The first item on the agenda is the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Defence. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and I welcome him and Mr. David O'Callaghan, Secretary General, Michael O'Donoghue, Assistant Secretary, Paul Kelly, Principal Officer, Pat Hogan, Finance Officer, and Barbara Burke, Private Secretary. I ask the Minister to address the meeting.
Estimates for Public Services, 1997.
Vote 36: Department of Defence (Supplementary).
I thank the Chairman for his welcome and congratulations. Last year I sat on the other side of the House, so it is nice to sit on the Government side. I congratulate the Chairman on his appointment and wish him and the secretariat well. I look forward to spending a few years coming before the committee to deal with issues which will arise from time to time. I welcome the Front Bench spokespersons for the Opposition parties.
I am pleased to bring before the committee for consideration a Supplementary Estimate for the Defence Vote in the net sum £12.9 million. Before I start, I take this opportunity to express my sympathies to the five soldiers injured at Kilworth Camp, County Cork, last night. The incident is now the subject of an investigation by a military board of inquiry. I particularly extend my sympathy to Private Laura Guerin who suffered serious injuries. I wish all five recruits a speedy recovery from their injuries. This incident again underscores the point that professional soldiering can be a hazardous career.
I take this opportunity to highlight a few instances of outstanding service in the Defence Forces and also an immediate one of immense tragedy for the Lynch family. In August, Sergeant John Lynch was killed in a helicopter crash. We extend our sympathy to the Lynch family on their tragic loss.
On 15 December 1988 in south Lebanon with United Nations Forces, Sergeant Richie O'Shea showed courage and great judgment in challenging hostile armed personnel and, with firmness and control, moved them from a location which posed a threat to the lives of other UN troops. Sergeant O'Shea serves with the 3rd Battalion in the Curragh.
On 20 February 1992, Sergeant Gerry Lanigan with the United Nations Forces in Lebanon gave medical assistance to a seriously wounded colleague while caught in the open under crossfire. He carried out this action without any regard for his own safety. Sergeant Lanigan is from Dublin and is now a company sergeant in St. Bricin's Hospital.
On 29 September 1992, Private Paul Coventry went to the aid of a fellow soldier who was wounded to render assistance. He did this without any regard for his own safety, without hesitation and without being told to do so. He was under fire while carrying out this action. Private Conventry is with the 29th Battalion in Monaghan and comes from Ballymun.
On 28 September 1994, Corporal Aidan O'Halloran demonstrated great bravery when he jumped into the sea to rescue a colleague who had fallen overboard in darkness en route from Cobh to Haulbowline. Again, he carried out this action without any regard for his own safety. Corporal O'Halloran is from Cobh.
There are many such examples I could give to show the bravery of our soldiers and the debt of gratitude we owe to these men and women who risk their lives many times for us and in the interests of peace abroad.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Defence Forces both at home and abroad. At this time of the year it is fitting that we should remember the men and women of our forces, some 750 in all, who serve overseas in the cause of peace. We should also be mindful of the sacrifices which the families of these personnel make. I pay particular tribute to Private Gary Moloney who was seriously injured earlier this year in a landmine explosion while serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. As anyone who saw him on television last Saturday night will agree, Private Moloney has shown tremendous fortitude in coming to terms with his injuries. I wish him every success in the future.
The Supplementary Estimate for my Department is mainly accounted for by excess expenditure on hearing loss compensation claims. This matter is causing me the gravest concern and I know it is one which is attracting an ever increasing amount of public attention. I find myself in the position of asking the taxpayer to pay a bill, part of which at least I am convinced is both wrong and immoral. It is the result of a cancer which is eating into the heart of Irish society, that of the compensation culture. It has been around for a long time but this current hearing loss issue in the Defence Forces has brought it sharply into focus and has demonstrated its effect for causing total chaos in Government finances with a consequent effect on society at large. A greedy minority of solicitors is encouraging soldiers, through advertising and other means, to make claims against the State for hearing loss.
These claims would receive no compensation in any other jurisdiction in the civilised world. Regrettably I have heard of soldiers being pressurised to claim against an organisation to which they have given long and loyal service. What they do not realise is that the cumulative effect of these claims is now threatening the organisation, the Defence Forces, which they have served so well.
These claims are also having a profound effect on the relationship between the Defence Forces and the public. Hitherto, this has been an excellent relationship, with dedicated and loyal service given by the Defence Forces to the community and esteem and appreciation being returned to them by the public, which is richly deserved. However, if the present pattern of claims continues, there is no doubt but that this relationship will be soured and it will take many generations before it can be restored.
No other country, including those great powers who have been at war a number of times in this century, have faced hearing claims on this scale. If the avalanche of claims continues within the next two years expenditure will reach nearly £1 billion. The appalling effect this would have on other services is frightening. Other Departments as well as mine will have to make a contribution to this expenditure. This will, in turn, entail the curtailment of essential services, not least my own ambitious plans for revitalising the Defence Forces.
There are many genuine, truthful claimants. Nobody who has a genuine hearing problem should have their claim sneered at or denigrated. All claims are entitled to consideration on their individual merits. I have already undertaken to be the guarantor of the rights of legitimate claimants. However, I must appeal to those who in their hearts know that they do not have any real problem to refrain from jumping on the bandwagon. The State can and will take care of those with a real handicap, but only if the system is not overloaded to breaking point with questionable claims.
I assure the committee that the issue of Army hearing loss litigation is receiving top priority in my Department and that every effort is being made to limit the exposure of the taxpayer to the threatened inordinate expenditure. At the same time I am mindful of my responsibility to deal fairly with those who may have suffered a significant handicap as a result of their military service. To those who are in this position I can promise that they will be dealt with in a fair and equitable manner and have nothing to fear. Others who have sought to exploit the uncertainty of the position in relation to hearing loss as against hearing handicap and who have been encouraged in this regard by lawyers seeking to cash in on a newly opened area of personal injury can expect to be firmly resisted. My resolve in this matter is further strengthened when I think of the use to which this threatened expenditure could be put in areas such as education, health, the disadvantaged and the economic infrastructure.
I recommend that Deputies take an interest in the technicalities of this matter and become fully conversant with the issues involved. They are not difficult to understand and my Department will provide any assistance required. Anybody who has come to a realisation of the difference between a hearing loss and a hearing handicap will realise that the stance being taken by the State is reasonable. The Government is prepared to accept its responsibility to compensate any individual who has suffered a significant hearing handicap when measured by an objective assessment system. However, the present pattern cannot continue. It is grossly unfair to the taxpayers to expect them to compensate personnel who may have suffered a hearing loss but whose handicap is so insignificant that in other jurisdictions it would receive no award.
There has recently been a spate of media interest in this topic, which I welcome. I am glad to see that the issues are being put fairly before the public and that the issue of hearing handicap as distinct from hearing loss is being clarified. My Department's overall strategy for dealing with these cases has been to run selected cases in court to make the point that minor hearing impairment does not necessarily translate into a hearing handicap. This policy has had a measure of success in so far as the average quantum of damages has reduced considerably. The average for the current term is just over £20,000 a case. This is still a very large sum of money. When multiplied by the 9,500 cases awaiting hearing in court it produces a figure of hundreds of millions of pounds. The possibility of having to pay such a level of compensation to the potential 150,000 claimants is unthinkable.
It has been suggested that the State should cut its losses in this area and concede liability. Both this and the previous Government declined to concede liability on the basis that to do so would, of itself, induce a much greater number of claims. In a situation where we are disputing the existence of significant handicap in the majority of these cases it would be folly to run up the white flag and signal that compensation was there for the taking.
In addition, the State does not accept that it has behaved in a negligent manner towards its personnel. The dangers to hearing from the noise of gunfire were clearly stated. Hearing protection of the type used by other armies throughout the world at the time was provided on a large scale. However, the courts are retrospectively imposing a modern standard of care on events that happened 20 and 30 years ago. Records were not kept of the use of hearing protection on a day-to-day basis because it was never anticipated that they would be of any use. Who could have foreseen that the Irish courts would require evidence in writing that hearing protection was not just available to personnel but that they were actually ordered to use it and a record kept of such orders? All this is being done today, but is it reasonable that this standard is applied to the events of decades ago?
There is, in the evidence presented to the courts in cases to date, a divergence of medical evidence as to what properly constitutes the range of conversational frequencies for the purpose of assessing hearing handicap. In recognition of this difficulty the Department of Health has convened a group of hearing experts who are eminent in their field and has tasked them with developing a system of assessing hearing handicap suitable for Irish conditions. The object is to produce a hearing handicap assessment system which will command the acceptance of the vast majority of the Irish medical professionals in this area.
I and my Department are at a complete remove from this process. No instructions have been given to the expert group to favour a particular pre-existing system. It is completely independent. It my intention to bring this system, when available, to the attention of the courts in evidence with the objective of demonstrating that many of the claimants have no hearing handicap and that the vast majority do not have any significant handicap.
I shall now deal briefly with the other main areas where approval for additional expenditure over and above the original Estimate is sought. Under subhead G - Defensive Equipment - there is an expected excess of £2.4 million. In that regard, the opportunity arose during the year to acquire 12 refurbished 105 millimetre artillery weapons on favourable terms. These weapons will replace the "25 pounder" guns which are outdated and which are being traded in as part of the contract for the 105 mm. weapons. The contract provides for a down payment this year, the balance to be paid next year when the weapons are delivered. The second factor which has contributed to additional expenditure under this subhead is that a down payment on a contract to supply new turrets and fire direction systems for armoured vehicles is about £1 million higher than originally provided for.
The excess under subhead J - Ships and Naval Stores - is due mainly to the fact that the down payment of £3.5 million on the acquisition of the new fishery protection vessel will be higher than expected. The contract for the new vessel is due to be signed next week and delivery is scheduled for August 1999. The EU will provide funding in the range of between 50 per cent and 65 per cent of the capital cost of the vessel.
There is an additional expenditure of £650,000 under subhead K - General Stores - in respect of a down payment on the purchase of a further quantity of tactical VHF radios. This will complete a major programme for the purchase of modern radio equipment for the Defence Forces. The additional expenditure of £450,000 under subhead M - Office Machinery and other Office Supplies - is mainly required for IT equipment for the Defence Forces. The additional expenditure under subhead I - Mechanical Transport - is required to fund the purchase of additional vehicles, including new vehicles for the unit employed with the stabilisation force in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The need for this Supplementary Estimate arises because expenditure on loss of hearing claims in the current year is running at a substantially higher level than provided for in the original Defence Estimate. The amount provided in subhead AA of the Estimate in respect of compensation claims generally was £16 million of which £11 million was expected to be expended on loss of hearing claims and the balance of £5 million on other claims in respect of personal injuries or damage.
Expenditure on compensation from 1 January this year up to the end of November was about £30 million of which £24 million was in respect of loss of hearing claims. At this stage it is estimated that by the end of the year total expenditure on compensation could amount to £38 million of which up to £32 million is expected to be in respect of loss of hearing claims. This will give an excess of £22 million on the original provision in subhead AA.
As members of the committee will be aware from the documentation provided to them, savings and excesses are expected to arise in a number of other subheads while appropriations-in-aid will be greater than originally estimated. The net effect of these savings and excesses is to reduce the additional amount required to £12.9 million.
I commend the Supplementary Estimate to the committee.
I thank the Minister for his honest appraisal of a serious situation in which the public is interested.
I thank the Minister and his staff for presenting this Supplementary Estimate. I join with him in expressing my sympathy to those injured in the accident at Kilworth and I wish them a speedy recovery. The Defence Forces have a good safety record and I hope the inquiry will tell us what happened so that it will not be repeated. I wish the Minister a good trip to the Lebanon. I am sure he will bring the committee's greetings to those serving there. We pay tribute to the work of the Defence Forces nationally and internationally.
It is not surprising that the main part of the Minister's statement focused on the deafness claims because they have huge financial implications for the Department of Defence and the Exchequer. We have moved from an Estimate of £16 million, added £22 million, bringing the total to £38 million for this year and, potentially, £85 million next year and that figure could be an underestimate. It is difficult to know what will be the final cost of the claims. They will have implications not only for the Department of Defence but also for other Departments and public and private sector employers.
This is the third example of claims against the State in recent years. We had the equality arrears, hepatitis C and the deafness claims. There are differences but there are key questions common to all three - how does one balance the rights of genuine claimants to genuine compensation and protect the taxpayer and the public finances in a reasonable and fair way? There is no question that when it comes to Army deafness there is a case to be answered by some claimants. Since the Minister has lost 98 per cent of cases in the courts it is extraordinary to hear him say that, if a certain test was used, most cases would not be seen as genuine. This raises serious questions. Compensation of £15,000 to £40,000 is being awarded in the courts and the potential is there for this to continue. While I wish to encourage the Minister to bring forward the report of the expert group as quickly as possible, is there any guarantee that an Irish test agreed by Irish experts will be any more acceptable in the courts than an American test?
Presenting an Irish test in court is a route down which the Minister has to go. It seems extraordinary that we are the only country facing claims of this magnitude and the only country where the kind of the evidence being presented by the Minister's experts, which would be acceptable in other countries, is not acceptable in the courts. This raises such serious questions that it is time to take it beyond the Department of Defence. It is time to establish a Cabinet subcommittee to look at the issue of liability, how it is handled internationally and to bring forward definitive statements on public liability and how we are going to handle this situation in the future.
Even with an Irish hearing test being accepted by the courts, we are talking about a huge potential liability. I would be interested in the Minister's views and where he sees this going. Perhaps he would refer to the £85 million Estimate for next year and the number of cases he is expecting. It is difficult to be definitive but he should look at it.
The Law Society has stated that there is a lot of potential for savings in the legal costs. The Minister's secretary gave the Public Accounts Committee a breakdown of the costs per case - £5,500 for a solicitor, £2,500 for a barrister, £2,000 for witnesses and a departmental cost of £6,000. This is a total of £16,000 before a penny is awarded to any claimant. The legal costs are very high. There is a routine to the cases at this stage, even though each one is different. Can an accommodation be reached between the Department and the Law Society to lower the legal costs?
The Minister is losing most of the cases in court. Of the 1,000 cases settled, are there any that we can analyse and say similar cases could be settled because it does not make sense to continue to increase legal costs by defending this type of case? Are there cases which can be identified in which people are having a go by trying to influence the outcome of the tests? If the Minister feels this can be done, then he should contest those cases very strongly.
The Minister is trying to protect the taxpayer. However, having analysed the 1,000 cases settled, is there a case for a more discriminatory approach in future cases. I would wish to support genuine claimants who are suffering significant hearing disability. There is a lot of evidence about deafness as a disability. This debate has tended to get heated and it has been interesting to observe the media's reaction. On the one hand, it has led to discussion about the compensation culture and how the courts deal with it. On the other hand, it raises the State's liability and an individual's right to a fair hearing. We have to get the balance right.
There are other issues involving the Defence Forces which are worthy of discussion by this committee. There is a range of personnel, staff and pay issues which are outstanding. There is a subhead on personnel. There are also outstanding issues in relation to the PCW and I would like to know what progress has been made on this and whether we are likely to reach agreement on pay negotiations before the end of the year.
There are issues in relation to Border patrol allowances. Has the dispute with the nurses been resolved? There was an attempt to introduce an Air Corps gratuity some weeks ago. Could the Minister update us on that matter? There was concern that this gratuity would not work because of its selective nature. It was felt that it would cause dissatisfaction in the Air Corps and be bad for morale because juniors would receive more than seniors simply because they were flying at the time.
Another area relating to personnel is the question of VER. Has it been decided what focus that will have this year? It is very clear there is a mismatch between the tasks to be done and where personnel are placed in the Defence Forces. This is having an effect on morale. I notice the Minister disagreed with the RACCO personnel when they made their presentation on morale some weeks ago, but it is important to be realistic about morale in the Defence Forces. The great changes currently under way have led to a lack of morale in some cases. Greater involvement by all personnel in the changes under way would make a difference.
There is a need for greater consultation. The Minister might discuss with the appropriate people how Defence Forces personnel might be more involved in the changes being introduced. The restructuring of brigades was due in January but I understand that has been put back until the spring. There is an opportunity to address some of the issues RACCO identified. I do not think they are just pulling them out of the hat; they have carried out a survey and there are issues which need to be addressed. It would be to the benefit of the Defence Forces if the Minister addressed them in a realistic way and put in place new initiatives to tackle the problems RACCO have identified.
The Minister has promised a White Paper on defence within a year. Is there any funding for that in the Estimates? How does the Minister intend to progress with that? What is the timetable? Is it still a year?
I would also like to know the numbers of recruits planned for this year. It is clear the Defence Forces need continuous recruitment. There has been a gap in the approach of successive Governments to the Defence Forces. Because there has not been continuous recruitment it has been bad for morale. This has led to poor planning and the way to tackle this is ongoing recruitment.
I would like to know if the finances and personnel are available to start the east coast rescue service. Personnel in the Army bands are very concerned. There is a commitment to keep the bands at their present levels, but they are short of personnel and they say that as a result they cannot provide the services they would like.
I notice in the Estimates that there is a delay in the building programme because of a shortage of engineers as many of them took early retirement. What are the plans to deal with that? There is an extra £1.5 million expenditure being requested for the naval vessel. It seems that was known about two weeks ago as it does not appear in the Estimates. What is the cost of the ship and why did the down payment increase at this point? Reading the Estimate I am not clear what happened. It is not in the 1997 forecast; is the £16 million estimate for 1998 accurate?
I join with the Minister and my colleagues in paying tribute to the Defence Forces. As a former member, I know what 24 hour duty in Army barracks away from your family at Christmas time is like, particularly those troops who are also out of the country.
I pay this tribute because at the moment the Defence Forces have taken a battering, and that is not good for them or for the country. We should put this issue into perspective. I am glad to have the opportunity to direct some of these points to the Minister. I have tried this with all the Ministers of Defence since I joined the House and some of them must have been suffering loss of hearing too, as they were not listening. When I said it would cost £1 million everyone thought I was loony. They would not listen when I told them proper ear protection was not being provided.
Contrary to what has been said by the Department it is incorrect to say that proper ear protection was provided to the Defence Forces. Indeed five years after the first claims were submitted there still was no protection provided; or perhaps it was provided and retained in the Quartermaster's store. It certainly was not on the firing ranges during the 29 years I served. I probably fired more rounds of ammunition than any man over a period of years from every weapon - rifles, pistols, submachine guns, antitank weapons and mortars. I know what I am talking about. I know ear protection was not provided on firing ranges. The secretary at the meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts last week, who is himself a former member of the Defence Forces, told me in reply that his unit had protection. It must have been a very special unit. Maybe one of the Cork units is better equipped than some of the units in which I served.
I served with the PDF on the Border and on shooting ranges and I fired automatic weapons with members of the Permanent Defence Forces and they had no ear protection either. This committee would be doing a good day's work if they took a trip down to the military range in Gormanstown during a pistol shoot and listened to the noise that not only the men firing but also the officials conducting the shoots have to take. Then they might see the problem at first hand. There are many people talking about this subject who do not know what they are talking about because they have never had the experience of being on an Army firing range in the Glen of Imall when mortars were being fired. They have never been to shooting competitions and annual range practice when automatic weapons were being fired.
I heard figures being thrown out at the meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts of 200 rounds per year. I, with many colleagues, would fire more than that every week and all we had in our ears were pieces of 4 x 2. For the benefit of those who do not know what 4 x 2 is, it is used for cleaning out the barrel of your rifle. That was the level of ear protection that was provided.
I say publicly that what has happened is gross negligence on the part of the State. We pay tribute to the Defence Forces and then, because we are responsible for not giving them proper protection for their health, we blame them, the solicitors and the barristers for instigating claims on their behalf. Well, I do not. They are as entitled to do that as anybody who walks along a footpath in Drogheda, who falls into a pothole and injures themselves is entitled to claim against the local authority. Millions of pounds have been spent by local authorities compensating people who were injured because the local authority was negligent or did not have the money to repair the pothole. Women had to be compensated for hepatitis C infection, and rightly so, because of negligence. When women claimed equality payments and had to be paid £260 million they were entitled to that money by law.
If a member of the public is injured in their employment by falling down a stairs as a result of neglect or by falling off scaffolding on a building site because the scaffolding is not properly erected, that person can claim compensation. A member of the Defence Forces is just as entitled to make a claim if their health is injured because of negligence on the part of the State.
The Minister is not arguing with the Deputy about that.
I am not saying he is but many public statements by other people are defamatory and insulting to members of the Defence Forces. This is the first opportunity I got——
The Minister has said he is sympathetic to genuine grievances.
I, too, am talking about genuine claims. They will cost a great deal of money. I am not suggesting that anybody should be paid for injuries that did not occur. I am referring to genuine cases which have been medically assessed and which prove the existence of a defect directly caused by gunfire.
The Minister appears to be coming around to my view, which I expressed years ago, that there should be a different system of calculating deafness caused by injury. The court should not be bogged down by these matters for lengthy periods causing costly litigation. I suggested such a change prior to the appointment of the last two Ministers but nothing was done. I am glad this Minister is considering a system which will at least regulate this issue so it will not get out of control. The Committee of Public Accounts got bogged down on this subject during its meeting last week and forgot to deal with many other matters.
Subhead V relates to Cathal Brugha Barracks. The main dining area in the barracks was burned down in a serious fire. What plans are there to replace that complex under the building programme? A sum of £5.5 million is returned under that heading. Troops are living in caravans in the military camp in Castleblayney because of lack of accommodation, yet there is £5.5 million to spare. Badly needed work must be carried out on many other barracks throughout the country. If there are insufficient engineers in the Defence Forces, why not contract the work to civilian engineers?
Will the Minister consider revising the officers' uniform allowances which are substantially less that the cost of the uniforms? That has always been the case. Every time the allowance is increased the cost of the uniform increases. I do not know if the tailors are licensed or approved by the Department, but replacement of uniforms costs a substantial amount for both regular Army and FCA officers.
I also wish to refer to the Border. One problem has caused disquiet for a long time. Troops on the Border - I was one of them - serve with members of the Garda Síochána on roadblocks and on security duties. The gardaí are paid overtime but the allowance for troops serving on the Border is grossly inadequate. The manner in which the troops are provided with meals is also not on a par with the service provided for the gardaí.
Subhead F refers to civilian vacancies. There is still substantial unemployment and I cannot understand why civilian vacancies cannot be filled in Army barracks. In some cases vacancies exist for between six and 12 months without being filled. How can this happen? Why can these vacancies not be processed through FÁS rather than going through the departmental machinery which, I believe, is the main reason it takes so long to fill them?
With regard to subhead K, the sincgar radios are due to replace the old radio sets. However, some of the troops have told me the old sets are still operational and in good condition and there is a substantial number of them. Is it proposed to sell them, as happened to the Lee Enfield rifles? I welcome the replacement of the "25 pounders" with 105 mm artillery weapons under subhead G. The "25 pounders" are antiques which should be in museums. Indeed, subversive organisations in this country and elsewhere have better equipment than those "25 pounders". It appears we are buying second hand artillery weapons. Is that the case? Are they reconditioned artillery weapons and from where are we buying them? We should not have second hand weapons.
I wish to refer to the hearing loss issue again. Ear defenders are currently being distributed from the quartermaster's stores and, when the troops are finished firing, they are returned to the stores. That practice will lead to another problem. It is not recommended that ear defenders be used by different people. If anybody has an ear infection it will spread throughout the troops and a future Minister will be faced with the same problem as is currently posed by the deafness issue. Each soldier should be issued with his or her own set of ear defenders which should be retained in their kit for their personal use and replacement.
Finally, some FCA units were medically examined for deafness as early as last May but nothing has happened. There has been no decision about the outcome of the examination and no instructions from the Department in relation to it. What is the position in that regard?
I am sorry to be long winded but this subject is close to my heart.
There are many genuine claims.
There was an error of judgment by the State, the Department, the chain of command and the management of event courses in relation to ear protection.
I do not blame the Minister. I blame the chain of command and the management of the Defence Forces. The State must now pay the cost. Most of the legislation over the past few decades covers everyone other than State companies or bodies. In my business we use ear protection. In any business you must protect your employees and ensure you comply with health and safety regulations. Ear protection was kept in stores for a long time before it was used by the Defence Forces. Anyone with a genuine claim for hearing loss or damage is entitled to sue the State. Within private industry there is a process to sue an individual employer or company and the same method is open to State employees.
Is the Minister setting up a tribunal to deal with the number of claims and, therefore, freeing up the courts to deal with other cases? I hope he is able to produce a formula which will be acceptable to the vast number of claimants provided they fulfil certain criteria and will be able to settle those claims without having the extra cost of legal fees replicated every day in the courthouse. Recently I met a senior counsel who dealt with ten compensation cases on the same day and this is at an enormous cost to the State.
Will the Minister look at the morale of the naval forces? One reason for low morale is that naval personnel are being left at sea for too long due to a shortage of staff. As a result of this huge numbers of naval personnel want to transfer to the Army. I ask the Minister to look at this problem. He should look at the chain of command and the way the Navy report to the Army. In my view the Navy is the poor relation as regards chain of command. I urge the Minister to look at the possibility of the Navy reporting directly to the Secretary in the Department rather than the military chain of command.
I join with the Minister and Deputy Fitzgerald in sympathising with the five soldiers who were injured in Kilworth camp, County Cork. As Deputy Bell said earlier we are paying tribute to the Army and its soldiers because it is on our behalf they take up these dangerous duties and it is right for us to sympathise with them and their families at this time.
We are right to focus on the claims of hearing losses and the monumental scale of these losses. As the Minister stated, the average cost is £20,000 per case with a potential 150,000 claimants and, therefore, a potential claim of £3 billion. It is great to have Deputy Bell as a Member of this committee because of his experience and knowledge of army life and I agree with him that all genuine claims should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. However, people claim against local authorities when they slip and trip and they would take it upon themselves to make a claim against the State when the accident was serious enough to warrant it. I am no expert but there are levels of hearing loss and the whole situation is being stoked up by ambulance chasing solicitors. We should ask the Law Society, which is a self-regulatory body, if it is right for solicitors to advertise in newspapers using phrases such as: "Army deafness, get on the ball quick. Visit us for free consultation".
There is the question of the effect on hearing of walkmans and disco music. The medical profession can sort out any wrong claims in this regard. New Army recruits now receive hearing tests and I wonder if their hearing problems are more acute than some of the claimants. I do not want to detract from genuine claims made on the basis of up to 800 rounds of ammunition per week being fired without any ear protection, as stated by Deputy Bell. Undoubtedly this gives rise to genuine medical conditions which need to be looked after but there is the question of whether it is legitimate for the State to pay damages of up to £3 billion for people with a certain level of hearing. If the money is used in this way there will be less available for those who are marginalised and excluded.
I am delighted to see a down payment has been paid for a new fishing vessel which is badly needed to protect our waters from French and Spanish fishermen. Spanish fishermen, in particular, have adopted a scandalous attitude to all other fishermen. I hope the new vessel will solve the problem.
I notice the receipts on UN service have gone up. We should pay tribute to the soldiers and Army personnel who serve abroad under the United Nations. Like the supporters of the Irish soccer team, they are a great source of pride to us through their service in the Lebanon and throughout the world. Long may that continue.
I join with the Minister and other Deputies in sending our best wishes and sympathy to those injured yesterday. We should also remember those mentioned by the Minister who have made heroic efforts and have been injured both here and abroad. This makes it more important that claims for damage to hearing be resolved as quickly as possible. We do not want a backlash against the Defence Forces with taxpayers attaching a stigma to them. The Army does not deserve that.
I support Deputy Fitzgerald that there should be some way of streamlining the litigation and assessments so that the extraordinary expenses and high acceptance of claims by the courts could be avoided. Will the assessments being made by the consultants in the Department of Health and Children be acceptable? If so, we could then ensure that genuine claimants are dealt with quickly and sympathetically. The Minister said compensation may be paid in early 1998. The sooner this is done the better for those who need the compensation. Older members in particular will need it for their retirement.
Will the projected cost impinge on the Defence budget? Will other areas suffer financially? As Deputy Fitzgerald and Deputy Bell said, this is a matter of concern for all of us. The Minister will have to make a special case for the Defence budget to the Cabinet.
In a previous political existence I was Opposition spokesperson on the Marine. One of the areas which was focused on by both sides of the House was the huge demand on our naval protection vessels to patrol an extraordinarily high proportion of the seas of the European Union. In the light of EU concentration on the environment and the protection of fisheries, can we make a case for substantial funding for protection vessels? A generous 65 per cent of the funding is being provided. As we are aware, the naval service is the poor relation but it will have a greater responsibility in the future. The EU should recognise the special needs of the Irish naval service.
Is the Minister and the Department satisfied we are providing enough funding to the Air Corps? Funding should not only be provided for training but also for refurbishment. The Air Corps will play a greater role because of international demands. There should be some projection in this year's and next year's budget. This committee may be able to help by lobbying for support.
I join with my colleagues in wishing Private Laura Guerin and her four colleagues a speedy recovery. When someone joins the Army, he or she recognises it is a dangerous profession. However, we need an Army for security and it is unfortunate that accidents like this happen.
There are people making genuine claims. However, the reality is - we discussed this in detail at the Committee on Public Accounts - that the Irish Army has done nothing significantly different from any other army in the world in terms of protection offered to soldiers when they were using guns. However, we are the only country being subjected to huge claims for deafness. It is a shame that genuine claims are being swallowed up. This is why there is so much criticism from the public. We cannot afford to pay between £1 billion and £3 billion in compensation. It would add £35 to the rate of every county council and we know the outcry this would cause.
The main aspect of the information which has been made available to us on the assessment of claims is how the handicap is assessed in the courts. When the Committee on Public Accounts asked what level of gunfire a soldier would be exposed to in a year, we were informed the figure was approximately two hours of gunfire per soldier. The noise level is in the region of 150 decibels and if someone is only exposed to this once it could cause the damage we are discussing. However, we must also bear in mind that a typical teenager at a disco or rock concert is subjected to a comparable level of noise for two to three hours, possibly twice every week, for all their teenage years. I am probably suffering the same level of hearing loss as many Army personnel now making claims against the State.
It is a question of what is acceptable. While my hearing is not 100 per cent perfect, it is adequate for the rest of my lifetime. I do not want to take away from the number of people who have suffered genuine and serious hearing loss. We must distinguish the serious cases from those making claims because they see the success of other claimants in the courts. We cannot afford to pay them all so something has to be done.
How much money is spent on air ambulance services? What are the plans to expand those services? I know a service is provided by the Air Corps. The Army also offers a facility to banks where it provides security for the transportation of money. Is the Army paid for this service and if so, how much? If not, why not and what can we do about it?
I thank the Minister for attending this committee. While we are sympathetic to those genuinely claiming compensation for hearing problems, we are concerned that there are people who are suffering normal hearing deterioration who are making claims. The hearing of anyone who has attended a disco, concert or used a walkman, as many of us have done, has been affected. We should look realistically at what affects our hearing. Everyone would be very concerned if public finances were thrown into chaos because of massive claims. We would all be concerned if people dependent on social welfare were affected through lack of funding as a result of compensation claims. The committee is anxious that only genuine claims are addressed and any false claims are fought. Anything less would have consequences for our public finances.
I am glad contributions have been so responsible and supportive and show a great interest and knowledge of what is happening with the Defence Forces generally. I will try to deal comprehensively with all the questions that indicated a great interest in a wide range of issues affecting the Defence Forces. I would prefer to deal with the Estimate and the development of facilities to meet the needs of the Defence Forces rather than concentrate on this issue. Nonetheless, despite the growth in expenditure in terms of dealing with these cases, we have not lost a penny. The Department of Defence has fought the cases hard and I am grateful for the comments of members regarding my officials. That tedious work must go on and so far we have been able to keep the high ground in all those developmental areas.
The recruitment figure for 1998 is 500 - there will be a tranche in March and April. I have given a commitment to increase recruitment numbers during 1998 if sufficient numbers opt for voluntary early retirement combined with natural retirements. Young people will be recruited into the Army on an ongoing basis because it is a job for young people. We have got over the hump of the traditional stop-go system of recruitment which created bottlenecks in promotion and so on.
We have succeeded in getting substantial sums of money for refurbishment and further equipment. I want to ensure that accommodation and facilities are up-to-date. Those who have visited McKee Barracks, Haulbowline or other barracks will be aware that the extra expenditure in the past few years has had a telling effect. It is also good for the morale of the Defence Forces. When I became Minister for Defence I decided to urgently tackle this problem. While we have been able to command the high ground, I must face the reality, as must other Ministers, that should the compensation bill continue to rise neither I nor any other Minister can give the commitments I have given because those funds would have to be provided. They would, of necessity, affect expenditure in several different areas. That is why we must ensure there is a system in place which will achieve a number of these results.
First, we must make sure that genuine claims will be met speedily, effectively and comprehensively. One per cent of the legal profession are involved in these cases and four firms have between a quarter and half the cases. I want to ensure that the legal fees are reduced. Yesterday a meeting took place between officials of my Department and the Incorporated Law Society. It was a successful meeting, though many aspects remain to be sorted out. There is goodwill, the same goodwill witnessed here today from members of the different parties who recognise that the element of legal costs, which form approximately 40 per cent of the total costs up to now, is not sustainable. The vast majority of the legal profession do a very good job. However, when a tiny minority advertise and tout for business in the way they have been doing and attract people into this compensation culture, I must act on behalf of the taxpayer and the claimants. As early as possible in 1998 I hope to have measures in place which will set about tackling this issue in a fair and honest way to the benefit of the taxpayer and the genuine claimant.
I am immensely proud of our Army and the fact that I am in charge of the Department of Defence. I have met many people, both from the administrative side and the military side, who greatly impress me. I would not want to preside over a Department of Defence which, because of measures that were not taken or interventions that were not made, either by politicians, the military, the legal profession or the Government, would lead to a position where the heroic sacrifice and dominant position of the Defence Forces in the United Nations is undermined.
The Defence Forces have held the position of Commander of the United Nations Forces on five occasions and they are celebrating 40 years involvement in different parts of the world. People learnt languages, experienced different cultures, stood on landmines, helped humanitarian regimes and made us as Irish people immensely proud. I will do everything possible to ensure that record is not blemished. That is why I want this issue tackled comprehensively, fairly and openly in order to find a solution which uphold the integrity of the Defence Forces, save the taxpayer money and allow me carry out an ambitious programme of development. There is a unity of purpose among members of this committee to work together to achieve this goal.
In reply to Deputy Bell who served over 30 years in the Defence Forces, I have not depended on scientific, written or legal evidence or on what has taken place in the courts. I met members of all ranks and asked them where they served, how difficult it was and if they had hearing difficulties. It is true we did not meet all the standards we could have met. I played hurling in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and there was no such thing as wearing a helmet. Many of us did things in our youth which we would not ask the younger generation to do. We did not see it as a disadvantage because that was what was done at the time.
I met many people in the military and the Defence Forces and asked them how they had suffered. People's physiology may be different and they may react differently to noise and experience a different loss or handicap arising from it. As a general rule and without the evidence given in court and elsewhere, I am in a position to say that there is a huge number who have genuine problems and who will be dealt with fairly. There is a significant number with perhaps a less than significant handicap but one which would merit some award. There is also a significant number who, in no other jurisdiction to my knowledge, have a handicap which would require the settlement or awards of the nature which have been granted so far.
I will try to deal with some of the many questions asked during the debate. I have no way of knowing whether the courts will accept the new assessment which experts in the Department of Health and Children are working on and which we expect will be available early in the new year. There has been considerable public debate on this issue. The courts are an independent arm of State. Having rejected up to now international assessment systems that were acceptable in many other jurisdictions, if we have an Irish system which is accredited and which, I hope, stands up, I have no way of influencing the courts beyond saying that it is the best I can do. If I fail the first time, I will come back with something else. I hope that will not be the case, but I cannot be certain. On the question of whether £85 million will be sufficient in 1998, based on our estimate we are likely to finalise approximately 4,000 cases. The average payment per case is £20,000 so Deputies may do their own mathematics on that. I cannot give a definite amount.
The cost of the new ship will be in excess of £20 million and the contract will be signed on 16 December. Deputies will understand that during the negotiations for the building and acquisition of a ship it is not possible to judge in advance what a satisfactory down payment would be because one would not disclose one's hand in advance. Much consultancy work was done on what type of ship we would acquire and what company we would deal with. The consultants made a unanimous decision on a particular company. We negotiated the down payment. It is no different from any other business. It exceeds the amount provided for. I would always advise Ministers to provide less in the Estimates than they might give in ultimate negotiating terms and not show their hand in advance. That could be the difference between the difficult lives Fianna Fáil Ministers tend to have and the more aristocratic experience of Fine Gael.
On the east coast search and rescue service, we are preparing to move to the south east coast by mid-1998. Deputies will be familiar with what is happening in the aviation industry generally. Pilots are being attracted away from us at a phenomenal rate and that is the reason the incentive scheme was introduced. Because of that, the Air Corps will not be able to serve the east coast. That will be done by a private company under the auspices of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources. We are waiting to see how the incentive scheme will work. As Deputies will know following parliamentary questions and so on, we tried to see if we could go a little further to meet the concerns expressed by those who no longer fly but could do so in an emergency or exceptional circumstances. We have been able to extend the scheme. It is now in the remit of RACCO, which has given fairly good indications on what may happen.
A long serving Deputy was concerned about the dining complex at Cathal Brugha barracks and dining facilities elsewhere in the Defence Forces and in the Dáil. I would like him to be well looked after and we expect to be going to tender for the facility at Cathal Brugha barracks early in 1998. I am not up to speed on the uniform problem other than to say I am conscious of modernising. With all the developments which have taken place in terms of taste, presentation and expertise, it is an area in which we have many winners and expertise. I will discuss the matter with RACCO and PDFORRA to see what else I can do. Up to now nobody has raised this question with me so I will attend to it as quickly as I can. The new radios are called Eingar radios and the old ones will be kept in reserve.
I have dealt with recruits and the bands. The decision has been taken to retain four bands. We will maintain personnel levels to the best of our ability. As in other areas, we had a voluntary early retirement scheme and people opted to accept early retirement. I am quite interested in music and need to listen to it now and again, particularly when I am under pressure after Question Time. I want to ensure I can listen to the Army number one band and the other bands who participate in many concerts. We will look seriously at how we can maintain the staff levels required, but I have no control over those who opt for voluntary retirement. As a person who does not have a particular qualification in this area, I know it takes time to produce experts, especially in relation to some of the more complicated instruments so that causes problems. I have met most of those concerned and will meet others. There is no need to fear for their future.
I will be happy to convey the good wishes of the committee to our troops in South Lebanon. It is a great honour to have the opportunity to visit them, particularly with President MaryMcAleese who has shown such an interest in the Defence Forces. I do not think the troops are looking forward to meeting me, but they are looking forward to meeting the President. We are leaving tomorrow morning.
Regarding allowances, I will meet PDFORRA later this evening. I am not sure whether we will discuss in detail the aspects of the conciliation and arbitration scheme, but a significant meeting will be held tomorrow. Regarding the issue of pay, we have set a timescale for a number of meetings, the aim of which is to emerge from the borehole by March. A number of issues have to be resolved.
There were some delays in finalising contracts for the building projects because of shortages, as alluded to.
The voluntary early retirement scheme created some problems. Perhaps our security and tax clearance procedures, which we must get rid of, are too cumbersome. We have established a working group to sort out this problem. However, I have been a Cabinet Minister in four different Departments and I have never returned a penny at the end of a year. Similarly, regardless of whose neck I have to break, I will not be returning a penny this year.
Three hundred and fifty members will take up the voluntary early retirement scheme in 1998. The scheme will have to be targeted. The voluntary scheme has run for two years and it has shown weaknesses and created problems that must be resolved. We must seriously examine the issue of convergence in the ranks as a key part of developing our thinking on the voluntary early retirement scheme in order that it can be introduced as speedily as possible in the new year.
The issue of payment by the banks is a hobby horse of mine. I do not believe we are receiving enough for the service we provide. At present payments amount to approximately £2.25 million. Considering the profitability of banks over recent years, it is high time to renegotiate the deal. While not affecting our decision to renegotiate and push for higher payments, it should be noted that fees charged to banks are deposited in the appropriation aid account and are not necessarily received directly by the Department. However, every penny provided for the Exchequer is available in one way or another for the provision of services.
Since this is likely to be an ongoing problem with different tangents from time to time and given the wishes of the Dáil to try to reach the best possible solution, my officials will be available for briefings or to discuss other aspects of this dominant issue. This will ensure Members are familiar with decisions, which will be taken in an open and accountable manner, and will allow us put our heads together to reach a solution. I do not wish to have future discussions of Estimates or Supplementary Estimates, should I still be the Minister, dominated by non-developmental matters. Such issues are crucial at present and must be dealt with, but we need to focus attention on the White Paper. An important part of our work is to make judgments about future needs, in a complicated world, in terms of our responsibilities for humanitarian and UN activities, accommodation and the various other issues arising in supporting the civil authority and the issues of manpower, personnel, promotion and morale.
Deputies, if polled, would say morale is low. A poll among civil servants, at a time when a Minister is looking for too much, too often and too quickly, might show morale to be low. This is not peculiar to any group in society experiencing the pressures of change - and there is substantial change taking place in the Defence Forces.
The same may be said of committee Members.
I do not wish to overlook such things. A long period elapsed before significant change took place in the Defence Forces which are now faced with some of the most major changes experienced in 30 years. It is logical that those changes create problems in efforts to adapt to them. However, we keep an eye on the end goal and what we are going to achieve, namely, a more effective and mobile force that is fitter and has better accommodation, equipment, communications and IT. It will also develop our support for the UN. The general picture is one of improvement, ensuring the low morale evident on my coming into office is replaced and that we have a force which is fit and well.
I thank the Minister and his staff for the comprehensive responses. How much more is the naval ship going to cost? Regarding the east coast, will Air Corps pilots be in a position to service part of it? Does the Minister wish Air Corps pilots to provide that service? Will he seek to work towards this? It would be very good for the morale of the Air Corps if they saw a future in developing these services and being part of them over the coming years. If the scheme the Minister has put in place in the Air Corps is satisfactory, then the personnel necessary to provide this service may be available. Am I correct in saying that the Air Corps do not provide such a service on the west coast?
That is correct.
It could be an important part of the work which Air Corps pilots could deliver and would like to be part of. I ask the Minister to address this issue.
The Minister spoke about morale which varies in different professions, including politics, from time to time. In terms of the massive changes under way in the Defence Forces and the evident shortages, it would be worthwhile for the committee to examine new initiatives similar to those in business, although there are differences between the Army and business, in the context of helping people cope with change. It would also help ensure the changes worked effectively and that we have the type of Defence Forces the Minister outlined.
The Minister said the Department would save £5.5 million on the building programmes. Does he have an inventory of the land bank of the Defence Forces which could be made available to the committee, the uses to which it is put and the number of personnel? Since an inventory would include sensitive information perhaps it could be made available for discussion on a confidential basis. However, given the issues surrounding land use at present, particularly in urban areas, it would be helpful if the Minister could provide this information to the committee.
I am glad the Minister hopes to bring forward a revised scheme in the new year, something to which I look forward. I called for such a scheme many years ago before it became a problem. Somebody mentioned 200 rounds per year. A sergeant instructor in my presence fired on a platoon of men with energa anti-tank grenades in one afternoon. That man, my brother-in-law, was deaf on coming from the sand pit from which he was firing and now, 25 years later, he is still stone deaf. My brother-in-law was ordered into the sand pit by his father. Those are some of my personal experiences.
Will the Minister reply to my question in relation to the replacement of the 25 pound artillery units with the 105 units? Were these reconditioned and from where were they purchased? Are there any plans to replace the Cessna aircraft in the Air Corps wing? I flew some of those planes 20 years ago and I imagine they are approaching the end of their line life at this stage.
The figure for the ship is slightly more than £20 million. I would love to be able to provide Air Corps for the full search and rescue service. That is an ambition but whether it is capable of being realised depends on many factors. I do see it as a very important role for the Air Corps and it is one which I would help to develop as much as I could. Other forces are at work here in terms of private competition which results in pilots being attracted out of the Air Corps. We can only provide services for which we have personnel with the proper capacity and training. These things cannot be done in half measures.
I am very interested in the land and property portfolio of the Department of Defence and have already sought the preparation of a portfolio in this regard. As it is a fairly comprehensive portfolio, it may take some time to assemble but I will make it available. It is important to discuss this issue as decisions may have to be taken about valuable pieces of property. We must do that in a sensitive and careful way over time.
Deputy Bell asked about the Air Corps. Significant funding is being provided for the infrastructure, the hangar and the engineering facility, the foundations for which were laid recently. We are not sparing any expense on that side of things. In relation to new flying equipment, the two CASA aircraft represent a major investment in recent years and ongoing investment is made where the need arises. That brings us back to a question we dealt with earlier. If we were discussing all of the funds available to us in the context of overall development, then we would be looking at improving some of the services and aircraft more quickly. There is a considerable number of different types of aircraft available to the Air Corps and the Government, including G4 services.
Artillery is being refurbished and renewed. My information is that, on a technical basis, refurbishment is highly satisfactory. In terms of equipment generally, we will seek to obtain the best equipment we can as we can afford it. The issue of reconditioning was looked at very carefully. Some of the newspapers carried articles on it. A judgment was made on the recommendation of the military that this could be done very successfully.
I thank the Minister and his officials for providing a very useful brief to the committee. As no Bills have, as yet, been referred to the Select Committee the committee has completed its duties for the present and stands adjourned sine die. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Select Committee adjourned at 5.45 p.m.