Our response to the Timms Review update: disabled people must shape what comes next

Personal Independence Payment affects the independence, security and everyday lives of millions of disabled people. Any discussion about its future must begin with the people who rely on it.

The Department for Work and Pensions has published a September 2026 update from the co-chairs of the Timms Review. This is Speak To Me’s response: our reflections on what gives us hope, what still concerns us and what disabled people need to see next.

Our response

We welcome the Review’s recognition that the current PIP assessment and decision-making process can be stressful and dehumanising. We also welcome its view that PIP should remain a flexible, non-means-tested cash contribution towards the additional costs faced by D/deaf and disabled people and people with long-term health conditions. [1]

These are important principles. However, disabled people will judge the Review by what its final recommendations do in practice—not only by the language used during the process.

What we welcome

The update treats lived experience as a form of expertise and says the Review is testing whether emerging ideas are fair, workable and likely to improve people’s experience of PIP. [1]

Nearly 4,000 people registered an interest in shaping-recommendations workshops. The Review planned 15 workshops across the four UK nations, alongside roundtables with Disabled People’s Organisations, charities and experts. A commissioned survey received approximately 2,000 responses. [1]

We welcome this level of interest. It shows how strongly disabled people want to influence decisions that may affect their independence and daily lives.

What concerns us

The Review must work within the Office for Budget Responsibility’s projected future PIP spending. [1] We are concerned that a fixed financial limit could shape the outcome before disabled people’s needs and the wider consequences of reform have been fully understood.

The September update contains emerging recommendations, not final decisions. It does not settle future eligibility rules, assessment descriptors, award levels or whether individual claimants could lose support. [1] That uncertainty must be acknowledged honestly.

The three-page accessible PDF refers to an annex but does not itself include it. The wider material is available through the GOV.UK publication page. [1] [2] Clear, accessible and complete information is essential if people are expected to take part meaningfully.

Co-production must mean shared influence

Inviting disabled people to workshops is valuable, but attendance alone is not co-production. Co-production means sharing influence, explaining how decisions were reached and showing what changed because disabled people spoke.

We want participants to be able to trace their contribution through to the final recommendations. If an idea raised by disabled people is rejected, the Review should explain why.

Why Parliament’s questions matter

The cross-party Work and Pensions Committee has questioned whether disabled members have shared power in decision-making and how workshop feedback will influence the final recommendations. [3] These are the right questions.

The Committee has also warned that restricting PIP could increase pressure on health, social care, housing and other services. It asked for clarity on assessment criteria, cash support, disability-related costs, reassessment, employment protections and the Review’s spending constraint. [3]

What reform could mean in real life

PIP is not an unemployment benefit. It contributes towards disability-related costs and can support participation in employment, education, family life and the community. [3]

When support is reduced, the cost does not disappear. It can move to families, councils, the NHS, social care and housing services—or leave disabled people without the support they need.

Any new approach must work for people with fluctuating, less-visible and multiple conditions. It must include reasonable adjustments, allow supporting evidence and provide appropriate long-term awards where conditions are lifelong, progressive or stable.

Equality must guide every decision

Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 requires public authorities to give due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations. Disability is a protected characteristic. [4]

Government guidance confirms that this duty applies to public policy and benefit reform. Decision-makers must understand equality impacts and consider how harm could be prevented or reduced. [5]

What we want to see next

We want the final recommendations to protect PIP as flexible cash support and to be published in accessible formats with clear supporting evidence.

We want a transparent explanation of how disabled people’s evidence changed the recommendations, alongside full assessments of the likely effects on poverty, employment, health, social care, housing and family carers.

We also want the Government and Review to explain openly how the spending constraint influenced their choices and who could gain or lose under each proposal.

The Review has an opportunity to build a system based on dignity, trust and real life. That opportunity will only be realised if disabled people share genuine influence over what comes next.

Fact-based. Evidence-led. Nothing about us without us.