Vol. 505 No. 2
3 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence when he will establish a compensation tribunal to deal with deafness claims in the Defence Forces; if he will cap awards; if he is appealing the Hanley judgment prior to the establishment of this tribunal; if he has the support of the representative associations in relation to his plans; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13143/99]
The State has now lodged a certificate of readiness with the Supreme Court in the Hanley appeal and I understand that it is likely to be heard sometime in the next term which commences 2 June 1999. Deputies will be aware that last February, I announced that I had directed officials of my Department to draft proposals for a hearing loss compensation scheme for serving and former military personnel. This work is in full progress and will obviously be influenced by the outcome of the Hanley appeal in the Supreme Court. This work includes consideration of the question as to whether there will be a requirement to introduce legislation.
The main issue in the State's appeal of the Hanley case is the issue of the scale of damages laid down by the High Court. If this tariff were to be reduced, I envisage that the majority of claims could transfer from the courts to the compensation scheme to which I have referred. In recommending a level of compensation in the scheme to the Government, I must be mindful of striking an equitable balance between the rights of claimants with genuine injuries and what can be afforded by the taxpayer while having regard to the view of the Supreme Court on these cases.
With regard to the representative associations, both RACO and PDFORRA have indicated their support for the principle of a compensation scheme designed to resolve this issue in a less costly and less adversarial way than through the courts. I stress, as I have on previous occasions, that I do not see the necessity for a tribunal with attendant delay and representation costs. Rather I intend to establish a compensation scheme which will provide for the speedy resolution of claims by reference to established and accepted criteria of assessment and compensation.
At what rate are cases coming in? What progress has the Minister made on establishing the broad parameters of the compensation board? I am sure the Minister agrees there should not be any delay and that it should be resolved as quickly as possible.
Is the Minister confident he will have the support of the representative associations because it would be desirable to have their support when a compensation board is established? I understand the Minister is appealing the Hanley case and I welcome that.
It is desirable to establish this alternative system in an out of court environment as soon as possible. As we are now close to the Supreme Court hearing in the Hanley case, which would influence that decision, we will await that. However, if the Hanley case is delayed longer than I anticipate, I will look at introducing the scheme in advance. We are at an advanced stage at present. My proposals have been completed and we are submitting those to the Attorney General for his advice on some of the legal aspects and whether legislation will be required. The hope and expectation is that legislation will not be required, but we need to clarify that.
The representative associations have indicated strong support for this type of compensation scheme. I have no doubt that when we try to strike the right balance between the claimants with genuine injuries, what the taxpayer can afford and the High Court decisions, there will be a fair degree of consensus. We need to leave this tragic picture behind us as quickly as possible and move on to developmental and progressive areas. I appreciate the consensus and support in the House for moving in that direction.
Perhaps the Minister could clarify the number of cases being received. Is it constitutionally acceptable to put a cap on compensation awards? Does the Minister intend to put a cap on such awards which could be given by the newly established board? Is he prepared to make a decision, ahead of the Hanley case, on the scale of compensation which is a balance between the green book and the implications of the Hanley case?
I am prepared to work along those lines. As regards the question as to whether one would be 100 per cent satisfied that the constitutional position would not be infringed when a cap is set, it is important to look at the history of these unique cases as they have developed. The level of damages has decreased from an average of £35,000 in 1996 to an average of £11,000 per case at present. I will be guided by the experience of the courts and by what is fair to all sides. This will cost money, which we can ill afford in many cases, but we need to get a resolution and to strike the right balance.
The number of cases being received has decreased from an average of 609 two years ago to a little less than 100 per month.
