If last year's legal aid green paper was a crude attempt to blame lawyers for rising legal aid costs, then the white paper, 'Striking the balance', homes in on a new target: the irresponsible client.

The government has produced no evidence that the scheme is producing a flood of unmeritorious claims, but it is relying on a handful of high profile and selectively reported cases to fuel popular prejudice against legal aid.There is a case for reviewing current controls and for re-examining how some types of case, such as those involving serious fraud, are funded.

However, the white paper has gone for a scorched earth policy.

Coming on top of the 1993 eligibility cuts, the proposals will finally bury the founding principle of the legal aid scheme: that no one should be unable to pursue their legal rights because of lack of means.

The Legal Aid Board's recent research, showing that clients most frequently turn down offers of legal aid because they cannot afford the contributions, is a clear pointer to what will happen if the white paper proposals are implemented.

Poorer clients will be unable to pursue justice through the courts and powerful opponents will be handed an incentive to evade their legal obligations.The proposal to cash limit legal aid is equally objectionable.

The advice sector is not necessarily opposed to new funding mechanisms.

However, contracting may not be the best approach for all providers or all types of legal aid.

Instead of sensible piloting to test the viability of new ways of funding legal aid, the government is intent on imposing contracting as a means of capping the fund.Social welfare law is the poor relation of the fund, currently accounting for only 5% of legal aid expenditure.

The government's announcement that funding is to be extended to advice agencies meeting franchise standards is welcome in principle.

But continuing solicitor provision in social welfare law must be preserved and encouraged.

Too few private practitioners specialise in areas such as housing and immigration, but those who do are often highly expert.

This expertise will ossify if solicitors are prevented from undertaking green form work by crude price competition with agencies.

Advice agencies will also need to look carefully at how involvement in legal aid will affect their services.

Relatively few conditions were imposed on the 42 agencies involved in the recent franchising pilot scheme because it was viewed as an experiment.

Inevitably, the terms of future contracts will be more specific and will not cover the full ran ge of agency services.

The advice sector is not demanding a blank cheque from the LAB, but it will be looking for flexibility on funding.

Unfortunately, the white paper provides little encouragement.

Earlier proposals to fund tribunal representation have been unceremoniously dropped, auguring ill for other relaxations in scope that are necessary to encourage innovative and cost-effective ways of delivering services.