Protect peer review

I write with reference to the letter from Carolyn Regan (see [2009] Gazette, 18 June, 13).

She states that best value tendering will continue to ensure the quality of criminal defence services. Although she does not say so in her letter, I presume she means by peer review. Can she therefore please explain why the work of peer reviewers like myself has been massively reduced with immediate effect and bookings for peer reviewing have been cancelled? This is no doubt as a result of financial restraint.

Quality will not be safeguarded if funding for peer reviewing is massively reduced. The LSC should confirm the reduction in the peer review budget and explain how this can be justified at such a crucial time. Is the real reason that the entry point for BVT is Threshold Competence 3 only and not higher, due to the fact that the government and the LSC do not want to fund the extra cost of additional peer reviewing which would result from firms seeking a re-determination of their grading to ensure that they are eligible for BVT? Why is size and structure not being regarded for BVT if the contracted providers are to be able to service the contracts in the long term? If the rollout is being accelerated to ensure that the benefits of BVT are obtained as quickly as possible, then does it not also follow that the catastrophic results of BVT predicted by practitioners will also be obtained very quickly by the accelerated roll out? Finally, Carolyn Regan says that attendees at consultations expressed a range of views on BVT. Could she supply us with the names and firms of practitioners who believe BVT will be a good thing? I have yet to meet one.

Graeme Hydari, Peer reviewer, member of the Law Society Criminal Law Committee

Tendering tensions

The Legal Services Commission’s Hugh Barrett (see [2009] Gazette, 25 June, 9) is in denial when he tries to rubbish my calculations. While it is correct to mention a minimum number of firms in each duty solicitor area, what he fails to concede is that they can be the exact same firms in every area. We could, and in future probably will, end up with just eight ‘super-suppliers’. We have seen a precedent for this in health service catering and cleaning, for example. The facts of BVT are simple – it is a declaration of war on criminal defence solicitors and the only way to stop it is simply not to participate in the first place. There can be nothing in its place that would be worse.

Andrew Keogh, Keogh Solicitors, Wigan

Put MPs out to BVT

So, our esteemed government feels that it is appropriate to impose upon this profession the concept of BVT. In the light of recent revelations in the Telegraph and elsewhere, why do they not offer to subject themselves to the same process?

It would be very simple. Come the next election, after their name appears on the ballot, the candidate could enter in brackets the amount for which they would be prepared to do the work of an MP (including expenses) for the coming five years.

The electorate may not vote in the cheapest, but would at least have the chance to weigh up the ‘best value’. If it’s good enough for criminal practitioners, it’s good enough for them.

Ian Giggal, LHC Solicitors, Staveley, Derbyshire