Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

My Lords, this amendment speaks to the question of consumer law and seeks to restore it to the scope from which it is removed by the Bill. Consumer law covers a multitude of cases but in particular contract law, consumer credit and professional negligence proceedings. In 17th century terms, I view the noble and learned Lord as a Roundhead—or in view of his problems, perhaps as a Covenanter—rather than as a Cavalier. However, I am afraid that ““cavalier”” is the only word that I can apply to the Government’s attitude to access to justice in this and other contexts. That attitude is well illustrated by the airy dismissal of the views of those whom they consulted on whether consumer law should be kept within scope. The Government carried out a consultation exercise and reported: "““Of those respondents who commented on this aspect of the proposals, almost all were opposed to removing these cases from scope””." Two of the grounds that were raised are relevant for today’s purposes. The response stated that, "““some respondents argued that consumer cases should be retained, in particular professional negligence cases where negligence may have resulted in serious consequences for the client … in some professional negligence cases clients would need expert reports to prove negligence and without legal aid individuals would not be able to afford these””." The Government concluded: "““Having considered the responses … we confirm our intention to remove consumer and general contract cases from the scope of legal aid. Whilst there are some difficult cases, in particular professional negligence cases, these are still essentially claims concerned primarily with recovering damages, and that means that we consider that their relative importance is generally low, compared, for example, with issues of safety and liberty””." That is a classic case of an argument reductio ad absurdum. To say that life and liberty are more important than contract law or divorce is axiomatic: it does not advance the argument one whit. The Government also said, as we are so used to hearing in debates on this Bill: "““There are other sources of advice available in relation to consumer matters, for example, from Trading Standards and Consumer Direct””." Here I ought to declare a non-pecuniary interest as an honorary vice-president of the Trading Standards Institute and Consumer Direct. The Government continue: "““There may be alternative non court based solutions in some cases, for example, through regulators and ombudsmen””." I am rather surprised that they did not add Which? and the helpful columns in the Guardian and weekend newspapers while they were at it. However, that is a considerable oversimplification and an underestimate of the problems which people face. Professional negligence is not merely confined to the recognised professions of solicitors or accountants, for example. Even members of the Bar can be sued for professional negligence, and that has been the case for some time. The conduct of financial advisers, like that of some other professions, might result in considerable loss to people. There is also the builder who botches the job or the architect whose design is defective. All these matters can affect many people and involve them in considerable financial loss. It is certainly possible to obtain some alternative advice. On Monday, my noble friend Lord Stevenson spoke to an amendment about debt. He is the chairman of an organisation called Consumer Credit Counselling Service, which offers advice in the realm of consumer credit. However, that is not face-to-face advice and anything more complex has to be referred on. My noble friend advised me that that organisation tends to refer matters to the citizens advice bureaux. There is an assumption on the part of the Government that the capacity of organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux, law centres and other bodies is capable of infinite expansion. Apparently, they will be able to undertake the very large volume of cases which will henceforth be denied legal aid or legal advice. However, not only will it be impossible to obtain legal advice from solicitors, but when the very funding of those organisations through government grant for legal advice and assistance will also be cut, they will have a massively increased demand and a diminished resource with which to meet that demand, unless they obtain a soupçon from the £20 million which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has waved about as being available for some indefinite time to assist in dealing with these problems. That is an extremely unsatisfactory solution to the problem because it is no solution. It is interesting that the Government do not specify in any detail their assessment of the availability of these possible alternatives, simply relying on the fact that there may be alternative non-court based solutions. The really worrying feature, which again underlines the unsatisfactory nature of the Government’s attitude to this and other cases which we will be considering and have already considered, is summed up in their response to the consultation when they say: "““Although there may be exceptions, in our view the individuals bringing these cases are not likely to be particularly vulnerable compared with, for example, those in the mental health category””," for which, in fairness, provision will be made. But, again, that is a comparison which has no significance at all, and it is not the comparison that the person who is denied access to justice will make. He or she will rightly make the comparison with somebody who has the means to afford that advice and representation. We are creating a two-tier system of justice, one in which you can buy your way in if you have the means and another in which you will effectively be denied it if you do not have the means. In areas such as this where significant harm can be inflicted on individuals—admittedly, that is not physical harm but pecuniary harm, stress and distress—it does not seem appropriate to deny them the access which the very modest funding that is involved currently allows. The Government should look at this matter again. Over recent years, Governments of both political persuasions—perhaps one should now say of all three—have championed the cause of consumers. We are talking now about predatory capitalism or responsible capitalism and the rest of it. We ought to be looking at the bottom of the scale of providers, if you will, and at how people can be best enabled to pursue remedies against those who inflict harm on them, because this Bill does not assist in that respect. I beg to move.