Opponents to government strategy for civil litigation and legal aid reform have launched a multi-pronged ‘victim-centric’ attack on the proposals.

Labour MPs have tabled a series of amendments to the coalition government’s planned changes under the umbrella of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

Opposition campaigners are focusing on elements that could win public favour and potentially embarrass Liberal Democrat MPs into voting against reforms.

In particular, the Labour amendments call for the rules underpinning conditional fee arrangements to remain unchanged in cases involving multi-national corporations, serious professional or clinical negligence, judicial review, insolvency, or privacy cases such as the recent phone-hacking claims.

‘We want to ask the Lib Dems to re-examine their consciences and ask if they really can deny these people’s access to justice,’ said a Labour spokesman.

In relation to legal aid, Labour MPs have tabled an amendment to return into the scope of legal aid the large areas of law that the government has sought to exclude, including welfare benefits, clinical negligence, disability, education and housing law.

They are also seeking to ensure that all cases brought on behalf of children are eligible for legal aid, suggesting that this move would only cost £10m.

Labour opponents accuse the government of using the ‘exceptional cases’ provision in the bill, which would allow for funding of cases otherwise excluded from legal aid, to attempt to silence opposition to its proposals to reduce the scope of publicly funded cases.

In reality, Labour sources said very few cases will be covered by the provision and, in any event, without representation people will be unable to demonstrate that they fall within the exceptional funding provisions.

Labour has also tabled an amendment seeking a ‘gold standard’ definition of domestic violence, in line with that used by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and not limited to physical violence.

Labour opponents are also seeking a reduction in the evidential requirements needed to establish domestic violence and trigger legal aid.

In relation to Clause 12,which introduces a means test for suspects detained at the police station before they are able to obtain legal advice, the opposition is seeking its removal.

Labour sources have said its inclusion in the bill is ‘extremely worrying’, despite the government’s assurances that it does not intend to use the provision at this stage.

On the wider issues concerning funding decisions and the powers and duties of the Secretary of State for Justice, Labour wants to see the introduction of an independent tribunal to review the decisions made on behalf of the secretary of state to refuse legal aid.

Its amendments will also seek to put a duty on the secretary of state to consider the viability of the advice sector generally, imposing a mandatory duty under law to promote an adequate supply of advice when considering policy and practice.

A Labour source said: ‘The strategy is to test the conscience of the Liberal Democrats to see if they will support the vulnerable or back the government’s attack on them.

‘At their spring conference, the Lib Dems voted that legal aid should stay in place. If the leadership of the party haven’t already listened to that, they should do so.’

He added: ‘If the reforms go ahead unchanged, their effect will be felt almost immediately, with the closures of law centres and advice deserts across the country.

‘It will have a devastating impact on one plank of the welfare state.’

Parliament is set to hear a third reading of the bill this autumn, with the Public Bill Committee - which includes two Liberal Democrat MPs - meeting this week to discuss the details.

Shadow justice minister Andy Slaughter said: ‘Victims of wrongdoing by multinational companies, like Trafigura, phone-hacking, pensions mis-selling or asbestiosis sufferers, will find it impossible to get justice.

‘It will create a culture of impunity for wrongdoers and those with no regard for the wellbeing of others.’

Further amendments tabled include the preservation of recoverable costs for claimants who have suffered death or serious personal injury, and for small businesses filing a claim against a business which has at least five times its own turnover.

The Public Bill Committee is expected to report to the House of Commons by 13 October before a third reading in the lower house, with the bill then to be debated in the House of Lords.