It hardly seems possible after everything that has been written over the last few years, that some members of the profession still believe it is possible for the Law society to impose a mandatory scale of fees for conveyancing.

Because of the importance to the profession the Law Society's conveyancing working party considered this in great detail last year.

In the consultation document 'Adapting for the future' there was set out in some detail the reasons why it could not be achieved.As chairman of the working party I had a number of meetings with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) on this particular issue.

The OFT made it clear that any attempt by the Law Society to increase conveyancing fees by the introduction of a mandatory set of scale fees would be considered a serious matter and if not withdrawn would be referred to the Monopolies & Mergers Commission (MMC) for investigation.

The Law Society would then have to justify the scale on the grounds of public interest.

The then director-general of fair trading made it equally clear that while this was being investigated by the MMC he would use every weapon available to him (and promised to get more if necessary) to ensure that the scale was not implemented.

To suggest therefore that the profession could increase its earnings whilst the investigation was being carried out is not correct.

The public interest argument currently being put forward is that conveyancing prices are so low that the public is at risk because work is being done negligently.

Unhappily, claims about the level of negligence from conveyancing are exaggerated.

Between 1987 and 1994 the profession conducted over 23 million conveyancing transactions, yet the Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF) had only 17,125 claims.

In other words, seven claims for every 10,000 transactions.

Despite extensive research no conclusive connection has been found between low cost conveyancing and negligence.

There is no evidence available at the present time to begin to suggest that scale fees are necessary to protect the public from negligence.If scale fees are a lost cause, the proposals to fix the SIF rules are potentially disastrous.

This scheme is based again on an overstatement of the amount of negligence from residential conveyancing.

The principal problem is that of fixing this arbitrary fee level.

It cannot be as high as £300, because last year we know that 75% of all residential conveyancing was done for less than that, and statistics show that very little of the work is likely to be negligent.

To fix a fee substantially higher than the current market level, ie 0.5% plus £250, will give a substantial advantage to the conveyancing networks and larger firms at the expense of the small firms.

One network, using its commercial power, has reached agreement in principle with an insurer to provide alternative indemnity cover.

the insurers, of course, know there is no established link between low prices and negligence.The network will therefore be able to provide conveyancing at more or less the same price as it does now, which will be substantially lower than small firms which either cannot obtain or afford alternative indemnity cover.

These firms will be forced by the Law Society to charge wholly uncompetitive prices.

They will presumably not even be able to do work at a reduced rate for members of staff or members of their own family.

They will also be burdened with the extra cost of regulation necessary to ensure they are not breaking the rules.The attitude of the proposers of this scheme who have no confidence in the ability of the profession to rise to the challenge offered by the changes in the home buying market is deplorable.Those firms which have followed the Law Society's advice over the last four years and have organised their work to meet the requirements of the market will survive.

Those which refuse to face reality and continue to try to organise the market to suit the firm will undoubtedly fail.

The current structure of the profession based on easy profits from conveyancing cannot survive.

That is because those who now pay for conveyancing services - the public - and those who will pay in the future - the lenders - will not pay the level of fees that are needed to preserve the structure and the Law Society cannot make them pay.

The Law Society Council, in its debate, must have the courage to face the truth.