Vol. 509 No. 4
36 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence the number of claims to date for deafness compensation within the Defence Forces; the cost per month in 1999 of meeting these claims; the numbers per month in 1999; the plans, if any, he has for establishing a tribunal; if so, the proposed date for its establishment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20587/99]
By 14 October 1999, my Department had received 14,588 claims for alleged loss of hearing from current or former members of the Defence Forces. Of these, 3,872 have been settled or have received court awards. Details in respect of costs paid and numbers of claims received per month in 1999 are set out in the tabular statement which will be circulated in the Official Report.
Deputies may recall that when I last answered questions on this subject on 30 June 1999, I mentioned that the establishment of a compensation scheme will be influenced by the outcome of the appeal in the case of Hanley v. Minister for Defence. I understand the Supreme Court may deliver this shortly. When this important judgment is published, the details will be examined carefully in my Department. Its implications for all outstanding claims and for the establish ment of a compensation scheme will be assessed and costed.
If the projected cost is acceptable to the Government – and I hope it will be – I shall establish a scheme to remove these claims from the courts. This will provide a level of compensation which will be fair and equitable both to the taxpayer and to those personnel who have suffered hearing loss during military service. It will also be administratively straightforward, providing a relatively speedy process of compensating claimants based on the Green Book and the Supreme Court's judgment. Considerable progress has already been achieved in containing the cost. The average quantum of damages per claim for the period January to September 1999 was £12,228. This is reduced from an average of £30,874 in 1996. The scheme will also be designed to reduce the very high level of costs inherent in resolving these claims through the courts.
I hope the establishment of a compensation scheme based on an acceptable tariff will attract a consensus of support among all of us who are concerned with resolving this issue and in putting its negative consequences behind us.
1999
|
Month |
Number ofNew ClaimsReceived |
Numberof ClaimsSettled |
Number ofClaimsAwarded |
Total Award and Settlement |
Total Paid in Plaintiffs' LegalCosts*(Up to 14/10/99) |
|
January |
99 |
116 |
3 |
£1,911,174.39 |
£907,771.93 |
|
February |
98 |
130 |
11 |
£2,083,145.50 |
£942,685.99 |
|
March |
62 |
292 |
5 |
£3,539,229.35 |
£1,333,132,23 |
|
April |
128 |
247 |
4 |
£3,044,644.09 |
£1,014,563.81 |
|
May |
76 |
197 |
6 |
£2,829,743.00 |
£913,334.64 |
|
June |
119 |
198 |
9 |
£2,203,587.44 |
£657,953.65 |
|
July |
33 |
331 |
26 |
£3,706,503.23 |
£538,692.27 |
|
August |
130 |
3 |
0 |
£21,523.00 |
– |
|
September |
75 |
4 |
0 |
£15,618.00 |
– |
|
October |
41 |
0 |
£393,343.00 |
– |
*Costs may not have been finalised in all cases where settlements or awards have been made.
How does the number of claims per month this year compare with last year? Has the number of claims decreased this year? When I asked the Minister at the last Question Time about establishing a tribunal, he said that if there was a delay in the delivery of the Supreme Court judgment, he would consider going ahead and establishing a tribunal. Is he at that point yet? Has he the support of the representative associations for establishing such a tribunal?
At no stage did I say I would establish a tribunal. I said I would establish a compensation scheme. A tribunal would be too cumbersome a way to deal with this.
I accept that.
Maybe that is what the Deputy had in mind. I said the last time that, if there was too long a delay, I would consider doing that in the interim. However, I had to revise my view on that because, in fairness to the Supreme Court, it is entitled to make its decision, which I hope will be helpful. If I were to carry out my own intentions in that regard, I could be seen as casting a reflection on the Supreme Court. I hope that decision will be available to us very soon, so that we can proceed.
There were 99 claims in January 1999, 130 in August, 75 in September, 76 in May and 62 in March. They are all in the tabular statement, but I can give them quickly to the Deputy now if she wishes. There were 99 claims in January, 98 in February, 62 in March, 128 in April, 76 in May, 119 in June, 33 in July, 130 in August and 75 in September.
Therefore, fairly high numbers of claims are still being received by the Department
Yes. The number of claims has decreased considerably. However, there is no real room for complacency because there are still sturdy numbers of claims being made. The total number of this year and the anticipated total for next year are stubborn figures.
Does the Minister have an estimated figure for the potential costs at this stage? Are the broad parameters of a compensation scheme worked out? This, of course, will depend on the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment, which I hope will be available soon.
The answer to that question is "Yes". I also had some preliminary discussions with the representative associations, with entire support going in this direction. It is not possible to give an estimate total costs yet. The costs have changed greatly from what they were a few years ago. The average quantum is about one-third of what it used to be. Therefore, in one sense, the overall costs are down by two-thirds. However, until we know when these claims will end and how many claimants we will be able to attract out of the court system into the new compensation scheme – when it is set up after the Supreme Court judgment – we will not be able to make a determination. However, it is clear that if we are able to proceed on this basis and remove the very substantial legal costs associated with court cases, with a tariff that is affordable and fair to both sides, there will be a very significant reduction in the overall costs. The legal costs, between the Chief State Solicitor's side and the plaintiffs' side, are still up to 30 per cent of the overall total costs at present.
