A Liberal Democrat peer has indicated there could be ‘major changes’ to the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill during its passage through the House of Lords.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury, a former solicitor, said the majority of cross bench and Labour peers, along with some on the government benches, are ‘highly critical’ of the bill’s legal aid provisions. The bill aims to save £350m a year by removing legal aid for vast areas of law.

At a meeting last night launching the Legal Action Group’s London Advice Watch report, Phillips said: ‘We can reasonably expect major changes to the bill at the report stage. There is no doubt that if the government doesn’t make major concessions there’ll be votes on amendments in the House of Lords and the government will lose. I promise you that.’

Phillips said the majority of Liberal Democrat peers will either vote against the government of abstain. It will then be for the House of Commons to ensure changes made in the upper house are not simply overturned, he added.

Phillips said there is ‘absolute agreement’ among critics that social welfare law and domestic violence cases must remain within the scope of legal aid, and that legal aid remains available for appeals.

Expecting people to represent themselves shows a blindness to justice, he said. ‘Coming up against advocates when you’re on your tod is just a farce,’ he said. ‘Who the hell thinks these people will be able to do it?’

Peers, he said, are also concerned about the independence of the director of legal aid casework, which the bill would create to oversee the administration of the system.

Phillips said the bill enables the Lord Chancellor to tell the director what to do, so long as it is not in relation to a particular case. This would enable the government to decide that certain types of cases should no longer be funded.‘We can’t have that. There has to be a sufficient level of independence,’ said Philips.

Phillips accepted that savings have to be made. But he said the cuts are being done ‘quickly and crudely’ and have ‘fallen harshly and ill-advisedly on the legal aid scheme’.

Phillips also expressed concern about the operation of the proposed mandatory telephone gateway, which he said demonstrated ‘unreal optimism’ on the part of ‘young and bright, but inexperienced’ civil servants and ministers about how much telephone advice can help people who are often frightened and inarticulate.

He described as ‘bonkers’ the planned operation of the scheme which would require a potential client to phone the gateway before walking into a local advice centre.

He told the meeting that the government cannot talk about the rule of law and justice, or law and order, without a ‘high degree of hypocrisy’ when it legislates rights for citizens and denies them the means to enforce those rights.

Agreeing with much of Phillips’ remarks, Labour’s former legal aid minister Lord Bach urged concerned parties to keep up pressure on the Commons to accept any amendments made by the upper house. ‘The issue is not party political; it’s too serious for that - it’s about the future of civil law and the future of social welfare law,’ he said.

The bill is scheduled to be before the Lords committee for a further seven days. The next session is on Monday.