The DWP has today published the details of the twelve members of the Timms review steering group and many people will be disappointed at the make-up of the panel.  

The chosen group of high-achievers will doubtless have much experience and knowledge to offer and almost all  have lived experience of disability or long-term health conditions. But ordinary claimants struggling to make ends meet and deal with DWP bureaucracy seem to be almost entirely, if not entirely, unrepresented.

The short biographies given below also do not seem to list anyone who has had a career specifically in welfare benefits advocacy, who would be in a strong position to challenge the DWP on the technical and legal aspects of any proposed changes.

As well as announcing the committee members, the DWP have revealed that the Public Service Consultants and the West of England Centre for Inclusive Living will oversee the delivery of co-production.

The steering group have already had their first introductory call and the next few weeks will see:

  • the first formal steering group meetings
  • the beginning of detailed co-production and policy work in February
  • preparation for a wider, fully accessible programme of engagement beyond the steering group, starting in the spring

The members of the steering group are as follows:

Dr Mark Brookes MBE is currently the Advocacy Lead for Dimensions UK. He has more than 30 years’ experience in publicly advocating for people with learning disabilities and autism and campaigning against hate crime. Mark works with the Churchill Foundation, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the NHS Advisory Board, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Home Office, and UK Police forces.

George Fielding BEM is a disability rights advocate who has worked nationally across many public services, with operational expertise in youth work, social care, and community capacity building. He has previously co-founded two CQC-regulated social care providers whilst initiating and developing three youth-led social movements, working to develop intergenerational best practice in social change. He is non-executive advisor to three community interest companies which specialise in co-production.

Tara Flood is a long-time disability rights activist, having worked at a local, national and international level. She is currently Head of Co-production at the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. She champions the Social Model of Disability, working with residents to drive policy change and the redesign and delivery of services at a local level.

Mark Fosbrook is a retired Paralympic athlete who brings his own lived experience, and constantly draws on knowledge from others through a person-centred, values-led mindset. As Disability Inclusion Manager at West Midlands Combined Authority, he is driven by advocating for empowering the voices of others, championing change in Transport, Housing, Employment, Health and Social Care.

Ben Geiger is a Professor at King’s College London, and brings academic expertise as well as experience in policy development (including from within the Department for Work and Pensions) and co-production. He currently leads the Welfare Experiences project (comparing how it feels to claim benefits in five countries), and previously co-led the major rapid response study of benefits during COVID-19.

Katrina Gilman is a passionate advocate for disability equality, drawing on lived experience of multiple disabilities and her role as a carer. After 25 years in policing, she now works to break down barriers and champion fairness, accessibility, and opportunity—driving change that empowers disabled people to thrive.

Jean-André Prager has an extensive policy background in PIP and broader disability issues. He was previously the Prime Minister’s Special Adviser covering the Department for Work and Pensions and is currently a Senior Fellow at Policy Exchange and a Director at Flint Global.

Dr Lucy Reynolds is a social entrepreneur, public speaker and disability rights advocate. Founder of We Are All Disabled CIC and Chair of Disability North, she champions an Affirmative approach to disability, using lived experience and academic research to challenge perceptions and drive inclusive cultural change.

Dr Felix Shi brings lived experience as a disabled academic, alongside comparative insights into disability policy across multiple national contexts. As a former board member of Disability Wales and a current member of the Arfon Access Group, Felix works to connect policymakers with grassroots DPOs in Wales.

Dr Dharshana Sridhar is Head of Public Affairs at the Spinal Injuries Association, representing the voices of people with spinal cord injuries nationally. With lived experience as a long-term carer and extensive UK government and international policy expertise, she works to shape fair social security policy and champion the rights, dignity and independence of disabled people and marginalised communities.

Phil Stevens is Chief Executive of Disability Action Haringey and Chair of the Board of Trustees of Disability Action in Islington. He is a disabled leader with extensive experience in user-led advocacy, policy, and strategic development, working to advance rights, access, and inclusion for D/deaf and inclusive events for disabled young people in the UK, and former Director of Autistic Knowledge Development in Scotland, she brings expertise in creating inclusive spaces disabled people across London. [As published by the DWP, but the last part of this biography appears to relate to Leila Talmadge, below]

Leila Talmadge is an autistic and dyslexic project manager and designer. As the former Chair of the Board of Trustees at Daytrippers charity, which provides inclusive events for disabled young people in the UK, and former Director of Autistic Knowledge Development in Scotland, she brings expertise in creating inclusive spaces.

You can read the full Timms update here.

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.
    · 11 days ago
    Para olypians; oh joy. I'm full of confidence now. Just a shame they haven't the staff of JD Sports as well. 
    I don't have much faith. All the members are in casy government, NGO style jobs.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 11 days ago
    Mental health experience???? 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 12 days ago
    wowh no d/Deaf representatives on the panel!! No sensory input Visual Impaired or Blind

    Mainly physical or those that advocate can speak as "knowledge based people" about other disability doesn't wash at all. 

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 12 days ago
    I am going to comment on this through an organisational/process driven lens, rather than a political one.  This is because the notion that this group has been purposefully assembled to be complicit in enabling a pre-determined outcome seems at best somewhat ideological and at worst, biased and conspiratorial, however understandable that viewpoint may be. 

    I will also say in the spirit of full disclosure, my views are somewhat subjective as I applied and wasn't successful.  I have worked in tribunals for nine years, two of which as a DWP presenting officer.  I have represented hundreds of people and appeared at hundreds of appeal hearings.  I am also a carer.  I considered myself uniquely well placed to work on the group, however, this was the outcome I expected.  The criticism that 'paralympians, professors, prime ministers’ advisers and chief executives will all have their say, but ordinary claimants struggling to make ends meet seem to be entirely unrepresented' is well founded in my view.  

    This group should be informing the government as to what in government speak is 'operational concerns'.  The group contains people eminently well placed to advise on strategic and policy led issues but so many problems that bedevil PIP are operational.  How often have any of the group have sat on the end of the phone waiting for an hour for contact staff to tell you they can't give you an answer or one which you know is wrong?  How many of them have requested a reconsideration knowing sixteen weeks later you're going to get a six page letter containing one sentence that actually relates to your case and that says 'the first decision addressed these points.'?  How many of them have sat in a HMCTS waiting room?

    Ordinary claimants and frontline adviser not being included in this group is a predictable institutional failing.  The people appointed are ostensibly valid representational voices and I am sure many, if not all of these people can and will speak up on our behalf and it is good to see carers being represented, but this group is not directly representative of the people the government said it would give voice to.  Impoverished claimants and their representatives are capable of speaking for themselves directly and they have been excluded from this critical conversation.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 12 days ago
    High functioning, educated and fully engaged. Not your average PIP claimant for sure.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 12 days ago
    Anyone there to represent the visually impaired? 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 12 days ago
    My view is that the panel is skewed towards equality and achievement. Members are largely known for their success in enabling change to facilitate equality and easier access to life activities. Surely PiP was devised to cover the extra costs that arise from having a disability, and I see no-one on the panel having lived experience of this. In order to live a valid and valuable life, disabled people must have a level of income that enables them to compete on a level playing field, including the provision of decent motability transport that fits their needs. No points based system can ever provide a true picture of a person’s disability: this has to be done by a combination of personal assessment and level of income. Points based systems are merely a useful tool for the DWP to avoid individual appeals and to get the job done quicker. Why aren’t competent retired members of the public invited to apply to become assessors? There are many who have the skills, knowledge and experience to do so.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 12 days ago
    It's dismaying that people disabled by chronic illness never seem to be represented on these panels, even though we must make up a large proportion of PIP claimants. Our needs and limitations are completely different to those of people who have impairments but are in good health, and they're very hard to understand without direct experience. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 12 days ago
    I see a few Disability Activists amongst the panel.  Yes, there could be more voices from claimants themselves but I don't feel from a Disabled Person myself that the Panel lacks real teeth.  Dr Lucy Reynolds for example is a fierce advocate for Disability Rights.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 days ago
      @John This approach ignores the fact for many us work is never going to happen. It ignores the fact that biomedical research into many illnesses is very low meaning people with said illnesses can't be blamed if they are too ill to work. It ignores the institutional barriers to disabled people which are an inherent part of our class based capitalist society.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 days ago
      @Chris What does she know of what it is like to live in poverty? You are being very naive. Many of these people from comfortable middle class backgrounds cant speak about what they have not experienced. This panel totally lacks teeth. Why has no one from a group like DPAC been selected? And yes I am a member of DPAC who applied for the panel and I know of other DPAC members who applied for this panel.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 10 days ago
      @Chris Dr Lucy Reynolds is an advocate of the affirmative model of disability which celebrates difference and the unique skills and attributes that disabled people bring to the workplace and wider society. Her organization "we are all disabled CIC" is paid to do disability courses for businesses looking to employ disabled people. And the inspirational stories I looked at on the "we are all disabled" website were of people who are disabled and work. So she seems predisposed to support the government's aim of redefining people currently deemed incapable of work and abandoned on welfare as people who need help and support into work. And predisposed to see disability as something that society can adapt to so people can take part in society. So society enables people. Rather than just giving people money and abandoning them. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 12 days ago
    Timms ... iain duncan smith mark two
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 days ago
      @bronc I looked at applying but the criteria was only for people who had experience in working as advocates for/with disabled people so that effectively cut out the majority of claimants.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @D yes and they managed to exclude any working class voices from people who are claimants, but no surprise from the current red tories in power who treat us with contempt.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    Jean-André Prager supports cuts. Look at his interview on GB News on YouTube, where he was clearly in favour of the 4 point rule.  He has a negative moral character in my honest opinion. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    The question is can the government after the review force any legislation threw without having a vote in parliament.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Copycat Short answer yes but parliament would have to not object.

      Long answer. The DWP minister can alter the PIP regulations including descriptors and points via a statutory instrument. They have to notify parliament. The House of Commons and the House of Lords then have 40 days in which they can choose to object and vote to annul the changes. If either the House of Commons or the House of Lords do so the changes are annulled, do not happen. It is very rare for Parliament to annul changes to regulations/secondary legislation.

      The government have assured MPs they will not do this. As there would be no debate and no ability to amend the changes. Just a yes no vote if parliament objected. The government has said any changes to PIP will be done through primary legislation with a debate in parliament and the opportunity for amendments. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 days ago
    With mounting speculation that Starmer is finished as PM, will his successor either terminate the Timms review, or change it's terms of reference radically? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 days ago
      @bronc And if this where to happen, then what? what choices do we have? Not a lot I would suggest. Either way we are doomed.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @D Sorry but your post at the end is a good example of hopium. Starmer is a creature of the establishment and lied his way to become Labour leader. As DPP he took part in the persecution of Julian Assange and was a complaint puppet with American attempts to destroy the WikiLeaks editor. 

      Starmer is a war criminal who has openly supported the Israeli genocide in Gaza, allowed UK forces to bomb Yemen killing dozens of civilians and enabled the genocide in Gaza in  several ways. 

      Starmer has engaged in hate speech against disabled claimants and is fully behind the destruction of the NHS through expanding privatisation. As an activist in a Labour affiliated union (Unite) which is considering severing its ties with Labour due to its anti trade union actions - see the outrageous way the Labour council in Birmingham has treated its bin workers with the full support of Starmer. There will be no progressive change in this country until the Labour Party , which is beholden to defending the interests of the billionaire class, is destroyed on the electoral front.

      As a labour movement historian it is clear to me that the Labour Party has become the polar opposite of what it was founded to do over a century ago. The sooner it is consigned to the dustbin of history the better.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Neil I know that it’s worrying as we don’t know whether a new Labour leader would make things worse.

      One thing that has popped up the last day is that streeting is trying to claim he barely knew mandelson when in reality there was definitely a relationship there going on photos - so depending on what else comes out could ruin his chances if the media chooses to focus on this (right now it’s buried on social media)

      Things could be better for disabled claimants under raynor who fancies her chances but her housing scandal has not concluded so that’s another controversial option.

      Our community big problem is Morgan mcsweeney - he is very close to pat mcfadden (McFadden wife is mcsweeney’s number 2) and he has ties to several cabinet ministers (he rather than starmer picked most of them). But the vital point is that McSweeney has been the political strategist aiming for welfare reform, aka he’s been the true architect behind cuts and criteria tightening (not starmer or Kendall)

      There is zero point starmer being ousted if mcsweeney remains behind the scenes pulling the strings  with his candidate as next leader (apparently mcsweeney had a hand in Ed milliband end in leadership- I think I read that milliband was friends with starmer for a long time and he may be one of the few cabinet members chosen by starmer himself - so for me milliband may be the best option available to take over from starmer)

      But starmer insists he has full confidence in mcsweeney (ever the faithful puppet - though some have mentioned what’s a puppet without a hand animating it and starmer is scared that getting rid of mcsweeney leaves him exposed to a future coup). The irony is that someone’s got to take the fall for the mandelson scandal and starmer could buy himself a lot of extra time firing mcsweeney and his team and getting rid of all mcsweeney’s allies in cabinet and having a true relaunch of his premiership (but starmer looks too weak to pull this off)

      So this weekend/month could be huge - if mcsweeney goes it will be this month as it’s the best opportunity whilst his relationship as mandelsons prodigy is being exposed in mainstream media. And that would be very good news for those reading the work&benefits blog!

      I agree with the poster saying that Labour won’t want to call an election before 2029 - but any new Labour leader that automatically becomes pm is not there democratically and has no mandate so it’s already dicey ground not calling an snap election to put it by the public within 1-2yrs of appointment- if the next Labour leader in deeply unpopular or they end up changing leader a second time this term (or they pick a total newbie who only just became pm like the rumoured al cairns) public backlash would be huge

      So ideally mcsweeney’s gets the boot asap and starmer 180’s back to the guy who won the Labour leadership election and try’s to forfill those early promises he said back then (and not continue breaking the labour ge2024 manifesto) until a sane replacement reveals tgemselves
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Neil Neil I like your use of the word Ruddy it goes back many years.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @D As long as Labour are not top of the polls I doubt they would ever voluntarily call an early general election. So I expect them to be in until their time runs out. Unless Starmer maliciously goes to the King rather than stepping down and being replaced by a new Labour leader/PM.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 days ago
    I can't see anyone with lived experience of long term mental health difficulties and/or energy limiting conditions e.g. CFS/ME, Long Covid or specialist organisations representing people with these disabilities.  They all appear to be functioning at an incredibly high level i.e. Not living on a low income with additional costs for disability.  I don't see any representation from people from a working class background or organisations advocating for people claiming benefits e.g. FightBack4Justice. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 days ago
    Today in the news, ''Alton Towers bans theme parkgoers with ADHD and anxiety from using disability pass'' - The attack on the mentally ill continues at a pace. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 days ago
    I wonder why Phil Stevens' political career has been left off his bio...
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 19 days ago
    Some of them do not even match the description of having lived experience of being disabled, nor the description of representing disabled people's organisations. So do not met the requirements to be on the panel. And none of them appear to be reliant on PIP to survive. And all of them appear to promote disability inclusion including in the workforce.

    The panel strikes me as more about PR and getting parliament to vote for the reforms than genuine co-production.

    These reforms come to you recommend by:

    Experts: 3 people with PH.Ds and 1 medical doctor.

    Renowned disability campaigners: 1 with a MBE and 1 with a BME.

    Disabled celebrities: 2 Paralympic athletes.

    Both sides of politics: The most influential right wing think tank Policy Exchange. One of the biggest Labour affiliated trade unions and major Labour donor UNISON.

    And 2 other people: A successful person with Autism who founded a organisation that campaigns for inclusion (useful if the reforms target people with Autism). A person who represents a major London based organisation promoting disability inclusion.

    The "genuinely" disabled: The disabled members of the panel all have disabilities the media considers "genuine". And most are apparent not invisible disabilities.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 days ago
      @John Or a right wing think tank! 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @John Rik has pointed out Phil Stevens the person who I listed under two other people, he is the one whorepresents the London based organisation. Is a former co-chair of the LibDem disability group. So that will probably be why he was chosen.

      Which means 5 members of the panel have links to politics as previous advisers to government, parties or in one case representing a Labour affiliated trade union
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @John

      Which means 5 members of the panel have links to politics as previous advisers to government, parties or in one case representing a Labour affiliated trade union
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 19 days ago
    I wonder if when this review is all done and dusted, whether the ‘4 point’ rule would have been been less painful?  
      I’m unclear if this review is going to make a ‘tweak’ or something that completely changes the whole concept of pip.
    Logically if the terms of reference preclude higher spending, and the mental wellbeing criteria claims are increasing exponentially, something is definitely going to have to give?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 days ago
      @Jj It will turn out far worse, as Timms and co, have this group to blame for all changes. Honestly, this review and panel is the worst thing that could have happened.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 days ago
      @Jj Hard to deny your logic - we're all anxious as to whether the axe will fall on us. However, also difficult to see the government risking a repeat back bench rebellion, especially as the so called ring leader, Rachel Maskell, has regained the whip. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 19 days ago
    As I’ve pointed out in another thread, anyone already on PIP could be worried about their ongoing and future claims if they were well enough to volunteer for this. No reassurances given on that so no wonder no one came forward. 
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.