Lord Mackay looked remarkably good humoured and unruffled, given that he had just spent the previous few days fending off the fiercest attacks on his family law policy.Earlier, on the day of this interview, he had been forced, following a meeting with eight right-wing Tory backbenchers, to postpone the Family Home and Domestic Violence Bill.

And all through the week, the right-wing press had been having a field day as speculation mounted about whether his controversial 'no-fault' divorce bill would actually make it into the Queen's speech.

The right-wing press lashed him -- this snowy-haired, 68-year-old Lord Chancellor -- for being a pillar of political correctness, for having 'fallen among trendies', for producing 'fashionably permissive' legislative proposals.

The Daily Mail led the charge, whipping up a storm of moral outrage over the domestic violence Bill which it said would give 'unprecedented property rights' to co-habitees.

'How could MPs fail to spot this blow to marriage,' one headline shrieked.

The Mail's campaign, which was taken up by other press, got the blood up amongst what Paul Boateng, Labour's legal affairs spokesman, called the 'fundamentalist right-wing rump' of the Tory party.

The MPs .

.

.

many of whom seemed to swallow the misreportage that the Bill would introduce, for the first time, a right of co-habitees to seek eviction orders against violent partners -- made a bee-line for Lord Mackay's offices.

One of the eight, Lady Olga Maitland, MP for Sutton and Cheam, stopped off en route to tell the nation on radio that she would also be raising her objections to the divorce Bill.

Her view, which has quite wide support within the party, is that the proposed legislation would make divorce easier.

'If you make it too easy it looks like a car-hire purchase, that you simply return the car [or the spouse] when you have had enough,' she said.There was no hint of the day's earlier bruisings as Lord Mackay, all smiles, prepared for the interview, helpfully jumping up to turn on two desk lights to make the photographer's work easier.

Smoothing down his eyebrows for the camera, he leaned forward eagerly for the questions.Would the divorce Bill be in the Queen's speech on 15 November? 'You will have to wait for the Queen's speech,' he twinkled.

The likelihood is that the Bill will be included in the legislative programme, but raising as it does some matters of conscience, it is also likely to be subject to a free vote.

And while, with Labour supporting the broad principles of the Bill, there would appear to be sufficient support to carry it, Lord Mackay allowed that it was 'an uncertain world'.Asked whether he thought the bill could fail because the issues it addressed were simply too hot for the conservative party -- the party of family values -- to handle in the run up to an election, he gave the only indication of real agitation throughout the interview.

'I think these social matters for our country are extremely important ...

and I believe it is a responsibility for me to do what I can, having thought about this a great deal, to bring forward proposals which I believe would improve the present situation.' Lord Mackay was reluctant to comment on the media molestation of his proposals.

But it was clear he was stung by the way it had been asserted that he was advocating speedier, easier divorce.

'The idea that I am proposing to make divorce easier, which is peddled in some quarters, ignores the fact that 70% of divorces are [currently] go t by the "quickie" method.'It was also clear that he felt let down by the solicitors' profession for its failure, as he saw it, to drive home the message that it supports 'no fault' divorce.

He said that 'some of the [Law Society's] concerns are articulated in such a way as to obscure that message'.

Press releases issued by the Society emphasised 'other aspects of [solicitors'] interests which tend to be more obvious to the public as their own self interests'.While matrimonial lawyers in general share Lord Mackay's view that the removal of fault from divorce is a desirable step forward, they are far from happy with other aspects of his proposals, most notably his apparent bid to steer many more couples towards mediation.

The arguments run that mediation, which is still relatively untested in this country, will be unsuited to many couples and that a two-tier system will develop with those on legal aid having to make do with mediation and at best limited legal advice.

Lord Mackay lightly dismisses talk of a two-tier system.

'Well, I have heard about the two-tier system since I have been [Lord Chancellor].

That sort of system is suggested in every area where there is government funding.' As for mediation, he sees considerable scope for its use, and not only in the matrimonial field.

Many lawyers recognise this, he says.

'I have heard the views of lawyers expressed to me that there is a great deal of legal work done just now which is really not particularly helpful and might be better done by mediation and, in some cases, just by direct contact between the [litigant] and the district judge.'As far as matrimonial lawyers are concerned, he says he recognises their fears of being squeezed out of the divorce process, but he points out that it is open to them to provide mediation, as a number are already doing.

He noted with interest that the day before, he had met a solicitor who was on the point of setting up an outfit called BALM -- the British Association of Lawyer Mediators.

'If [solicitors] have services to give which the public needs and requires then the opportunity to give these services will be there.'Lord Mackay has also recently come under fire for his other main plank of reform, the legal aid green paper, although this time, it is largely the professions which have been taking aim.

Both the Law Society and the Bar have rubbished the proposals to cap the legal aid budget and to introduce a system whereby firms would compete for block contracts for legal aid work.

With legal aid expenditure expected to be £1.5 billion this year, Lord Mackay is unapologetic about seeking to apply the brakes.

But, at the same time, he hastens to put distance between his stance and that of the main opposition party.

'The Labour party has said there is no more money for legal aid.

I haven't actually said it in that way.

What I am concerned with is to have a control system which is related to a fixed amount of money, determined from year to year.

You can call it capping, you can call it something else.' (His preference is 'pre-determined sum'.) 'The difficulty I have is to devise a system for controlling the overall money at the same time as it is dispersed through quite large numbers of independent private firms.' Lord Mackay said that neither the Law Society nor the Bar had come up with proposals which would tackle this crux issue.

'So far [he has yet to complete the analysis of the green paper responses] I haven't discerned from their proposals a solution to that problem.' Ultimately, Lord Mackay believes setting a cas h limit is preferable to depending on 'arbitrary levers' to control the amount of money spent, such as reducing the scope of legal aid or altering the financial conditions for eligibility for legal aid.

The Law Society, however, discerns a different motive.

In its response to the green paper, it says cash limiting, or capping, would clear the way for 'covert' cuts to be made, with legal aid theoretically available on a wide basis, but individuals being refused aid on 'priority' grounds.

Lord Mackay was recently reported as having dropped his proposal to cap the criminal legal aid budget.

But he insisted that this was not the case.

'I certainly haven't decided to drop [the idea of] a criminal legal aid cap and I don't see in principle why it shouldn't happen.' Indeed, he pointed out that distortions could arise within a system where criminal legal aid was not capped but the overall budget was.As far as block contracting is concerned Lord Mackay does not accept that it would send quality into a tail spin.

Indeed, he thinks it much more likely that quality would improve.

He admits that measurement of quality is not easy, but sees scope for studies where the outcomes of a significant number of cases would be measured against the advice given.

Getting off the sticky subjects of divorce and legal aid reform, I ask Lord Mackay what he thinks of the current campaign by solicitors to raise conveyancing fees to economic levels.

'It is a matter for the profession rather than me,' he said, looking rather relieved.

However, he volunteered, 'I think it is very important that the public should get a high quality service and the rate of remuneration is reasonable having regard to the quality of the service.

I don't believe that cheap is always what you want.'Is he alarmed by the low level of fees being charged in some quarters? He replied that a lot depended on the nature of the work.

Recalling his days as a practitioner in Scotland he said: 'I used to do conveyancing and the transactions varied very much in the amount of work you had to do.

Sometimes it was a question almost of copying a previous document, remembering only to change the name.

That was not a particularly high level exercise.'With the Tory Right's guns aimed at his divorce Bill, Lord Mackay conceded he could not be absolute about his priorities for the next 12 months.

But divorce reform aside, his main plans were to produce a legal aid white paper in the spring, and to give detailed consideration to the reforms of the civil justice system proposed by Lord Woolf.

Regarding the latter he dismissed the idea that considerable resources would be needed to implement the reforms.

For example, he said it was 'not at all clear' that extra judges would have to be appointed and training provided for existing judges, to implement Lord Woolf's case management reforms.

He pointed out that Lord Woolf's thesis was that if cases were properly managed, they would be shorter, thus freeing up judges' time.

This thesis was 'extremely well based'.

Lord Mackay is famously robust in the face of attack.

Nonetheless I asked him how he reacted to the repeated and highly caustic criticisms of his policies by Law Society president Martin Mears.

Mr Mears, who departs from Law Society policy in vigorously supporting the retention of fault in divorce, hit out again last week describing the reforms variously as 'bunkum', 'nonsense', and 'window dressing'.Lord Mackay replied in measured terms that he would not be diverted from discharging his responsibilities by 'any attitudes that may be taken by ot hers'.