Sir Stephen Timms
MP for East Ham · Labour · United Kingdom
“I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he would like to send me details of that particular case, I will happily look into it. On the subject of people with hearing impairments, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities and I will be meeting the British Sign Language Advisory Board this afternoon.”
“Better outcomes require early identification and support for girls and young women with special educational needs, including dyslexia. That is the aim of the SEND reforms and the development of national inclusion standards.”
“Autistic people and people with ADHD have been struggling to get the right support at the right time. Recommendations from Professor Karen Guldberg’s neurodivergence task and finish group directly informed the SEND reforms that were published earlier this year.”
“The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on public bodies to make reasonable adjustments, so that disabled people are not put at a disadvantage by accessibility challenges.”
“The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This benefit is there to contribute to the additional costs of disability. Too often, what has happened—my hon.”
“I think we can take the hon. Member’s question as a tacit recognition that in 14 years the previous Government should have done something to fix these problems. The steering group is clear that the provision of cash to meet the additional costs of disability is vital.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,185 lines we hold for Sir Stephen Timms, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 104.
“The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on public bodies to make reasonable adjustments, so that disabled people are not put at a disadvantage by accessibility challenges. Public service providers have to test provision regularly against the service standards, and Departments have to publish accessibility standards and provide feedback routes for users.”
“I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he would like to send me details of that particular case, I will happily look into it. On the subject of people with hearing impairments, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities and I will be meeting the British Sign Language Advisory Board this afternoon. On broader accessibility challenges, it is important that we meet and deliver on the communication needs and the reasonable adjustments that people have. When people apply to the Department for Work and Pensions, they can notify the Department of those adjustments at any stage of the claim and they will be noted on the claimant’s record, so they should be consistently addressed when that individual gets in touch.”
“Autistic people and people with ADHD have been struggling to get the right support at the right time. Recommendations from Professor Karen Guldberg’s neurodivergence task and finish group directly informed the SEND reforms that were published earlier this year. We want schools and others to support young people to understand neurodivergent behaviours clearly, including how they differ between boys and girls, so that needs can be identified early and properly met.”
“Better outcomes require early identification and support for girls and young women with special educational needs, including dyslexia. That is the aim of the SEND reforms and the development of national inclusion standards. We will be supporting education providers to identify and respond to needs earlier and more consistently, drawing on a broad range of evidence and expertise, so that girls and young women can receive the support they need in good time to achieve and to thrive.”
“This review will bring forward proposals to fix the problems that they created.”
“We are looking at all those issues and we will come back with recommendations in our final report.”
“I thank the steering group, including my fellow co-chairs, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson, for their support, commitment and determination. Crucially, I also thank the very large number of disabled people who have shared their experiences to help shape this work. The Government are committed to helping to remove the unnecessary barriers that disabled people too often face. This groundbreaking review is only part of that work, but it is an important part. We want to support disabled people in playing as full a part in society as possible. I commend this statement to the House.”
“We have introduced the recording of health assessments by default, and we are substantially increasing the proportion of face-to-face assessments to 30%, which reverses the sharp decline under the previous Government and helps to improve trust, accuracy and confidence in the assessments. Our objective is to reform the system so that it works better for disabled people, while ensuring that it is sustainable for the long term, and that the support will be there for future generations who need it. The review has been tasked with developing recommendations that can be delivered within the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast for future PIP spending. I thank everybody who has contributed time, evidence and expertise so far.”
“It outlines the evidence and engagement programme over the coming months, and how the review will test emerging thinking and develop recommendations that reflect the steering group’s ambitions for radical reform, and that are credible, deliverable and grounded in experience. We are not looking for quick fixes here. Reform needs to be guided by the evidence, if we are to address the underlying problems in the system and deliver lasting change. The Government are committed to a fairer system that has the trust of both the public and the people who rely on it.”
“PIP provides a lifeline for many, but the fear of losing it on reassessment can create serious barriers to participation in work, community life and other everyday activities. That is the direct opposite of the intention, which has always been to support independence and participation. The report also highlights that the benefit has not kept up with wider changes since PIP was introduced. This work will sit alongside the Milburn review into young people and work, which is looking at the factors behind rising economic inactivity among young people and how the Government can better support participation, opportunity and independence. The interim report sets out the next steps for the review.”
“It includes a summary of findings from the call for evidence, which received over 38,000 responses, and an evidence pack provided by my Department to the steering group as a starting point for further evidence gathering. It is the strongest evidence base ever assembled on PIP, on the assessment process and on the experiences of those who rely on the payment. The interim report presents a clear message from the steering group: PIP is hugely valued for managing the additional costs of disability, but its current design and delivery are no longer fit for purpose. The assessment for PIP is often described as stressful and dehumanising, and over 90% of those responding to the call for evidence reported that their experience of the PIP assessment was negative.”
“That means working together with disabled people and drawing on their lived experience. The review is led by three co-chairs—me, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson—and a steering group of 12 people we have recruited, almost all of whom have lived experience of disability or long-term ill health. The group represents a range of impairments, as well as different parts of the country. No single group can represent the full range of experiences of disability, however, so we have set up a wide programme of engagement of varied, accessible opportunities in which people with differing lived and learned experiences can get involved. The interim report brings together the evidence we have heard so far.”
“Since 2013, the number of people reporting a disability has increased significantly; patterns of disability and ill health have changed; and the workplace and wider society have evolved. We have seen a sharp rise in disability and long-term health conditions, including in mental ill health among younger people. The number of people receiving PIP has risen considerably and is forecast to continue growing. Against that backdrop, we are taking a fresh look at whether a system introduced 13 years ago still reflects the realities of modern life, supports independent living and is sustainable for the long term. The Timms review is the first time that the UK Government have co-produced reforms on this scale. Our aim has been to have a review that is not just about disabled people, but shaped with disabled people.”
“With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Timms review of the personal independence payment—to make it fair and fit for the future, both for the disabled people who need it and for the taxpayer. Today, the Government are publishing an interim report on behalf of the review’s steering group. Copies will be placed in the Library in both Houses. We are committed to openness and transparency, so it sets out the evidence gathered so far and the emerging themes. It will inform the recommendations that will now be developed for the final report, which is to be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions this autumn. PIP was introduced more than a decade ago, but the benefit has never been fully reviewed.”
“Gentleman complained about the small number of face-to-face assessments, but that is what was left behind by the previous Government. Understandably, the system moved away from face-to-face assessments during the pandemic, but they were never brought back; that is the problem. We are increasing the proportion of face-to-face assessments, which is an important and positive step. When we were upstairs debating a measure to facilitate greater face-to-face assessment, another shadow Minister said that it was a “nice to have”, rather than essential. We think that face-to-face assessments are key to rebuilding trust in the system, and that is why we are making the changes we are. The system that the Conservatives left behind did not work for disabled people, and did not work for taxpayers.”
“He said that the Conservatives will review PIP; I welcome his belated recognition of the value of a review, but I do not know whether that means that they do not have a plan any more, or that they are throwing away the plan until they have carried out their review. The hon. Gentleman has rightly expressed concern about the rising costs of the system—the public are rightly concerned about that—and particularly about the steep increase in the number of young people who are claiming, but we have set up work to address that problem. His party abandoned the growing number of young people applying for benefits; we will not do so. We are changing the question that the system is asking, and we are providing employment support and the youth guarantee to give young people the chance of a decent future. The hon.”
“The hon. Gentleman has set out some trenchant criticisms of the system that his party set up and left behind, and the question in everybody’s mind is: why did the Conservatives not do anything about it? They had 14 years, and they left the problems to which he has referred. He should be apologising to the House for the system that the party he represents left behind. The biggest ever rise in the welfare bill was in their last year in government. We previously heard that the Conservative party has a plan for £23 billion of welfare cuts, although nobody has any idea at all what those cuts will be. The hon. Gentleman did not refer to that figure in his statement, so I am not quite sure whether the Conservatives now have a plan.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think we have an appointment in the diary to talk about the issues that he has raised about his constituency, and his constituent who has drawn his attention to them. My hon. Friend is right that, at present, the system does not work properly for disabled people, and it does not give taxpayers confidence that the funding is being well used. We are determined to turn things around and to be fair to both, and I am grateful for his support for the efforts we are making.”
“There is striking evidence of the scale of the concern about going to work, or taking part in exercise or sport. The current system presents significant barriers, and we want to address those. There are, absolutely, concerns about the rising costs, which we also need to address. All those factors will be in the minds of the steering group as we progress with the review, ahead of our final report in autumn. The steering group, as I mentioned, is made up almost entirely of disabled people. The concern about the financial sustainability of this benefit is of great concern to them as well, because if it is deemed to be not financially sustainable then there is a risk to its future. We need the support to be present for the long term for the large number of people for whom it is vital.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for this review, and for his tribute to those who have put a great deal of work into it already, and who will be putting in a lot more between now and the autumn. The hon. Gentleman is right to make the points that the system is not working well for disabled people at the moment, and that its costs are rising rapidly in a way that is of concern to many, including, rightly, taxpayers. He is right to highlight that this benefit, which is supposed to contribute to independence and participation, too often presents a barrier to those things, because so many people are worried that if they undertake an activity, the Department for Work and Pensions will say, when they get reassessed, “Oh, so you didn’t need your benefit after all, then,” and take it away.”
“We are doing quite a lot of work in the Department specifically on assistive technology. In fact, the Secretary of State was at a roundtable recently with representatives of the tech industry. One problem is that the technology is moving on rapidly but a lot of people do not know about it. People are not even aware of the technology that is already in our phones and available without any extra charge. We are doing quite a lot of work on that at the moment. I hope we will, later this year, be able to issue a call for evidence on how to do a better job on exactly the areas my right hon. Friend highlights.”
“I think we can take the hon. Member’s question as a tacit recognition that in 14 years the previous Government should have done something to fix these problems. The steering group is clear that the provision of cash to meet the additional costs of disability is vital. We will not be moving away from the importance of that, but I think there is a question about whether the process can also point people towards help that may be valuable to them in addition to, or in some cases perhaps instead of, a cash payment. There is help and support that people need, and I think the process could help to point people to that. One problem people have had to contend with is the terrible NHS waiting lists, which thankfully are now being reduced, but the system may be able to point people to the right place in the health service.”
“Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I pay tribute to her work as the chair of the APPG on disability, and I am grateful to her for her welcome to us the other week. She is absolutely right. I very much hope that people with sight impairments and others looking at the review will feel that the Government have listened to the points that have been made for a long time. I assure her that co-production will be at the heart of the rest of the work as well. It was, of course, a decision of this House that the review should be co-produced. We have worked very hard to ensure that we are properly co-producing it. I think we are gaining the benefits of that approach and that the outcome from this exercise will be significantly better because it is a co-produced review.”
“Yes, I shall look out for the right hon. Gentleman’s letter and I hope he will receive a reply in short order. He is right that the system needs to work well for people to be confident in it. One thing he may welcome is that we have just started recording by default the assessments for PIP—the focus in the review is on PIP specifically—partly so that when something does go badly wrong, and his constituent’s case may well be an example of that, we can look back at what happened in the assessment and ensure that that mistake does not happen again.”
“My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and she is absolutely right. It has certainly been very clear in our review that there is concern among disabled people about some of the misinformation that she refers to. We want to ensure that correct and clear information is provided to people, and that there is clarity on the eligibility criteria for PIP and the assessment process. I hope that is going to help, but I think there will need to be other efforts, and we will work with disabled people’s organisations and disability charities to significantly improve the position.”
“Our objective must be both the things that the hon. Lady refers to. We need a system that works well for disabled people and that helps to remove unnecessary barriers that too often hold them back, but we also need to create a system that has the confidence of taxpayers, which is the objective of our review. We are certainly very interested in what has been happening in Scotland, and in the work of Social Security Scotland. At one of our forthcoming expert evidence sessions, we will hear from Edel Harris, who, as the hon. Lady knows, has recently undertaken a review of the adult disability payment in Scotland. We are very keen to monitor what has happened there.”
“Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to stay in touch with Sir Charlie Mayfield, who leads the Keep Britain Working review, and Alan Milburn, whose work I have referred to. I spoke to Alan the other day, and we will ensure that all this work is taken together. I am pleased that both Alan and Sir Charlie Mayfield have been talking to disabled people’s organisations to contribute to their work, and I know that will continue.”
“I am very pleased to be able to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her amendment. As she rightly says, that was what took us down the road of co-production, which I think has been a very fruitful avenue for the review. Central Government have certainly not done co-production on this scale before—I am not sure that we have done co-production at all in the past—but we are undertaking this review in a thoroughly co-produced way. It has been a very positive experience, including for the Department for Work and Pensions, and we will want to learn the lessons for future work. One thing that we will be doing is evaluating this review, so that those lessons can be properly documented and taken account of in the future. My hon.”
“The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of language. This is a topic that the organisation Turn2us has been thinking about lately. One of the things that I am pleased about is that my job title is Minister for Social Security. I think that I am the first Minister to have “Social Security” in their job title since the abolition of the old Department of Social Security at the end of the 1990s. I think “social security” is a good term, and this review is about delivering that.”
“It is certainly our objective that the dehumanising aspects of the current system—he describes an example very well—should not be a feature of the future system. That is the clear aim of this review. The case to which he refers is not unusual, and many hon. Members will have similar examples from their own constituencies. The fact that we are now recording assessments by default could help us to find out why that assessment went so badly wrong. I really hope that we can improve things and rebuild confidence among disabled people and taxpayers that the system is doing the job we need it to do.”
“The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This benefit is there to contribute to the additional costs of disability. Too often, what has happened—my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) just gave us an example—is that people have applied, the outcome has been wrong, and there has been a long, drawn-out process involving an appeal to get to the right answer. I hope that we will be able to develop an assessment that much more frequently comes up with the right answer the first time round, and that recognises where somebody has additional costs as a result of cancer and is therefore eligible for PIP. We will be talking to representatives of people with cancer, including young people, as part of our work, and I hope we will be able to come forward with recommendations that deal with the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.”
“I understand that the number is now up to about 250; there is a lot of employer enthusiasm here because they recognise how important it is. Quite often, the problem is that employers are not sure what to do in a difficult situation when somebody has a health problem. That review will take us a long way forward on exactly the concerns that my hon. Friend raises.”
“My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, which is at the heart of the Keep Britain Working review that Sir Charlie Mayfield is leading at the moment. He produced his report in November, which was directly about what more employers can do to ensure that their workplaces are accessible to disabled people, so that people who run into a health problem or disability in the course of their work do not automatically have to leave work, as too often happens. The reasons for that concern are exactly the ones that my hon. Friend raises: huge talent is too often being wasted. I am pleased that after Sir Charlie’s report was completed, he started working with 75 vanguard employers to develop the ideas in the report.”
“We certainly do not want to let any opportunities from the review pass; it is a one-off groundbreaking review, and we want to make the most of it. This morning, I had a good conversation with the new Minister in Wales, and we have agreed that we will work closely together. It is important that voices from Wales are properly heard in the review. A member of our steering group is a former board member of Disability Wales, and I want to make the most of the expertise and experience from Wales in the course of the work.”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her help in the discussions and her continuing interest in the review. Criticisms of the way that the current assessment process handles fluctuating conditions are probably the most frequently aired criticism of how the system works at the moment, and it is important that we come up with something that does that job well. We have talked to a lot to people with Parkinson’s, for example, and yesterday my two co-chairs and I were at the Multiple Sclerosis Society. The need to do the job well for people with fluctuating and degenerative conditions is at the centre of our concern, and I am hopeful that we will be able to do the good job that my hon. Friend wants us to do.”
“My hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure that the NHS is delivering on all aspects of its work. There is a big problem with long delays and backlogs in the Access to Work scheme. We have recently announced the recruitment of an additional 480 people, which means that the number of people working on Access to Work applications will have more than doubled since the general election. We are confident that that will enable us to eradicate the backlog for Access to Work by September of next year. My hon. Friend is right that all those services need to work well and support people together. That is our aim.”
“I think that there may well be reductions, because if we do all the things that we have been talking about, we can do a better job for both disabled people and the taxpayers whose taxes are paying for the system.”
“The right hon. Gentleman is right about the degree of stress involved in the process. I spoke to somebody at a roundtable in Northern Ireland who told me she had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in the course of her working life, which came as a terrible shock and was a traumatic experience. A few years later, her condition had deteriorated and she had to apply for PIP; she said that the experience of applying was as traumatising as the original diagnosis. The effects that people have suffered are very serious. The terms of reference for the review require us to stay within the currently projected OBR spending on PIP. There is not a cash limit, but one can project what the spending is going to be. The steering group is constrained to stick within currently predicted spending.”
“I am grateful to organisations like those that my hon. Friend mentioned—the Trussell Trust and Disability Rights UK—for their support for the interim report. I assure my hon. Friend that the final report will be properly co-produced. It will be led by the steering group that I have referred to, and there is going to be a lot of engagement after the summer around our initial thinking on conclusions, which we will draw up over the summer. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that people will be able to be confident in the conclusions we eventually reach.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for this review. He mentions being contacted by 300 of his constituents; as I mentioned, our call for evidence received 38,000 responses, which I was very pleased about. We are doing further work, too. At the moment, Workshops in a Box are being carried out around the country to ensure that we also hear from people who may not be up for or willing to submit a formal reply to a call for evidence. The objective that the hon. Gentleman sets out is absolutely right: I do not think it is necessary for the application process for this benefit to have the hostile and adversarial characteristics of the current one, and we are determined to put that right.”
“I am certainly keen to avoid stigmatising anybody. If my right hon. Friend looks at the interim report, he will see that there is quite a lot of evidence specifically on that point. It is very important that that evidence is properly sifted and assessed in the course of our work, and we will do that. We want to remove barriers, because too often young people in particular have started to claim benefits and then the system has abandoned them, which is neither in their interests nor consistent with their aspirations. It is not in the interests of the Government or society, either. We need to support young people to be able to participate in work and in other things by removing the barriers that have stopped them doing that in the past, and that is what we are determined to do.”
“I can give my hon. Friend exactly the assurance that she seeks: this will be a properly and carefully considered piece of work. She is absolutely right that PIP can be claimed by people who are in work or out of work. When we were having the debates last summer, a lot of people made the point that PIP is what enables them to go to work; without it, they would not be able to get to work. The question that arises in the terms of reference is: what can we do to ensure that in future PIP does a better job of removing the barriers that have stopped people working in the past? We want to bring that about.”
“Yes, they will. The co-production approach that we have taken so far will be the approach that we take throughout the review. Over the summer, we will be formulating our initial thoughts about conclusions and recommendations and then, in September or October, we will be discussing them with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations and we will hold events in different parts of the country to ensure that it is disabled people who are shaping the final conclusions that we bring forward.”
“On his final point, as my hon. Friend knows, that proposal was consulted on in the Green Paper last year, and we are looking at that. I think he makes a very good point. I can assure him that we are going to be working across Government on exactly the concerns that he raises.”
“The focus of the review is very tightly on PIP itself. However, as I touched on earlier, I do think that the Department will want to, and will, learn lessons from the success of this approach to date, which I hope will be fully borne out in the final report that we submit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the autumn. I think that will be a mechanism for changing the culture in the Department and the way that it and, I hope, the wider Government work.”
“I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his invitation. If he would like to drop me a line, I will see how my diary is looking in the next couple of months.”
“The key first step is to complete this review in co-production with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, and we will be doing that. Then I think it is a question of people seeing what the new system will be and observing in due course how it works. I hope that in that way we can rebuild trust and confidence in the system on the part of both disabled people and taxpayers—recognising the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that there is a big overlap between those two categories.”
“I agree that rehabilitation is very important. Perhaps I should refer my hon. Friend’s point to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who I know will be very interested in it as well. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that when the health service is doing the job that we all want it to do, there will be less of a need to call on PIP, because people’s needs will be dealt with by the health service. I will certainly pass on the important point that he has raised.”
“My hon. Friend raises an important and interesting point. Yes, I hope that we will be able to come up with a proposal that will entail greater personalisation. At the moment, for example, the number of different rates of benefit paid out is not very many—it is quite a lumpy system. I think there is a question to be asked about whether something more personalised could do a better job. My hon. Friend makes an important point.”
“It is estimated that the UK needs an additional 40,000 engineering construction workers, and this order will play an important part in supporting major infrastructure projects nationwide. In addition to industry support, the proposals before the House today have received the full support of the devolved Governments of Scotland and Wales. They recognise, as we do, that the ability of the ECITB to raise and invest levy income is vital to ensuring that employers across all three nations can access the engineering construction skills that they need. I commend the order to the House.”