Introduction

The case of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v. MM (Scotland) [2019] UKSC 34 addresses significant issues surrounding the assessment criteria for the PIP, a non-means tested benefit designed to support individuals with long-term health conditions or disabilities in the UK. The appellant, a man in his forties, contested the decision to deny him the standard rate of PIP based on his ability to engage with others face-to-face, focusing specifically on the distinction between descriptors 9b and 9c, which pertain to the levels of support required for social interaction.

Summary of the Judgment

The United Kingdom Supreme Court examined whether the correct descriptor was applied in assessing the appellant's eligibility for the standard rate of PIP. The crux of the judgment revolved around whether the support required by the appellant qualified as "prompting" (descriptor 9b) or "social support" (descriptor 9c). The Supreme Court upheld the Upper Tribunal's decision to allow the appellant's appeal, ultimately providing clarity on the interpretation of "social support." The Court determined that "social support" encompasses assistance provided by individuals trained or experienced in aiding social engagement, distinguishing it from mere prompting by acquaintances or family members.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key cases that have shaped the interpretation of PIP criteria:

• Hickey v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2018] EWCA Civ 851:
• CPIP/1861/2015 UKUT(AAC):
• CSPIP/203/2015 and CSPIP/210/2015 UKUT(AAC):
• AH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKUT 276 (AAC):
• EG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] UKUT 101 (AAC):

These cases collectively underscore the necessity for clear distinctions between different levels of support and have influenced the court's approach to defining "social support" versus "prompting."

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the definitions provided within the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013. The pivotal issue was distinguishing between:

• Descriptor 9b (Prompting): Support that involves reminding, encouraging, or explaining by another person.
• Descriptor 9c (Social Support): Assistance from someone trained or experienced in helping individuals engage socially.

The Court emphasized that "social support" should not be conflated with general prompting. Instead, it requires support from individuals who possess specialized training or experience in facilitating social interactions. This distinction ensures that claimants requiring higher levels of support receive appropriate recognition and assistance.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for future PIP claims:

• Clarification of Definitions: Establishes a clear boundary between "prompting" and "social support," aiding both claimants and assessors in accurate evaluations.
• Consistency in Assessments: Promotes uniformity in how social support needs are assessed, reducing arbitrary decision-making.
• Enhanced Beneficiary Support: Ensures that individuals with more profound social interaction challenges receive the necessary support, aligning with the objectives of PIP to facilitate independent living.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Personal Independence Payment (PIP)

PIP is a UK benefit designed to help individuals aged 16 to 64 with long-term health conditions or disabilities cover the extra costs of daily living and mobility. It is divided into two components:

• Daily Living Component: Assesses the ability to perform everyday tasks.
• Mobility Component: Evaluates the ability to move independently.

Descriptors 9b and 9c

These descriptors are part of the assessment criteria for the Daily Living Component of PIP:

• Descriptor 9b (Prompting): Requires claimants to have prompting, such as reminders or encouragement, to engage socially.
• Descriptor 9c (Social Support): Necessitates support from individuals trained or experienced in assisting with social engagements, indicating a higher level of need.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v. MM (Scotland) provides crucial clarity in the assessment of social support needs for PIP claims. By distinguishing between general prompting and specialized social support, the judgment ensures that individuals with significant social interaction challenges receive appropriate recognition and assistance. This interpretation not only aligns with the overarching goals of PIP but also fosters consistency and fairness in the benefits assessment process.