Lana Hempsall is a Policy Fellow at Onward, a County Councillor and founder and director of the Welfare Information Network, looking to raise awareness of the flaws and misuse of the welfare system.
Over four hundred days.
That is how long it has been since the Government asked Sir Stephen Timms, the Minister responsible for welfare, to review Britain’s disability benefits system.
His interim report has now been published but all it does is identify the problems again.
It could be another three months before the final report, which hopefully will contain proposed solutions and reforms, will appear. After that, Ministers will have to consider its recommendations, consult on any changes and maybe at some distant point in 2027 or 2028 bring forward legislation. At that pace, meaningful reform is probably years away, making it unlikely that we see changes brought forward in this parliamentary term.
Britain does not have that luxury.
Every month that passes sees more people opt out of the workforce, adding more pressure on public finances and a welfare bill that continues to climb towards £100 billion a year. More importantly, it means thousands of people remain trapped in a system that encourages them to focus on what they cannot do rather than helping them discover what they can.
This is not to say that the Timms Review is wrong. Its interim report highlights familiar problems: a confusing and convoluted system, assessments that often fail to reflect people’s real circumstances, poor employment support and a process that too many claimants find frustrating. These are genuine issues deserving attention.
But none of them are new.
Only months ago, a different politician, former Health Secretary Alan Milburn, launched his review into economic inactivity among young people, again identifying problems without any solutions. Many of the problems identified by Milburn overlap with Timms – it’s almost as if they hadn’t noticed they were working for the same Government. Even before that thought, there have been countless reports from think tanks, parliamentary committees and charities. Britain has become remarkably good at diagnosing the welfare system’s failures. However, we are far less willing to treat them.
There comes a point where another review simply becomes another excuse to delay difficult decisions and arguably that is what the Timms Review represents.
Under Keir Starmer, the Government already accepted that the current system is unsustainable. Ministers repeatedly acknowledged that welfare spending has grown too fast, that too many people who could work are economically inactive, and that support is not sufficiently targeted towards those with the greatest needs. However, despite this wide-spread acknowledgement, we still find ourselves in a limbo of reviews and consultations.
A large part of the problem is political. Despite the cost of the system as a whole, more than half of those responding to the Timms consultation argued that disability benefits, worth up to £778 a month, were not too high but too low to meet their needs. Turkeys don’t, after all, vote for Christmas. That reaction is hardly surprising. Anyone whose income depends on the current system will understandably resist changes that could leave them worse off.
Every proposal therefore generates campaigns, petitions, lobbying of MPs and fierce opposition on social media. Governments know the politics are painful and that measures will be unpopular, so the temptation is always to commission another review, buy another year and postpone the argument. That is why when the Government previously proposed modest welfare changes, Labour backbenchers rebelled and the reforms were dropped.
But delay has consequences too.
It means resources continue to be spread ever more thinly across a rapidly expanding caseload. It means people with the most severe disabilities receive less support than they should because the system is trying to do too much for too many. For those who are genuinely disabled and genuinely want support to get a job, there is scant support too. And it means another generation risks being written off before they have even had the chance to build a career.
The broad direction of reform is already clear.
First, eligibility criteria, particularly for less severe mental health conditions, need to distinguish more effectively between those who will never realistically be able to work and those who could do so with the right support. That is not about questioning the existence of mental illness. It is about recognising that many conditions are compatible with employment and that work itself can improve wellbeing. Often what those with mental health conditions need most is support from the health service, not extra money from taxpayers.
Second, schemes that have expanded well beyond their original purpose should be reconsidered. The Motability scheme now provides around 860,000 vehicles, despite only a small proportion being adapted for wheelchair users. It should once again focus on those with the greatest physical mobility needs rather than continuing its unchecked expansion.
Finally, ministers should stop waiting for the perfect blueprint. They already possess enough evidence to begin drafting legislation when Parliament returns. Reviews should inform policy, not become substitutes for it.
None of this means abandoning those who genuinely cannot work. Quite the opposite. A welfare system that directs more support towards people with the most severe disabilities is both fairer and more sustainable than one that tries to be everything to everyone.
Britain’s welfare system should be built around opportunity, not permanent dependency. It should encourage aspiration wherever possible and provide generous support where it is genuinely needed.
After over 400 days, the Government already knows the problem. It is likely to have more reports from Timms and Milburn within 100 days with specific proposals and reforms to tackle these increasingly deep-seated welfare problems.
The real question now is does the new Burnham Government have the willpower to see those changes through, and will it implement them before it is too late.
Lana Hempsall is a Policy Fellow at Onward, a County Councillor and founder and director of the Welfare Information Network, looking to raise awareness of the flaws and misuse of the welfare system.
Over four hundred days.
That is how long it has been since the Government asked Sir Stephen Timms, the Minister responsible for welfare, to review Britain’s disability benefits system.
His interim report has now been published but all it does is identify the problems again.
It could be another three months before the final report, which hopefully will contain proposed solutions and reforms, will appear. After that, Ministers will have to consider its recommendations, consult on any changes and maybe at some distant point in 2027 or 2028 bring forward legislation. At that pace, meaningful reform is probably years away, making it unlikely that we see changes brought forward in this parliamentary term.
Britain does not have that luxury.
Every month that passes sees more people opt out of the workforce, adding more pressure on public finances and a welfare bill that continues to climb towards £100 billion a year. More importantly, it means thousands of people remain trapped in a system that encourages them to focus on what they cannot do rather than helping them discover what they can.
This is not to say that the Timms Review is wrong. Its interim report highlights familiar problems: a confusing and convoluted system, assessments that often fail to reflect people’s real circumstances, poor employment support and a process that too many claimants find frustrating. These are genuine issues deserving attention.
But none of them are new.
Only months ago, a different politician, former Health Secretary Alan Milburn, launched his review into economic inactivity among young people, again identifying problems without any solutions. Many of the problems identified by Milburn overlap with Timms – it’s almost as if they hadn’t noticed they were working for the same Government. Even before that thought, there have been countless reports from think tanks, parliamentary committees and charities. Britain has become remarkably good at diagnosing the welfare system’s failures. However, we are far less willing to treat them.
There comes a point where another review simply becomes another excuse to delay difficult decisions and arguably that is what the Timms Review represents.
Under Keir Starmer, the Government already accepted that the current system is unsustainable. Ministers repeatedly acknowledged that welfare spending has grown too fast, that too many people who could work are economically inactive, and that support is not sufficiently targeted towards those with the greatest needs. However, despite this wide-spread acknowledgement, we still find ourselves in a limbo of reviews and consultations.
A large part of the problem is political. Despite the cost of the system as a whole, more than half of those responding to the Timms consultation argued that disability benefits, worth up to £778 a month, were not too high but too low to meet their needs. Turkeys don’t, after all, vote for Christmas. That reaction is hardly surprising. Anyone whose income depends on the current system will understandably resist changes that could leave them worse off.
Every proposal therefore generates campaigns, petitions, lobbying of MPs and fierce opposition on social media. Governments know the politics are painful and that measures will be unpopular, so the temptation is always to commission another review, buy another year and postpone the argument. That is why when the Government previously proposed modest welfare changes, Labour backbenchers rebelled and the reforms were dropped.
But delay has consequences too.
It means resources continue to be spread ever more thinly across a rapidly expanding caseload. It means people with the most severe disabilities receive less support than they should because the system is trying to do too much for too many. For those who are genuinely disabled and genuinely want support to get a job, there is scant support too. And it means another generation risks being written off before they have even had the chance to build a career.
The broad direction of reform is already clear.
First, eligibility criteria, particularly for less severe mental health conditions, need to distinguish more effectively between those who will never realistically be able to work and those who could do so with the right support. That is not about questioning the existence of mental illness. It is about recognising that many conditions are compatible with employment and that work itself can improve wellbeing. Often what those with mental health conditions need most is support from the health service, not extra money from taxpayers.
Second, schemes that have expanded well beyond their original purpose should be reconsidered. The Motability scheme now provides around 860,000 vehicles, despite only a small proportion being adapted for wheelchair users. It should once again focus on those with the greatest physical mobility needs rather than continuing its unchecked expansion.
Finally, ministers should stop waiting for the perfect blueprint. They already possess enough evidence to begin drafting legislation when Parliament returns. Reviews should inform policy, not become substitutes for it.
None of this means abandoning those who genuinely cannot work. Quite the opposite. A welfare system that directs more support towards people with the most severe disabilities is both fairer and more sustainable than one that tries to be everything to everyone.
Britain’s welfare system should be built around opportunity, not permanent dependency. It should encourage aspiration wherever possible and provide generous support where it is genuinely needed.
After over 400 days, the Government already knows the problem. It is likely to have more reports from Timms and Milburn within 100 days with specific proposals and reforms to tackle these increasingly deep-seated welfare problems.
The real question now is does the new Burnham Government have the willpower to see those changes through, and will it implement them before it is too late.