Examination of Witnesses (Quesitons 160-170)
MR GEOFFREY
VOS QC, MS
GEORGINA KENT,
MS ALEXANDRA
MARKS AND
MS MANJOT
DHANJAL
20 JUNE 2007
Q160 Keith Vaz: Are you saying they
take up references from people other than those who are on the
form?
Alexandra Marks: Yes. That was
exactly the point which was just made by the JAC. They have their
own what they call "nominated" referees. Now, that does
not just include, it appears, people such as your head of Chambers,
or your head of department, which are the examples given, but
also judges who may have worked alongside you in another capacity.
We are very concerned about that. The other point I very briefly
wanted to make, and I know it is not the JAC's responsibility,
but that leads on to my third point, which is that because of
the split of responsibility it is very difficult to find out how
one addresses issues such as what the job itself and the working
practice is, because it is not just a question of getting in through
the door. Any sensible applicant is going to think not just about
the application process and what impact this will have on their
career but how they are actually going to be able to combine the
requirements of the job which they are now required to do through
part-time fee-paid experience generally first and the day job.
That is a really enormous issue for our profession and is perceived
by many of my professional colleagues as a real barrier in a way
which does not, I think, apply to the Bar.
Keith Vaz: Thank you.
Q161 Julie Morgan: Ms Marks, I know
that the Law Society has a number of schemes, Gender Equality,
Equality and Diversity and Diversity Access schemes. Can you tell
us whether you have any results from the application of those
schemes?
Alexandra Marks: It is probably
best if I hand over to Manjot for the details.
Manjot Dhanjal: The Law Society
is a public body with public duties, under the anti-discrimination
legislation, so obviously we rightly have the gender, race and
disability equality schemes, and that includes a whole range of
activity which we undertake. We do monitor it and we have evaluation
that we can certainly provide information on, much more detailed
information. The diversity access scheme you mentioned is actually
quite an innovation. It was set up a couple of years ago to support
not necessarily young students, but students who have the talent
to become solicitors but who face certain obstacles. Therefore,
one of the things the scheme does is to provide financial support
to undertake their LPC, for example. That is the only scheme which
does that. It also has a mentoring and work placement strand,
but there are other schemes around which do that as well, and
certainly we do monitor that and evaluate that.
Q162 Julie Morgan: What sort of financial
support?
Manjot Dhanjal: Financial support
for the LPC? It works out at about £7,000 to £8,000
per person per year. Certainly we do monitor that and at least
70% of the take-up is either from women from black or minority
ethnic students or from students who have disabilities.
Q163 Julie Morgan: So you feel they
are having an effect?
Manjot Dhanjal: That is a concrete
impact, i.e. those few people are coming into the profession.
Q164 Julie Morgan: Have the professions
acted upon the recommendations made in the DCA's working group
report Diversity in the Legal Professions, which suggests publishing
diversity statistics? Is there anybody who can answer?
Manjot Dhanjal: I was on the working
group, so I suppose I should answer that one. In fact the Law
Society itself has published statistics on the profession generally
for many years, so we are quite able to pick up trends around
the improving diversity of the profession. The particular recommendation
in the DCA report at the time was that we should ask firms to
publish their diversity statistics, and I know the Minister wrote
to the top 100, probably the top 200 firms to do so. The Law Society
does support that initiative and we did do a follow up letter
to all the firms to ask them to apply that recommendation. I really
do not know at this stage how many actually do it.
Q165 Julie Morgan: Is there any way
of finding out how many do it?
Manjot Dhanjal: Yes, I think the
Ministry of Justice keeps a record of that.
Q166 Julie Morgan: So we can get
that information from the Ministry of Justice?
Manjot Dhanjal: Yes. It is perhaps
worth adding, if I may, that voluntarily the profession has been
involved in some.
Alexandra Marks: I have brought
the report, for example, which was done by the black solicitors'
network in which many firms participated, and those firms, even
if they have not done it historically, have kept their own data
certainly in recent years. Firms like my own, which is a very
large one, are very proud of their diversity credentials. The
issue, I think, is not so much whether the profession is diverse
(because actually we feel that our profession is considerably
more diverse than the judiciary is) but whether the judiciary
reflects even our own diversity, which is far from a perfect reflection
of the society in which we live. It will be a very powerful step
forward but it is not at the level yet.
Geoffrey Vos: Could I just say
briefly for the Bar that we, for many years, have published diversity
and gender statistics and we continue to do so. We have introduced
a new monitoring form this year to ask for more detailed questions
to track people from entry to the BVC course going through because
in many cases we had a lacuna of statistics of people entering
the profession and we could not find out who had actually entered
and then who has dropped by the wayside. So we have a very detailed
form now which is going to make a great improvement in the data.
In addition, the Bar Standards Board is introducing new monitoring
procedures which will make sure that Chambers carry through that
exercise. The final thing is that Chambers' statistics are slightly
different from solicitors because Chambers tend to be smaller.
The statistics are probably less meaningful because Chambers are
smaller, but we have cooperated with the desire to publish the
major Chambers' statistics and our Bar Council is urging the Chambers
to publish them on their website.
Alexandra Marks: May I just also
make another point, which is that it is not so much the individual
Chambers' or indeed firms' diversity statistics that count, it
is across the profession, because it is not as though the Commission
is targeting individual Chambers or firms, nor should they be,
it is actually the diversity profession-wide which is most important.
So although I can understand why the question might be framed
by looking at firms, actually it is only if our diverse recruits
to the profession leave the profession that it is really, I would
suggest, an issue as far as that feeds through to judicial appointments
rather than them leaving an individual practice and perhaps leaving
Chambers.
Q167 Jessica Morden: What do you
think would be the implications of the Carter review on ethnic
diversity amongst solicitors and within the professions?
Alexandra Marks: Again, perhaps
Manjot can start off on that one?
Manjot Dhanjal: I think this is
probably well-rehearsed in terms of legal aid reforms. Clearly
I would assume that at some point there will be a full regulatory
impact assessment and we will know the detail then, but the initial
indications are that there will be some impact on smaller firms.
The fact is that minority-owned firms (if I can use that term)
are over-represented in the smaller firms and certainly some early
research had indicated that there will be a disproportionate impact
on minority ethnic owned firms, if I can put it that way, but
we will wait to see what the full regulatory impact assessment
looks like.
Q168 Keith Vaz: Could you comment,
both Mr Vos and Ms Marks, on the Commission's view that those
who do not succeed in becoming judges are happy with a written
statement from the Commission telling them why they were not good
enough to be judges, because the anecdotal evidence I have received
is that people actually quite like to know what is wrong with
them and would like that feedback so that they can either improve
or add to their curriculum vitae or change their referees and
that a simple letter, however detailed, does not deal with the
issue. What is your view on that, Mr Vos?
Geoffrey Vos: What I have heard
anecdotally supports what you have just said, that I think many
people would like to hear orally why they went wrong and be able
to ask probing questions as to the position, but I have to say
I certainly understand the starting point of the Commission, which
is that it is better to have something in writing at least to
begin with which expresses in clear and unequivocal terms the
reasons because I think what was being said by the Chief Executive
was that you get nuanced answers which can be misinterpreted which
do more harm than good. So I think what I would like to see, but
I would need further consideration before making it a formal position
on behalf of the Bar Council, is a clear written answer followed,
if requested, by an interview to follow up and then there would
be no danger of misunderstanding and the necessary feedback would
be given to people who have spent and invested a great deal of
personal time and energy in making the application.
Q169 Keith Vaz: These poor men or
women who have been not appointed to the High Court after a whole
career at the Bar or in the solicitors' profession, who are told,
"Sorry, you're not good enough," even they deserve to
be told, do they not?
Geoffrey Vos: Of course, and they
deserve to be told what prospects they have in the judiciary,
even if not on the High Court Bench.
Alexandra Marks: I would like
to agree entirely with that. Again, it is difficult to say without
having conducted more research into it, which we have not done,
but our anecdotal experience is that actually people do put a
great deal of store on the feedback and certainly the anecdotal
evidence which I have heard personally and directly is that first
of all the feedback takes a long time to come through, secondly
that it tends to be rather brief, and thirdly that I think the
candidates feel quite frustrated if not given the opportunity
to follow it up, as Geoffrey has suggested, by actually probing
a little bit further into what this actually means and whether
it is, if you like, a remediable issue or whether it is one on
which there is really no hope. So I think it would be much better
if there was an opportunity given to get feedback orally, after
there had been initial correspondence perhaps.
Q170 Keith Vaz: You watched the evidence
session with the Commission. This Sub-Committee was set up because
of our grave concerns following the first evidence session. We
believe this is a critical area of policy which does need to be
monitored and we will be having a further evidence session again
later in the year because we want to keep on top of this, but
we would also like to hear from yourselves. We do not want you
to be whistleblowers, but if there are issues which the Commission
should be taking up or there are areas which need to be looked
at, please do write to us because it will inform our view as to
how we take these inquiries forward, because after all the judges
come from your professions and it is therefore vital that we know
exactly what is going on, so thank you very much.
Geoffrey Vos: Could I just come
back on one issue, which is the legal aid question which Ms Morgan
asked. I feel that we ought to make clear to the Committee that
we are very concerned at the Bar Council that the pressure on
legal aid fees will have an impact on diversity within the profession.
It will reduce the number of women in the profession because what
we are finding is that most women are pushed into publicly funded
areas, family or crime. We have a real problem with the retention
of women through having children, and so on, and the pressure
on legal aid fees makes it less attractive for them to come back.
Whatever steps we take—and we take many steps—to retain
women and attract them back into the profession, we find that
the pressure on legal aid fees makes it more difficult. The same,
by the way, applies to BME groups because they also tend to operate
in publicly funded areas. I do not want to re-open a whole can
of worms, but it is a very important issue to mark before this
Sub-Committee.
Keith Vaz: Thank you very much.
| 
