News
The Legal Services Commission (LSC) is denying claims that it has been forced to undertake race equality impact assessments on legal aid reforms after judicial proceedings were launched against it.
The Black Solicitors’ Network (BSN) and the Society of Asian Lawyers (SAL) launched the proceedings against the government, claiming they had failed to carry out a proper race equality impact assessment under the Race Relations Act 1976 in relation to the legal aid reform programme. The Law Society and the Commission for Racial Equality acted as intervening parties.
The dispute was resolved last week after the case was adjourned and the BSN and SAL withdrew their challenge, claiming that the LSC had pledged to carry out a “proper” assessment of the expected impact of its proposals for best value tendering.
Michael Webster of Webster Dixon LLP, acting for BSN and SAL, says: “The government has conceded to impact assessments to be carried out with due regard to the Commission for Racial Equality’s code and guidance, which are far more robust than their previous methods. We would now hope that the government would properly engage with key stakeholders to ensure that their policies are properly implemented in a fair way.”
The LSC, meanwhile, is also claiming victory and rebuts the suggestion that BSN and SAL achieved their goals by withdrawing review proceedings.
In a statement, the LSC says: “We had already committed to publishing a cumulative impact assessment alongside our consultation on best value tendering. To imply that this has changed as a result of the hearing is simply untrue. We did not ‘concede’, nor did we undertake, to adhere to the Commission for Racial Equality’s guide for consultations. However, we have reiterated that we will, of course, have regard to this useful tool for public bodies.”
The LSC says that Mr Justice Burton made clear in awarding costs to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the LSC that the claimants had failed in their review and that the government’s position was not materially different following the hearing. It adds that the court’s decision to provide 70% of costs to the LSC and MoJ reflects the claimants’ willingness to withdraw their claim rather than waste further court time with their case.
The LSC has decided not to enforce the costs order against BSN and SAL.
