当前位置: X-MOL 学术Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
When is support not support? PIP and the distinction between prompting and social support
Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law Pub Date : 2019-09-05 , DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2019.1663022
Michael Robinson 1
Affiliation  

In MM v SSWP [2019] UKSC 34 the Supreme Court considered the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) regulations for the first time since their introduction in 2013. The case goes some way to resolving some of the questions regarding ‘engaging with other people face to face’ which have been troubling tribunals, claimants and their representatives over the last 6 years, however, in doing so, the court raises new challenges. PIP is a non means-test and non-contributory benefit, which replaced Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for new, working age and (over time) existing claimants who were of working age in April 2013 or attained working age after that date. Though entitlement to PIP derives from Part 4 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, in common with most UK social security law, the grounds under which the benefit is awarded are contained in secondary legislation; in this case, The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013 No. 377) (PIP Regulations). Like DLA, PIP has two separate components, a mobility component and a Daily Living component. The latter is designed to fulfil the same role as the DLA Care Component but the PIP Daily Living component is centred around the functional capacity of the person with disability themselves, rather than the assistance needed to lead a ‘normal life’. This functional capacity is assessed via 10 activity areas comprising a hierarchy of different point scoring descriptors. These points are accumulated to determine the level of award; 8 points for the standard rate and 12 for the enhanced rate. MM concerns one of these activities (‘activity 9’, outlined in part 2 of schedule 1 to the PIP regulations), subtitled ‘engaging with other people face to face’. The Activity was developed during the PIP consultation process to better reflect the needs of people with mental health problems and learning disabilities (DWP 2011, 2012)). On paper this suggests a more generous provision in respect of people with mental health problems than had been the case under DLA, though there is some evidence that this is not borne out by the assessment process (Pybus et al. 2019). The descriptors are set out in Figure 1 below. Experience from practice suggests that a difference of just 2 points between (b) and (c) is often the deciding factor in being awarded a standard or higher rate award of PIP. The clarification offered by the Supreme Court in MM v SSWP regarding the interpretation of

中文翻译:

什么时候支持不支持?PIP 与提示和社会支持之间的区别

在 MM v SSWP [2019] UKSC 34 一案中,最高法院自 2013 年推出以来首次考虑了个人独立支付 (PIP) 规定。此案在某种程度上解决了一些有关“与他人接触”的问题。在过去 6 年中一直困扰着法庭、索赔人和他们的代表,然而,在这样做的过程中,法院提出了新的挑战。PIP 是一种非经济状况调查和非供款福利,它取代了残疾生活津贴 (DLA),适用于新的工作年龄和(随着时间的推移)在 2013 年 4 月达到工作年龄或在该日期之后达到工作年龄的现有索赔人。尽管 PIP 的权利源自 2012 年福利改革法案的第 4 部分,与大多数英国社会保障法相同,授予补助金的理由载于二级立法;在这种情况下,2013 年社会保障(个人独立支付)条例(SI 2013 第 377 号)(PIP 条例)。与 DLA 一样,PIP 有两个独立的组件,一个移动组件和一个日常生活组件。后者旨在履行与 DLA 护理部分相同的作用,但 PIP 日常生活部分以残疾人自身的功能能力为中心,而不是过上“正常生活”所需的帮助。这种功能能力是通过 10 个活动领域进行评估的,这些活动领域包括不同点评分描述符的层次结构。累积这些积分以确定奖励等级;标准费率 8 分,增强费率 12 分。MM 涉及这些活动之一(“活动 9”,PIP 规定附表 1 的第 2 部分概述),副标题是“与他人面对面交流”。该活动是在 PIP 咨询过程中开发的,以更好地反映有心理健康问题和学习障碍的人的需求(DWP 2011, 2012))。从理论上讲,这表明在精神健康问题方面的规定比 DLA 下的情况更为慷慨,尽管有一些证据表明评估过程并未证实这一点(Pybus 等人,2019 年)。描述符在下面的图 1 中列出。实践经验表明,(b) 和 (c) 之间仅 2 分的差异通常是获得 PIP 标准或更高利率奖励的决定性因素。最高法院在 MM v SSWP 一案中提供的关于解释的澄清
更新日期:2019-09-05
down
wechat
bug