and fast changes at this point, or at any point in the near future. Therefore, it is at this point, you write to MP's, as currently, there are no reported or substantiated changes.
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Dan · 15 days ago
  
  @Dave - Adviser OK, so who is it and what is their post at the DWP?
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Dave - Adviser · 15 days ago
  
  @Dan Who mentioned secret ? Certainly not me !
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  CC · 17 days ago
  
  @Dave - Adviser Dave it is a clear its a farce, even just looking at the consultation, it was ridiculous, questions designed to manipulate an outcome.
  
  Everyone I know who works for organisations has not been able to interact with the DWP on the report, the DWP clearly have a path they want to go down, and doing what they need to do, to get something they can claim is credible in terms of working with disabled people.
  
  Disabled people who have achieved great things, with no disrespect to them, are not appropriate for taking part in a report on how to help housebound disabled claimants on the benefit system. There really shouldnt be any political lobbyists either.
  
  The recommendations also unsurprisingly like the 4 point rule come from the previous consultation, the one that Timms claimed would be swept aside. I took part in that consultation, and cost based rewards were a big chunk of it. So its very likely its been the same core group of people working on these changes across both the last two governments.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  D · 17 days ago
  
  @Dan Got to say I’ve got similar questions about this Dave’s source of information.
  
  We are 99% certain that McFadden & timms have likely been trying to get Labour backbenchers support that reforms are vital (convincing them of the need before revealing uncomfortable details. So this call to action from the work&benefits team is already late in the day for those of us who have been aware for months that the start gun was already fired.
  
  The wait and see approach aids the likes of McFadden and the dwp, not us. There’s not much difference for us if we send out emails now or in 6 weeks but leaving things later means McFadden and co have had more time to convince backbenchers to adopt their thinking unchallenged by the disabled community viewpoint (and the realities we face - the human face of all this)
  
  I don’t think the Labour government were expecting of backlash from attempt one of pip reforms in summer 2025 - that the disabled community do have cards and could be a formidable social group with the political to be as problematic to a politican as the infamous pensioner social group
  
  It suits mcfadden if he is able to sneak things past a ‘napping’ disabled community and ‘win the war’ before it starts
  
  So even though we’ve had disabled claimants in the past who’s relatives work for the jobcentre/dwp in the past - having a claxton house insider source (right in the belly of the dwp beast) suggests directs ties with high ranking dwp individuals who I imagine would love to discourage masses of disabled by proactive online & via emails and sit on our hands so they can gain Labour support in the meantime totally unchallenged.
  
  Conspiracy theory - Prehaps
  
  But the disabled community made that mistake last year thinking Starmer and Labour would have too much empathy to target cruel welfare & disability cuts.
  
  Bottom line is we cant afford to give Labour gov and ministers the benefit of the doubt on this one - it’s guilty before proven innocence - we can always apologies if we are wrong on this but can’t wind back time if the worst is confirmed and McFadden got all the support he needs in that time we could of also been trying to get in ear if we weren’t sitting on our hands waiting for the start gun(just symbolism at this point)
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Dan · 18 days ago
  
  @Dave - Adviser @Dave - Adviser So you are saying you have a secret source in the DWP HQ at Caxton House and we should believe wreassurances on that basis?
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
Marshmallow · 19 days ago
I've said all along we should not just sit back and wait to see the final findings of this Timms review. Right from the start it's been about findingbways to reduce PIp and to reduce who can claim, with many existing claiments loosing out at their next review.I approached many welfare advisers which I wwont name and I have been constantly told " wait and see "

Even as recently as 7 October 2026 again told we have to wait and see.
There was a reluctants by these advisers to suggest to make any attempt to contact MPS

I'm totally disappointed in Andy Burnham who when he came to be PM stated he was not in favour of crude cuts to welfare and now seems to have turned his back on this

As winter approaches energy bills at there highest food prices constantly rising I worry how I will survive after this Timms review is brought in and cuts are made to vital cash payments.

I would just like someone from the government to tell Mr Timms. Disabled people and people with long term health issues do have a vote and this review by Timms could put paid to a next election win.
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  keepingitreal · 19 days ago
  
  @Dan
  @Dan Too right.
  
  The rumours are borne of the lack of transparency. The latest release, re costs etc, vague, non committal, confusing and contradictory with Timms's interview with Disability News, was bound to set off a panic.
  
  They shouldn't have allowed this drip feed of doom, but waited until they were done and set out the recommendations clearly so we could have a proper debate.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Dan · 19 days ago
  
  @Dave - Adviser @Dave - Adviser That's precisely the problem. How can this report have been co-produced if even major DPO's like Disability Rights UK say they were not involved and the proposals are too vague for them to be able to give feedback on them? There wouldn't be rumours flying around if the Timms review had genuinely been working with disabled people cos we'd all know what was being proposed. Wait and see is a terrible idea.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Dave - Adviser · 19 days ago
  
  @Marshmallow With all due respect, you certainly need to 'wait and see', as nothing definite or confirmed has been decided, people and experts who work in the field are only too aware of all the ridiculous red top newspaper and silly TV show (GMB) propaganda flying around. As I mentioned above, the report produced from the review, will be presented to DWP with its findings, this may lead to change and potential cuts, but at the moment, there are NO reported, confirmed or substantial changes.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
N.B.C (real one) · 19 days ago
What worries me is are they trying to beat the Tories record from 2010s when so many decided it wasn't worth going on, I take it I don't need to state what I mean by that?. I wouldn't be surprised if deep down they are secretly hoping that many would coz that way it would mean X amount less to pay for then.

My apologies for such an unfortunate reference but I don't know any other way to put it.
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  N.B.C (real one) · 18 days ago
  
  @Rupert How else do you expect me to refer to that particular period then?
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Rupert · 19 days ago
  
  @N.B.C (real one) Neil do you have too keep bringing up and infering death as this could trigger some people.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
Wayne · 20 days ago
I not sure how to right anything but IAM sick and tired of telling pip my health problems and my wife like a suffered a 30 foot fall and smashed both feet I have ad 10 plus Sergeys my consultant finishes me from work because of pain walking can't stand fused joints bad balence and other stuff .my wife she ad cancer heart transplant strokes and is cronic long term sick we no recovery.and meny others with health problems it's not our fault so stop picking on us and make us repeat assesments over and over .it needs to stop thanks
- Reply
- Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
tintack · 20 days ago
One thing that needs to be made crystal clear to Labour MPs is that even if they allow themselves to be gaslighted by the government into believing that the Timms Review is a genuine co-production with disabled people, and they fall into line as a result, sick and disabled people will not be fooled. That means that even if they avoid a major rebellion among their MPs, there will be a repeat of last year's protests from the people who stand to be on the receiving end of whatever comes forward. That will make it clear that, contrary to the commitments previously made by the government, this is not a genuine co-production and it does not have the support of those affected - quite the opposite.
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  sara · 20 days ago
  
  @tintack Just what I was thinking @tintack - it's going to be a bit of a giveaway if the very people whose interests were supposed to have been represented in this review, and who were supposed to have been involved in its conclusions and shaping its recommendations, suddenly object to the report 🤔
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
J B Sal · 20 days ago
Please could anyone provide a standard template email I can write to my MP with all the points above.
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Anon101 · 19 days ago
  
  @J B Sal There are a few example templates in the thread below other people have done or you could cut and paste the B&W article in to an AI programme and make your own or even just attach the link to the B&W article. It makes life much easier when there is a standard template to use from a Disability Charity etc. but these are good options in the absence of that.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Bern400 · 20 days ago
  
  @J B Sal SEE THE BELOW MP LETTER TEMPLATE (SHORTENED VERSION UNDER 300 WORDS). FEEL FREE TO CUT AND PASTE OR AMEND AS DESIRED.
  
  Dear [MP’s Name],
  
  I am writing to ask you to challenge the Government over the Timms Review of Personal Independence Payment (PIP), particularly its claim that the review has been genuinely “co-produced” with disabled people.
  
  I am not opposed to reforming PIP. My concern is whether those most affected have actually had meaningful power to influence the recommendations, as the Government promised.
  
  Stephen Timms stated that the review would be “co-produced with disabled people” and that the Government would “share ownership and responsibility for how the Review runs and what it recommends.” The Government has subsequently described meaningful co-production as “sharing power, purpose and responsibility to shape decisions.”
  
  Yet there are serious reasons to question whether this has happened.
  
  The Government can point to 38,713 responses to its Call for Evidence, surveys and workshops. But consultation is not the same as co-production. The key question is: what actual decisions were disabled people given the power to influence?
  
  There are also concerns about the representativeness of the steering group, whose selection criteria required experience of “strategic engagement”. This risks excluding ordinary PIP claimants with extensive lived experience but no policy background.
  
  This is particularly important given proposals concerning disability-related costs and the future structure of PIP. Disabled people need sufficient detail to understand how eligibility, assessment, evidence requirements and awards would actually work before they can meaningfully be consulted.
  
  The Work and Pensions Committee has itself questioned whether disabled members had “shared power in decision-making.” Disability Rights UK has also raised concerns about the limited involvement of Disabled People's Organisations in developing the recommendations.
  
  I therefore ask you to press the Government on:
  
  What decisions were actually made jointly with disabled people?
  What evidence demonstrates genuine shared decision-making?
  How many DPOs helped develop the recommendations?
  How can the review claim co-production when its own workshops were acknowledged as not co-produced?
  When will detailed proposals be published for proper consultation?
  
  If “co-production” is to mean anything, it must mean more than asking disabled people for their views and then presenting them with decisions that have effectively already been made.
  
  Please raise these concerns with the Government and let me know what action you are prepared to take.
  
  Yours sincerely,
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  rookie · 20 days ago
  
  @J B Sal I wonder whether it might be more effective to email our mps indicating briefly the rising push back against anything looking like cuts to pip, and to include a link to the above B&W article.
  
  Also, if you know your mp's majority would be threatened by the disabled vote, point that out.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Truth teller · 20 days ago
  
  @J B Sal I agree. And then people could add on whatever Personal point they would wish to raise. For we disabled people it’s extremely hard for us to crunch that amount of detail and someone putting it into some sort of bullet points that can easily be Cut and paste it and just altered a bit I think we’ll get a better outcome and allow more people to actually do it.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Bern400 · 20 days ago
  
  @J B Sal @J B Sal - read the thread below, several people have posted email templates to be sent to MP's
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
bronc · 20 days ago
I've asked my union (Unite) to circulate the above article to members of the regional disability committee and it said it would do. Thanks to those people who have produced templates for writing to MPs with.
- Reply
- Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
JBob1234 · 20 days ago
What is concerning is Timms PIP review board member Jean-André Prager's policy exchange think tank report on DLA for children.

It uses the same justification as the Timms PIP review preliminary report did of the benefit being supposed to help with the "additional costs associated with a disability" but the eligibility criteria not aligning with that intent.

To justify recommending cutting support for those that need supervision to keep them safe, encouragement, prompting or assistance. On the basis of that being provided by the parent and so incurring no additional costs.

It is concerning because if that is the thinking of the Timms PIP review the same could apply to PIP on the basis of the carer providing care. That it is being paid for by carer allowance and the associated carer premium on UC. So no need to pay for it through PIP. Only the need to give passporting to carer's allowance.

And the Timms review preliminary report was dismissive of PIP being used for things that are not additional cost of disability. As PIP cannot be for all things for all people, PIP is for the additional costs of disability. Despite knowing many households are reliant on PIP to help towards rent, mortgage, council tax, household maintenance and repairs, utility bills, insurance, food shopping, toiletries and cleaning products, replacing worn out clothes and shoes, replacing broken white goods, replacing worn out furniture and carpets, and so on. In effect other benefits are so inadequate households need PIP to survive, especially to survive long-term on benefits. And to have any quality of life above insecure subsistence in severe material deprivation.

If this is their thinking we can only hope it is rejected by parliament.

Whatever the Timms review recommends. Going by media reports it looks like those aged 50+ or possibly 60+ might be protected and those with ongoing/indefinite awards including pensioners.
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Kit kat · 19 days ago
  
  @keepingitreal I'm an older pip claiment and I will suffer from any of the Timms proposals should they go ahead, which I actually think is already set to go ahead.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Iain · 20 days ago
  
  @djmh15
  Harry, I couldn't agree more that we need an organised, collective response to what is going on, now. With the right national exposure, this would have more impact than letters to MPs, most of rceive overwhelming numbers of correspondence and won't read individual emails anyway; this kind of job is given to their parliamentary assistants, who will read all or part of the letters then summarise them for the MP. The volume of emails is important and we all need to write something soon, but I believe a unified respo.nse as well is more likely to grab an MPs attention.
  
  Let's face it, most MPs will loyally vote with the whip when the time comes, whatever they may think personally, and individual protests after Timms is published will have lettle effect. We should be challenging the legitimacy of this report now. Even a joint statement signed by as many disabled organisations as possible would suffice to gain some public and parliamentary information to counter the one-sided propaganda (for that is what it is) eminating from the Parlimentary press office, the DWP and hostile media outlets
  
  Also, remember, we have a Parliament that is almost wholly unrepresentative of our community; I believe there are only five disabled MPs. Many MPs have had no personal contact with someone living with one, or more, severe disabilities. Those MPs whose interests/ specialisms lie in other areas will, inevitably, rely heavily on the conclusions of this report to make their decision when it comes to the vote. The spin around engaging with disabled people and organisations has been such that without having delved deeply, something most MPs won't have the personal time to, they will take matters at face value, probably unaware of how that agenda has been set by the DWP. It is up to us to tell them, individually and collectively.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  keepingitreal · 20 days ago
  
  @JBob1234 Admitting pip has to be used for those everyday living costs (albeit justified because income replacement benefits are inadequate), has been used against us, because it has given dwp/ government the opportunity to say the benefit is being abused.
  
  The example of pjp being used by pensioners in waiting to replace stolen income is clear proof of that desperate route to claiming sickness and/or disability.
  
  Although indications are that older pip claimants will not be penalised, the fact that they have resorted to pip has allowed an exaggerated view of disability benefit claims having increased, which has fuelled hostility towards claimants in general.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  cloudcuckoo · 20 days ago
  
  @JBob1234 "supervision to keep them safe, encouragement, prompting or assistance. On the basis of that being provided by the parent"
  
  Ah yes, the parent suddenly recognised for what they do, for all the family young old,, sick, disabled, even well. What they COULD do, if they hadn't been forced into paid occupations, and what, because of that, does incur additional costs. Pay us. So simple.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  djmh15 · 20 days ago
  
  @JBob1234 I always thought that the descriptors on the assessment are really about getting an idea of the level of non-function a person's health condition/disability caused. Rather than being taken literally. It is more of a marker/measurement
  
  So, for example, someone may need support and assistance but not actually have it
  
  How the money is spent is then up to that person, and their needs as an individual
  
  As noted above, a lot of this need comes down to the cumulative affects of a low income on out of work benefits, and the fact that the cost of everything from housing to food to transport - the essentials - cannot be covered by out of work benefits sustainably.
  
  In addition, at some point the head gasket goes, or the washing machine explodes and floods out. The flashing flies off the roof and the gutter starts peeling off under the weight of all the dead leaves that we can't afford to have cleared out each year..... etc
  
  The worry of all this will cause this with physical illnesses to have greater mental ill health. And those with mental illnesses to be moved to the point of crisis. And the cost will be felt by all other departments.
  
  Also, and related yet off tangent...the high street is barely there now. How on earth will that fare when people have no money to spend.
  
  I don't know about the younger demographic. These days with the problems I had even back then I would have most likely gone onto benefits. It was rough though, and there was nothing left to function outside of work - shop, cook, clean etc. Never mind breaks or doing nice things. Eventually that led to deterioration. On reflection, greater help was needed and would perhaps have kept me in work past 47, when everything completely imploded.
  
  Universal basic income...truly supported self-employment...reducing the dwp/state surveillance...allowing our creativity to flourish...
  
  Anyway...hope you are all ok...whatever they decide will be a way off yet.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
Harry · 20 days ago
The best response to report is for the disability community to form its own report team and produce its own report into the future of the benefit or the benefits systems probably with the helo of the U. Of Leeds.
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  B · 20 days ago
  
  @Harry 100%
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
Harry28 · 21 days ago
Thanks everyone who has done templates however from experience with dealing with my MP,he tends to pass anything complicated to his secretaries,who have made it clear they have thousands of emails to deal with and most likely won't read them fully,and more often than not, if they do; they misinterprete; as I've found to my cost.
Suffice to say I dont contact my Labour MP anymore.
Sadly he tends to just be around if there's any photo opportunity.
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  pollenpath · 20 days ago
  
  @bronc How might we organise that to happen nationally, do you think? I imagine we would need some scale of concerted campaign with at least some simple flyers to hand out to passers by. I wouldn't know where to start but I would help if I could. I'm in south east London and when I had my MP on the doorstep last year she more or less told me she agreed with cuts to finance defence. I would like other local disabled people to know that's her position!
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  bronc · 20 days ago
  
  @cloudcuckoo Well said. This needs to be done all over the country.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  cloudcuckoo · 20 days ago
  
  @Harry28 Well give him a photo opportunity - stage a protest at his surgery and invite the press.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Bern400 · 21 days ago
  
  @Harry28 @Harry28. It's still worth writing to your MP because even if they don't reply to you it shows them the local concern regarding the Timms review. It's important to remember that more than half of MPs in England and Wales have more PIP claimants in their constituency than their electoral majority. In 312 of 575 constituencies, or 54.3 per cent, the number of PIP claimants exceeds the sitting MP’s majority. Most MP's will be aware of the above stats and those MP's with small electoral majorities will not want to antagonise their constitients and risk losing their parlimentary seat.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
Scorpion · 21 days ago
We're discussing whether there would be some kind of voucher or cost based awards, etc. I don't think the purpose of Timms Review is to add some tweaks to the current PIP format but to work out and introduce a new assessment criteria, which might even come with a new name, with the aim of cutting PIP bill.

During the interview with Disability News Service (DNS), "Timms refused four times to rule out cuts to PIP, but made firm promise on cash payments", without mentioning who will get it or whether there.
- Reply
- Share

News