Practising Certificate Fee Consultation
The purpose of the consultation paper, which has been prepared on behalf of the Finance Committee by a sub group under the stewardship of the Treasurer, Andrew Mitchell QC, is to seek the views of the profession on the way that funds required from regulated persons through the Practising Certificate Fee (PCF) are raised.
The consultation paper invites you to respond to questions using the accompanying answer sheet. All documents are available to download below.
| Start Date | Deadline for Responses | ||
| Consultation Paper |
|
March 2010 | Deadline extended to: 25 April 2010 |
| Answer Sheet |
|
By post:
The Secretary
Practising Certificate Working Group
Bar Council
289 – 293 High Holborn
London WC1V 7HZ
You are asked to comment upon the retention of the present banding and waiver arrangements or the alternatives of fees based upon income, numbers of years call or the introduction of a flat fee.
If you have any difficulty using either of these documents, please email or call 0207 611 1329.
Equality Impact Assessment
Due to the relative paucity of accurate information about earnings within the profession, it has not been possible to produce a meaningful Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) in relation to the foregoing options.
However, reference has been made to the diversity analysis of a Bar wide survey that was undertaken, in November 2007, for the development of the Quality Assurance for Advocates (QAA) scheme by the Legal Services Commission. Accordingly, it is possible to make the following EIA related general observations regarding the consultation proposals:
- A banding system based upon years of call is disadvantageous to those who cease to practise for whatever reason and therefore notably to those, predominantly women, who temporarily leave the profession to raise a family. The banding system also contains inherent assumptions about income relative to seniority that are not necessarily valid and therefore may be disadvantageous to more of the older members of the profession.
- An income based fee would favour women and Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) members of the Bar who statistically represent the highest proportion of those in the lower gross billing groups.
- Conversely, for the same reason as above, a flat fee would disadvantage more women and BME as also younger members of the profession.
- Similarly, a waiver system that makes a concession for low earnings favours younger members of the Bar as well as more women and BME.
While the foregoing are key considerations, in order to ensure that we have a clearer understanding of the impact of each of the proposals in terms of gender, ethnicity, disability, age, sexuality, religion or belief, we would be most grateful for your individual insights on their implications. Equally, we will value hearing any suggestions that you might have with regard to the promotion of equality of opportunity.
