You can’t help but feel sorry for the less glamorous half of a partnership.

Shunted to the side, often ignored and with their other half stealing all the glory: theirs is a life destined for second best.

In the LASPO bill, civil litigation plays the part of this downtrodden after-thought, constantly in the shadows of the arguments raging around legal aid.

If this were a queue for a nightclub, civil litigation would be standing at the back in the cold whilst legal aid waltzes in with a VIP pass. It is Lyle Lovett to Julia Roberts, the scarcely noticed bridesmaid to legal aid’s beautiful bride. Even the full name of the bill - Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders - leaves it out in the wilderness, like an unloved cousin left off a wedding invite list.

So far, understandably, discussions and debates have centred on the government’s plans to cut legal aid for most civil cases - in its huge a vitally important subject. In the Commons, prolonged hours of these disputes left just 20 minutes for civil litigation; in the Lords, we seem to have spent most of 2012 on the minutiae of legal aid.

Finally, today sections 43 and 45 of the bill come up for debate. The chance for civil litigation to step into the spotlight, like an understudy summoned for action when the lead actor calls in sick. It’s relatively easy to understand the arguments around legal aid. The government says we spend too much and wants to shave £350m a year from the budget. You can agree or disagree, but the basic elements are fairly straightforward.

On civil litigation, explaining the issues to laymen leaves you staring at blank faces (believe me, I’ve tried). The public, and certainly the government, seem to believe costs are too high and litigation too easy to launch. Yet how do you address those issues without denying access to justice for those who really deserve it?

The government wants to ask claimants to pay up to 25% of their legal costs from their compensation and take on cases without the benefit of after-the-event insurance. Will this help to reduce costs or simply deny justice for those who haven’t asked to be injured or defamed?

Should Chris Jefferies, his reputation trashed by sections of the media in the wake of the Joanna Yeates murder, have been forced to go into battle with newspapers without the scales tipped in his favour? Or the family of Milly Dowler? Or the parents of a severely disabled child left in that condition because of medical negligence at birth?

These are enormous issues, yet they have barely raised a headline in the mainstream media (it should be noted, incidentally, that in the government’s consultation most news outlets advocated scrapping ATE insurance and success fees).

Whichever side of the fence you sit, this is a debate that needs to be heard and given proper consideration. Legal aid has had its moment in the spotlight for now. Now is the turn of civil litigation - we can only hope the Lords still have the energy.

Follow John on Twitter