Civil Code Bill debate suspended for consultation

Justice Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici has confirmed that the debate on the Civil Code (Amendment) Bill has been suspended to allow for consultation between the government and the opposition.

He was making a point during the debate in second reading when opposition spokesman on consumer rights, Michael Farrugia said he believed that before the Bill is read in committee, both sides ought to meet for consultations. He recalled that this would follow the trend set by former Social Affairs Minister John Dalli when he met the opposition and its experts to discuss the Rent Laws. Earlier, another Labour MP, George Vella, called for the debate to be suspended for such consultations.

At one point, even government whip David Agius augured that both sides should come to an agreement on this Bill. At the moment it seemed the two sides were not agreeing on various points but there was unison on the main aims. Both parties now had to work together to attain these aims.

It was important to focus on the ways damages can be awarded and avoid unnecessary delays, he said.

Dr Farrugia said everybody should strive to cut traffic and industrial accidents. Vehicles and machinery should be regularly serviced, road maintenance kept up-to-date and health and safety rules observed.

Turning to the Bill, Dr Farrugia complained about the capping of damages. He did not agree that insurance companies could cap damages. What would happen to a traffic accident victim who due to injuries would have to stop working? As he would have no income and social assistance would be very limited, how would such a person cope until the damages were awarded?

Some would argue that a victim could sue the perpetrator but what would happen if the latter could not afford to pay the victim?

If an EU citizen was involved in an accident in Malta, the person could decide to file a suit for damages either in Malta or in his country of residence. The damages awarded in foreign countries would be much higher than the capped sum proposed in the Bill. This issue should be addressed.

It was sad to note that in most work places, both employees and employers were not taking health and safety seriously enough. Many workers were not using the right protection. Reports showing that the amount of industrial accidents had dropped were useless. Even just one accident was proof enough of lack of attention or carelessness.

Maltese roads did not do much to assist health and safety. The government was not doing enough to improve the state of certain roads. Who was responsible when an accident was the result of a fault in the road? The government would shirk responsibility.

With regard to black dust in Cottonera, Dr Farrugia said that if someone was found responsible for this problem, it was important to ensure that people who have suffered respiratory problems would be in a position to seek damages.

Concluding, Dr Farrugia health and safety measures should be observed by everyone including the authorities. It was important to improve the Bill for everyone’s benefit.

Michael Falzon (PL) strongly disagreed with what he called the scandalous power vested in the discretion of the Justice and Finance Ministers to override established capping of pecuniary and moral damages without even going to Parliament.

Emphasising that he was not alluding to present incumbents, Dr Falzon said the clause must be drastically amended because it was effectively concentrating all the country’s powers in the Justice and Finance Ministers.

The most basic system of democracy was a tripod consisting of the executive, the legislator and the judiciary. The clause seemed to be seeking to change or improve what the judiciary had done to date.

It was not right that a Minister of Justice should unilaterally be able to make regulations to establish rules that must be applicable to cases. The power accorded to the minister in the drafted clause was scandalous. Should the executive have the power to make such rules without even consulting Parliament? How could a Minister of Justice, unless he was a medical specialist, establish formulae and percentage scales of disability?

The executive was only one of the three pillars of democracy.

Dr Falzon appealed for a legal system that even government MPs believed in, with no such faculty for subsidiary legislation. The clause went contrary to a previous article which contained a safeguard, and its ramifications must be seriously considered because some cases were tragic, at least to victims and their families.

The Bill should not be seen in isolation, and other aspects needed to be tackled besides limitations. These included a dead-letter, decades-old law which laid down that any employer must have insurance cover for his employees.

Health and safety legislation should be enforced in a wider concept in parallel with the Bill, because the present situation was untenable. It should not be so much a question of how much money one would be awarded once one was involved in an accident, but how the country could avoid having accidents in the first place.

Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg emphasised that Civil Code (Amendment) Bill was introducing capping for three of the six heads of damage to the tune of €1.4 million.

He said there was a capping of €600,000 for loss of future earnings arising from permanent disability, another €600,000 for expenses for medical treatment and services and palliative care and another €200,000 for moral damages such as pain, suffering and trauma caused to heirs of the victim.

The Justice Minister could increase such capping through legal notices.

There was no capping on the other three heads of damage. There was no capping for loss of wages or other earnings. Dr Borg said this capping was generous and one had to be careful on issues of insurance cover because otherwise premiums could become more expensive. One had to avoid a system where payments were unlimited.

The courts would still retain their discretion but within the parameters set in the Bill. Dr Borg said the principle of moral damages was being entrenched in the law for the first time. Up to now, there was no compensation for pain and suffering. Damages were awarded for payment of medical services and treatment.