No matter how much the MoJ might wish it, the issue of legal aid cuts just won’t go away. It has become a bit of an albatross, with the coalition partner Lib Dems unhappy with being associated with the policy.

The Liberal Democrat Lawyers Association put forward an emergency motion to the partys conference in Glasgow which read: “No further cuts in the provision of Legal Aid and the availability of local justice should take place without ensuring that any such proposals are first properly trialled and assessed to demonstrate that there will be no adverse effect upon access to justice and the quality of legal services provided to those who require assistance by means of Legal Aid.”

That must have been pretty embarrassing for Lib Dem peer Lord McNally, who is the government minister charges with steering the implementation of the cuts (sorry, reforms) in the Lords. He, predictably, opposed the motion.

The Labour Party has been strangely quiet on the issue, with only Lord Bach (@FightBach) still fighting a rearguard action.

Meanwhile Michael Mansfield’s chambers, Tooks, which is known for its championing of the underprivileged, has announced it is to dissolve and has blamed the legal aid cuts for its demise.

Its announcement of 23 September said: “The dissolution of Chambers is the direct result of government policies on Legal Aid.” It added: “The government policies led by Justice Secretary Chris Grayling are cumulatively devastating the provision of legal services and threatening the rule of law.”

Other parts of the Jackson ‘reforms’ are also the subject of selective backpedalling. The judge tasked with implementing the whole package is reported to have told the Law Society Gazette he will make changes “if necessary”. In an exclusive interview with the journal he reportedly said: “We are seeing people adapting their business models to deal with the new rules. In some ways it is too early to tell, but the principle remains that we want access to justice at proportionate cost. We will look at both of those aspects to ensure that the underlying principles are coming out of the reforms.”

It’s all getting a bit messy.

• Experts from around the globe met in Sweden last week to present governments with the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. After years of research its Working Party I produced what it said was a 95% probability that human activity was the cause of “at least 50%” of the rise in temperature over the past 150 years or so. There are still those who see that assertion as some kind of admission that they may be wrong. Presumably the planet they are living on doesn’t have any truck with climate change – they just wish it away. Science is never 100% settled; but, as Sense About Science – a charitable trust that aims to help the general public understand science – pointed out in its publication Making Sense of Uncertainty, we should be relieved when scientists describe the uncertainties in their work. In this case, 95% probability means ‘definitely’ and ‘over 50%’ means as much as can be ascertained.

Chris Stokes