Why disabled people are worried that the Timms Review could be used as a cover for PIP cuts

It’s finally happening. The first-ever comprehensive review of personal independence payment (PIP), the support that millions of disabled people receive if they have extra care needs or mobility needs (difficulty getting around) as a result of an impairment, begins in earnest.

Just this week, the disability minister, Stephen Timms, along with his two review ‘co-chairs’, appointed 12 members to the steering group. These members will likely decide what evidence will be gathered, whose voices will be heard, and ultimately what will be recommended at the end of the ‘Timms-review’.

Over the last few years, PIP, as well as the entire disability benefits system, has become a political lightning rod. Various ‘reforms’ since 2010 mean disabled people have lost benefit payments of around £1,200 each year, while non-disabled people have lost around £300. That is despite the extra costs of disability rising to over £1,000 a month at the same time.

Read more:

• Disabled people appointed to co-produce Timms review of PIP: ‘This opportunity cannot be wasted’
• Farage puts pints over poverty with plan to cut price of beer by reinstating two-child benefit cap
• Disability benefit claimants at risk of poverty because of ‘poor service’ from DWP, MPs warn

Yet despite these brazen and reckless attempts to cut costs, more and more of us are looking for support from the social security system. The number of working-age people reporting a disability increased from 5.9 million in 2012 to 2013 to 8.9 million in 2022 to 2023, according to research by the Resolution Foundation think tank in 2023. And that isn’t because it is ‘easier’ to get disability benefits today. In fact, award rates for new PIP claims have been broadly steady at around 45% since 2015-16.

This review, which received over 300 applications to join, will be crucial in deciding the future of millions of disabled people. Of course, we can’t forget that the Timms Review was the ‘reward’ for the relentless work of disabled people’s organisations and activists against the initial proposals of £5 billion in cuts to benefits. Public statements by government ministers since the summer haven’t always reassured us that cuts aren’t still part of the plan, with all the negative consequences that would have.

As Rushaa Louise Hamid, research manager at the anti-poverty charity Toynbee Hall, told me: “Not everyone will be affected equally by future changes to PIP. Research shows a strong link between poverty and disability.”

At the time the review was announced, I wrote for the Big Issue about the hopes many had for the Timms Review and the huge political moment it entailed. Back then, Svetlana Kotova from the disabled people’s organisation Inclusion London told me: “If there is genuine co-production with our organisations and us within the Timms Review, this could be a chance to reset the relationship and build back the trust that has been lost.” 

The announcement of the co-production group’s members may not have done as much as the government would have liked to rebuild that trust. There is a clear wealth of professional and personal experience among the panel membership. And it is heartening that those involved are clearly dedicated, experienced professionals who wish to see a better system. 

But looking back at the checklist I put out in my article last year, you can see where, at face value and taking nothing away from the individuals on the panel, its membership could miss opportunities for true co-production. And that’s because, ultimately, co-production is an exercise in sharing power. Yet, from the biographies members shared, it would appear that many already have government experience and avenues to influence it. Some have even worked in the highest parts of the government – not exactly an experience that the 27% of disabled people living in poverty share.  

I think many would have liked to see more individuals whose day-to-day reality reflects that of millions of disabled people across the country. Struggling every day with bills, potentially out of work. That’s because at the end of the day, the PIP isn’t some pipeline into the world of work – it’s a vital piece of social infrastructure that protects us from the sharpest edge of our unequal society. 

The review remains open to criticism of it being merely an administrative exercise, as Hamid explained: “We are deeply concerned that separate reviews into overlapping issues, like the Timms and Milburn Reviews, are being used as cover for cuts to the most vulnerable, while the government avoids tackling the structural failures that leave disabled people without the support they need.”

And we know our community has not borne the brunt of the social security system equally. When Black universal credit claimants are 58% more likely to be sanctioned than white claimants, then true co-production must involve disabled people’s organisations representing the diversity of our community, and make sure their voices are heard, not just in evidence gathering but in the recommendations process.  

The members of the review must address the specific issues experienced by multiply marginalised disabled people, including those with other protected characteristics, but also class, place of residence, immigration status, caring responsibilities or family situation. 

This is not going to be an easy project to embark on, but to deliver what our community needs, there is no other option.  

Mikey Erhardt is a campaigner for Disability Rights UK.

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more. 

Change a vendor’s life this winter.

Buy from your local Big Issue vendor every week – and always take the magazine. It’s how vendors earn with dignity and how we fund our work to end poverty.

You can also support online with a vendor support kit or a magazine subscription. Thank you for standing with Big Issue vendors.