The publication last week of the Legal Aid Board's response to the Lord Chancellor's green paper on legal aid marks the end of the first phase of the consultation process.As a major player in the administration of legal aid, it is worth examining the LAB's proposals before considering what the Lord Chancellor might learn from the consultation process.The LAB has responsibilities in three directions: to the government for the administration of the scheme, to suppliers of legal services and to the public.No doubt the Lord Chancellor will be reasonably pleased with the board's response as it supports his central proposals for cash-limiting civil legal aid through the mechanism of contracts for the provision of legal services.There is not a lot in the response for the suppliers of legal services, but as the board does not control the budget the suppliers' expectations were never very high.

There is guarded recognition of the threat which competitive tendering might present to the quality of legally aided services, but not much more.

The LAB, like the Law Society, recognises the importance of the advice sector, but it must be wary of raising expectations too high about what can be achieved through non-solicitor agencies.

What then is on offer for the most important participant in the legal aid scheme - the public? Despite the hyperbole about providing 'quality assured legal services for those most in need', the reality is very little.The board says that 'the single most important step towards achieving significant improvements in the legal aid scheme is providing control of expenditure'.

The LAB believes that the Lord Chancellor's proposals to control expenditure on criminal legal aid through a pre-determined budget would not work.

The board acknowledges that 'demand is difficult, if not impossible, to predict in criminal cases' and goes on to say that 'if demand in any year exceeded provision such that defendants could not obtain representation until capacity in the system became available this would have a knock-on effect on the courts'.No arguments are presented to demonstrate that the position would be any different if there were pre-determined budgets for family and civil non-family work.

There is waste in the system.

All those who have responded to the green paper recognise the need to control expenditure by getting the best value for money available.

The Law Society has pointed out in its response 'A better way forward' that savings can be generated to improve eligibility and to provide some representation for the publ ic before tribunals where there is need.

The idea that this need can only be met through a cash-limited budget is entirely fallacious.

This is the message to the Lord Chancellor from all the responses to the consultation save that of the board.

If consultation is to mean anything, it is to be hoped that the Lord Chancellor will act upon the responses he has received on behalf of suppliers and on behalf of members of the public for whom the services exist.

He should allow legal aid to continue as a demand-led scheme.

Let us hope that the Lord Chancellor, in the white paper due in the spring, proposes reforms to make the most of the money available in the present system.

Only in this way can he achieve the competing goals of providing quality service to members of the public who need legal help while controlling the legal aid budget.