Just over a year after its launch, the Timms Review is expected to report its findings to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions next week. The review was established<\/a> to ensure that the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is fair and fit for the future in a changing world, and that PIP works to improve the wellbeing and quality of life for disabled people. The interim report<\/a> of the Timms Review said simply that \u2018PIP is not working\u2019, and dedicated the rest of their work to developing recommendations for the Government, drawing from lived experience, stakeholder perspectives, expert insight and data to develop proposals for meaningful change.<\/p>\n This blog will provide an overview of the subject of investigation in the Timms review, and outline the key issues and policy matters which are at stake. I will also dive into what we may be able to expect from the final Timms report and what the potential consequences of this widely anticipated publication might be.<\/p>\n PIP is a non-means-tested benefit and is intended<\/a> to help with the extra costs arising from ill health or disability, it is separate to other \u2018income replacement\u2019 benefits such as Universal Credit and can be paid alongside them. PIP can be paid to individuals whether they are in or out work. It has two key components: a mobility component, based on an individual\u2019s ability to get around; and a \u2018daily living\u2019 component, based on ability to carry out other key activities necessary to be able to participate in daily life. Each component has a standard or enhanced rate depending on the severity of the disability.<\/p>\n PIP was introduced by the Coalition Government in 2013. The Welfare Reform Act was written in the context of austerity, and was designed with the intention to reduce spending on working-age disability benefits. It was expected<\/a> to cost the Government \u00a32.5bn a year less than they had been spending on the Disability Living Allowance (DLA). However, these expected savings did not materialise, in fact, by 2018-19, with PIP rollout 75% complete, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) said<\/a> disability benefits spending had been underestimated by \u00a34bn.<\/p>\n PIP was introduced at a time when, according to<\/a> the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Family Resource Survey, around 19% of the UK population (12.2 million people) had disabilities, including 16% of the working age population. The proportion of working age people with disabilities has since increased; the 2024 to 2025 DWP figures found<\/a> that 25% of the population, or 16.7 million people, were disabled and around 23% of working age adults. This means the percentage of working age adults with a disability has risen by 7 points since the PIP reforms were introduced.<\/p>\n Increases in claims have led to significant growth in spending on PIP, from \u00a311bn in 2019\/20 to \u00a322bn for working age claimants last year. The spending has been forecast to continue growing; the OBR expects<\/a> it to reach about \u00a332bn for working-age adults by 2029\/30.<\/p>\n The Conservative Government decided in 2023 to scrap<\/a> the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), while the Labour Government has not yet set a date to action it, this policy would make PIP the single gateway for health-related and disability benefits. In the Labour Government\u2019s Spring 2025 Statement they set out<\/a> the 4-point policy, where claimants must score a minimum of 4 points in at least one daily living activity to be eligible for the PIP daily living component. This was an attempt to reduce the number of claimants of PIP, those affected would have reportedly<\/a> lost an average of \u00a34,500 per year.<\/p>\n However, Dame Meg Hillier tabled a \u2018reasoned amendment\u2019<\/a> to block the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, arguing that disabled people had not been properly consulted and that further scrutiny of the changes was needed. Her amendment had the support of 126 Labour backbenchers, out of a total of 162 backers from all parties. A second amendment<\/a>, tabled by Rachael Maskell, was written with the backing of 138 disability groups, and 86 disability and human rights groups, including Scope, Mind, the Trussell Trust, Sense, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Oxfam, also urged MPs to vote the bill down. Timms eventually announced that the 4-point rule would be scrapped, and, against this political backdrop, the Timms Review was launched to assess the functionality and fairness of PIP. In his announcement, Timms said<\/a> the Government would \u2018only make changes to PIP eligibility activities and descriptors following that review\u2019, meaning the final publication marks an important milestone in this policy journey.<\/p>\n The review has been led by Sir Stephen Timms, the Minister of State for Social Security and Disability. The Government appointed a steering group of 12 members, with diverse experience and personal characteristics, to help lead the review, and put out a call for evidence which received more than 38,000 responses. However, the claim that the review has been \u2018co-produced\u2019 with disabled people has been disputed<\/a> by some stakeholders, such as the National Survivor User Network (NSUN) who raised doubt that all 38,000 could have truly been considered in the less than 6 months it took to publish the interim report.<\/p>\n The message from the co-chairs of the review in the interim report was simple: \u2018PIP is not working\u2019. The interim report laid out<\/a> the key failures of the existing system, while next week\u2019s report will lay out recommendations for the future.<\/p>\n The interim report found there to be widespread misunderstanding about the role of PIP and a lack of clarity about the effectiveness of its\u2019 support. They found that the PIP functional assessment does not always fully reflect real world needs, including the needs of people with multiple and fluctuating conditions. They also reported that evidence respondents found the application, assessment and decision-making process for PIP stressful and complex, with low levels of trust in the PIP assessment. The MS Society agreed<\/a> with these findings, spotlighting the experience of individuals with MS who found the PIP process is \u2018dehumanising and demoralising\u2019. The MS Society highlighted that \u2018snapshot\u2019 assessment which tries to minimise people\u2019s conditions to \u2018tick-boxes\u2019 is misrepresentative and dismissive.<\/p>\n A frequent criticism is that the PIP process fails to accommodate the wide variety of disabilities. In a joint letter, twelve leading cancer charities urged<\/a> the Government to reform PIP to better accommodate the complex needs of individuals with serious health conditions. They highlighted, for example, that the heavy administrative burden of applying for PIP can be entirely unmanageable for patients with brain tumours.<\/p>\n Furthermore, research by Young Lives vs Cancer found<\/a> that young people with cancer wait an average of 8 months after diagnosis before they receive their first PIP payment, despite the immediate impacts and additional costs of cancer, totalling an average of \u00a3700 every month.<\/p>\n The interim Timms report noted that society has changed in the 13 years since PIP was introduced, and that this unreformed system of benefits is no longer suitable for the world we now live in. However, the vital role of PIP has been widely acknowledged<\/a> by charities and action groups, with most organisations calling<\/a> for reform of PIP, rather than its abandonment. Yet, the calls for reform are widespread and extensive. The recommendations laid out in the final Timms report must therefore try to meet the difficult task of addressing the broad plethora of concerns which have been raised.<\/p>\n While we will have to wait for the publication of the final report to know exactly what reforms to PIP will be recommended, the \u2018emerging recommendations\u2019 were laid out<\/a> in September by the steering group behind the Timms review. We can expect the final recommendations to align very closely with the September recommendations, perhaps with further refinement and details on their implementation.<\/p>\n The emerging recommendations centred around improving the PIP process to make it easier and less hostile for applicants, to make the evidence gathering process more efficient, to digitalise much of the process and to improve the assessment process to better evaluate and support the broad range of disabilities.<\/p>\n The Guardian<\/em> has reported<\/a> on one quite consequential emerging recommendation: that some disabled people could receive \u2018in kind\u2019 support, meaning instead of weekly cash payments they could swap cash for specialist equipment and aids, services, or skills and training. This would be a radical departure from the current system, though the Timms review committee have emphasised<\/a> that cash will remain the foundation of the PIP award.<\/p>\nPersonal Independence Payment<\/h2>\n
Interim Timms Review findings and stakeholder responses<\/h2>\n
What to expect in the final Timms report<\/h2>\n