By Ella Smith, ME Association Welfare Rights Consultant
In a widely shared interview on the BBC's Access All podcast (31 July 2025), Minister for Disability and Social Security Sir Stephen Timms presented his vision for co-producing the upcoming review of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessments.
He spoke warmly about listening to disabled people, valuing their input, and working closely with a small advisory group over the next year. To the casual listener, this might sound like a genuine commitment to doing things differently. But there's a problem.
Just weeks before, Sir Stephen had praised a since-withdrawn amendment tabled by Labour MP, Dr Marie Tidball; one that set out a far more rigorous, accountable, and rights-based framework for co-production. He called it a “very helpful checklist.” And in this interview, none of its core safeguards were reaffirmed.
So what did Dr Tidball actually propose and where do the gaps now lie?
What the Amendment Promised
Dr Tidball’s now-withdrawn Amendment NC11 laid out a clear legal foundation for co-producing the PIP review in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), specifically Article 4(3). It included:
- A requirement for the review to be co-produced with disabled people and Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs).
- Establishment of an independent Disability Co-Production Taskforce with a majority of disabled members.
- A statutory deadline of 12 months for review completion, with a final report laid before Parliament.
- A legal obligation that no changes to PIP eligibility or assessment criteria could be implemented without formal parliamentary approval.
- Ongoing reporting to Parliament on how co-production principles are being applied.
What the Minister Actually Said
In the Access All interview, Sir Stephen confirmed that the PIP review would be “co-produced”, but on much looser terms:
- The co-production group will consist of “about ten people” with no detail on selection criteria, transparency, or proportion of disabled members.
- He gave no commitment to independent oversight or a statutory taskforce.
- There was no mention of aligning with Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) standards.
- He made no reference to parliamentary oversight or approval of future changes.
- He offered only vague timelines, stating that plans would be drawn up “over the summer.”
Why This Matters
For people with ME/CFS or Long Covid – and disabled people more broadly – trust in government-led consultations is already fragile. Co-production only has meaning when disabled people hold real power in shaping policy, not just a seat at the table. The amendment recognised this. The interview did not.
When ministers sideline specific, rights-based frameworks in favour of more nebulous promises, it becomes harder to hold them accountable. Without statutory guarantees, co-production risks becoming a byword for consultation-lite.
What Needs to Happen Now
If the government is serious about co-production, it should:
- Publish updated terms of reference for the PIP review, including clear criteria for how group members will be selected and how decisions will be made.
- Revisit the core principles of Dr Tidball’s amendment, particularly the establishment of an independent, majority-disabled taskforce.
- Commit to laying any proposed changes to PIP before Parliament, with a formal vote required before implementation.
- Introduce regular reporting requirements so that co-production progress can be tracked.
Without these safeguards, the risk is clear: that disabled people will once again be asked to participate in a process that listens, nods, and proceeds regardless.
We Must Keep the Pressure On
This is not a time for silence. If you believe in meaningful co-production, write to your MP. Ask them to support reinstating the standards proposed by Amendment NC11. And keep challenging the government to honour what it claims to value: the voices and expertise of disabled people themselves.
Write to your MP – Template Letter
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Postcode]
[Email Address – optional]
[Phone Number – optional]
[date]
[MP’s Name]
[MP’s Constituency Office Address]
Dear [Insert MP Name],
Urgent: Concerns about the PIP Review, co-production, and remaining welfare reform risks
I’m writing as your constituent and as someone living with [ME/CFS / Long Covid – delete as appropriate].
Following the recent passage of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill through the House of Lords, I remain deeply concerned about the direction of welfare reform and the implications for disabled people — including people like me.
I welcomed the removal of Clause 5, which would have limited PIP eligibility to those scoring four points in a single activity. The government rightly acknowledged the harm this could cause.
However, these partial concessions do not resolve the broader risks facing claimants or the growing concerns about how reforms are being developed.
The government has now committed to a full review of the PIP assessment process, led by Minister Stephen Timms. This review must be robust, rights-based, and co-produced in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Yet in a recent BBC Access All interview (31 July), the Minister gave no guarantee of majority-disabled oversight, independent scrutiny, or proper parliamentary accountability. This casts serious doubt on the government’s claim that disabled people will be meaningfully involved in shaping the future of disability benefits.
At the same time, major changes are still going ahead under the Universal Credit reforms, including:
- A substantial cut to the UC health element for new claimants from April 2026 — from £390 to £208 per month in real terms.
- No protection for people who become disabled in future.
- Greater uncertainty and risk for people with fluctuating conditions, who may lose support during temporary improvements and then fall back into future eligibility.
- The creation of a two-tier benefits system based not on need, but on timing of illness.
Despite government assurances, these reforms continue to threaten the financial security, independence, and wellbeing of disabled people.
I therefore ask you to:
- Write to Minister Stephen Timms to press for transparent, majority-disabled co-production of the PIP review, and for full publication of review terms, membership, and timelines.
- Support the reinstatement of key safeguards previously proposed in Dr Marie Tidball’s amendment NC11 — including independent oversight and parliamentary scrutiny of future proposals.
- Call for full impact assessments and consultation evidence to be published before any further changes are implemented.
- Raise concerns about the effect of the reforms on people with fluctuating or relapsing conditions such as ME/CFS and Long Covid.
- Engage with the ME Association for evidence and case studies from constituents affected by these proposals.
- Join the All-Party Parliamentary Groups on ME and Long Covid to stay informed and show support.
Disabled people need support, not uncertainty. And we need policy that is genuinely shaped with us — not just for us.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this. I look forward to your response.
With best wishes,
[Your Name]
APPG Details
APPG on ME: https://appgme.co.uk/
APPG on Long Covid: https://www.longcovid.org/impact/appg-on-long-covid
Ella Smith
Welfare Rights Consultant,
The ME Association
