Shaping a social security system that works - getting PIP right

Conference brought together a strong range of voices from across the trade union movement, government and civil society. Keynote speakers included Martyn Gwyther, Chair of the TUC Disabled Workers Committee; Steve Gillan, TUC President; Kate Bell, TUC Assistant General Secretary; Diana Johnson DBE MP, Minister of State for Employment; and Shani Dhanda from the Access to Work Collective. Their contributions underlined both the urgency of reform and the importance of collective action in delivering change. 

A central feature of Conference was a panel discussion on Government, Employers and Barriers to Work: From Access to Work to PIP. Contributions from Amy Bishop (TUC Disabled Workers Committee), Katrina Gilman (National Officer Disability Equality, Unison), and Fazilet Hadi MBE (Head of Policy, Disability Rights UK) highlighted the interconnected barriers disabled people face across the system. The discussion reinforced the need for reform that is joined up, addressing not only PIP, but the wider structures that shape access to work and support in employment. 

The TUC’s policy position on PIP is grounded in the framework agreed by Disabled Workers Conference and Congresses in 2025, and those that came before. That shared democratic foundation continues to shape our work, including our recent submission to the Timms Review, and reflects the lived experience of disabled workers. 

We are unequivocal in our position: PIP is a non-work-related, non-means-tested benefit designed to meet the additional costs of disability. It must not be linked to a claimant’s ability to work and must not be subject to work-related conditionality. That position is unwavering. Reform must strengthen PIP and ensure it works properly, not change its fundamental purpose. 

For many disabled people, PIP is a lifeline. For many disabled workers, it is also a critical enabler of employment. Evidence gathered through our submission shows that almost all respondents who were both working and receiving PIP said it positively affected their ability to work. At the same time, the vast majority reported that working brings additional costs, reinforcing a key reality: work does not remove the need for support, in many cases, it increases it. 

As a movement representing workers, it is essential that these experiences are reflected in policy. That was a central focus of Conference discussions. The evidence we gathered shows that while PIP is essential, it is not consistently working as intended. Too often, disabled workers encounter a system that does not reflect the realities of their lives, particularly in the assessment process. Most respondents told us assessments do not fully capture their experience, especially when it comes to fluctuating conditions, fatigue, recovery time and the cumulative impact of work. 

The system also has not kept pace with modern working life or rising costs. Disabled workers described using PIP to meet a wide range of expenses, from energy and transport to specialist equipment and support. In some cases, this includes covering costs that should be met by employers or through schemes such as Access to Work. This points to wider gaps in the system and reinforces the need for reform that is focused on making support work properly in practice. 

Alongside these structural issues, Conference and our evidence highlighted the importance of addressing stigma. Disabled workers consistently described a system shaped by negative narratives that frame claimants as undeserving or fraudulent. This is experienced directly in assessments, which are often seen as adversarial and rooted in distrust. These experiences can undermine confidence in the system and create barriers to accessing support. 

Getting PIP right therefore requires more than process change. It requires a shift in approach, one that is grounded in dignity, trust and the social model of disability. It means recognising disabled people as workers, contributors and individuals with legitimate needs. 

Conference also made clear that PIP reform must sit alongside wider action to improve the working lives of disabled people. This includes strengthening enforcement of reasonable adjustments, improving Access to Work, tackling pay gaps and addressing broader labour market inequalities. These issues are interconnected, and progress in one area depends on progress in others. 

This wider approach is reflected across the TUC’s policy work, including our submission to the Work and Pensions Committee on the transition to State Pension Age. There, we set out practical steps to better support disabled and older workers, including earlier access to pensions for those unable to continue working and reforms to ensure the social security system provides adequate support in later life. 

The message from Disabled Workers Conference is clear. PIP must remain a non-work-related benefit. It must be properly funded so that it reflects the real costs disabled people face. And it must be delivered in a way that is fair, accessible and rooted in dignity and respect. 

The TUC will continue working with unions, disabled workers and disabled people’s organisations to deliver a system that works, supporting independence, enabling participation and reflecting the realities of disabled people’s lives. 

Headline recommendations for reform of PIP 

• Reform the assessment process so it reflects real-world experience, including fluctuation, fatigue and the cumulative impact of work 
• Improve assessor expertise and ensure medical evidence is properly understood and weighted 
• Reduce unnecessary reassessment, particularly for lifelong or degenerative conditions 
• Make the system more accessible through simpler processes, better communication and greater flexibility 
• Improve the accuracy of initial decisions to reduce reliance on appeals 
• Increase funding for PIP so it reflects the true cost of disability 
• Ensure recognition of work-related costs, including energy, transport and support 
• Strengthen alignment between PIP and wider systems, particularly Access to Work 
• Improve how the system recognises fluctuating and less well-understood conditions 
• Address stigma and embed dignity, trust and the social model of disability in delivery