Plans to introduce the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA) are back on track. The Ministry of Justice and Legal Services Commission yesterday confirmed that Crown court advocacy fees for publicly funded criminal cases will not be linked to the level of accreditation gained under the new scheme.

The Criminal Bar Association last week appeared to withdraw its engagement with the controversial scheme, over its opposition to proposals mooted by the LSC to link the payment of advocates to the QASA grade, without any higher payment for silks.

But yesterday the MoJ’s director of access to justice, Catherine Lee, and the LSC’s director of legal aid commissioning and contract management, Hugh Barrett, wrote a joint letter to the CBA chair Max Hill QC addressing the concerns he had raised.

The letter said: ‘The process to establish QASA is being taken forward by the regulators. Issues relating to Crown court advocacy fees are not linked to it.

‘The setting of fees is a matter for the MoJ, who have no current plans to change the Advocates Graduated Fees Scheme (AGFS). The use of QCs will continue to be determined by judges and QCs will be paid under the AGFS.’

It added: ‘The government is committed to ensuring long-term sustainability and value for money in the legal aid market and, as you know, intends to consult on detailed proposals for the introduction of competition in criminal legal aid.’

Hill responded: ‘The letter appears to be very clear, to the effect that there is no link between QASA level and remuneration. This is the declaration which we were seeking, and we welcome it in the constructive way it has been drafted.

‘It was a fundamental point that needed to be addressed and we were right to make it.’

Chair of the Solicitors Association of Higher Court Advocates, Jo Cooper, said: ‘The LSC has a seat at the QASA advisory group table and it is legitimate for it to consider the resource implications of the scheme.

'We consider the scheme, as currently designed, to be flawed. One element of that is that it will make advocacy work more expensive.'