When we saw the Access to Justice Bill, we knew that the government intended to establish a salaried defence service.

The Law Society recognised that many criminal practitioners were anxious to have the security of such a scheme.Instead of outright opposition, the Society secured in the Act the principle of the defendant's right to choose an advocate.

In turn, the state-funded private practice firms would be protected -- or so it seemed, until the recent deluge of consultation papers.We now know that the Legal Services Commission (LSC) intends to run six defence service pilots chosen from nine sites recently revealed in advertisements in the press.

We have also seen the draft of the general criminal contract.The theme of the draft contract is simple: more administrative work without payment; no more payment for being on duty for up to 24 hours at a time; greater restrictions on how much work can be done or will be paid for in many types of cases; draconian enforcement powers for the commission, but nothing about rates of payment at all.Much of the contract is derived from the research undertaken during contract pilots.

The LSC prepared its draft without seeking any input from the profession, and would not disclose the research findings until it published the draft contract.

The net result is that a timetable is set, of just a couple of months, to try to agree the formula by which a significant part of the profession will be reorganised and tied for a long time to come.This comes at a time when there has been almost no increase in rates since 1992.

There are many disturbing reports of firms deep in debt, desperate and unable to pay their way.

Recruitment is virtually impossible, with newly qualified solicitors eschewing crime in favour of better earnings elsewhere.Why create a salaried defender service at all? There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the realities of practice.

It is suggested that without the profit motive, economies and efficiencies can result.

This comes at a time when, in every other sphere, the ethos is the reverse.

The profit motive is the incentive to work harder and more efficiently.

There are unsupported suggestions of double claiming, which taken against the LSC's current rigorous assessment of criminal bills is nothing short of insulting.Where will the client base come from in the areas chosen for the pilot defence service offices? The paymaster is setting up in competition with those whom it now invites to contract with it.

The word partnership is often used, but suggests a relationship which simply does not exist.The Law Society's access to justice working p arty has formed a group of experienced practitioners to deal with the negotiations.

The message has been simple.

We must know the exact details of the pay structure right through the salaried defence service and the terms of employment of all staff.

We want to know how they will be encouraged to work out of hours.

We insist on the defence service working to the same legal aid franchise quality assurance standard and being subjected to assessment of their bills.

The offices must work by the rules applied to private practice.

The true costs of the entire operation must be made public.With a level playing field, and with commitment that the spending on criminal legal aid will remain at least the same, we can begin to talk about the principles we are being invited to consider.

The detail can only be looked at when specific rates of payment are disclosed; that payment will have to include provision for some of the cost of extra administrative work that the LSC now requires.The government is obliged to provide defence lawyers.

If warnings are not heeded, criminal justice will grind to a halt as defendants queue to be represented by such charity as might remain to assist them.

What price the Human Rights Act then?