Legal Services Bill [HL]

My Lords, the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in support of this amendment really make the point I was seeking to make in relation to the last amendment. This is not a suitable parallel procedure to access to justice through the courts. As the Bill is drafted, it is a very one-sided scheme in which the determination of the ombudsman can only be accepted by the complainant because the respondent has no redress, and the costs will fall on the respondent whatever happens. The decision of the ombudsman is what in his opinion is fair and reasonable, and we are going to have a chief ombudsman rather than lots of ““injuns”” who are ombudsmen as well, so it goes back entirely to the length of the Lord Chancellor’s foot and away from the concept of justice. That is all right when we are dealing with small complaints, hurt feelings and so on but if there is anything serious where, for example, insurance companies would get involved in litigation—as would be the case where negligence claims were brought—then we have a high standard of justice. Yet under this scheme as drafted, the Act is really designed for small matters. I now understand why the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, puts forward these amendments; to bring in the High Court, and to give the respondent an opportunity to challenge the determination of the ombudsman on various grounds. While it would make a scheme a little more acceptable and compliant with Article 6.1, as he rightly says, it introduces something much more serious and far-reaching than the ombudsman scheme is designed to deal with. I make these observations without saying whether I would support the amendments. It just seems to illustrate how dangerous it is to make the ombudsman scheme into something much bigger than it should be.