Dinny McGinley
Question:56 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Defence the plans he has to introduce legislation to establish a tribunal to deal with deafness compensation in 2000. [17464/00]
Written Answers. - Hearing Impairment Claims.
Thomas P. Broughan
Question:67 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Defence the progress that has been made to date in discussions between the Department and lawyers representing soldiers, mediated by the Law Society, regarding a procedure for resolving Army deafness claims; when his Department last met with the Law Society; when he expects these discussions to conclude; the number of claims for hearing loss still outstanding; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17476/00]
Jim O'Keeffe
Question:70 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Defence the current situation in relation to Army deafness claims and in particular the total number of claims lodged; the number disposed of to date; the total amount of compensation paid to date; the total amount of costs paid; the Minister's costs to date; and the current estimate for outstanding liabilities. [17448/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 56, 67 and 70 together.
A total of 15, 012 claims have been lodged to date. Some 5,704 have been disposed of and 9,308 are still outstanding. Almost £114.0 million has been paid in damages including legal costs so far of £31.77 million.
Administrative costs are currently estimated at approximately £750,000 per year for staff and overheads in the Department of Defence; £1.1 million per year for staff and overheads in respect of the Defence Forces; and £795,000 per year for staff and overheads in the Chief State Solicitor's office. A total estimate for administrative costs is, therefore, £2.7 million per year.
Following the decision in the Hanley case on 7 December 1999, I moved to establish a mechanism whereby Army hearing loss claims could be removed from the courts. In this regard, I believe the Hanley judgment can be used as a basis whereby the majority of claims can be settled by negotiation rather than litigation. Furthermore, the level of quantum at which claims have been settling since the Hanley judgment, an average of less than £8,000 per claim, is substantially reduced from that at which claims were settling in 1996 when the average exceeded £30,000 per claim.
To date a series of four meetings have taken place between officials of the Department of Defence, the Chief State Solicitor's office and a representative group of plaintiffs' solicitors, under the auspices of the Law Society. On 14 April 2000, the High Court agreed to adjourn all Army hearing loss claims which were due to be heard in the Dublin High Court during the Easter court term. Further adjournments were also granted in Kilkenny, Limerick and Dundalk.
The purpose of these adjournments was to free up resources to facilitate the establishment of the mechanism of early settlement by negotiation of outstanding claims. In the period since the adjournment was granted, some 282 claims have been settled under this mechanism with considerable savings in legal costs to the Exchequer. In addition, offers of settlement are being processed or are under negotiation in a further 977 claims.
This process has been kept under review and the series of meetings have been continuing. The most recent meeting took place on Friday 16 June, 2000 at the offices of the Law Society in Blackhall Place. In addition, there has been ongoing communication between the Chief State Solicitor's office and plaintiffs' solicitors.
I am hopeful that this process can continue and a further application is to be made to the High Court in Dublin today, for an extension of the adjournments until 11 July. Thereafter, it is proposed that those claims which do not settle under the early settlement scheme can be listed for hearing by the court during the final three weeks of the Trinity term. I am also hopeful that the early settlement process can continue during the period of the summer vacation in the context of the proposed adjournment.
In view of the foregoing developments, I do not consider that the establishment of a formal compensation tribunal, which would be considerably more costly and slower than direct settlement negotiations, is necessary or warranted at this time.