Skip to main content

ESA WRAG Mythbuster


The Chancellor’s plans to cut the rate of benefits to people in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) of ESA by £30 a week is based on widespread myths and misinformation about people in this group.

The assumption behind the plans is that people placed in the WRAG are nearly fit for work. The Work Capability Assessment is supposed to sort people who cannot be expected to work and are therefore placed in the Support Group where their benefits are unconditional, from those who have temporary or relatively minor health conditions or impairments and are therefore placed in the WRAG where their benefits are conditional upon preparing for a return to work.

It’s time to dispel this myth and tell the truth about people in the WRAG. The discredited Work Capability Assessment is neither a rational nor a fair way of distinguishing those who could work from those who can’t.

Here are 3 profiles of hypothetical claimants illustrating how their health or impairment would be assessed in a Work Capability Assessment.

Do these people have the choice to go out and get a job?

Mike, 40, suffered a stroke two years ago while at working as an engineer which left him with brain injury and epilepsy that his specialist says are unlikely to improve further. Under the Work Capability Assessment he scores points for loss of consciousness due to seizure 2 -3 times a month (6 points); inability to initiate or complete personal action for the majority of time (9 points) and occasionally uncontrollable episodes of aggressive behaviour (9 points).
Mike scores 24 points but doesn’t quality for the Support Group of ESA, where financial support is unconditional. If Mike were assessed from April 2017 he would receive just £73 per week to live on, the amount set as basic subsistence for 6 weeks, to prevent him from languishing and incentivise him to recover from his brain injury and return to work.

Alan, 29 has autism and lives with his parents. Alan enjoys his supported voluntary work in a community farm but he has never been in paid work. Alan has a reduced awareness of hazard which puts him at significant risk of injury to himself or others requiring frequent supervision (9 points). He can’t cope with minor planned changes to his daily routine (9 points). He can’t get around, even to a familiar place without another person to accompany him (9 points) and he experiences significant distress from social contact with an unfamiliar person (9 points)
Alan scores 36 points but doesn’t qualify for unconditional financial support on ESA. In the WRAG Alan has to attend compulsory workshops as a condition of receiving benefits and is threatened with benefit sanctions even though he finds attending workshops with strangers too distressing to cope with.

Sheila was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis eight years ago. She carried on working as a sales rep until her symptoms became too severe as the disease progressed. Sheila can’t walk more than 100m due to muscle weakness and balance problems (9 points), (she can’t self-propel a wheelchair because of upper body weakness). She has difficulty controlling her bladder meaning she often needs a change of clothing (6 points). Her co-ordination difficulties mean she can no longer use a keyboard effectively (9 points). Sheila experiences cognitive dysfunction and depression, which has worsened since had to give up work, and as a result she frequently can’t initiate and complete at least 2 personal actions (6 points).
Sheila scores 30 points but doesn’t qualify for the Support Group. She is given a contributory ESA WRAG award of 12 months, after which her benefit is stopped because her partner is in work. The 2012 Welfare Reform Act dictates that 12 months should be long enough for people with health conditions like Sheila’s to recover and return to work.

Mike, Alan and Sheila are not real people, but illustrations of how the WCA measures illness, disability and fitness for “work related activity” in a way that has no bearing on either medical reality, or the real world of work. Without financial support to overcome the significant obstacles they face, and without employers prepared to tailor their job conditions considerably, real people like Mike Alan and Sheila don’t have realistic job prospects, now or in the future.

Adapted from http://www.spartacusnetwork.org.uk/images/reports/SpartacusESAMythbuster2015.pdf 
By Catherine Hale, Caroline Richardson and Stef Benstead. With contributions from Jane Young and Sam Barnett-Cormack.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sickness and the Social Model of Disability

This is the first part in a series of blog posts that will explore the uneasy relationship between chronic illness and the social model of disability. From my perspective as a Sick person (more on that controversial word next time) I will explore why people with chronic illness often feel excluded from the Disability Rights Movement (DRM) that emerged out of the social model. But rather than reject the social model I’ll discuss how we, the Sick community, could claim it for ourselves and what a social model of chronic illness would look like. The crucial distinction between impairment and disability lies at the heart of the revolutionary Social Model of Disability that emerged in the 1970s – the model that underpins the disability rights and independent living movements. To paraphrase it simply, impairment is loss of bodily function, whereas disability is disadvantage imposed upon people with impairments due to hostile social attitudes or inaccessible physical environments. 

The future of assessments and social security for disabled people

This is a slightly edited version of notes for a presentation to the ESA roundtable meeting chaired by John McDonnell MP on 29th November 2018. The content is based on previous research work with Spartacus Network, independent research into ESA and the WRAG, research on Access to Work, as well as current research with the Chronic Illness Inclusion Project. The current benefits system was identified as the biggest source of social oppression faced by CIIP participants. We recently completed focus group on designing better social security for people with energy-limiting chronic illness. Introduction The first part of this presentation is four main principles for a new assessment framework. A set of tests that any new system must meet if it is to restore the Human Rights of disabled people. The second part covers points for further discussion. Highlighting areas of current debate and disagreement. Principles 1: Overturn the ideology behind the Hostile Environment, restore digni

And now, for my latest trick

I am the lucky owner of a fab new powered wheelchair. And my new trick is that I am an ambulatory wheelchair user. That means, sometimes you'll see me sitting in my wheelchair, and sometimes you'll see me walking. This causes a great deal of social awkwardness, consternation and even shock. People seem to think I'm leading a double life. So I'll explain how it works. Little Britain 's Andy and Lou sketch: making part-time wheelchair users into a laughing stock. If you see my in my chair, thank you for your concern, but I have not just had an accident or broken any bones. And, thankfully, my condition is no worse than it has been for the past few years. If you see me walking, I have not suddenly been graced by a miraculous recovery. I still have the same crappy chronic illness I've had for 30 years. Neither am I using my chair to get attention or to pretend to be more disabled than I am in order to get some kind of advantage over everyone else - lik