I am a minister in a listening government.

To provide it I have been open about proposals that I knew would face stiff scrutiny, even from those whom I would regard as the natural friends of this administration.

That is why I did not develop my thinking about legal aid and 'no-win, no fee' arrangements deep within some departmental bunker.

It is why I did not concoct a scheme with trusted experts and spring it, fully armed, upon an unready world.Quite the contrary.

Out of the public eye, all I decided was that I wanted 'no-win, no fee' arrangements to replace legal aid where that was possible.

I wanted to do so because it will let me concentrate legal aid on social welfare areas such as housing, debt, employment, welfare benefits and immigration, as well as on public interest cases where there is no alternative funding.

I want to do it because with no cuts in the legal aid budget it will mean more help reaches the less well-off.

And finally, I want to do it because under conditional fee arrangements opponents who win can recover their costs, a simple piece of justice denied them by legal aid.Having identified those benefits, I exposed my thinking publicly.

I made clear that I wanted to consult on the types of case where a conditional fee could substitute for legal aid.

That I wanted to hear what consequential arrangements people think might be necessary to deal with hard cases.

That essentially, I needed views on how the benefits outlined above could be achieved without unfairly prejudicing the less well-off.A listening government cannot succeed on its own.

Openness and consultations only work if those consulted react responsibly, recognising that, in a democracy, the duty on them to be measured and well informed in their responses is no less than the duty on the government to explain openly and candidly what its objectives are.I regret to say that as matters stand, it seems I may have over-estimated some of the interest groups who cluster round the legal aid debate.

Without undertaking any analysis, without consulting insurers or other funders, much less the practitioners in the field, those groups simply declared loudly that the proposals were unworkable: that the poor would be denied justice; that nothing could be done, at least not until years of research and experience had built up.

Some have gone so far as to accuse me and my colleagues of betraying the poor.

Savage and grave allegations.

Where we wanted to consult, they leapt to judgment, and all without a shred of hard evidence or proper analysis.There has been some relief, however, in the very positive attitudes that have prevailed elsewhere.

Our clear commitment to listen has been positively echoed in other quarters, and not least by some forward-thinking lawyers.

The insurance industry has also been quick in accepting invitations ot meet ministers and officials, quick to begin developing products which would allow solicitors to take on clients who cannot afford the up-front costs of insurance premiums and investigative costs.

Quick again to come together with the government in developing their products in parallel with our policies.Those insurers, funders and some solicitors' firms will be co-operating with the government in a business case analysis of my proposals.

That analysis will demonstrate, amongst other things, how lawyers can structure their business and financial affairs to enable them to take on cases profitably even when their clients cannot make up-front payments.

I will also show whether there are meritorious cases or parts of cases that will still need the taxpayers' support if they are to be pursued.It is sadly apparent that many interest groups who claim to represent consumers and other public and sectional interest are yet to grasp the real issues.

They are yet to understand that essentially those issues are about how solicitors and barristers conduct their businesses.

How they fund ongoing work.

How they should be pricing their services to take account of risk.

How that risk can be effectively and efficiently assessed and managed.

How the regulatory framework may need to be modified by the professions to ensure that lawyers maintain their ethical standards in these times of change.My hope is that they will soon change gear and involve themselves in that thinking.

I realise that buckling down to that task is not as headline grabbing as expressions of bald outrage: but it is essential.

Its results could be very far reaching even revolutionary in terms of legal practice.

I say that because if lawyers can modernise their businesses to give poor plaintiffs access to privately funded litigation that must improve access for everyone else as well.What comes next? The answer is that once we have the business care analysis, once we have understood the concerns and proposals put to us by those we have consulted informally, we will produce a formal consultation paper.

It will explain in detail the types of case in which we believe conditional fees can be substituted for legal aid.

It will illuminate how it will be possible for lawyers to take them on profitably.

And it will consider any need for special arrangements to deal with the peculiar problems which poor litigants may face in using 'no-win no fee' agreements in some types of case.

And then, once more, we will listen in finally reaching our conclusions.