Removal of WRAG component / ESA Reg 29

WhatThe

Hello Scope,

Can anyone explain what is misleading about the above reference to the 2016 Welfare Reform and Work Act and the changes introduced in 2017 for all new ESA claims

Thank you

poppy123456

It's misleading simply because the WRAG itself hasn't been removed and neither has reg 29. Both still very much exist. What has been removed is the extra money, which no longer applies to claims that started after April 2017. I advised this in a different thread and even posted links to prove my advice is correct.

This is the link i posted, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2018-0072/

which says...

Abolition of the ESA Work-Related Activity Component

The Employment and Support Allowance Work-Related Activity Component (WRAC) – and the equivalent element in Universal Credit – was abolished for new ESA claims from April 2017.  This involves a reduction of £29.05 a week (2017-18 rates) and aligns the rate of payment with those claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (£73.10 a week). Existing claimants were not affected, while there is protection for those who may move into the ESA Work-Related Activity Group or Universal Credit equivalent from the Support Group.  The changes were introduced to “remove the financial incentives that could otherwise discourage claimants from taking steps back to work”.  The changes were widely criticised by disability charities. The idea that the WRAC incentivises claimants to not look for work has been particularly disputed.  Alongside the changes, the Government announced “new funding for additional support to help claimants return to work”.  For further information see Commons Library briefing CBP-7649, Abolition of the ESA Work-Related Activity Component.

chiarieds

From the 2016 Welfare Reform and Work Act which you mention, the relevant part of which can be seen here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/7/section/15/enacted   it relates to the 'work-related activity component' not the the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG). This seems to have been misread by yourself.

poppy123456

chiarieds said:

From the 2016 Welfare Reform and Work Act which you mention, the relevant part of which can be seen here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/7/section/15/enacted   it relates to the 'work-related activity component' not the the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG). This seems to have been misread by yourself.

Thanks chiarieds, i did advise this in a previous thread. There's a difference between both.

Biblioklept

WhatThe said:

Can anyone explain what is misleading about the above reference to the 2016 Welfare Reform and Work Act and the changes introduced in 2017 for all new ESA claims

Thank you

In the other discussion the poster was a renewal not a new claim so wasn't relevant  

poppy123456

Biblioklept said:

WhatThe said:

Can anyone explain what is misleading about the above reference to the 2016 Welfare Reform and Work Act and the changes introduced in 2017 for all new ESA claims

Thank you

In the other discussion the poster was a renewal not a new claim so wasn't relevant  

Thank you, i appreciate this. This is exactly what i was saying but it seemed like i was being ignored.

Hannah_Alumni

Hello @WhatThe

Just to let you know I've sent you over an email  

WhatThe

The exceptional circumstances provisions do exist or we would not be discussing them!

And LiMA software does not (yet) distinguish between regs 29/35 because exceptional circumstances means just that and those rules were designed to protect the most vulnerable claimants who failed to pass the WCA.

That protection and the financial benefit were lost for 'new' claims from 2017 - that is my point    

poppy123456

WhatThe said:

That protection and the financial benefit were lost for 'new' claims from 2017 - that is my point    

Yet that wasn't the point you were arguing up until now. You should contact your local MP with your concerns about the LCW/WRAG component being removed for new claims. https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/contact-an-mp-or-lord/contact-your-mp/

WhatThe

As you know, these reforms were legislated for and complaints won't change a thing.

I'm not interested in arguing with anybody. I posed a question and it has not been answered. That's ok 

poppy123456

This is a genuine question. Did you change the title of the thread and add the work "component"? at some point after chiarieds made this comment?

chiarieds said:

From the 2016 Welfare Reform and Work Act which you mention, the relevant part of which can be seen here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/7/section/15/enacted   it relates to the 'work-related activity component' not the the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG). This seems to have been misread by yourself.

The reason i ask is because now chiarieds comment looks a little odd because she specifically used the words "component" and "Group"

What also looks odd is my comment here. Especially as i also mention the "component" as in the "extra money" and i also included the same link as i included in another thread talking about the same thing.

poppy123456 said:

It's misleading simply because the WRAG itself hasn't been removed and neither has reg 29. Both still very much exist. What has been removed is the extra money, which no longer applies to claims that started after April 2017. I advised this in a different thread and even posted links to prove my advice is correct.

This is the link i posted, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2018-0072/

which says...

Abolition of the ESA Work-Related Activity Component

The Employment and Support Allowance Work-Related Activity Component (WRAC) – and the equivalent element in Universal Credit – was abolished for new ESA claims from April 2017.  This involves a reduction of £29.05 a week (2017-18 rates) and aligns the rate of payment with those claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (£73.10 a week). Existing claimants were not affected, while there is protection for those who may move into the ESA Work-Related Activity Group or Universal Credit equivalent from the Support Group.  The changes were introduced to “remove the financial incentives that could otherwise discourage claimants from taking steps back to work”.  The changes were widely criticised by disability charities. The idea that the WRAC incentivises claimants to not look for work has been particularly disputed.  Alongside the changes, the Government announced “new funding for additional support to help claimants return to work”.  For further information see Commons Library briefing CBP-7649, Abolition of the ESA Work-Related Activity Component.

WhatThe

No just misquoted - I've not changed anything

poppy123456

I see, well i'm out now anyway and i won't comment further here.

chiarieds

In that case now I'm not sure what your question actually was, or now is; if you know about the work related activity component (WRAC) being removed (not WRAG), then we're left with the regs (tho you later say below these 'exceptional circumstances' exist), so I'm sorry you presumably don't think this has been adequately explained, as well as being left a tad confused.

Substantial risk is still mentioned in the ADM, & here's a post from rightsnet, a forum for WROs, etc. dated Oct 2018: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/13492/   this is about UC & ESA reg 35 'substantial risk'

So, having shown that ESA reg 35 was indeed in force post 2017, perhaps you'll give a link as to where & when you saw that these regs were removed.

WhatThe said:

The exceptional circumstances provisions do exist or we would not be discussing them!

And LiMA software does not (yet) distinguish between regs 29/35 because exceptional circumstances means just that and those rules were designed to protect the most vulnerable claimants who failed to pass the WCA.

That protection and the financial benefit were lost for 'new' claims from 2017 - that is my point    

Obviously AI will have to also improve before software can understand the regs, as you imply!

WhatThe

The 'substantial risk' rules were written into the software - of course they were. I do apologise if that wasn't clear

chiarieds

No apology needed, just sorry about whatever you felt unanswered, & that I've unfortunately been singularly unhelpful.

I'll ask @Jimm_Scope to see if they can help you further with your query/queries. Thank you Jim.