Annex 1 to BSB Paper 002 (16) Part 1 – Public Future Bar Training Consultation on the Future of Training for the Bar: Academic, Vocational and Professional Stages of Training Summary of responses January 2016 BSB 280116 Annex 1 to BSB Paper 002 (16) Part 1 – Public Executive Summary Background to the consultation In summer 2013, the Bar Standards Board (BSB), the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and ILEX Professional Standards (IPS; now called CILEX Regulation) published the Legal Education and Training Review (LETR). This was a large, independent review of the system of training legal professionals in England and Wales. The review recognised many good features in the system for training barristers. It also looked to the future and recommended reform so that training would be better matched for barristers and clients in 2020 and beyond. In February 2015, we published our vision for the future of training for the Bar. In that paper, we set out our proposal for a Professional Statement that describes the standards that should be expected of all authorised barristers upon entry to the profession. In addition, we explained why we were embarking on a review of how we are involved in setting education and training requirements for barristers. The Future Bar Training consultation, launched in the summer of 2015, built on that paper, exploring what changes might be made to the current system. It examined possible approaches to reform of the system and regulatory requirements, and considered the current three-stage formulation of training. Responses to the consultation There were 58 responses to the consultation. The responses were received from the following: six from individual barristers; 10 from Law Professors or Lecturers; 14 from University Law Schools; 11 from legal representative organisations; seven from other organisations; two from Chambers; one from another regulator; and seven from individuals who did not specify their occupations. Summary of key findings Part 1 Part 1 of the consultation concerned the Academic stage. It considered: the way in which the academic stage may or may not contribute to the achievement of the Professional Statement requirements; the topic of degree classification and whether to move towards requiring a minimum 2:1; a possible move away from the “eight core subjects” requirement; how we could make sure that those completing the academic stage have sufficient legal knowledge and understanding to start the next stage of training. BSB 280116 Annex 1 to BSB Paper 002 (16) Part 1 – Public Demonstrating abilities The majority of respondents were supportive of the BSB permitting alternative means of demonstrating the necessary abilities to become a barrister, other than through the completion of a law degree or GDL. Respondents suggested that to have no other route into the profession would risk undermining the diversity of the Bar and homogenising the pool from which future barristers are drawn. However, some respondents did express a strong attachment to the concept of “graduateness”. These respondents were of the view that removing the requirement to have a degree would result in a downgrading in professional standards, and would diminish public confidence in the profession. It was also noted that because other professions of equal standing in the public confidence, such as doctors, architects and veterinarians, require a degree, it would be important for the Bar to continue to do so also. Degree classification There was much opposition to the idea of raising the required degree classification from 2:2 to 2:1. This was largely due to concerns about reducing diversity at the Bar, and the perceived inconsistencies between the standards of different universities. A particular concern for a number of respondents was that the requirement of an upper second class degree may unduly restrict access to the profession and have a disproportionate impact on students from disadvantaged backgrounds. As the Bar has an important role in promoting the interests of, and access to, justice, it was seen as vital that the composition of the Bar should be as representative as possible of the community it serves. Many respondents cautioned the BSB against making any changes to the requirements for degree classification without gathering and assessing evidence to ensure that students from particular universities, or personal circumstances would not be unfairly penalised. Core subjects Many respondents supported the continuation of the specification of core subjects. The core subjects were regarded by many as the foundation of the law of the land. There was concern that if the core subjects to be studied were not prescribed by the BSB, the “equality of content” that a Qualifying Law Degree provides would be lost. This could lead to a lack of consistency and rigour in the scope and level of legal knowledge obtained by future barristers, and therefore a degradation of the high standards of the Bar. Compatibility A significant number of respondents expressed a concern that any consideration of what should be required from a law degree would need to be considered in light of the SRA’s approach to training of solicitors. Respondents felt that that the two branches of the legal profession appear to be diverging from the Joint Statement approach and that there may no longer be a consistent approach to the academic stage by the two regulators. There was concern that law schools may not be able to provide different routes through an LLB that would satisfy both regulators and that it would be unfair for students starting out to have to decide from the beginning which route they would want to take. There was also concern expressed, particularly by university law schools, that the more complex the BSB approach, and the more it diverges from the statement of legal knowledge in the SRA’s competence statement, the more problematic it will be for Law Schools to design programmes which comply with both regulators’ demands. BSB 280116 Annex 1 to BSB Paper 002 (16) Part 1 – Public Part 2 Part 2 of the consultation concerned the vocational stage, and sought endorsement of the proposition that such a stage of training should not be abandoned. It considered: the strengths of the current vocational stage; the perceived and actual issues of the current vocational stage; the role of the regulator in the vocational stage of training; possible future approaches to how we regulate this stage. Retaining vocational requirements All respondents agreed that some form of vocational stage was necessary in the training of future barristers, though not all thought it should remain in its current form. There was suggestion from some respondents that this stage could be more integrated with both the academic and professional stages. Bar Course Aptitude Test (BCAT) Many respondents raised issues with the BCAT, which was seen by a significant number of respondents as not being fit for purpose and lacking credibility. Many respondents suggested that if it was to remain, it would need redesigning to ensure it could function as an effective filter for those going on to further study in the vocational stage. The Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) Responses relating to the value of the current BPTC were mixed, with some respondents feeling it operated well and gave students the foundation they needed to proceed to pupillage, and others expressing dissatisfaction with the way the BPTC currently operates and the costs involved for students in undertaking it. Respondents were generally glad that the issue of cost and affordability of the BPTC was being recognised. It was agreed that the cost of legal education is a serious issue to the extent that it may deter good candidates from less privileged backgrounds from pursuing a career at the Bar. There was disagreement on whether the BPTC represented value for money. While many respondents thought the BPTC was prohibitively expensive and could be deterring students from considering a career at the Bar, not all respondents thought it did not offer value for money. It was noted that the BPTC is made from intensive ‘people-led’ training, and some respondents thought it would be difficult for this to be made cheaper without compromising on quality or increasing cohort sizes. A number of respondents commented that the BSB should be focusing on outcomes in relation to the BPTC, and therefore lessening how prescriptive the BSB should be in its requirements. However, concern was also raised that without some level of prescription, there may be a “race to the bottom” and that high standards need to continue to be encouraged. As well as being outcomes-focussed, there was some support for the BSB considering a model that would be innovative, able to respond quickly to change, and offer quality assurance and choice for students. A number of respondents rejected the idea that the BPTC qualification is not widely recognised, and that the skills learned on the BPTC do not have ‘wider recognition’. This was seen as ignoring the presentational and analytical skills that are learned on the course, and that are highly valued by employers outside of the Bar. There was a question raised of BSB 280116 Annex 1 to BSB Paper 002 (16) Part 1 – Public whether it needed to be an aim of the BPTC to provide “wider value” considering the aim of the course is to prepare students for a career at the Bar. There was also suggestion that widening the BPTC from its current purpose could make it longer and more expensive. BPTC “Approach 1” A number of respondents believe that the BPTC as it currently stands is as an educationally sound programme which is fit for purpose and provides good preparation for pupillage. There was therefore some support for maintaining something similar to the status quo, with the continuous improvement approach (Approach 1) outlined in the consultation.