The Timms review interim report issued today argues that it must be “radical” and “bold” in its recommendations for changes to personal independence payment (PIP). However, it’s clear that the panel still have no clue what these recommendations should be, with no more than 25 working days left to design and test a new system.
Dehumanising system
The report is damning of the current PIP system, calling it “dehumanising” and “overly complex, repetitive and difficult to navigate, particularly for people whose needs fluctuate or are less visible.”
It also argues that PIP “can create barriers to participation, including in work, physical activity and community life.”
The committee want to see PIP having “a clearer emphasis on supporting independent living and participation in society, for example through volunteering, work, and cultural and social activities.”
The conclusion it reaches is that:
“PIP is not working. It is not working for the people that go through the process, nor for a government committed to supporting disabled people. We are committed to making changes so that PIP can fulfil its purpose for disabled people and those with long-term conditions, both now and into the future. Doing so will require us to be radical in our thinking and bold in our recommendations for reform.”
But, because the panel members work only five days a month and must report by the Autumn, it means they have no more than 25 working days left to design and test their radical and bold changes.
According to the report, the plan is to spend August and September developing recommendations and the Autumn testing and refining those recommendations.
There does not appear to be any plan to consult generally with the four million PIP claimants about any proposals for change, however. Instead, the panel will be working with “a wide range of individuals and stakeholders, with a particular emphasis on reaching lesser-engaged groups and individuals from minoritised communities. This approach will ensure that the recommendations reflect the full diversity of experiences and address existing gaps in insight.”
Call for evidence
The call for evidence findings were processed by DWP staff using AI before being shared with the Timms panel. Amongst the findings were:
- approximately 40% of responses reference the interaction between PIP and independent living or participation in work and society – many say PIP enables independent living or participation in work and society, whilst some say PIP discourages independent living and participation
- over 90% of responses relating to process were negative, 5% were positive, with the remainder unclear or neutral
- assessment-related issues were referenced in approximately 70% of responses
- approximately 25% to 30% reference appeals and decisions being changed later in the process
- multiple and interacting health conditions are referenced in around 83% of responses – less-visible, cognitive, neurodivergence, and mental health conditions appear in around 70% of responses
- around 45% of responses reference difficulties capturing fluctuating conditions.
Concerningly, the report seems to have focused in places on minority responses from claimants that support a cuts agenda.
Under the heading “The adequacy of PIP” the report notes that “A recurring theme across responses is that PIP does not consistently reflect the true cost of disability, particularly where costs are continuous, variable, and interconnected.”
However, it then goes on to highlight the just 8% of claimants who are concerned about the rising cost of PIP, quoting one as saying:
“The rising cost of PIP is becoming unsustainable, partly because eligibility is not tightly focused on those with the most significant, unavoidable limitations.”
The report then points out that:
“A small number of responses (around 6%) also reference over-generosity of PIP, particularly the Motability scheme:
“I don’t believe that people should be able to get BMW or Audi cars that have the full spec of everything even if they do want to put an upfront payment up.”
In relation to employment, the report quotes just two claimants. The first says they were rejected for PIP because they had a job.
The second quote was from one of a “small number of respondents” who see PIP as discouraging employment:
“I have worked with or been friends with a number of people that are on PIP and don’t need to be: in fact, that they are receiving PIP means they have no incentive to find formal work and are able to get work cash in hand and not declare it.”
It is hard to see why the panel thought this prejudiced and unevidenced accusation should be worthy of inclusion as one of only two quotes on PIP and employment.
In relation to changes in health, the panel again chose to give prominence to a minority view that fits with the government’s own opinion on young people and mental health:
“A small number of respondents (2%) suggest that the increased prevalence of mental health conditions, particularly among young people, can be attributed to exaggeration or overdiagnosis.
“Too many people claiming for what I would call everyday anxiety problems.”
The evidence relating to assessment appears to have been overwhelmingly negative, describing it as “dehumanising”, “soul destroying”, “humiliating”, and “degrading”. Just 5% say they had a positive experience of the assessment system.
Still in the dark
The reality seems to be that the Timms review interim report leaves claimants still entirely in the dark about what changes to PIP will be recommended. It is clear that they will be radical, but in what way, when they may be introduced and whether they will affect current claimants are all issues that this interim report does nothing to illuminate.
As an exercise in increasing anxiety amongst claimants it is probably largely successful. But as a means of informing people about the future of PIP, it is a non-starter.
You can download a copy of the Timms review interim report and evidence packs here.
