This was first published on our Substack.

It’s not often that a Government review of a benefit received by 4 million people delivers its verdict in four words. But the interim report of the Timms Review, published this morning, said simply: “PIP is not working.”

As someone who spends a lot of time immersed in disability benefits data and discourse, that diagnosis didn’t come as a total surprise. But the report is well worth reading – both for its assessment of the present and the insight it gives us about where reform is heading.

On some level this isn’t surprising, as we know the country is getting older and sicker. But, of course, this has an impact on the benefits bill. Real-terms spending on working-age disability benefits has doubled from £14 billion in 2019-20 to £28 billion in 2026-27 and is set to reach £34 billion by 2030-31.

Rising costs are clearly a big reason why politicians want to reform PIP. But the Timms Review is not overtly a cost-saving exercise. After last year’s failed attempt to cut PIP, this review is being co-produced with disabled people and its recommendations will fall within current OBR spending projections. In other words, this is about making the benefit work better, not (directly, at least) about making it cheaper.

The report also flags that the PIP assessment doesn’t “fully reflect real-life impacts” of disability in 2026, when many claimants have fluctuating, multiple and less visible conditions. PIP was introduced in 2013, but the assessment hasn’t changed in the intervening thirteen years.

As I said before, none of this is new. We’ve done research that shows a more claimant-centred, dignified system is possible without significantly driving up costs and caseloads. Essentially, a kinder system doesn’t have to be a costlier one – and it’s encouraging to see this review grappling with the same question.

First, the review’s steering group has agreed a new policy statement: PIP exists “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.”

In other words, participation is the end and a contribution towards costs is the means. The report also argues that a greater emphasis on independent living and participation in society – through work, volunteering, or socialising – would strengthen PIP’s aim.

Second, the report recognises that PIP alone “will not always be sufficient” and that support and services matter too. That opens the door to thinking about what a PIP assessment could unlock beyond a monthly cash payment – pointing towards a more holistic approach to disability support.

The really difficult issues – how to calibrate entitlement, award rates, and reassessments better – have been saved for the final report in the autumn. In the meantime, we at the Resolution Foundation will be publishing major research on how to reform disability benefits later this summer. Watch this space.

Louise Murphy is a Senior Economist at the Resolution Foundation. Follow her on Bluesky.