Vol. 487 No. 7
17 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Defence the number of solicitors and barristers in the Defence Forces and his Department; and the legal resources, if any, that are available to him to advise him on the best way in which to minimise the cost to the taxpayer of Army deafness and other compensation claims. [4987/98]
28 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Defence the average legal costs incurred by the State's legal team in defending a hearing loss claim; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5081/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 17 and 28 together.
The Chief State Solicitor, assisted and advised by counsel nominated by the Attorney General, acts for my Department in the conduct of civil legal claims, including claims alleging hearing impairment. Plaintiffs' legal costs amount to approximately 30 per cent of awards-settlements. To date the amount paid for cases finalised in 1997 is £4.2 million.
Costs involved in the defence of claims against the Minister are borne from the Vote of the Attorney General's office.
Has there been a change in the panel of barristers engaged by the Chief State Solicitor and the Attorney General and, if so, will the Minister accept that it would not be proper for new barristers who had acted for the State to continue to act for the plaintiffs in these cases as they would be privy to confidential information? What assistance is obtained from the legal advisers from the point of view of examining the way we can minimise the cost of this flood of claims, which is horrendous? I understand there is an overhang of £100 million from last year with a quarter of cases having been disposed of at a cost of £40 million. The Minister spoke about 132 new cases each week and on that basis the cost will be £5 million per week. Has any thought been given to changing the law having regard to the Garda Síochána compensation Acts and the way those claims are dealt with? Furthermore, does the Minister not consider it ridiculous that people are now putting in claims for injuries that are alleged to have occurred 20 or more years ago? How can we continue with a legal system that accepts such claims which are impossible to disprove? I am outraged at the notion of somebody claiming from the taxpayer for something that happened over 20 years ago.
Unfortunately the claims do not stop at 20 years, they go back as many as 40 years. I had no idea when I came in here today that I would for a brief moment defend the legal profession against somebody like Deputy O'Keeffe. I do not think he would suggest that barristers, whatever their varied experience, would do other than the right thing in terms of their training to represent their clients. I have no knowledge of any change in the panel of barristers. I do not have an input to these matters, nor do I wish to, beyond checking the current position. There will not be any influence on my side in regard to who is selected to carry out a particular function. Because of the increase in numbers the expectation might be that there should be an increase in the number of people appointed. I have no knowledge of that but it would be logical since there are many more cases.
In relation to the broader question the Deputy asked, it is a frightening prospect. We have had virtually unanimity in this House in regard to trying to cut off the fast-track which was developing and ensure that genuine cases are dealt with in a fair and equitable way without encouraging thousands of others who have little or no handicap in comparison to the people we represent who have a significant handicap.
People say we should not be involved in by-election canvassing, that we should be doing other work. During the canvass in Limerick East last Sunday — the Deputy was there also — when other people were playing golf or doing something else, I visited a house where a foster mother lived. She showed me a cerebral palsy child of five years old and a blind child of 18 months and told me there were very few support systems in place for them. At that moment I was conscious that the moneys being spent on legal services on one case alone would have been an enormous help in that circumstance. It only adds to the determination of this House, and I appreciate the overall support I have received, to corral these claims in a fair and equitable way. We will not stand in the way of a person with a genuine claim but we have an overall responsibility to the common good.
It is interesting that in some US states legislation is being introduced to put ambulance chasing solicitors behind bars for 18 months because of their advertising which encourages people to make claims.
Where are the specific proposals to stem this tide? I have heard enough about solicitors. The Minister's Government forced solicitors to advertise.
I will allow Deputy O'Keeffe to ask a brief final supplementary.
I am sick of solicitor bashing. I want to see specific proposals from the Minister on how this tide of claims can be stemmed. I have made a number of suggestions in that regard. When will the Minister come to this House with proposals specifically designed to stem this horrendous tide of claims and minimise the cost to taxpayers?
In due course.
Before the Minister replies, I want to take a brief supplementary from Deputy Timmins.
The Minister made an interesting point earlier in reply to a priority question about the uneven spread around the country. I note with amazement the reply to a priority question of 17 December, relating to two units of similar strength situated only 40 miles apart, that in one unit five cases were finalised up to 1 December and in the other, 159 cases were finalised up to 1 December. Will the Minister comment on that? Work practices should be similar.
These matters are dealt with by the Chief State Solicitor's office and I have no control over them. While I am not responsible for this matter I will see if there is anything I can do to help. I reject out of hand Deputy O'Keeffe's onslaught. The Deputy is aware that I inherited a poisoned chalice, a train travelling on a track at 100 miles per hour, which was ignored by the previous Administration. In a couple of months I succeeded in reducing the quantum award by almost £8,000 per claim and I am in negotiation with the Incorporated Law Society to reduce the legal fees. I got agreement from the Government to ban advertising and I am establishing an Army compensation board. My record stands up to the best.
I made two suggestions which were not referred to by the Minister.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
