Professor Nigel Savage has been critical of both the Law Society and the College of Law in his outspoken comments on those organisations in the context of legal education.

I believe that there is another side to the arguments he espouses.I must first declare an interest.

I am a member of the Council of the Law Society.

I am a governor of the College of Law.The first criticism that the Council of the Law Society faced recently was in its authorisation though the legal practice course board of 200 more places to the legal practice course at the College of Law.This Professor Savage described as tantamount to putting 'another 200 kids straigh t on the dole'.

I am sure that Professor Savage's teaching is better than the logic of this argument.

Most people concerned with the problems of the youth of today advocate more training rather than less.It was only six years ago that the profession was up in arms at the shortage of trainees.

'Give us more' was the plea I heard.

To do this involved delegating responsibility for the vocational training to the teaching institutions.

That delegation involved embracing market forces.That was inevitable given the financial investment that had to be made by those institutions.

The Council could not dictate, apart from academic ability and the resources available, how many places each institution could offer.If an institution wishes to offer more places, and has the ability and resources, the Society should validate those places having regard to these factors.

To interfere in the market place would recreate the evil we wished to overcome seven years ago.The College of Law is overwhelmed by applications for its London course - why should it not seek to meet that need? Why should the students who find London places more convenient for themselves, be forced to travel, for example, to Nottingham?To suggest then that those responsible for making the decision are somehow facing a conflict of interest when making that decision is absurd.Professor Savage took fright at my recent suggestion that the College of Law and the Inns of Court School of Law might merge and become something akin to the Royal College of Surgeons delivering a sought-after fellowship that would give a unique seal of approval to expertise.

That seal of approval would be the ultimate seal.Professor Savage was concerned that many of us involved with the College of Law and the Council had dual membership of those bodies.

He implied that the Council controlled the college.

That is nonsense.

In any profession, but particularly one such as law, it is inevitable that there is a cross fertilisation as well as dual membership of such bodies.

In law it is open to any university to take advantage of that possibility if it so wishes.

Some have done so.

It happens in medicine, it happens in law and no doubt it happens in other disciplines.Within the European Union the talk now is of a common currency; it will soon become one of a common juridical system.

When that happens it is essential that we are seen to be the innovative ones, but also having legal education that is of the highest possible standard.

It is that, I suspect, that we all want.

To doubt each other's motives is helpful to no one, least of all those who wish to push forward change not for financial reasons, not for reasons of status, not even to score one over other providers but to ensure that our legal system is upheld as an international system of dispute resolution that is second to none.