I am delighted the Tánaiste is back and I welcome the Government's change from last week where the Minister told us he had no responsibility. The Tánaiste is welcome back, he should be around more often.
I should ask the Taoiseach, before he leaves the House, if he is prepared to provide exemplary damages in this case because, if so, he has the opportunity to do so under this Bill.
It can provide for exemplary damages so that never again will a Government, a semi-State body or any of the services involved, treat women in the way in which they have been treated in the hepatitis C case. Clearly, information has been withheld. We have proposed that there should be a formal judicial inquiry into this matter and the Government has now accepted the Fianna Fáil amendment on the proposal by the Progressive Democrats. We are anxious to see the terms of reference which will apply to this inquiry. We expect it should be done as a matter of urgency so that the facts can be established quickly.
The Civil Liability (Amendment) Bill, 1996, is a welcome amendment to an Act which has been of great benefit to the surviving dependants of a decreased family member in the past. The amendment which the Government proposes at this stage will serve to update the Act, principally to take cognisance of the change in money values since the Act was promulgated in 1961 and also by extending the definition of "dependant" for the purposes of the Act to include co-habitees of at least three years standing and people who are entitled to have their foreign divorces recognised by the State.
There is a number of deficiencies in the Bill. Likewise, a number of issues not provided for in the Principal Act should be considered for inclusion in the Bill. I will address these matters later. My main concerns about the Bill are, first, the inadequacy of the Minister's proposed increase in the amount of maximum compensation to £15,000. This figure should be increased to £30,000. Second, it is unfair and discriminatory to treat a family with five dependent children in the same way as a family with one child is cases when the father or mother is killed as a result of the act of a wrongdoer. It is grossly inequitable to divide the same sum — now to be £15,000 — between a surviving spouse and five children, on the one hand, and between a surviving spouse and one child, on the other. Third, there is no provision in the Bill for exemplary damages. Such a provision should be included to cover cases where death is brought about as a result of a deliberate act. For example, if a drug baron or major criminal commits the act then his assets should be the source of exemplary damages. If a State agency is guilty of a major wrongful act against women, as occurred in the hepatitis C case, then there should be provision for exemplary damages.
The Minister proposes in section 2 (1) to increase the amount of damages from £7,500 to £15,000. The sum which could be awarded under the 1961 Principal Act was £1,000. This figure was increased to £7,500 under section 28 of the Courts Act, 1981. It is proposed to increase the sum to £15,000. While I agree with the principle behind the increase, the figure is too low and should be £30,000. When the Civil Liability Act, 1961, was passed compensation was provided for dependants of the deceased for pecuniary benefits, mental stress and funeral expenses and a maximum sum of £1,000 was payable in respect of mental distress. Thirty five years later it is proposed to increase this figure to £15,000.
This increase, which follows an interim increase to £7,500 in 1981, seems reasonable on the face of it but it is woefully inadequate when one compares the purchase value of money in 1961 with its real value today. For example, according to the Department of the Environment's statistics, in 1961 one could have bought a house anywhere in the country for £2,128. The Minister will probably say that if one takes the consumer price index and carries the figures forward to today one will get a figure of £14,300 or another figure just under £15,000. However, is this the kind of mean approach the Government should adopt when dealing with a family which has lost a husband or wife because of the wrongful act of a third party? The Department of the Environment's statistics show that during the first quarter of 1996, that is before the rapid increase in house prices, the same house would have cost £61,377. On this basis, the level of compensation should be increased to at least £30,000, not £15,000 as proposed in the Bill.
The main reason we support a more realistic increase is that we want to give adequate support to those dependants who have suffered personal tragedy. I appeal to the Minister and the Government to reconsider their position on this matter. We believe that the increase should be greater and we are prepared to pay it when we return to Government next year after the general election. It is not a question of giving a figure off the top of one's head, rather we are committed to it.