The government lost three more votes on its planned legal aid reforms in the House of Lords yesterday, but narrowly staved off an amendment that would have kept public funding for all clinical negligence cases.

In the second day of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill’s report stage, peers accepted, by 237 votes to 198, an amendment tabled by Liberal Democrat Lady Doocey to retain legal aid for advice on appeals against welfare benefit decisions in first level tribunals.

A second amendment, tabled by Labour’s Lord Bach, to fund benefit appeals to higher tier tribunals, was passed by 222 votes to 194.

The third defeat for the government followed a vote on an amendment laid by crossbencher Lord Lloyd of Berwick to fund medical reports in clinical negligence cases. The government lost the vote by six votes, with peers voting 178-172 in favour of the change.

However, the government defeated an amendment tabled by gold-medal winning Paralympian Lady Grey-Thompson that would have ensured legal aid was available to fund all clinical negligence cases. The government won that vote by six votes, with 178 against and 172 in favour.

Justice minister Lord McNally indicated that the government would amend the bill to fund legal help for employment-related claims made by victims of trafficking and legal advice and representation for other civil claims against traffickers.

He also suggested other concessions would be made to fund applications for seek and find orders in relation to domestic child abduction, and in relation to claims by people who lack capacity, although he gave no further details.

The votes followed heated exchanges and passionate speeches by peers from all parties, the crossbenchers and bishops, who opposed the government’s plans to reduce the legal aid bill by £350m a year.

McNally, the lone voice in favour of the reforms, said that despite opponents presenting ‘doomsday scenarios’, their claims that the bill decimated social welfare law did not stack up.

He said the government believed the bill was ‘right’ and that it was designed to protect the most vulnerable in society.

The proposed amendments, he said, ‘tear out the heart of the rationale of the bill’ and ‘dismantle the central architecture of the bill’ and the government’s reform programme.

Urging peers not to support the amendments, McNally said: ‘This is not a debate about who cares most; it is about whether this House is willing to take the tough decisions that our economic situation requires, or whether it is simply going to push the problem down the corridor for the other place to take those decisions.’

At one point he appeared to suggest that it would irresponsible if the crossbenchers voted against the government.

‘I am not looking at the Labour party, the Labour party is there to do what oppositions do - to oppose - but at the crossbenchers, and I ask them whether it is really their responsibility to be so…’ McNally was cut off by noise from the House.

During the first debate of the bill’s report stage on Monday, the government lost three votes, with peers backing amendments to give legal aid to all victims of domestic violence; to impose a duty in the bill that the lord chancellor must ensure people have access to legal services that effectively meet their needs; and to ensure the independence of the director of legal aid casework.

The government also agreed to accept undertakings as evidence of domestic violence; and to include a power in the bill to enable the lord chancellor to bring areas of law into the scope of funding in the future through delegated legislation.

The victories for the bill’s opponents may be temporary as Lords were warned that the government is likely to reverse the amendments on the grounds that the changes are primarily economic and that the government will treat it as a financial bill.

The bill will be back in the Lords on Monday when peers are expected to press for votes on amendments to retain legal aid for debt, employment and immigration cases.