Sir Stephen Timms: changes to benefit eligibility will be delayed until his review of it concludes next year – but the review itself will have no effect on the changes that will happen.
Share this post:
The government is saying its welfare reform Bill (now to be called simply the Universal Credit Bill, it seems) will not implement changes to eligibility for disability benefits until the so-called Timms Review is finished. But it doesn’t say the review will be allowed to have any effect on what those changes will be.
As the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payments Bill heads to Committee Stage on July 7, 2025, one glaring omission in the amendment list raises a vital question:
Why has no MP tabled an amendment requiring that the findings of the Timms Review be debated—and possibly implemented instead of the government’s already-planned cuts—before those cuts are brought in?
The government says the controversial new “four-point rule” for Personal Independence Payments (PIP), and key cuts to the health-related Universal Credit element, will not be enacted until after the Timms Review of disability benefits is completed.
But there’s a catch: there is no requirement for the review’s conclusions to be debated, much less adopted.
The legislation remains poised to proceed exactly as planned—regardless of what the review recommends.
In other words, the review can – and probably will be ignored.
A review without power
The government line—repeated by Secretary of State Liz Kendall and by Sir Stephen Timms himself—is that reforms to PIP and Universal Credit will happen “after the review has reported.”
But “after” is not “depending on what is recommended”.
Despite reassurances, there’s no clause in the Bill—or amendment on the table—that makes those reforms contingent on Parliament approving the review’s findings instead.
There’s not even a requirement that Parliament debate the review at all.
This renders the review toothless.
If the four-point rule and the Universal Credit cuts are already baked into the legislation, what real influence can the review have?
This is not just a technical oversight.
It strikes at the credibility of the review process and, by extension, at the government’s claim that it is willing to listen to evidence before reshaping support for disabled people.
Why are disability organisations still willing to take part in a process that will have no effect on what happens to the people they represent?
And am I really the only person seeing this?
What amendments have been tabled?
Amendments have been tabled by both government and opposition MPs, and some are being described as victories for campaigners.
But when examined closely, they mostly serve to delay—not replace—the cuts.
Here are the most significant:
Government Amendments (Liz Kendall)
-
Gov 2 / NC1: Guarantees inflation-protected payments for current claimants, terminally ill people, and those meeting the “severe conditions” criteria.
-
Gov 4: Removes Clause 5—the infamous “four-point rule”—for now.
-
Gov 5 & Gov 10: Strip all PIP-related content from the Bill entirely, refocusing it on Universal Credit.
These are not real reversals.
The PIP cuts are simply postponed until after the Timms Review—at which point they can be reintroduced by a future Bill, or even added back in by regulations.
Backbench Amendments
-
Amendment 19 (Debbie Abrahams): Delays the Universal Credit cuts from April to November 2026—a short-term reprieve.
-
Amendment 17 (Graeme Downie): Ensures people with fluctuating degenerative conditions like Parkinson’s or MS are not excluded from the new “severe conditions” criteria.
-
Amendment 33 (Kirsty Blackman): Allows diagnoses from private doctors, not just the NHS, to be considered valid under the Bill.
-
Steve Darling’s new clause: Prevents the Bill from taking effect until after the Timms Review and other required consultations are completed—but again, it does not require the results to be acted upon.
Delays are not safeguards
Delaying a harmful policy is not the same as replacing it.
None of the current amendments:
-
Require Parliament to debate or vote on the Timms Review’s conclusions.
-
Propose alternative reforms based on evidence gathered during the review.
-
Prevent the government from reintroducing the same harmful measures once the delay expires.
As it stands, the government could simply say “thanks for the input” after the review concludes—and then implement exactly what it originally planned.
Why this matters
The stakes are enormous.
The “four-point rule” would exclude thousands from PIP.
Cuts to the health-related element of Universal Credit could push vulnerable people into destitution.
And the criteria for “severe conditions” could lock out those with fluctuating or invisible disabilities.
If the Timms Review is to be more than a PR exercise, MPs must demand a formal, binding debate and vote on its conclusions—before any postponed reforms go ahead.
That should have been the first amendment on the table.
Why is everybody giving up before the job is done?
So far, not a single MP has stood up to demand this simple guarantee: that Parliament will have a real say on whether to follow the Timms Review’s recommendations instead of the original cuts.
Without such an amendment, this entire review process risks becoming a fig leaf—used to delay outrage, not to drive change.
So I have to ask: with the job not yet done, why is everybody with an interest in it downing tools and turning away?
Share this post:
What is the point of a benefit eligibility review that can be ignored?
Sir Stephen Timms: changes to benefit eligibility will be delayed until his review of it concludes next year – but the review itself will have no effect on the changes that will happen.
Share this post:
The government is saying its welfare reform Bill (now to be called simply the Universal Credit Bill, it seems) will not implement changes to eligibility for disability benefits until the so-called Timms Review is finished. But it doesn’t say the review will be allowed to have any effect on what those changes will be.
As the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payments Bill heads to Committee Stage on July 7, 2025, one glaring omission in the amendment list raises a vital question:
The government says the controversial new “four-point rule” for Personal Independence Payments (PIP), and key cuts to the health-related Universal Credit element, will not be enacted until after the Timms Review of disability benefits is completed.
But there’s a catch: there is no requirement for the review’s conclusions to be debated, much less adopted.
The legislation remains poised to proceed exactly as planned—regardless of what the review recommends.
In other words, the review can – and probably will be ignored.
A review without power
The government line—repeated by Secretary of State Liz Kendall and by Sir Stephen Timms himself—is that reforms to PIP and Universal Credit will happen “after the review has reported.”
But “after” is not “depending on what is recommended”.
Despite reassurances, there’s no clause in the Bill—or amendment on the table—that makes those reforms contingent on Parliament approving the review’s findings instead.
There’s not even a requirement that Parliament debate the review at all.
This renders the review toothless.
If the four-point rule and the Universal Credit cuts are already baked into the legislation, what real influence can the review have?
This is not just a technical oversight.
It strikes at the credibility of the review process and, by extension, at the government’s claim that it is willing to listen to evidence before reshaping support for disabled people.
Why are disability organisations still willing to take part in a process that will have no effect on what happens to the people they represent?
And am I really the only person seeing this?
What amendments have been tabled?
Amendments have been tabled by both government and opposition MPs, and some are being described as victories for campaigners.
But when examined closely, they mostly serve to delay—not replace—the cuts.
Here are the most significant:
Government Amendments (Liz Kendall)
Gov 2 / NC1: Guarantees inflation-protected payments for current claimants, terminally ill people, and those meeting the “severe conditions” criteria.
Gov 4: Removes Clause 5—the infamous “four-point rule”—for now.
Gov 5 & Gov 10: Strip all PIP-related content from the Bill entirely, refocusing it on Universal Credit.
These are not real reversals.
The PIP cuts are simply postponed until after the Timms Review—at which point they can be reintroduced by a future Bill, or even added back in by regulations.
Backbench Amendments
Amendment 19 (Debbie Abrahams): Delays the Universal Credit cuts from April to November 2026—a short-term reprieve.
Amendment 17 (Graeme Downie): Ensures people with fluctuating degenerative conditions like Parkinson’s or MS are not excluded from the new “severe conditions” criteria.
Amendment 33 (Kirsty Blackman): Allows diagnoses from private doctors, not just the NHS, to be considered valid under the Bill.
Steve Darling’s new clause: Prevents the Bill from taking effect until after the Timms Review and other required consultations are completed—but again, it does not require the results to be acted upon.
Delays are not safeguards
Delaying a harmful policy is not the same as replacing it.
None of the current amendments:
Require Parliament to debate or vote on the Timms Review’s conclusions.
Propose alternative reforms based on evidence gathered during the review.
Prevent the government from reintroducing the same harmful measures once the delay expires.
As it stands, the government could simply say “thanks for the input” after the review concludes—and then implement exactly what it originally planned.
Why this matters
The stakes are enormous.
The “four-point rule” would exclude thousands from PIP.
Cuts to the health-related element of Universal Credit could push vulnerable people into destitution.
And the criteria for “severe conditions” could lock out those with fluctuating or invisible disabilities.
If the Timms Review is to be more than a PR exercise, MPs must demand a formal, binding debate and vote on its conclusions—before any postponed reforms go ahead.
That should have been the first amendment on the table.
Why is everybody giving up before the job is done?
So far, not a single MP has stood up to demand this simple guarantee: that Parliament will have a real say on whether to follow the Timms Review’s recommendations instead of the original cuts.
Without such an amendment, this entire review process risks becoming a fig leaf—used to delay outrage, not to drive change.
So I have to ask: with the job not yet done, why is everybody with an interest in it downing tools and turning away?
Share this post:
you might also like
Let’s start the New Year with some hopeful news
More mistakes in the script? Correcting Cameron’s New Year speech
Osborne wants a ‘year of hard truths’. Here’s one: He’s HIDING the truth