In my previous Gazette columns, I have written about a variety of areas in which we have seen real progress and change for the better in these first hectic weeks of my presidency.This column is being published on the day of the Queen's speech -- a Queen's speech that, two months ago, was fully expected to include proposed legislation on legal aid.

I am confident that no such Bill will be seen before a general election.

The campaign to achieve this first objective has been the highest priority of my early weeks in office.

The profession is not always ready to give credit to the Law Society for what it does on its behalf.

I hope that it may do so on this occasion.How did we set out to achieve this outcome?First, we built bridges.

I held a series of meetings with the Lord Chancellor, his minister, government policy advisers and opposition spokesmen to open lines of communication and to press our views.Secondly, we created an alliance with informed groups in the advice sector and consumer organisations to communicate to the government the breadth of opposition to many of its key proposals.Thirdly, we put forward sensible and practical proposals for improving legal aid and repeatedly reminded government, MPs and the media of these.Effective high profile activities have been:-- a legal aid briefing session for MPs and peers at the House of Commons at which I was joined by representatives from advice and consumer bodies;-- a special legal aid conference in Cardiff where the views expressed by me, by delegates and consumer bodies clearly made an impression on the minister, Gary Streeter;-- a press conference at which we published a joint statement signed by ten leading organisations arguing that the white paper proposals were against the public interest;-- research into public attitudes commissioned by us that demonstrates that the public as a whole shares our belief in the importance of legal aid and agrees with us about the damage key white paper proposals would do.

This activity made it increasingly clear to the government that a Bill to implement the white paper proposals would not (as some ministers originally thought) be a vote winner -- quite the opposite.

So what should the Society do now? We should not argue that the current system is perfect and should therefore be frozen in aspic, preserved from all change.On the contrary, in July we published a package of proposals that would save at least £125 million by cutting waste from the system.

The package will: enable litigants to challenge the grant of legal aid to their opponents; include new rules to ensure that green form advice is not wasted; and include proposals to blend conditional fees with legal aid.

Many of these ideas could be introduced without primary legislation.

Not only would our proposals save money, I believe they would strengthen legal aid.

By taking the initiative in tackling problems, we will help to restore confidence in the whole system.

If we can help remove what the public consider to be abuses, we can focus its attention on all that is good about legal aid.If we are to dispel the myths about legal aid, then I believe that we must take responsibility for closing down any loopholes that allow our critics to peddle such a distorted picture.As a result of my second face-to-face meeting with the Lord Chancellor three weeks ago, he has asked his officials to work with us on ways of implementing our proposals.

We must continue to work with other opinion formers and decision makers, particularly in the opposition parties.

We must make sure that any new government is not faced simply with civil servants' plans for cash limiting legal aid.

We must work with politicians of all parties to develop alternative ideas, respecting their concerns without abandoning our principles.We will press for reform where it is needed and where it will improve access to justice.

What we will not do is waver in our fundamental opposition to proposals that we believe will undermine the concept and reality of better access to justice for all.We, and our partners in the legal aid campaign, remain implacably opposed to cash limiting and the exposure of legally aided clients to costs orders against them.Following the solicitors annual conference in Manchester, Mr Streeter has written to me offering to visit local law societies in the next few months.

I encourage you to take him up on that offer but at the same time ask one of us from Chancery Lane to attend any meetings that are organised, if only to ensure that the debate is lively.We can, and will, do all that we can from Chancery Lane.

It is crucial, though, that solicitors continue to work at local level to remind people of the real benefits that legal aid brings to people in their communities.

Practitioners need to continue to get the real message about legal aid across to the press and the public in their areas.

If you are not one of the 5000 who have requested an activist's pack, ask me to send one.

Use the client leaflets to make sure the public is aware of the danger of the white paper proposals.Try to make sure that your local newspaper gives a balanced picture of legal aid.

If the local press is covering a case in which a client of yours succeeded through legal aid, make sure that the paper knows that without legal aid the client could not have obtained justice.We must not remain silent about the good that legal aid does every day in every community.I urge you all to continue this work and I pledge our commitment at the Law Society to protect the fundamental principles for which legal aid stands.