Legal aid: the final reckoning

It ended in a draw. A tied vote on domestic violence in the House of Lords '“ ironically the area where ministers have given the most. The government has the casting vote. Baroness Scotland's amendment was lost, and with it the final attempt to change the legal aid bill.

Nobody can say the debates were a waste of time. Many good points were made, particularly in the House of Lords, and warnings were given. Almost until the day he died, Lord Newton spoke out against the bill. Lord Tebbit joined him in opposing the removal of legal aid from children in medical negligence cases. Who would have thought that?

Ministers made some important concessions. On domestic violence, they accepted much of Baroness Scotland's original amendment '“ widening the definition and the kind of evidence required. Appeals on points of law in welfare benefits cases will be publicly funded, allowing the government's sweeping welfare cuts to be challenged in the courts.

On Jackson, ministers agreed last week that mesothelioma cases will be exempted from the ban on recoverability, at least to begin with. As well as helping victims, this should allow comparisons to be made with the majority of personal injury cases, where success fees and insurance premiums will no longer be recoverable.

But the fundamental nature of the bill survived. When, during the report stage debates, peers passed an amendment preserving access to face-to-face advice, it seemed that anything was possible. Now the mandatory telephone gateway is here to stay.

Lord Pannick's bid to add a statement of principle to the start of the bill, mentioning both access to justice and limited resources, also fell by the wayside. Looking back on it, would it have been right to suggest that the bill was anything other than a draconian package of cuts? And then there were the children. Could we, at least, preserve legal aid for them? No, we couldn't.

When the axe falls in April 2013, the future of legal aid will be in the hands of campaigners, politicians and perhaps even journalists. The hardy crew of legal aid lawyers who stay on to handle the emergency cases will be different in spirit to their predecessors.

They will have to give up the dream that somehow their work can change society for the better. Instead they will have to focus entirely on what is directly in front of them.