The Government's green paper on the future of legal aid must be fought with all the vigour the profession and the Law Society can muster.

In its essentials the green paper represents the most fundamental threat to the legal aid scheme since its inception in 1949.It is a wolf in sheep's clothing for it pretends to be about quality, choice and improvement whilst in fact it is about cost cutting and the imposition of a pseudo-market philosophy upon this essential publicly funded service.Within a year of the first franchises being granted, with legal aid practitioners divided into franchisees and non-franchisees, we have seen differentials in payment introduced with no warning and now the green paper proposes exclusivity, block contracts and cash limiting.

The board will defend it self by saying that its role is operational and that policy is determined by the Lord Chancellor's Department.

This is misconceived.

Whilst it is accepted that the LCD decides the direction and philosophy of policy, the board actively develops the policy within the parameter of government thinking.

The board is actively and enthusiastically promoting the fundamentals of the green paper.

Mr Orchard says that he is 'very enthusiastic' about block contracts and that there is 'no alternative' method of controlling expenditure.

Sir Tim Chessells, the new chairman, talks repeatedly about the tax-payer.Despite these admissions that the key consideration is money, it is then claimed that the green paper is all about quite different things.

At a conference on legal aid held at Bristol University on 9 June, Michael Malone-Lee, deputy secretary at the LCD, claimed that the green paper was not cost-cutting and not even about cost control.

Instead it was about ensuring quality, giving choice and targeting those in most need of publicly funded legal services.

This false claim must be exposed for the doublespeak it is.

The green paper had its origins in the fundamental review of government expenditure set in motion by Michael Portillo.

It is that review that stands behind these proposals.So what should we as a profession do? First, we must seek to show that if implemented, it would not achieve the government's stated objectives.

Secondly, we must put forward our own radical proposals for achieving those objectives.

Thirdly, we must develop and run a massive campaign of opposition, seeking to build a coalition of support from all those involved in the justice system.We must make the public aware that a fundamental part of the welfare state is in danger of the sort of damage that has been inflicted upon the NHS.

This will require commitment and money.Block contracts are to be opposed at all costs.

They would severely reduce the number of offices undertaking legal aid work, which would not only hurt the profession but more importantly the public.

Choice would be drastically reduced and in rural areas would be all but non-existent.

The pressures on those with contracts to cut corners in the interests of financial survival would be immense.

Indeed, the conflicts of interest engendered could be overwhelming and undermine the ethical basis upon which we work.The crass naivety of the government's thinking is well exemplified in the comment made by Mr Malone-Lee when he said: 'There is nothing strange about the idea of contracts -- we make them with builders all the time.' But what builder would enter into a contract for a fixed sum to undertake 100 acts of building work, not knowing whether those would involve mending a roof or building a large house? Yet that would be the nature of block contracts.Let us rise to the quality challenge.

To ensure real quality, should we not be proposing extending and expanding the idea of panel membership? The criteria to get on a panel in a given area of specialism could be thorough and demanding, as with the process of accreditation for criminal clerks.

Legal aid could be restricted to panel members, subject to provisions for provisional membership to enable solicitors to obtain the necessary experience and expertise.The green paper says that legal aid is not getting to people with certain fundamental problems who need legal assistance.

Then extend its ambit to include social welfare, housing and immigration law.

But it cannot be at the expense of ensuring real quality in other areas of law.We can welco me some of the contents of the green paper and should state this clearly.

In particular, we should welcome the extension and expansion of funding to the voluntary and law centre sectors.

But again we must resist the threat of robbing Peter to pay Paul.We must address the problem of cost control.

Standard fees are a far less crude way of doing this than block contracts.

Court procedures must be simplified and mediation encouraged at every stage.

Highly expensive fraud cases have to be looked at.

We must fight to preserve the concept of publicly funded legal services.This in part involves counter-attacking the black propaganda that the current legal aid scheme is in crisis and that the quality of much of the service given by lawyers is poor.

The truth is that we have much of which to be proud.

Increasingly, over the last 15 years, we have seen the creation of a large number of specialist legal aid solicitors.

In my area of speciality, namely criminal defence, I see continually rising standards.

This will require new campaigning.

To be effective, we must be ready to learn from others who have fought campaigns.

The Union of Communication Workers would not have prevented the privatisation of the Post Office without the expertise, knowledge and contacts of the lobbying company hired for the purpose.

We should be employing our own lobbying consultants.

At ground level, there is really desire for effective opposition and for the Law Society to lead in that opposition.

Will the Law Society do it, with vigour, determination and money?