My Lords, I should like briefly to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has said. I entirely endorse his comments. One of the problems with ATE premiums is that they are, in effect, unchallengeable because there is an assertion of what a case costs a particular litigant and, when it comes to an assessment, no alternative is put forward. Thereby, a defendant will always have to pay that.
My second and final point is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said in earlier debates that the Government were proposing to increase bereavement damages by 10 per cent, along with damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity—which, of course, are general damages assessed by judges. I understand that this proposal was made because those damages are statutory and there would need to be a formal amendment or some other device. I would be happy to accept the assurance, which I understand to be coming, that QOCS is on the way and that there will be the appropriate method of bringing it in.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Faulks
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 March 2012.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
736 c300 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 16:11:07 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_817656
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_817656
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_817656