I asked if starmer was breaking the law got this response

Well done to you @Catherine21 👏 👍 🙌 getting this answer.

I'd posted something on here several weeks ago re Equality Act and something else (I can't remember the initials of now 🙄😬 but related to local authorities and service/public /? SEHD) which I'll be going back on to that document, anyway soon, ... but back to the point....

What you've posted feels like part of a missing link.

I'll look up this Statutory Authority Exception. My initial thought is that if this exempts a claim under the Equality Act it DOES NOT (potentially) EXEMPT A CLAIM under the Health & Safety Act or other Acts. Potentially is the key word here as Starmer's a lawyer (I'm not 🙄😅) but I do believe there is always more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak.

Thank you for your own continued efforts, I think it's VERY helpful you've received this. I'm hoping to be back on track with my thoughts and efforts very soon (email to Consultation is my major/top priority). Take care and very warmest wishes 😊 x

@Catherine21Meant to say sorry, even with a Statutory Authority Exemption a body such as DWP will most likely Im certain to still have the usual responsibilities under the Health and Safety Act. I'm thinking here of their duty not just to employees/subcontractors etc but to the public in the carrying out of their activities [DWP/Jobcentres etc] (we are the 'public'). My thinking here might be a long shot but to me, warrants further investigation.

Which I'm going to do once I've done my email/consultation 😬😊

@Catherine21,

I truly applaud your efforts in reaching out to the EASS and for generously sharing the response you received - it’s incredibly valuable and appreciated.

Although I’ve been unwell myself, I’ve been gradually compiling sections to help form a legal argument against the proposals in the Green Paper. I shared an outline on our main Green Paper thread, encouraging others to adapt it to reflect their own personal circumstances. I believe our individual stories, grounded in our rights, can be powerful tools for collective resistance.

As this might be relevant here, I’m sharing some notes I’ve been developing around where the government may be failing to uphold our rights under the Equality Act 2010. It’s still in raw form, but I hope it may be useful in sparking further discussion or strengthening your own responses :

1. Failure to Comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty (Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010)The Pathways to Work proposal abolishes Work Capability Assessments (WCAs) and ties eligibility for benefits to stricter criteria without proper consultation with disabled and vulnerable individuals. This directly contravenes Section 149 of the Equality Act, which mandates that public authorities must have "due regard" to:

- Eliminate discrimination.

- Advance equality of opportunity for disabled individuals.

- Foster good relations between those with and without protected characteristics.
By failing to consult affected groups or conduct a robust equality impact assessment, this proposal disregards its duty to consider how these changes would disproportionately harm disabled people. The lack of consultation demonstrates procedural unfairness and a breach of statutory obligations under Section 149.

2. Indirect Discrimination (Section 19)

The stricter eligibility criteria for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and linking it to the new Universal Credit (UC) health element apply a provision or practice that disproportionately disadvantages several disabled individuals compared to non-disabled individuals. Section 19 defines indirect discrimination as:- Applying a provision, criterion, or practice that puts disabled people at a particular disadvantage compared to others.- Failing to justify this as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The government has not provided evidence that these changes are necessary or proportionate. Instead, they risk excluding many individuals who currently rely on PIP and LCWRA benefits, exacerbating socio-economic inequalities.The Government’s true intent appears to be cutting welfare costs, not genuinely reforming support for disabled people. Framing these cuts as “reforms” is misleading and masks the disproportionate impact on disabled individuals -which amounts to indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

3. Discrimination Arising from Disability (Section 15)

The proposal treats disabled individuals unfavorably by removing WCAs and tightening benefit criteria, which arise directly from their disabilities. Section 15 prohibits such treatment unless it can be shown that it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim." The government has not demonstrated how these changes meet this threshold.
For example:- Abolishing WCAs removes an essential mechanism for assessing individuals' needs, leaving many unable to access benefits they rely on.- Linking PIP eligibility to stricter criteria creates barriers for those with fluctuating or less visible conditions, such as mental health issues.

4. Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments (Section 20)

Under Section 20, public authorities have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that disabled individuals are not placed at a substantial disadvantage. The removal of WCAs and stricter PIP assessments fail to account for the specific needs of disabled people, such as those requiring tailored assessments or additional support during the claims process.
For instance:- The proposal does not outline alternative methods for assessing individuals who cannot meet the new criteria due to their disabilities.- It creates additional hurdles for accessing benefits without providing reasonable accommodations.

5. Breach of Procedural Fairness

The consultation process focuses solely on getting people into work and excludes discussions about the impact on disability-related benefits. This violates principles of procedural fairness under administrative law, as affected groups were not adequately consulted on decisions that significantly impact their lives.

6. Violation of Socio-Economic Duty (Section 1)

Although not yet in force across all jurisdictions, Section 1 of the Equality Act requires public authorities to consider reducing inequalities resulting from socio-economic disadvantage when making strategic decisions. The proposed changes exacerbate financial hardship for disabled individuals by reducing access to vital benefits, contrary to this duty.

7. Harassment and Victimisation (Sections 26–27)

The proposal's framing and implementation could create an intimidating environment for claimants, particularly those with mental health conditions who may feel targeted by stricter assessments or denied support unfairly. This could amount to harassment under Section 26 if it violates their dignity or creates a hostile environment.

Victimisation under Section 27 may also occur if claimants are penalised for challenging decisions or raising concerns about discriminatory practices during the consultation process.
(Please read in conjunction with my post on the green paper proposal thread)

Please feel free to use or build on anything I’ve written - and just a gentle note: I’m not a legal expert, just another disabled person deeply affected by these proposals, sharing in good faith to support and empower our community.

Disabled Voices and Our Rights Matter

In solidarity ✊

@noonebelieves I am sorry I cannot think straight to reply to the your post but the Statutory Authority Exemption referred to in @Catherine21 post, unless I am misunderstanding after reading about that today I think it does exempt them (government/Dwp) from the Equality Act. Totally.

The HSAWA (74) that I mentioned is (sections 1, 3 and 7 of part I) are weak in respect of what we need.

I'm disheartened sorry and need to leave it all for tonight.

Thank you so much for everything you do. I'll get back to thinking clearly I hope tomorrow. Take very good care.

@Catherine21
@Santosha12
I completely hear you and I just want to say, you are not alone in feeling overwhelmed right now. I’ve been feeling it too. Really badly….. It’s so much to take in, especially when it feels like we’re constantly having to defend our very right to live with dignity. I truly feel breathless with all of this 😔But I’ve taken some time to sit with all this, and I want to share a few reflections that might offer even a little comfort or clarity.

1) On the Statutory Authority Exception (SAE)

Like you, I initially felt a knot in my stomach when reading about this In. But after reading through guidance from the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) shared by Catherine , and then looking at the official document “The Judge Over Your Shoulder (JOYS)” (6th edition2022)-which is used by government officials for lawful decision-makingit actually gave me some real reassurance.

Even if the government claims SAE, it does not give them blanket power to override disabled people’s rights. Those rights are protected by the Equality Act 2010 and even the Human Rights Act 1998. SAE just means there’s a specific law allowing the government to do something-but it still needs to be done lawfully, fairly, and proportionately, and the impacts on disabled people must still be considered. 

If they fail in that, their actions can still be challenged , as they are required to have due regard to certain equality considerations under the “Public Sector Equality Duty(Sections 149 to 157 of the equality act 2010)”

What I understand is that :

Our rights cannot simply be swept aside. The government would face significant legal challenges in trying to justify such actions, particularly if there has been inadequate consultation or if disabled people have not been treated fairly. As MW123 rightly pointed out here and in our green paper thread , we have fought and won similar battles before, such as in the case of Ellen Clifford against the DWP and others.Let’s not lose hope

2) On the HSAWA (Health and Safety at Work Act 1974)

This one can be a bit misleading without context. It’s primarily a workplace law, designed to govern the general duties of employers towards welfare of the employees. In the context of benefits and social support, it’s unlikely to provide the kind of protection we’re looking for. That said, one could argue that its core principles-such as the duty to take reasonable care and prevent harm-should also guide how government bodies interact with the public. Still, that doesn’t mean our rights in this area are weak-it just means this particular law wasn’t really intended for situations like this.

What we do have is the Equality Act 2010, which is our shield.

 It’s a powerful piece of legislation that the government can’t just ignore-especially not when they’re proposing massive cuts that could devastate disabled people’s lives.
I know it’s hard right now-I feel it too-but please, try not to lose heart or hope . Your voice matters. Our voices matter. And sharing our lived experiences-through personal stories to ministers, through this consultation (even though it’s flawed), and will help apply pressure on the government .

I’m so grateful for people like you who continue to show up, even when it’s incredibly difficult. Please take all the time you need to rest-after all, we’re all human, and many of us are living with disabilities that make rest not just important, but essential.

But please remember this:

even in our most vulnerable moments, we are not powerless. We are a community, and we are stronger when we lift one another up. Our voices-both individual and collective-are so powerful.Disabled voices matter, and together, we are a force for change.

Sending care and solidarity, always.We fight on….  but never alone.✊