The Civil Liability (Amendment) Bill, 1996, is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 85, it is deemed to have passed First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question, "That the Bill be received for final consideration", the Minister may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil and this is looked upon as a report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. The only matters which may be discussed are the amendments made by the Dáil. Members may speak only once on Report Stage.
Civil Liability (Amendment) Bill, 1996 [Seanad Bill amended by Dáil ]: Report and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
I indicated when I introduced the Bill in the House that I intended to move amendments at the appropriate time to provide for the extension of the definition of "dependant" in the Civil Liability Act, 1961, and the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1936, to include a person whose marriage to the deceased has been dissolved following the granting of a decree of divorce in the State.
I am pleased to say that the Family Law (Divorce) Bill has now passed into law and following this, adjustments were necessary and amendments Nos. 1 and 4 were made on Committee Stage in the Dáil.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 are drafting amendments only, with the objective of achieving greater clarity of meaning. The House will recall that I promised to ask the parliamentary draftsman to consider an amendment along these lines following a request from Senator Manning in the course of debate in the House.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 increase the amount of damages that may be claimed for mental distress in fatal injury cases from £7,500 to £20,000. The amount now proposed is on the basis of further debate and review of what should reasonably be paid in these cases. Senators will recall that the former level of compensation for mental distress stood at £7,500 for many years and updating that by using the consumer price index would have given a figure of just under £15,000. However, following further consideration and debate, it was felt that there should be a further modest increase in the maximum amount. The figure decided was £20,000 and this is why the amendments are necessary.
I welcome the changes made to the Bill. The Minister dealt with most of the amendments in an open and reasonable manner and the Bill has been significantly improved. I particularly welcome the increase in the limit of the amount of compensation which can be awarded to £20,000, but I would be happier if it had been possible to agree an even higher figure as proposed by Deputy Woods in the other House. However, I accept the Minister agreed to a substantial increase from the original proposal and has included a mechanism for future reviews by ministerial order.
An aspect of the Bill which was not resolved on Committee Stage was the dilemma posed by the division of the amount where there is a significant number of dependants. Throughout the debate, the Minister has been at pains to stress that compensation is for mental distress. He favoured the term solatium, with which I am not familiar, and having been criticised previously for my colourful language, I will take care to use the Minister's terminology.
Compensation of this nature is, by its essence, a personal matter and it is sensible that it should take into account the number of people involved. I accept that a simple per person figure may not be the ideal solution and I understand the difficulties involved in assessing the closeness of dependants. The setting of a maximum which takes no regard of the number of dependants is probably not an adequate response. I appreciate this matter cannot be considered now but perhaps the Minister will consider it in the future.
Another aspect which was not resolved was the issue of exemplary damages where the death in question results from a deliberate or reckless act. This is a reasonable proposition which is in keeping with the spirit of the Bill. On the principle that the compensation is for solatium the level of mental distress must be much greater where a dependant is aware that their loved one's death took place as a result of a deliberate act rather than an accident. There is a case for exemplary damages in these circumstances. The Minister gave a commitment on Committee Stage that he would ask the Taoiseach to refer this aspect to the Law Reform Commission and on Report Stage he indicated that he was in consultation with the Attorney General about this matter. Will the Minister outline the up to date position and give a firm commitment that the matter will be referred to the Law Reform Commission in the near future?
The possibility of consolidating the Acts also arose on Committee Stage. The consolidation of legislation is important and while proposals designed to make legislation more accessible and understandable to the public may cause significant disquiet in the Law Library, they are a critical aspect of law reform. I hope the Minister will reconsider the possibility of consolidating the Acts in the short time left before the election.
I thank the Minister for the manner in which he dealt with the legislation and I hope he will take on board the points I and other Members made. At this late stage, I wish him and his staff a happy Christmas.
I welcome the amendments and I compliment the Minister on the manner in which he dealt with the Bill. Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 recognise the changes which have taken place since the Bill was introduced in the Seanad, including the passage of all Stages of the Family Law (Divorce) Bill. It is important to recognise that and to deal with the new position created by the amendments.
All parties wished the limit of compensation to be substantially increased above the £7,500 that operated heretofore. The Minister's initial proposal of £15,000 reflected the rate of inflation since the original Bill was introduced. The extra £5,000 is a reasonable response to the views of Members of the Oireachtas. I compliment him for initiating the Bill in the Seanad. It is a necessary instrument ensuring we update our civil liability responsibilities.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 are drafting amendments. I congratulate Senator Manning for bringing them to the attention of the House. I thank the Minister and his staff on the work they have done on this Bill; they are to be complimented. We have debated many Bills throughout 1996 and Senators McGennis and Gallagher have been present for them. I congratulate the Minister and his staff for the work they are doing in the area of law reform. From the amount of legislation that has come before the House, they must have been under pressure. I wish the Minister and his staff a happy Christmas and a successful New Year.
It must be the end of the year when people compliment each other. I congratulate the Minister for his hard work on this and other Bills. The appointment of a Minister for Equality and Law Reform was critical for social legislation. The Minister has achieved so much within that portfolio that he deserves recognition, and so do his staff.
We appreciate that this Bill was initiated in the Seanad. The amendments put forward are sensible. The Bill was sensible, not revolutionary, and the amendments recognise the changes in the law in relation to divorce. By allowing the definition of "family relative" to include divorcees and cohabitants was a realistic change in our laws because it recognises that some families do not come under the old definition: a husband, wife and children. When someone has suffered the loss of a loved one he or she deserves compensation if that loss was caused by a wrongful act. This is a very sensible provision. The amendment to increase the maximum amount from £15,000 to £20,000 takes account of today's values.
This Bill is one of many that takes a practical approach to updating our laws and I welcome it.
I thank Senators for their constructive contributions. Regarding the exemplary damages to which Senator McGennis, it is for the Attorney General to refer a matter for examination by the Law Reform Commission. I have written to the Attorney General asking him to consider doing so with the issue raised in the Oireachtas.
I reciprocate the good wishes of all Senators and extend them to you, a Chathaoirligh, and the staff of the Seanad. I thank the staff for all their help this year. I also thank my staff for their help.
Question, "That the Bill do now pass", put and agreed to.