Seán Barrett
Question:10 Mr. Barrett asked the Minister for Defence the number of deafness compensation claims being received per week; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12939/98]
Other Questions. - Hearing Impairment Claims.
Bernard Allen
Question:23 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Defence the number of deafness compensation claims being received per week; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12935/98]
Monica Barnes
Question:41 Mrs. Barnes asked the Minister for Defence the number of deafness compensation claims being received per week; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12938/98]
Monica Barnes
Question:55 Mrs. Barnes asked the Minister for Defence the number of deafness compensation claims being received per week; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12937/98]
Bernard Allen
Question:61 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Defence the number of deafness compensation claims being received per week; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12936/98]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:65 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Defence if he will make a statement on the position regarding the hearing or settlement of outstanding claims against the Defence Forces arising from hearing loss. [12984/98]
Frances Fitzgerald
Question:88 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence the number of deafness compensation claims being received per week; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12934/98]
Frances Fitzgerald
Question:111 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence the number of deafness compensation claims being received per week; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13168/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 23, 41, 55, 61, 65, 88 and 111 together.
The average number of claims received per week since the beginning of 1998 is 79. The total number of claims now outstanding is 11,112.
I was heartened by yesterday's judgment by Mr. Justice Lavan in the High Court. For some time the courts have been handicapped in the absence of an agreed basis for assessing hearing loss. The court's acceptance, therefore, of the Green Book as a fair and reasonable system of measurement of hearing disability represents a very important landmark.
While I accept this case is only one of many listed for hearing before the courts, a basis for removing Army hearing loss cases from the courts system now appears to be emerging.
I do not wish to make any further comment other than to say that my overriding consideration is the establishment of a compensation mechanism which is both fair to the taxpayer and to the individual claimant and in which transaction and legal costs are kept to a minimum.
Deputies on all sides of the House will welcome the fact that the Green Book has been accepted by the courts. Obviously we must wait and see whether this will be replicated in other court decisions or appealed to the Supreme Court. The key issue now is to move ahead and, in fairness to taxpayers and individual claimants who have a right to justice, we must set up a variety of systems. What is the Minister's timetable for setting up a compensation tribunal, an Army pensions board and a State claims agency? These are three important elements in tackling what has been acknowledged by everybody here to be a difficult problem going back 30 or 40 years and which has the potential to make enormous claims on the Exchequer, while at the same time finding a solution that is fair to individuals who have suffered during their time in the Defence Forces.
I hope Mr. Justice Lavan's judgment will form the basis for future judgments because grave consideration was given to all the matters in an exercise which went on in the High Court for over four days and on which a reserved judgment was given ten days later. If that is now to be the norm, and the expectation is that claims are beginning to dry up somewhat, we are facing a bill for millions, and not billions, of pounds which is an enormous relief to all of us. I said at the outset that I would be happy to establish an alternative mechanism when the quantum was reduced to realistic and affordable levels. Should this test case become the norm, I will proceed immediately to ensure that an alternative mechanism is available. I hope discussions can take place on the cases due to go before the courts next week with a view to settlement, thereby avoiding significant future legal costs associated with these claims. I would not like to put a timescale on that because a number of issues need to be clarified and proper consideration given to them, but the alternative mechanisms will be in place for the autumn sessions.
It looks as if we have pulled back slightly from the doomsday scenario which we faced. However, this will still cost money. It may be unfair to ask the Minister to give an estimate at this stage, but could he give a rough estimate of the level of compensation? Various figures have been trotted out over the past six months. These claims will have to be paid.
In reply to Deputy Wall, the Minister alluded to the real estate of the Department of Defence. Defence personnel numbers have been scaled down and will not require as much space as heretofore. Certain comments were attributed to the Minister on his tour of the Border counties vis-a — vis the cutback in equipment. Which avenue would the Minister go down if he were faced with a choice of cutting back on the purchase of equipment or selling off some real estate? For example, there are approximately 50 acres in Cathal Brugha barracks in the Rathmines area. Would the Minister consider selling it? It might realise £50 million on the market. Could he use that money to pay the claims? That is not as drastic a measure as it may sound because it might be better for everyone concerned, given cross city traffic, if certain barracks were located on the perimeter, for example in Gormanston or Baldonnel.
The Deputy knows where my answer would lie if I were given a choice in the current climate between the sale to advantage of saleable property and equipping the Defence Forces — I would immediately opt to sell surplus land at top prices. The fact that Deputy Timmins has no bother in embarrassing Deputy Fitzgerald in terms of the constituency he chose for the first sale is of no real import here.
I noticed that.
There is no question that that would be my answer. It is difficult to put a figure on it. Deputy Mitchell talked at one stage about £5.5 billion, which was always wrong and absurd. Realistically, however, one was talking about a doomsday scenario of certainly over £1 billion. We are now talking about substantially reduced figures, probably in the region of £150 million. Claims are still coming in. A significant sum, however, must still be raised and it would be great if we could raise any part of it by disposing of some of the properties which Deputy Timmins mentioned. However, I think the Deputy would have some difficulty in getting unanimous agreement in the Fine Gael Party to his recommendations.
I would like to substitute that with the Curragh camp in Deputy Wall's constituency.
I will not rise to the bait on this occasion. The point has been well made that selling real estate should be considered at some point to raise money, which most reasonable people would accept.
Will the Minister clarify the level to which the claims per week have reduced? Did he give a figure for that in his initial reply?
I said the claims have averaged 79 per week since the beginning of this year——
That is a drop from over 100 claims.
——which reached a peak of 135 in January. The number of claims per week has almost halved since January.
Therefore, the evidence is that there has been a striking reduction from 135 earlier in the year to 79 per week.
It is now much lower than 79 and is somewhere in the sixties. The average up to now has been 79 per week.
I always felt the numbers were being exaggerated and that it was quite unlikely all the people who had served in the Defence Forces would put in claims. I am very pleased the numbers have come down. The whole issue seems to be moving into a much more manageable scenario. Setting up the compensation board, a reformed Army pensions board and a State claims agency will form an important part of tackling the problem and making it more manageable and satisfactory for everyone concerned.
Did the Minister say that, on the strength of the High Court decision yesterday, offers will be made outside the court to those with cases due to be heard next week?
Every individual has the constitutional right to pursue his or her case to court, which is a matter for them and their legal team. I am beginning to prepare the ground for negotiations which would involve settling cases in which there is agreement. That is the way to go forward, on the basis of the kind of quantum which emerged in this test case. I want to indicate publicly and forcefully in the House that I see no reason to continue to be involved in the high legal costs associated with pursuing cases to court when we reach an acceptable quantum.