THE PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITY DUTY Joanne Clement - 11kbw

27. In R (JG and MB) v Lancashire County Council [2011] EWHC 2295 (Admin), the
claimants challenged the decision of full council to approve revenue budget proposals
for three years, including a budget limit for adult social care services. The budget
included two policy proposals – first, a policy to raise the eligibility threshold for
access to adult social care services, and second, a policy to change how it charged
for such services. The budget decision was taken at a meeting in February 2011. The
approval by full council was to be subject to further consideration by the Cabinet
Member. In March 2011 the Cabinet Member for Adult and Community Services
approved policies in the budget including to raise eligibility thresholds for access to
adult social care from “moderate” to “substantial” or “critical” (as assessed under
FACS).
28. The claimants argued that there had been a breach of the PSED because at the time
the initial budget decision was taken, there had been no detailed assessment of the
likely impact of the budget decision on the affected users of the relevant services.
Kenneth Parker J rejected the challenge (relying on the protected characteristic of
disability) in relation to the full council’s budget decision for essentially the following
reasons (see [48]-[51]):
(1) It was clear to those involved in approving the budget that disabled people would
be adversely affected by budget reductions to adult social services. The potential
impact was specifically identified for further investigation, and as part of that
investigation there was put in train a series of consultations.
(2) The approval of the Council’s overall budget did not constitute a final decision
about what the Council’s policies would be or even about what sum of money
would, in fact, be saved under each of the service proposals. It was obvious to
the Council’s Members that the proposal to change the social care threshold
would be implemented only after due regard had been paid to the need to
promote equality of opportunity and to take steps to take account of disabled
person’s disabilities.
(3) The reality was that the decision-maker had taken a preliminary decision in
relation to its budget, fully aware that the implementation of proposed policies
would be likely to have an impact on the affected users, but had not committed
itself to the implementation of specific policies within the budget framework until it
had carried out a full and detailed assessment of the likely impact. There was
nothing wrong, in principle, with such an approach and nothing inconsistent with
the duties under the DDA.
Joanne Clement, 11KBW
t. 020 7632 8500 e. Joanne.Clement@11kbw.com
10