The Timms Review of PIP – our view of the interim report

Last year, the government was stopped in its tracks after it proposed cutting eligibility for Personal Independence Payments (PIP). As we said at the time in Lead shoes instead of a life ring, the reforms would have been a disaster for many people with mental health problems who rely on PIP to work, to participate in interests and hobbies, to see friends and family or even to put food on the table. 

A broad coalition – campaigners all over the country and many MPs – opposed the plans and the pressure worked. The government was forced to back down. 

But welfare reform is still on the table and earlier this week, the Timms Review published its interim findings. The Review was set up to look at whether PIP is fit for purpose and how it can be reformed, but it does so against a backdrop in which the government is very worried about a rising benefits bill.

The numbers are no joke. PIP expenditure for working age claimants has risen from around £13 billion in 2020 to £24 billion last year. Some ministers would probably be happy if the Review found that reducing PIP eligibility could be justified.

But a reduction in eligibility is not what the evidence found by the Timms Review suggests. At this stage, the Review is not making recommendations, so it remains to be seen how it interprets its data, but so far its findings are very similar to what our Research Community has been telling us:

• PIP is a vital lifeline for many people with disabilities
• The process for claiming PIP dehumanising and stressful
• The rhetoric around fraud and misuse is damaging and false
• Eligibility criteria does not take enough account of multiple or fluctuating conditions
• PIP often plugs a gap left by inadequate service provision and welfare entitlement
• Fear of losing PIP means some people may not take up work, or even exercise

While some of the press have seized upon the idea that PIP is discouraging people from working, the reason is due to fear of their claim being reviewed. The report does not suggest that tightening eligibility would help.

As it stands, PIP entitlements are not supposed to stop simply because a person can now work or exercise. In fact, PIP may be the factor that enables someone to recover enough to start working, and were they to lose it on getting a job, that job itself would become untenable. This is why we have long called for a genuine Right to Try where benefits eligibility is not threatened by taking up work.

As a result, these findings are likely to leave the government in a quandary. It believes it needs to reduce the welfare bill, but as it stands the evidence shows no easy path. The previous proposals to reduce eligibility, so that people with less severe disabilities cannot claim, would only make the existing problems worse, since it would target the very people for whom PIP is most likely to make the difference when it comes to employment. It would also only make an already complex and difficult claims process even less accessible, especially for those whose conditions fluctuate.

Of course, the government should explore how service and welfare provision can be changed so that PIP no longer needs to plug the gaps with a cash benefit. That would be a sensible approach as both areas are in dire need of serious reform. However, any long term reduction in PIP claims would need to be as a direct result of effective and embedded change, not due to a tightening of eligibility criteria. 

The Timms Review is now moving onto its next stage, in which it will be looking to find workable solutions, ahead of a publication in the autumn. Whatever happens, it is critical that the views and needs of people with mental health problems are reflected in the final recommendations.