Welsh Government Criticises PIP Review Co-Production: Why Wales Is Calling for a Disabled-Led Alternative

Written by Editor

Disclaimer: This article is for general information, disability advocacy and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, welfare-benefits or financial advice. Personal Independence Payment (PIP), social-security policy and government proposals may change, and individual circumstances vary. Anyone affected by a PIP decision or proposed changes to disability benefits should seek appropriate independent welfare-rights or legal advice where necessary.

Wales Raises “Significant Concerns” Over Whether Disabled People Are Truly Being Given a Say in the Future of Personal Independence Payment

The Welsh Government has raised serious concerns about the way disabled people are being involved in the UK Government’s review of Personal Independence Payment (PIP), questioning whether the process can genuinely be described as co-production.

According to Disability News Service, Deputy First Minister of Wales and Cabinet Minister for Social Justice and Equality Sioned Williams MS has expressed the Welsh Government’s disappointment with the review process and raised “significant concerns” about the limited opportunities for meaningful involvement. She has called on the UK Government to consider an independent review led by disabled people to help shape any future replacement for PIP.

The intervention matters because PIP remains administered by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in England and Wales, whereas Scotland has replaced PIP with its devolved Adult Disability Payment.

For disabled people in Wales, therefore, decisions made in Westminster could directly determine how disability-related financial support is assessed and delivered for years to come.

The disagreement also raises a bigger question:

Can a government genuinely claim that policy has been co-produced with disabled people if disabled people are invited to comment on proposals but do not have equal influence over what those proposals ultimately become?

What Is the Timms Review?

The Timms Review is the UK Government’s comprehensive review of Personal Independence Payment, co-chaired by Social Security and Disability Minister Sir Stephen Timms, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson CBE.

The Government’s stated intention is for disabled people and people with lived experience to play a central role in the process. A 12-member steering group has been established, and the review has gathered evidence from disabled people, organisations, carers, clinicians and other stakeholders.

The review’s July 2026 interim report reached a striking conclusion: PIP is not working as it should and is no longer fit for purpose.

It identified concerns surrounding assessments, decision-making, accessibility and the experience of disabled claimants while recognising that PIP remains an important contribution towards the additional costs associated with disability.

The final recommendations are expected in autumn 2026.

That makes the question of who influences those recommendations particularly important.

What Does “Co-Production” Actually Mean?

There is an important difference between consultation, engagement and co-production.

Consultation

Consultation generally means that a government or organisation develops an idea and then asks people what they think about it.

People may submit evidence, complete questionnaires or attend meetings, but the institution retains control over the eventual policy.

Engagement

Engagement can involve more interaction. People may participate in workshops, discussions or stakeholder meetings and may influence some aspects of a policy.

However, the final decision-making power may still remain predominantly with government.

Co-Production

True co-production goes further.

It involves people affected by a policy working alongside policymakers as partners, helping to identify the problems, develop possible solutions, shape priorities and influence decisions.

Welsh Government research has previously described co-production in terms of people working together in equal partnership, while Wales has increasingly sought to embed co-production and the Social Model of Disability within its disability policy.

This distinction sits at the centre of the current dispute.

What Is Wales Objecting To?

Disability News Service reported that Sioned Williams attended a PIP review evidence session involving Sir Stephen Timms and members of the review steering group.

She subsequently told Disabled People Against Cuts Cymru (DPAC Cymru) that she had expressed the Welsh Government’s disappointment with the process.

According to the report, Wales believes opportunities for meaningful engagement have been too limited and that the level of co-production has not reached the standard disabled people should reasonably expect.

Williams has therefore urged the UK Government to consider commissioning an:

independent, disabled-led review developed in partnership with disabled people.

The purpose would be to help inform the design of whatever disability benefit might eventually replace or reform PIP.

This is significant.

The Welsh Government is not merely arguing that disabled people should be asked more questions. It is questioning the structure of decision-making itself.

The UK Government Disagrees

The DWP has defended the review process.

It says this is the first time the UK Government has attempted co-production with disabled people on this scale and points to its steering group, extensive engagement activity and more than 38,000 responses received through the review’s Call for Evidence.

The Government is also running 15 workshops across the UK during September and October 2026, including sessions in Cardiff and Bangor as well as online opportunities involving participants in Wales.

Participants will be asked to discuss and refine the review’s emerging recommendations.

The DWP says feedback from those workshops will be considered when the steering group finalises its recommendations.

The disagreement, therefore, is not about whether disabled people are being consulted at all.

They clearly are.

The argument is about how much power those disabled people actually have.

Being Asked for an Opinion Is Not Necessarily Co-Production

This is where terminology matters.

Imagine a policy has already progressed substantially and disabled people are then asked:

“What do you think of these proposals?”

That may be valuable consultation.

But compare it with disabled people being present from the beginning and helping determine:

What problems the system needs to solve;
What PIP should fundamentally be for;
How eligibility should be determined;
How assessments should operate;
What evidence should carry weight;
What safeguards should exist;
How fluctuating conditions should be recognised;
Whether reassessments are appropriate for permanent conditions;
What alternatives should be considered;
And what recommendations eventually go to ministers.

That looks much closer to genuine co-production.

This is why the Welsh criticism cannot simply be dismissed as an argument over semantics.

Control over the process can determine control over the outcome.

Why Wales May Take a Different Approach to Disability Policy

Wales has increasingly developed its disability policy around the Social Model of Disability.

Under the Social Model, people are not viewed simply as being disabled by medical impairments.

Instead, disability is understood as being created or intensified by barriers within society — inaccessible buildings, inaccessible transport, discriminatory attitudes, inflexible employment practices, inaccessible communications and systems that fail to accommodate people’s needs.

The Welsh Government’s Disabled People’s Rights Plan 2025–2035 seeks to embed the Social Model of Disability across policymaking and increase disabled people’s participation in decisions affecting their lives.

This may partly explain why the Welsh Government appears to have a different expectation of what co-production should involve.

Under a rights-based model, lived experience is not merely something to collect as evidence.

Disabled people become participants in policymaking.

Disability Wales Has Also Raised Concerns

The Welsh Government is not alone.

Disability Wales submitted evidence to the Timms Review after gathering views through surveys, focus groups and engagement with disabled people and partner organisations across Wales.

It described PIP as a foundational component of independent living for many disabled people rather than simply an optional addition to someone’s income.

Its evidence warned of concerns including:

Barriers within the assessment process;
Proposals that could tighten eligibility;
The cost of obtaining supporting medical evidence;
The consequences of benefit insecurity;
Insufficient recognition of fluctuating and complex disabilities;
Accessibility problems within consultation processes;
And the absence of Wales-specific impact assessments in relation to previous reform proposals.

Disability Wales has argued that future reform should be developed with disabled people from the outset and should be based on dignity, inclusion, fairness and the Social Model of Disability.

It has also called for exploration of the possible devolution of disability benefits to Wales.

Could PIP Eventually Be Devolved to Wales?

At present, PIP is administered by the DWP in both England and Wales.

The constitutional position is different in Scotland, where disability benefits have been devolved and PIP has been replaced by Adult Disability Payment.

For Wales to establish its own equivalent system, further political and constitutional changes would therefore be required.

The growing dispute over PIP could nevertheless fuel a wider Welsh debate:

Should major disability benefits continue to be controlled from Westminster, or should Wales eventually be allowed to develop its own disability-support system?

Supporters of devolution may argue that Wales could create a system more closely aligned with Welsh health, social-care, housing, transport and disability-rights policies.

Opponents could raise concerns about funding, administrative complexity, cross-border differences and whether devolving responsibility would necessarily produce better outcomes.

Devolution itself is therefore not an automatic solution.

The quality of the system would still depend upon how it was designed and whether disabled people genuinely had power within that process.

“Nothing About Us Without Us”

One of the most enduring principles of the disability-rights movement is:

“Nothing about us without us.”

The principle is reflected in international disability-rights standards.

Article 4(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) calls for disabled people, including through their representative organisations, to be closely consulted and actively involved when governments develop and implement legislation and policies concerning disability.

This does not mean that every disagreement over the Timms Review automatically constitutes a breach of law.

However, it demonstrates why meaningful participation is regarded as a fundamental disability-rights principle rather than simply good public relations.

There is an important difference between giving people a microphone and giving people influence.

The Equality Act and Public Sector Decision-Making

The Equality Act 2010 also remains relevant to government decision-making.

Section 149 establishes the Public Sector Equality Duty, requiring public authorities exercising relevant functions to have due regard to matters including eliminating discrimination and advancing equality of opportunity between people who share protected characteristics and those who do not. Disability is expressly included as a protected characteristic.

The Public Sector Equality Duty does not itself create a general legal requirement that every government consultation must be co-produced.

Nevertheless, when substantial disability-policy reforms are being considered, government must properly consider their equality implications.

That makes meaningful evidence from disabled people particularly important.

Why Safeguarding Must Be Part of PIP Reform

Any discussion about reforming disability benefits must also recognise the potential consequences of benefit insecurity.

PIP can contribute towards expenses involving:

Transport;
Heating and energy;
Mobility equipment;
Personal assistance;
Specialist food;
Communication needs;
Accessibility;
Additional laundry;
Medical-related travel;
Disability aids;
And other everyday costs associated with disability.

Disability Wales warned that reducing access to PIP would not remove those disability-related costs. Instead, it could increase poverty, worsen health outcomes and undermine independence.

Its submission specifically called for safeguarding and risk assessment to be embedded throughout PIP policy and delivery.

That is particularly important because welfare policy is not merely an accounting exercise.

A decision concerning someone’s disability income can affect housing stability, heating, food, transport, healthcare access, independence, employment and participation in society.

Policy reform therefore needs both financial modelling and human impact assessment.

PIP Is Not an Unemployment Benefit

Another important point must not be lost within political discussions about welfare reform.

PIP is not means-tested, and people can receive it while working.

Its purpose is to contribute towards the additional living costs experienced by people whose disability or long-term condition affects everyday activities or mobility.

It should therefore not automatically be treated as an out-of-work benefit or simply as a mechanism for determining whether somebody is capable of employment.

A person may be employed full-time and still face significant additional costs because of disability.

Indeed, removing disability support could potentially make employment harder for some people if PIP currently helps fund transport, mobility, assistance or other support that enables them to work.

What Could a Truly Disabled-Led Review Look Like?

If the UK Government were to adopt the approach proposed by Wales, an independent disabled-led review could include:

1. A Majority of Disabled Decision-Makers

Disabled people and Disabled People’s Organisations should not simply provide evidence to the review. They should hold meaningful decision-making positions.

2. Representation Across Different Disabilities

There must be representation of people with physical disabilities, sensory impairments, learning disabilities, neurodivergence, mental-health conditions, neurological conditions, chronic illnesses and fluctuating or invisible conditions.

3. Representation Across the UK

People living in Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland experience different health, social-care and devolved-government systems.

Those differences should be recognised.

4. Accessible Participation

Evidence should be accepted through multiple formats, including written submissions, online participation, telephone where desired, British Sign Language, Easy Read and other reasonable adjustments.

5. Payment for Lived Expertise

Disabled people should not be expected automatically to provide professional expertise for free simply because that expertise comes from lived experience.

The current Timms Review workshops do provide payment and reasonable expenses for selected participants, which is a positive recognition of participants’ contribution.

6. Transparency

Participants should be told which recommendations were accepted, which were rejected and why.

7. No Predetermined Outcome

A genuine review must be capable of concluding that an existing proposal is wrong.

If fundamental decisions have effectively been made before disabled people become involved, the process begins to resemble consultation rather than co-production.

Why Trust Matters

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing any future PIP system is trust.

The Timms Review’s own interim report acknowledges that many people experience the current system as stressful and dehumanising and concludes that PIP in its current form is not working.

Reforming such a system therefore requires more than redesigning assessment descriptors.

Government must rebuild confidence among the people who rely on it.

If disabled people believe decisions are being made first and consultation added afterwards, trust will continue to deteriorate.

If, however, they can see clearly how their evidence changed policy, rejected proposals, altered assessment rules and shaped safeguards, co-production becomes visible rather than merely promised.

The Next Few Months Will Be Crucial

The Timms Review is entering an important stage.

Its steering group is developing emerging recommendations, with workshops scheduled across the UK during September and October 2026. The final report is expected later in the autumn.

As of 19 August 2026, registration for the shaping-recommendations workshops remains open until 5pm on Friday 21 August 2026. Cardiff will host an in-person session on 25 September and Bangor an in-person session on 30 September, alongside online opportunities available to participants in Wales.

For disabled people, campaigners and organisations, the important question will be what happens after their voices are heard.

Were their concerns recorded?

Or did they actually change the recommendations?

That will ultimately be one of the most meaningful tests of the Government’s claim that the review has been co-produced.

Conclusion

The Welsh Government’s criticism of the PIP review should not simply be interpreted as another disagreement between Cardiff and Westminster.

It raises a fundamental question about democratic participation in disability policy.

When a government promises co-production, disabled people have every right to expect something greater than being invited to respond to decisions being developed elsewhere.

They should be involved in identifying the problems, designing solutions, testing proposals and influencing final decisions.

The UK Government argues that the Timms Review represents an unprecedented attempt at disability co-production, supported by a disabled steering group, tens of thousands of evidence submissions and a programme of workshops.

The Welsh Government and disability campaigners are effectively asking whether that goes far enough.

That distinction matters.

Consultation means asking disabled people what they think.

Co-production means sharing power with them.

And when the subject is a disability benefit upon which millions of people rely to maintain independence and participate in everyday life, the people most affected by reform should not be treated merely as witnesses to the policymaking process.

They should be among its architects.