I am pleased to hear that Carolyn Regan wants the LSC and solicitors to engage more, so perhaps she could answer these questions about the current reforms.


First, she boasts yet again about the record numbers of civil acts of assistance, achieved largely through the rapid expansion of the LSC's CLS Direct call centres. Yet my understanding is that some of the CLS Direct suppliers which had their contracts renewed last year did so even though they had performed poorly at peer review. How does procuring such services preserve quality and achieve value for money for the taxpayer?



Second, the LSC has just abandoned preferred supplier and has lowered the threshold for best-value tendering. Suppliers who have only attained level three - threshold competence - are allowed to compete on price with level one or two suppliers who have higher average case costs because of the additional time and effort they invest in achieving the best possible outcomes for their vulnerable clients. Why is the LSC no longer prepared to incentivise excellence?



Third, I was dismayed that the LSC and Leicester City Council, which have just tendered for what will be the second Community Legal Advice Centre, have provisionally selected an organisation (A4e) with no obvious connection with Leicester. The long-established and peer review category one law centre in Leicester will now close if the provisional decision is approved, because of the LSC's bizarre policy of establishing 'competition' through setting up local advice provision monopolies. Why should solicitors have any confidence that the LSC is interested in securing quality advice services when such highly regarded and committed not-for-profit organisations are treated with such contempt?



Gareth Mitchell, Pierce Glynn, London