The notion of the Public Defender Service (PDS) is an emotive one.

In favour is the view that the scheme could offer a viable career option for currently hard-pressed criminal lawyers.

The arguments against focus on conflicts.

While it makes sense for the government to fund a public prosecution service - as the state brings criminal prosecutions - it seems a potential conflict for it to fund a defence service.

On the face of it, the state would directly fund both the prosecution and the defence of those accused of crimes.

The criminal legal aid system may ultimately have the same effect, but arguably, private practice lawyers have a better chance at remaining independent than those directly employed by the state.

Then there is the issue of funding.

Since its inception, the Crown Prosecution Service has been chronically underfunded, causing crises in staff morale.

Models from abroad show that having an underfunded public defender system is potentially worse than not having one at all - both for the lawyers and their clients.

This week, the head of the Criminal Defence Service told international lawyers meeting in San Francisco that, in his personal view, the PDS should be continued after its four-year pilot expires in less than two years' time.

While not formal policy, his views provide a strong steer.

There may be debate ahead, but the odds must be on criminal specialist practitioners having to face a formal and permanent PDS in the future.