The Criminal Defence Service Act ensures legal aid goes to those who need it most, but red tape still needs to be eliminated, argues Derek Hill

The Criminal Defence Service Act 2006 was necessary in principle and for practical reasons. Those who can afford to pay for their legal costs should do so. Legal aid needs to continue helping the most vulnerable people in our communities, and few would dispute that it is inherently wrong to allow the wealthy to reap the benefits of free legal help. In reality, the previous system was also financially unsustainable, a drain on the public purse that could not be justified.


Means testing is not something you can pilot. The Legal Service Commission's phased approach, which has allowed us to set up the system in the magistrates' courts first, has also allowed us to learn valuable lessons and rectify issues quickly and early. The timetable for rolling out the Act is, and always has been, subject to review. We will ensure that the system works properly in the lower courts before moving to phase two and the Crown Court.


I can assure lawyers that the commission and its partners - the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Courts Service - are listening to the feedback we receive. The evidence is there in the actions we are taking to make sure that we have a robust system on which we can build. We have already made changes in relation to custody cases and have also ensured that solicitors and their clients can order forms quickly through a new order line. We will continue to make such changes when we see that they are necessary. In particular, we are continuing to look at the early cover scheme, which is a key part of the new arrangements.


Another challenge is balancing the need to gain accurate client information so that fair decisions can be made, with the operational requirement to keep paperwork to a minimum. We will carry on listening to the concerns that solicitors and their representative bodies make.


Although we continue to believe that the forms are a vast improvement on those used under the old means-testing system, we recognise that further enhancements may be made.


The commission and its partners remain committed to improving the delivery of the Act. We are receiving more than 2,000 applications for legal aid every day and IT and other systems are standing up to the challenge. The early indications also seem to demonstrate that the scheme is delivering on its objectives. However, none of us is under any illusion as to what else needs to be done to ensure that justice is not only fair but also swift. We need to take the opportunity to improve the operation of this system when we can.


Finally, in direct response to recent comments referring to a 12-year-old client (see [2006] Gazette, 2 November, 18), I can confirm that the system remains unchanged for children - those younger than 16 years of age or younger than 18 years and in full-time education automatically qualify for legal aid. There has been the exceptional case where a solicitor has refused to act on behalf of a child. We hope that there will not be similar cases in the future.


I also note one Gazette correspondent's frustration in relation to the processing of forms. We will continue to try to reduce form filling to a minimum, particularly for children. However, there will be an element of form filling for every case. The challenge is to achieve the right balance.


Derek Hill is director of the Criminal Defence Service at the Legal Services Commission