The Fox in the Henhouse: Why the PIP Review Can’t Be Trusted By Dusty Wentworth

“It’s the political equivalent of putting a fox in your henhouse and asking it to count the chickens.”

This is precisely the scenario unfolding with the newly announced review of Personal Independence Payments (PIP)—a supposedly impartial reassessment of the benefits system, led not by an independent body, but by the very minister who oversees it: Sir Stephen Timms, Minister of State for Social Security and Disability.

The government wants us to believe this review is about fairness and modernisation. But from where I’m sitting—in a wheelchair I never planned for, navigating a system I never imagined I’d need—it looks more like a politically controlled damage limitation exercise than genuine reform.

A Review Already Tainted

The review, announced just days before Parliament passed the controversial welfare reform bill, is set to run until Autumn 2026. It was presented as a concession—a reason not to worry about proposed cuts to PIP. But let’s be clear: appointing the minister in charge of the system to lead its review is not a concession. It’s a conflict of interest.

Sir Stephen Timms is not a neutral actor. He’s the policymaker responsible for defending the system’s current performance—yet he’s now been tasked with judging whether it needs reform. How can we expect honest answers when he’s grading his own homework?

Furthermore, this is the same minister who chairs the department accused of withholding internal reports linked to benefit-related deaths and who has faced criticism for poor stakeholder engagement. He also recently voted in favour of the very welfare bill that raised alarms across the disabled community.

A Broken System, by the Numbers

If we’re serious about reviewing PIP, we must start with the evidence—and the statistics are damning:

71% of PIP appeals at tribunal are successful. That’s not a small error rate; it’s a systemic failure. (Source: Ministry of Justice Tribunal Statistics)

In 2023 alone, over 65,000 PIP decisions were overturned by independent tribunals. (Source: Department for Work & Pensions Ad Hoc Statistics)

The overwhelming majority of these reversals stem from flawed assessments—often conducted by private companies such as Capita, Atos, and Maximus, who are contracted by the DWP.

These companies are paid by volume and judged on “efficiency” targets—not compassion, accuracy, or claimant welfare. This is what happens when the assessment process becomes a political tool. Disabled people are turned into data points, their conditions reduced to tick boxes, and their appeals drag on for months—sometimes years—while they go without vital support.

Start With the Right Questions

If this review were genuine, it would begin with these basic questions:

Is the current PIP system fit for purpose?

Does it deliver value for money not just to the Treasury, but to the claimants it’s meant to support?

What do the experiences of disabled people tell us about the system’s real-world impact?

Instead, the political focus appears to be on how to reform the system—not whether it’s already fundamentally broken. Genuine reform demands we first understand whether the existing system adequately serves the people it’s designed for.

Disabled People Deserve Better Than Political Theatre

A system built to support the most vulnerable must be above politics. It must be humane, fair, and transparent. Right now, PIP is none of those things—and appointing a government minister to lead the review only deepens public distrust.

The voices of lived experience are not optional; they must be central to this process. That means true co-production: disabled people, advocacy organisations, welfare experts, legal professionals, and independent watchdogs all having equal say.

⚠️ This Affects Everyone

For fifty years, I was fit, healthy, and working hard. Then, out of nowhere, I collapsed. One moment I was on my feet—the next, I was navigating a world I had never prepared for.

Disability isn’t a lifestyle. It isn’t a choice. And it certainly isn’t rare.

If this system fails people like me today, it could fail you tomorrow.

When that day comes, you’ll want to know that the support system is fair, respectful, and rooted in truth—not spun from political expediency.

What Needs to Happen Now

An independent review, free from departmental or political control.

Immediate transparency—release DWP internal reports and decision-making data.

Full co-production with the disabled community, not tokenistic consultation.

Parliamentary oversight—no backdoor regulation changes.

“Reform without integrity is not progress—it’s propaganda.”

The government might hope we’re too distracted, too exhausted, or too marginalised to speak up.

But we’re not.

We see the fox in the henhouse. And we’re counting the chickens ourselves.