Dr Clenton Farquharson, co-chair of the Timms review, admitted on Radio 4’s In Touch programme this week that the process being used is not “fully or true co-production”.  In relation to the forthcoming workshops, he also admitted that the recruitment process “seems very rushed” and that “300 people cannot represent every experience”.

In other comments, Farquharson said the group were looking at what “urgent” changes were needed to PIP and at “what PIP is for and what PIP is not for”.

Farquharson would not be drawn on what issues people joining the September and October workshops would be considering, saying only:

“Our recommendations will be emerging recommendations and we’re still working through them.  I would love to bring you solid proposals, but they are emerging thinking around the recommendations that we’ll be looking at: what we’ve heard from the call to evidence around the assessment, the descriptors, the award you know, what PIP is for and what PIP is not for.”

When asked if the claim of co-production is “just a bit of window dressing to offset accusations that disabled people, visually impaired people haven’t been properly involved in the discussion process?” Farquharson responded:

“At the moment co-production is being done with the steering group . . . this isn’t fully or true co-production, we do acknowledge that.”

On the subject of what aspects of PIP might change, he said “We will need to look at what could be you know urgent changes in the current system, what would improve that.  We would need to look at what medium and long-term changes need to happen.”

Farquharson explained that after the workshops are completed: “There will be further discussions from the insight and wisdom of disabled people and disabled people’s organisations and charities.  Late Autumn is where we need to get the collection of recommendations ready to show the secretary of state.”

Farquharson seemed ready to accept the inadequacy of these final workshops, acknowledging: “We’ve got about three hundred places Peter.  We’re saying 300 people cannot represent every experience.”

In relation to the fact that the workshop application process closes on Friday, so people will have to hurry to apply he said “Those timelines we can’t move, So you know, apologise [sic] that that seems very rushed, but we have a timescale to meet.”

The reality is that there is no genuine reason why the whole Timms review has to be so rushed as to discredit its conclusions before they have even been announced, that is simply the preference of the DWP and the Labour government.

There is also absolutely no reason why the proposals should be kept so secret or why there will be absolutely no consultation with disabled people, other than the Timms committee, before they go to the secretary of state for a final decision.

 Again, that is simply the preference of the DWP and the Labour government, with which the Timms review committee has been willing to acquiesce.

You can listen to the full episode of In Touch on BBC Sounds.

You can find out more about the Timms review workshops, closing date for applications Friday 21 August 2026 at 5pm.

 

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    It is not my intention to cause unnecessary worry, but as a community we need also to be realistic. The Government finances are in a parlous state - and economic growth has been meagre since 2008. Furthermore, Europe cannot rely on an isolationist USA (led by a senile idiot) so defence spending will need to be increased. And to pay for this, you can't cut the education or that sacred cow, the NHS, so it is going to be welfare.bit should include pensioners but it won't....
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Matt You are Correct.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Matt Hi Matt I think everyone on here can google ourselves without people putting here rumours and what IF this happens or that happens? We on this forum plus disability charties come together has a community to fight or change once we all know what is really coming in concrete rather guessing and everyone’s  emotions running high. In my eyes you can’t fight anything which is not there thank you for reading my comment and take care 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    My wife as cronic long term health problems heart transplant strokes and meny other problems her award is until 2031 so does the with the timmins review she as to be re assessment yet again it's not fair at all 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 days ago
    Assuming the Timms Report recommends tightening eligibility for PIP this will require primary legislation, followed by implementation which will take years, but it will suit Labour at the next GE to county the Conservatives (Badenich appears to be moving to the right) and Reform. I'm afraid it could be very grim, especially for the young and physically fit (ie, those claiming for mild mental health issues), mainly due to the last Conservative Government linking UC Health to being awarded PIP. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Baz Checked online. You are correct with Labour, although Sunak did propose linking UC to PIP back in 2023
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Baz When did Labour link UC health element to getting PIP? Labour did cut the health element of UC but I'm pretty sure Sunak linked UC health element to having PIP, at which point the number of people applying and getting PIP has grown very rapidly. Why do you think all major parties (I don't count the Greens) want to change or abolish PIP.
       
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Matt Matt, it was Labour who decided to link UC health to PIP awards, from 2029.

      Please state correct facts if commenting.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 days ago
      @Paul Smith. Hi Paul I like your comment I’ve always said this about some peoples comments on here make the real severely disabled people panic and worry about reading some comments which actually make their conditions worse so some people really need to think about everyone on here and maybe keep there speculating statements to themselves 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 days ago
      @JBob1234 That was as clear as mud and very speculative to say the least. I am finding all this speculation on this forum very worrying, at the moment there are no concrete facts and won't be until the report is released. So speculating is causing more harm than good, especially as it is all bad news,  I think it would be healthier to only put facts on here as we have them, to keep the anxiety levels to a minimum of those who may be affected.  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 days ago
    Can't see them delaying anything they will do hard pip cuts as soon as they can until there's no pip left to cut
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    Hope you can all open the link I just posted, hope too its of some interest. I gazed at it half asleep earlier after another night of no rest.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @TheDogmother (The original) All hinging on the Timms review for pip then. Changes might take a while, though, given Andy "can only address 'one big issue at a time'" 🙄 😆
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 days ago
    With regards to social housing...
    I currently live in a small flat on the top floor which is privately rented. The landlady, like many in her position, is selling up. I can stay as a sitting tenant. However, I will be 60 in May 2028. As I may have mentioned before, I have dual sensory loss due to maternal Rubella plus type one diabetes.  I am considering getting a care plan from social services in order to secure social housing. Has anyone on this forum gone through the same process?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 10 days ago
    In other news Reform's social housing plan has been announced and published.

    Social housing allocation not by need but by suitability, who deserves social housing. Which according to reform is not giving social housing to those not working on welfare. Evicting all foreign national households form social housing. Giving social housing to British born working under 35s with top priority for British born working married couples under 35 with children. And top priority to British military veterans.

    Social housing tenants would be required to maintain their gardens and properties and not be a nuisance to their neighbours or face eviction.

    All tenancies would be fixed term with the standard being 5 years and allocation would be reassessed before renewal.

    It is unclear what happens at tenancy renewal if a working married couple with children has become a single parent household through death or divorce. Victims of domestic violence would have protection.

    It is also unclear what happens if a working household has ceased to be a working household due to unemployment or incapacity.

    And it is unclear what happens if the working couple cease to be under 35 years old. Assuming they have not taken up right to buy see below.

    Also massive changes to the right to buy.

    "The tenancy required to purchase will be reduced to 5 years, upon which a 30% discount will
    be available, rising to 40% after 10 years. The scheme will be available exclusively for British
    born nationals."

    Where I live that would be a gift of £120,000 to £160,000+ for social housing tenants living in a three bed semi. And not only could the existing social housing tenants be looking at that windfall of over £100,000, they could be looking at their working perfectly able to fend for themselves children getting social housing with below market rents, and then after 3 years them also getting windfalls of over £100,000. That is in my opinion massive life changing amounts of money likely to incentives those who might benefit to vote reform.

    Reform also plan to build more social housing, funded through the right to buy, public sector pension funds, increased borrowing by social housing providers. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 days ago
      @Aw Sorry @Aw That should say a "Gold Flying Dog". I'd no glasses on. 🤓
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 days ago
      @Aw @Aw much as I love pigs do you think i could as for a golf flying dog? 😋🐕
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 days ago
      @JBob1234 I hope to god that Reform don't get in and get absolutely demolished at any general election or we are all seriously screwed. NO JOKE.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 9 days ago
      @JBob1234 Right to buy has been a major contributor to the housing crisis.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 10 days ago
      @Aw Thatcher's right to buy is within living memory so I expect prospective voters to believe Reform's right to buy policy. Rather than dismiss it as pure unbelievable fantasy.

      Thatcher 1980 Housing Act. 3 years tenancy 33% off market price for a house (40% off for a flat). Rising to to a max at 20 years tenancy of 50% off market price.

      Reform 3 years tenancy 30% off rising to max at 10 years of 40% off market price. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 10 days ago
    In other news Reform has announced it's plans for social housing. Social housing will not be a reward for welfare. Social housing will be prioritised for British born workers aged under 35, especially young British born couples working households with children. And veterans. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 11 days ago
    In other news. Allegedly Burnham wanted Lord Jim O'Neill to be his chief economic advisor. O'Neil currently a cross bench peer, was previously an economic advisor then Treasury Minister in Cameron's government, and was made a Lord by Cameron. O'Neil who advocates for welfare cuts and against a wealth tax said he did not have any policy disagreements with Burnham. And had declined due to not wanting to put his own investment portfolio into a blind trust.  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago
    I wonder if Honest Bob Jenrick will press gang us into the Navy.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 days ago
      @Jon @Jon...and throw us overboard.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago
    Less pip daily income if they remove it will mean the mobility car sceme will not last people will give their cars back to retain ther mobility part money to make up for lost daily living amount my wife pip goes to mobility car adapting it . mobility scooter if they remove daily living income she would give the car back and tell all her hospitals appointments that I not coming as no money lost car no batterys for scooter as they only last over a year also disabled stuff we paid out of her pip for the house she ad cancer heart transplant strokes she now is cronic long term health problems 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 days ago
      @Miss Kitty Kat Thank you
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 days ago
      @Wayne So sorry hopefully all will be ok for your dear lady wife 🙏 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago
    @JBob1234 /John/Bob More and more pip will be going towards rent, mortgage, utility bills, grocery shopping, as income and income replacement benefits do not keep up with the cost of living. I agree with @tintack that there is an overlap in routine costs and extra, disability related costs, which would make it difficult to calculate the specific disability related expense.

    Apart from anything pip is supposed to make the lives of the disabled closer to that of the able, so if money is spent on access to culture or days out or holidays, that should not be cut from the award.

    It will be an administrative nightmare to identify and differentiate between what pip is for, and ordinary living and 'frivolous' expenditure.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago
    I have a subscription to the UK's online newspaper archive, I just came across an article in a newspaper from back in 1998, the article is on Tony Blair's government saying that sickness benefits need to be curbed and tightened. It's the same old story time and again, we as sick and disabled people have always been the punching bag of the media/successive governments. An easy target to go after, low hanging fruit.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 days ago
      @Mory The unemployed were not parked on sickness benefits to manipulate the figures. Thatcher increased conditionality on the unemployed and created a financial difference between incapacity and unemployment. So those eligible for incapacity moved off unemployment benefit and onto incapacity benefits. Thatcher did not lower the threshold of who qualified. Quite the opposite eligibility was repeatedly narrowed.

      Thatcher also created the independent living fund and widened eligibility to carer's allowance. And moved people out of long-term hospitals and into the community.

      While on the negative side Thatcher altered the uprating link for benefits. So unemployment benefits are far lower today than they would otherwise have been.

      Major created DLA.

      These increases in welfare by Thatcher and Major for the ill and disabled were intended to save money. As it is far cheaper to support people to live in the community and if needed be cared for by friends and relatives, than it is to have them live in long stay hospitals or care homes. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 days ago
      @Dbp100 It began with John Majors goverment. Ironically after Thatcher parked the unemployed on the sick to manipulate unemployment figures. It was Tony Blair's goverment though that introduced corporate Welfare. Which appears to have been adopted by much of the Western World and beyond. Corporate welfare is a disgrace. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @Dbp100 Tony B!air is an ever present snake in the grass.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago
    I doubt this is a surprise to anyone who has years of experience dealing with the DWP, no matter who is in charge they will always be underhanded and treat disabled claimants like dirt. This whole thing felt like a pr exercise from the start. Hopefully one that the MPs and committee will call out
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago
    I fear they are going to be looking at what people are or will be spending PIP on. And if the answer is their rent, mortgage, utility bills, grocery shopping, or things that improve their quality of life be that hobbies or days out. And not disability aids or someone to provide services for them they cannot do due to disability. It might be deemed not what PIP is for.

    The issue I have with this is that basic UC for the unemployed is by design intended to be punitive, only enough to enable short-term subsistence. So the unemployed will be desperate to take any job to improve their meagre lives. Not designed for people to live on long-term or enjoy any quality of life. And the plan is to abolish the WCA and make UC health dependent on receiving PIP daily living. So without PIP people will just get basic UC. That means people who cannot work will long-term have no quality of life and end up in severe material deprivation.

    And even with UC health UC is still very low and arguably inadequate due to years of not being uprated in line with inflation, and reductions in other support like local housing allowances, support for mortgage interest, and council tax support. And the rise in the cost of living that disproportionately hits those on low incomes due to it being food prices and energy bills. And for new claimants the recent massive cut to UC health LCWRA. So even if they abandoned the plan to abolish the WCA or created a new two tier system where some people get UC health and no PIP, it is not going to be enough money to have any sort of decent life.

    Which is why I find the phrase “what PIP is for and what PIP is not for” chilling.
    As in the interim report it says

    "We have agreed as a steering group that the purpose of PIP is to assist D/deaf and disabled people, and people with long-term conditions, to reduce the inequalities they face in participating in everyday life through a contribution towards the extra costs of disability."

    "The benefit plays a vital role in supporting claimants to cover the costs of aids and equipment that enable independent living, as well as supporting people to get around, for example, by paying for taxis where public transport is inaccessible. It also enables disabled people to access the Motability scheme"

    "PIP also plays an important role in passporting to other entitlement - receipt of PIP provides eligibility to some additional amounts and premiums in other DWP benefits, as well as Carer’s Allowance (if the person being cared for is in receipt of the daily living component of PIP)"

    "PIP cannot be everything to everybody so as the Review looks at the role and purpose of PIP, the steering group will have some challenging discussions. However, it recognises that the reliance on PIP has likely increased due to difficulty accessing vital services and support, such as community mental health services, Access to Work, social care and support, accessible housing, and Disabled Facilities Grants."
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 days ago
      @JBob123 JBob no they aren't  it clearly states on Coliace UK my surgery is on the list for permitting the script,also my cousins young daughter gets her script from same surgery.The money saving is exactly why they won't allow it.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 days ago
      @Jelly4toes.

      The GP could just be following the CCG restrictions for the area. So if it was me I would 

      And if it was me I would  check who owns the practice. Probably not much point complaining to the practice manager if the doctor is the senior partner/owner of the GP surgery. 

      Having said the above you also get GPs in areas where they can prescribe gluten free bread who refuse to do so. Thinking they are saving the NHS money.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @Jelly4toes. I was told by another to do so also. Jelly4toes.  I'm speaking to my consultant in two weeks time so I'll be telling him and giving their reasons why. Its hard enough to live without your gp blocking any help,sadly my surgery is notorious for it. The few people I've told since the refusal months ago were pretty shocked. Thank you for your reply.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @TheDogmother (The original) If it was me I would write a letter or email of complaint fAO The Practice Manager. You might find they suddenly review their decision 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @Clockoholic @Clockoholic - the review panel should be made to confront the more graphic practical details such as you have described. It's so easy for people judging to avoid the reality. Thanks for sharing.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago
    @Kevin As axab43 says, AI can be helpful if you ask a straightforward question - I use it a lot - but keep posting on here too. There are many who will support you, so stay in touch!

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 days ago
    On the bright side if disability organisations take the dwp to court to challenge this farce (like Ellen Clifford did with the Tory dwp consultation a few years back) the above comments from the times co chair definitely solidifies our case

    It’s obvious that McFadden and no 10 (at least under Starmer, though burnhams done nothing so far to change things) are forcing timms & co to rush things through so they can roll out cuts rapidly.

    Considering the reform welfare announcement this week and public reaction (both the outrage and those who seem to enjoy the less fortunate then themselves being smeared & financially targeted), McFadden unveiling labours plan for the welfare ‘race to the bottom’ that seems to be happening between the main uk political parties within the next 4 months seems at best unwise timing.

    There’s no way after this week labour will be able to sneak through any cuts on welfare - the magnifying glass is firmly fixed on this now and I can’t see  how burnhams gov are going to get through this controversial welfare reform topic without obtaining significant wounds regardless of if they manage to push things through or not.

    A ‘wrestling match in a mud pit’ is likely to be less messy than welfare reform recommendations coming this sept to nov
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 days ago
      @keepingitreal I don’t think my analogy with the mud pit read very well.

      This autumn is shaping up to be unprecedented levels of messy.

      We are expecting Labour to try and sneak through reforms &cuts that are the tiniest bit less severe than reform & Tory proposals

      The problem for Labour is that it’s been obvious to many disability organisations, charities and individuals that that’s the plan (and the worst kept one at that.

      There’s no way Labour can catch us unaware now (esp with reform raising bar for the new disability welfare dark ages) which does cripple their ability to sneak things through unnoticed 

      If this welfare reform take 2 was the superbowl than Labour have basically leaked their playbook - it’s still David vs Goliath but that was also the case in summer 2025 with take 1 - this time we have recent precedent that pressure from the disability quarters can have an impact
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @D I really hope you're right that Labour wont "be able to sneak through any cuts on welfare", but I worry it might go the other way and they'll wrestle with Conservative to be less bad than Reform, but still terrible.

      I think this is a welcome, if surprising admission from Farquharson, that he feels things are being rushed and conclusions will not be representative. The fact that one of the co chairs would break rank like this is about the best criticism of the process we could hope for, but there could still be a mud pit to come this autumn! 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 days ago
    Looks like Labour policies could be the best of a bad bunch but I would have thought with all your conditions you could be okay.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @Wibblum Thank you. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 days ago
    Thanks, I don't usually listen to In Touch (even though I'm VI) but as suspected Timms Review is a stich-up. However, Burnham is not Starmer....

    As to when the report will be published, 'late Autumn:' hints that it'll be after the Budget
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.