My attention was first drawn to this matter by an article in The Irish Times of 20 March 2000 as the work management system report in question was not given to my Department. It was prepared in February 1999 by the Department of Finance's centre for management and organisation development for, and in the context of the introduction of information technology into, the Chief State Solicitor's Office. The report, which is about 80 pages long, contains one page in relation to the CSSO's interaction with the Department of Defence which is the office's largest single litigation client. The recommendations contained therein are in turn based on confidential conversations held by CMOD with individual staff members of the CSSO with no input whatsoever from my Department. I am of the view, therefore, that no special significance should attach to such a one-sided report. I would, however, wish to reject specific criticisms as follows. First, the Department's policy for dealing with Army hear ing loss litigation and any occasional changes necessary has been approved by Government following extensive consultation with, and input from, the Office of the Attorney General and the CSSO. Second, departmental officials have been in daily attendance at the courts to provide instructions in individual cases since at least October 1996. Third, direct communication with Army pay section is a non-issue and has not been the subject of any recent complaint by the CSSO. Officials of that section have attended court as required. In any event claims branch, responsible for operational control in the courts, as well as policy in relation to hearing loss cases, must retain full co-ordination of the State's defence. This is best achieved under the current arrangements.
My Department is appreciative of the co-operation afforded by the CSSO in this litigation. However, it must be understood that, given the huge fiscal threat which was at one stage posed to the taxpayer, and which has now been greatly diminished by my Department's actions, the conventional approach of acquiescing in the payment of large settlements for relatively small levels of hearing disability was and remains unacceptable.
