Vol. 489 No. 7
15 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence the number of deafness compensation cases dealt with; the cost to date in 1998 including the legal costs of these claims; if he will outline the Green Book findings; and the Government's proposed strategy to deal with this issue. [9019/98]
By 26 March this year settlements had been reached in a total of 1,431 cases and court awards following hearing had been made in 91 cases. A further 64 cases were successfully defended or withdrawn. Compensation of £36.4 million and accrued plaintiff costs of £8.5 million have been paid in respect of 1,586 cases finalised. Since the beginning of the year 1,233 cases have been received, an average of 90 per week.
My Department received the expert group's report on 7 April 1998 and I am at present considering the way in which it may impinge upon the strategy adopted by the Government to deal with the Army hearing loss claims. The Government will shortly examine a number of courses of action to deal with the problems which have been identified by an interdepartmental committee in this regard. An adjournment of cases currently before the courts was granted in the High Court on 21 April 1998 and this will provide time within which to give due consideration to the complex legal and constitutional issues which the identified options have raised. This work will be proceeded with as a matter of urgency.
It is clear that if the Minister had gone to the courts yesterday with a detailed strategy, a different view might have been taken of his request for an adjournment. The courts did not grant it and demanded that a strategy be put in place immediately. There are many genuine fears about the costs, for example, in relation to breaching the Maastricht guidelines and the impact on health and education services. There is a need to dispel the confusion surrounding the cases and the uncertainty about what the strategy will be. Will the Minister consider enshrining the Green Book in statute to place a boundary around the problem given its scale and the need to do justice to genuine claimants and the taxpayer? That is the balance that will have to be struck in the strategy if cases are to be dealt with properly. It is important that an individual's right of access to justice in the courts is protected but there is a huge policy issue in terms of fiscal demands. There is also the question of the public good. Does the Minister intend to introduce legislation within the next three weeks to enshrine the Green Book in statute? Will he outline the other options?
It is important in dealing with this complex and difficult matter that we try to assemble all the parts on a more streamlined basis. I accept the Deputy's contention that that is the way we should proceed. As she is aware, the interdepartmental group examined the options. I placed its report before the Government this week. As the Deputy will understand, when one is dealing with potential constitutional and complex legal issues across Departments, there are many differing views but agreement was reached on a number of options which were placed before the Government this week. Earlier this month the Green Book became available. Legislation has been prepared and will shortly be introduced in the House to restrict advertising in the context of personal injury claims. Taken together, they represent a significant effort that is now crystallising. That is one of the reasons I sought the adjournment. I needed more time to do what the Deputy has requested. I would have preferred if the courts had given me more time but in the three weeks available, I will be able to proceed with the introduction of legislation. It is likely that the provisions of the Green Book will be placed on a statutory basis.
It is important that some order is restored to this scenario on which the newspapers have elaborated fully in recent days and weeks. There is a need to establish a reformed Army pensions board or perhaps a statutory tribunal. This would have the effect of removing some cases from the courts. Many Defence Forces personnel would prefer to use such mechanisms rather than the courts, although the courts would still be open to them. Rather than offering upfront payments, pensions could perhaps be offered through a tribunal. This would be acceptable and would balance the needs of genuine claimants and the taxpayer. Action needs to be taken to ensure Defence Forces personnel have an alternative other than the courts. If one is involved in an accident in the Defence Forces one has recourse to the courts only. We will fail members of the Defence Forces if we do not put alternative systems in place.
The matter is urgent. This situation should not have been allowed to develop. Has the Minister considered reforming the Army pensions board and the establishment of a State claims agency? This is critical. As the Minister is well aware, there is huge criticism about the way claims are handled at Government level. There is a criticism that they have not been handled in the most efficient way. The Minister will probably accept there is room for improvement. There has been stereotyping of claimants. While I accept there are claims which are not genuine, it is not helpful to have the Army and the Defence Forces generally criticised to the degree they have been.
The Deputy should confine herself to supplementary questions, rather than long statements.
In this business one can be blamed for many things but I do not think I can be blamed for much of what happened in the past. I am trying to identify ways by which this difficult question can be dealt with as quickly as possible to maintain morale within the Defence Forces and to ensure individuals with a significant handicap attributable to their service in the Defence Forces are compensated adequately while protecting the interests of the taxpayer.
I indicated my desire to establish an Army compensation board. I have been requested on a number of occasions to establish a tribunal. It will be clear to anybody who wants to examine the matter closely that one would establish a tribunal in the knowledge, given the current quantum of awards in respect of minor hearing loss and wear and tear, that the normal compensation payable would be equal to that awarded by the courts. My first obligation, therefore — I fought arduously to ensure this — was to ensure the quantum of awards came down. We have succeeded in the past six to 12 months in securing a significant reduction in awards but they are still too high in respect of minor hearing loss compared to the awards payable to individuals in other organisations. If the level of awards in the courts was to come down quickly to the levels we could afford on foot of what is provided for in the Green Book, the need for a tribunal or Army compensation board would be apparent.
There are more than 12,000 cases and the number continues to grow. It will be clear that it will take the courts a long time to dispose of them. I shudder at the prospect, given the damage that will be inflicted, perhaps permanently, on the Defence Forces and the friction that will be caused between plaintiffs and non-claimants who were on the same range on the same day. I am extremely anxious to move towards a fast-tracking system under which substantial numbers of cases can be handled over a quick timescale but I am caught in a trap as any board or tribunal would have to have regard to the average quantum of awards. In cases of significant disability, they may not be high enough but there is no doubt in anybody's mind that in the case of normal wear and tear they are not in line with those granted in every other jurisdiction. Regrettably, they are too high.
Whether the Green Book is enshrined in statute, I am sure the Minister will accept there will always be conflict when it comes to expert opinion. It is up to the courts to decide the level of awards, even if it is defined in statute. It is not necessarily the full answer but, given the scale of claims and the variations in awards, it appears to be the sensible route to take. Does the Minister have a timescale in mind? I agree this is the first step, and needs to be done before moving on to reforming the Army pensions board and establishing a compensation board.
A number of urgent matters are before the Dáil. It may well be that I will seek the co-operation of my colleagues to take full advantage of the space offered by the courts to respond. That is my aim.
