asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware of the need to increase the sum of £1,000 payable in respect of mental stress under the Civil Liability Act, 1961; and the action he intends to take in the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Mental Stress Compensation.
13.
The question of the appropriate limit of damages for mental distress is a complex one and, while I do not exclude the possibility of introducing legislation that would provide for an increase, I have no proposals to do so at present nor would I do so without the benefit of the views of experienced practitioners and others qualified to express an informed view as to the various implications of such a change. I may add that when the upper limit of £1,000 was fixed in the 1961 Act, this was envisaged as a limit that contained a substantial allowance for future inflation.
The Minister made reference to the views of experienced practitioners and others and he has not excluded the possibility of introducing legislation to deal with the subject matter of my question. Can the Minister say whether, as a matter of urgency, he will seek the views of these practitioners in dealing with this matter?
I would not seek the views of practitioners because I do not accept that the question of the raising of this limit is a matter of urgency. This idea of the acknowledgement of grief is a comparatively new standard of compensation in our code. As the Deputy is aware, damages are paid normally for loss or personal injury. The question of the acknowledgement of grief is something that we imported from Scottish law—the idea of solatium which came, presumably, from Roman law. It has always been held in Scottish law that this type of acknowledgement of grief was something to be measured in hundreds rather than in thousands but the Deputy will know from experience that in this country the awarding of damages under this head usually involves the maximum because there are matters of considerable emotion involved.
We know what solatium means.
Therefore, what the Minister is saying is that he has no sympathy with the element contained in my question.
No, the Deputy should not assume that. What I am saying is that the present level is adequate. There has been no volume of representation to me nor has there been any information made available to me to suggest that the level is inadequate.
Question No. 14.
From where would the Minister receive a volume of representation? Have the Departmental officials been instructed to ascertain the views of the various County Bar Associations in relation to this matter?
This is a long question.
I am convinced that if the Minister conducted investigations into this matter he would find that practitioners require that the sum payable be increased.
Whenever there is need for a law reform, that need is widely known and is notorious to a larger or smaller degree. I assure the Deputy that from the information available to me, from my contacts with members of the legal profession, from my experience while at practice and from my contacts with members of the public who have been involved in accidents or whose dependants are victims of accidents, there is no indication of any pressure for a change in the upper limit payable.
Is the Minister aware that in circumstances where, say, the mental distress of a widow leads to psychiatric ills, that widow would be bound by the limit of £1,000 to be divided between herself and dependants? Is this reasonable?
The Deputy misunderstands the nature of the award of £1,000. As I have endeavoured to make clear, it is not awarded by way of damages for mental or bodily infirmity but is an acknowledgment of grief.
Is that not mental distress?
But not of mental infirmity.
Does the Minister not think it unreasonable that a widow in the circumstances I have described should be confined to the £1,000 limit?
I have called Question No. 14.
I suggest respectfully to the Deputy that he is indicating a misconception of the nature of this award when he says that it should be tied to the question of mental infirmity. This is not possible because it is not compensation that is payable for mental or physical loss or damage. It is merely an acknowledgment of emotional distress.
I appreciate that but——
Will the Minister please respond to my appeal for the reply to Question No. 14?