Vol. 572 No. 4
63 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason there are such delays in dealing with applications by members of the Garda Síochána under the Garda Síochána (Compensation) Acts; the longest such delay within his Department; and if such applications will be dealt with properly. [23204/03]
The Garda Síochána (Compensation) Acts 1941 and 1945 provide for a scheme of compensation for members of the Garda Síochána who are maliciously injured in the course of their duty or in relation to the performance of their duties as members of the Garda Síochána and for the dependants of members who have died from injuries maliciously inflicted on them. Under section 6 of the 1941 Act, a member of the Garda Síochána who has been maliciously injured may sue the State only by an authorisation issued by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
Before deciding if an applicant should be authorised to apply to the High Court for compensation in respect of the injury, the practice has been for the Minister to consider all medical reports submitted by the applicant together with a report on the incident by the Garda Commissioner and a report on the injury by the chief medical officer of the Garda Síochána. Members are referred to the Garda chief medical officer as soon as a final medical report has been submitted by their solicitors.
There are approximately 1,100 applications for compensation being processed under the Acts at present. Approximately 420 of these applications are at an early stage of processing in that various reports have yet to be furnished. There are approximately 334 cases for which final medical reports have been received and for which applicants are awaiting examination by the Garda chief medical officer, approximately 250 cases where the member has been examined by the Garda chief medical officer and the commissioner is preparing a report for submission to the Department and approximately 130 cases for which the commissioner's reports, including the Garda chief medical officer's report, have been provided and for which a decision as to the granting of an authorisation is required. The Chief State Solicitor's office reports that there are approximately 58 cases with that office awaiting a High Court hearing.
In 1997 a committee was established to review the effectiveness of the Garda Síochána compensation Acts. It reported and it is my intention in the near future to establish a Garda Síochána compensation tribunal rather than continue with the High Court, from whose decision there is no appeal. I am confident that the Garda staff associations will co-operate with this legislative change.
The Minister did not reply to my question about the longest delay in cases held up by his Department. The Minister talks about responsibility in other matters but does he not accept responsibility for these delays? Many of these cases were submitted years ago. They go from the Department to the Chief State Solicitor's office and to the Office of the Attorney General. The Minister has had an input in dealing with these matters for the past six years. Does he not accept it is unfair and outrageous that applicants can be held up for six years when awaiting an authorisation to have their claims disposed of?
If, for example, one of the two brave young gardaí who foiled the raid on Charlie Chawke had lost his leg, would the Minister not consider it outrageous that in six years that garda would still be awaiting the Minister's authorisation to go to court to seek the legitimate compensation to which he would be entitled and to recover damages for injuries received while serving this country? Does he not accept that there are many such instances? The Minister's reply today is virtually the same reply that was issued by the then Minister two years ago when this question was raised.
Supplementary questions are limited to one minute.
I wish to raise some other issues but I will await the Minister's response to the questions I have asked.
If my reply had been different, the Deputy would have been the first to point out that I was contradicting my predecessor. I am glad there is a tyranny of consistency here.
There are number of reasons for delay. One of them is the procedure I have described, which is unnecessarily convoluted. It would be better to replace it by a tribunal which would not be a High Court driven operation but would decide these issues in a faster and more effective way. I agree there must be reform and I hope to do that in the near future.
On some occasions, not the majority, the applications are delayed. The Deputy asked about the greatest ever delay. In one case the Minister consented to a late application for compensation by a member of the Garda 27 years after the injury was sustained. The record, therefore, is a 27 year old application. That was done because the member of the Garda was given special consideration to bring a case after that length of time.
That is not the matter about which I asked. I am asking about a member of the force who was injured while on duty, has applied for compensation and for whom an authorisation has not been issued by the Minister to enable that garda to claim compensation. I am aware of a garda who was injured during a riot in Dublin in 1997 and who has been seeking to have the claim disposed of but cannot get the authorisation from the Minister's office to enable the case to proceed. In another case of which I am aware, the incident in which the serious injuries were incurred happened in 1998. Is it fair or just that people who are injured while on duty should be delayed for years when seeking compensation because of these procedures?
With regard to the tribunal, the current procedures are ridiculous. It is utterly ridiculous to have to go to the High Court when somebody breaks a finger or the like when the matter could be settled in a five minute phone call between the solicitor and the Chief State Solicitor if such a process was available. Does the Minister not accept that the tribunal he refers to was recommended six years ago, but nothing has happened. Why? The Minister had responsibility during that time either as Attorney General or as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Is there a deliberate policy on the part of the Government to delay the claims because there is not enough money in the fund to pay them or as a deterrent to applicants?
Will the Minister sign off on the cases that are ready and are currently on his desk? I am aware of such cases and I hope the Minister will do as I ask. Gardaí cannot make representations to politicians like other citizens, which is wrong. The Minister must do something. It is outrageous. There are family circumstances which demand that claimants have their claims settled. Perhaps the Minister will sign off on the cases that are ready during the next week or two.
He does not have the money to pay them.
I have been in office for a relatively short time and I am bringing forward the first attempt to recast the Garda Síochána in statute form. I intend to publish the legislation before Christmas. Deputy O'Keeffe's puffed up attempt to look outraged is about a system which he and his party presided over for many years without touching it. No improvement was made.
The Minister has been in government for the past seven years.
Suddenly, because I am about to do something, the outrage is turned on and the anger tablets are consumed by the handful.
How long has the Minister been in Cabinet?
Somebody who had the capacity to do something about this but who did absolutely nothing is suddenly criticising somebody who proposes to do something about it.
The Chair is calling Question No. 64.
I am used to that. I have a thick skin—
The Minister has never been known to be puffed up himself.
The Minister is not puffed up, he is fluffed up.
The Deputy has demonstrated not merely in relation to this but also in relation to the prison visiting committees that he has a remarkably short and self-erasing memory.
I call Question No. 64.
I will keep hounding the Minister on this issue.
The Deputy gave up hounding me on the prison visiting committees when he was reminded of what—
How many Progressive Democrats did the Minister appoint to them?
Oh Lord, it is hard to be humble.
I learnt something about the Minister then.
The Progressive Democrats have nothing to learn.
How many Progressive Democrats did the Minister appoint?
I thank Deputy O'Keeffe for the suggestion that I am corrupt. I remind him that when he was a Government backbencher, he asked the then Minister for Justice to appoint a person to a prison visiting committee as far away from their home as possible—
The Minister should deal with Question No. 64.
—and he put it in writing. I have it in writing.
That is not true.
The Minister released it to the newspapers but he would not release the other documentation without looking for a fee, it would seem.
How many Deputies did the Minister write to?
Are they still travelling from Caherciveen to Mountjoy? There is a great knowledge of the present system in certain parts. They are still bypassing Limerick to travel to Mountjoy to show their expertise to the good people of Dublin.
Members should turn off the angry button.
