I write with reference to the letters from Charlotte Collier and Graeme Hydari (see [2009] Gazette, 2 July, 9).

The Legal Services Commission shares some of legal aid providers’ concerns about experts’ fees, and is developing proposals to address this area of increasing spend.

The LSC has announced a more tailored approach to quality assurance. The changes do not affect the quality standard that we require, but mean that we will get the assurance we need in a more proportionate way. The high pass rate in peer reviews makes it clear that reviewing all contracts would be an unjustified burden on providers and poor value for money.

At present no final decisions have been made regarding going ahead with crime best value tendering. The LSC consultation in March proposed a peer review entry requirement of three or above for the pilot areas. It also confirmed that, following any pilot, we would move from peer review as an entry requirement towards an ongoing contractual requirement for those who are successful in the tender.

The LSC has already reviewed a high proportion of crime contracts compared with other categories of law, particularly in proposed BVT pilot areas. Some provisional bookings with crime peer reviewers have been cancelled to refocus resources on other areas of law. However, where we are developing new approaches to contracting, or contracting for highly specialised services, we will continue to focus peer review resource on these areas, including contracts awarded after BVT.

Hugh Barrett, Executive director for commissioning, Legal Services Commission