D and S, R (on the application of) v Manchester City Council

A local authority’s budget-setting decision is subject to the public sector equality duty. The duty requires due regard to the relevant statutory needs, but does not require a formal equality impact assessment, a particular procedure, or achievement of equality outcomes. The court reviews whether the authority’s investigation and assessment were within the range of what a reasonable authority could regard as appropriate in the circumstances.

A budget may lawfully incorporate contingencies, safeguards and later assessments, provided those arrangements allow subsequent policy and individual decisions to be made lawfully. Consultation must give sufficient information and reasons to enable an intelligent response, but need not provide detail that cannot yet be determined because it depends on individual assessments.

The claimants, two disabled elderly recipients of adult social care, sought judicial review of Manchester City Council’s 2011/12 budget decision and its consultation on a revised social care offer. They alleged breach of the disability equality duty in section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and unfair consultation because consultees lacked sufficient information about reablement and resource allocation changes.

Permission to challenge the consultation under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 had previously been refused. The central issues were whether the Council had paid due regard to the needs of disabled and elderly persons when setting the budget, and whether its consultation supplied adequate information and opportunity for an intelligent response.

1. Claim dismissed. The budget-setting decision and the consultation were lawful. The subsequent Executive decision of September 2011 was not separately impugned on pleaded grounds.
2. The disability equality duty and the public sector equality duty applied to budget-setting, adult social care provision and consultation. “Due regard” meant the regard appropriate in all the circumstances. It required attention to the relevant statutory needs, including investigation of likely impact and assessment of the weight to be given to that impact against countervailing considerations. It did not require a formal equality impact assessment, reference to the duty in express terms, a prescribed step or a particular result.
3. The court’s function was supervisory. It was not to decide for itself what investigation or weight was appropriate, but to ask whether the authority did something that no reasonable authority could have regarded as appropriate in the circumstances. The contention that review of due regard was distinct from any reasonableness review was rejected.
4. The Council had identified the likely adverse impact, considered the needs of vulnerable residents, built contingency resources into the budget, and committed itself to further consultation, equality assessment and continued provision for assessed eligible needs. That was a substantive consideration of the statutory needs rather than formal box-ticking. An ex post facto rationalisation could not substitute for due regard at the time of decision, but that was not what had occurred.
5. The consultation satisfied the common-law requirements. It was undertaken while proposals remained formative, gave adequate reasons and information, allowed sufficient time and was conscientiously considered. Precise effects on resource allocation could not be stated in advance because they depended on individual assessments and the Council’s commitment to continue meeting eligible needs pending alternative provision and appeals.
6. Although the claim was dismissed on the merits, the judge also considered that relief would be disproportionate and contrary to the public interest because quashing the budget calculation would invalidate council tax demands, impose substantial administrative cost and risk reducing rather than increasing resources available for adult social care.