Share this post:

New analysis shows that Stephen Timms’ so-called “co-produced” PIP review bears little resemblance to what was promised in Parliament. Small, secretive committees, chaired by the minister himself, are no substitute for real disabled leadership.

The illusion of “co-production” is collapsing.

DPAC Cymru’s scathing open letter denouncing the lack of disabled involvement in the Timms PIP review has prompted respected website Benefits and Work to confirm that Stephen Timms’s definition of “co-production” has nothing in common with the version promised in Parliament.

The Universal Credit Bill originally included an amendment by Dr Marie Tidball MP outlining a genuine model of co-production.

It proposed an independent taskforce with a majority of disabled members, chaired by someone other than the minister — and supported by the Government Equalities Office.

Timms supported that idea at the time — calling it “a helpful checklist” — but now appears to be quietly abandoning it.

Instead, he has announced that the review will be steered by “a fairly small group of ten people,” hand-picked by the minister himself, and who will “work closely” with him over the coming year.

This structure not only lacks independence – it flies in the face of everything that was promised.

Nothing like the taskforce that Parliament was led to expect.

On top of that, five committees have already been formed — each also consisting of 10 unnamed individuals — to discuss highly sensitive topics including:

• Raising the PIP eligibility age to 18

• Delaying UC health elements until age 22

• “Right to Try” employment initiatives

• Pathways to work

• Changes to Access to Work

These committees will only meet four times, for a total of eight–12 hours before making sweeping recommendations that could affect millions of disabled people.

Even more alarmingly, these meetings are happening in secret.

There is no public information about the participants, terms of reference, or procedures.

In contrast, the Disability Rights Taskforce in Wales brought together 350 stakeholders and practised real co-production — the very model that disabled people and organisations are demanding the UK Government emulate.

The real aim may still be cuts

While Timms told the BBC the review is “not designed to deliver cuts,” Liz Kendall’s May 2025 speech painted a starkly different picture — describing rising PIP costs as “not sustainable” and framing reform as essential to reduce spending.

She said:

“There are now 1,000 new PIP awards every single day. That’s the equivalent of adding a city the size of Leicester every single year.

“This is not sustainable or fair – for the people who need support and for taxpayers.

“So unless we reform the system to help those who can work to do so…

“Unless we get social security spending on a more sustainable footing…

“And unless we ensure public money is focused on those with the greatest need and is spent in ways that have the best chance of improving people’s lives…

“…the risk is the welfare state won’t be there for people who really need it in future.”

This contradiction casts serious doubt on the claim that this is anything but a cost-cutting exercise in disguise.

Consultation – not collaboration

The Benefits and Work report confirms what disabled activists already feared: the review process is a managed consultation, not a democratic collaboration.

It seems clear that – unless the government changes direction radically, and soon – the whole project is a sham, and the UK Government must be held to account — by the public, by Parliament, and by disabled people themselves.

Share this post: