Over the last five years the cost of civil legal aid has increased by over 50%.

It continues to rise above the rate of inflation.

We cannot allow this rate of increase to continue.

As part of the government's on-going programme of reform to control the cost of legal aid, we have published proposals for civil standard fees for advocacy (see 'Advocates' lottery' [1996] Gazette, 6 November, 26).A survey of over 25,000 bills was carried out by accountants Ernst & Young.

This information helped us to produce the proposals.

Litigators would be paid a fixed fee when cases reached certain stages.

Advocates would be paid on completion of items of work, with a scale of brief fees and a standard refreshe r fee set for various grades of advocate.

The brief fee would be calculated according to the expected length of the trial or hearing.

The refresher would be paid for each day the trial lasts after the first day.It has been suggested that the proposals undermine the principle of equal treatment for both branches of the profession.

I do not believe they do.

The fee an advocate receives will not depend on whether that advocate is a member of the Bar or a solicitor specialising in providing advocacy services.We do not intend to allow litigators to claim the advocacy fee in addition to the litigator's fee.

The survey showed that the total profit costs of litigators did not appear to be significantly different whether they undertook their own advocacy, or they employed counsel.

It would seem that there is a set-off between the costs of briefing an advocate and the costs of litigators preparing to conduct the trial themselves.

We have therefore set the litigator's fee to deal with either situation.

The Legal Aid Board would approve the instruction of an advocate to ensure that the additional costs of using an advocate were incurred only when necessary.

It is only right that taxpayers' money should be protected.Our proposals do not include an escape mechanism for advocates.

A litigator undertakes a case without any clear knowledge of how much work it will involve.

Seemingly straightforward cases can become more complex.

It is right to make provision for those cases where it is obvious that costs on taxation would greatly surpass the standard fee.

Advocates, in contrast, are retained to carry out particular work over a more certain period of time.

The length and complexity of the case are taken into account in the system of fees.

Some may think that the levels of remuneration are not right for the most complex cases, but I do not accept that every system of standardised fees must always have escape mechanisms.The aims of standard fees include improving control over expenditure and the way lawyers are paid.

Our proposals would provide a prompt and certain system of payment.

This means getting your fees paid more quickly.The proposals that have been put to the profession are simply that -- proposals on which we wish to consult.

My officials are keen to enter into constructive dialogue with the profession to produce a workable scheme.

That dialogue is already under way.