Vol. 480 No. 8
1 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence the number of claims which have been made to date against his Department in relation to individuals' hearing loss or impairment; the number which have been settled to date; the cost to date; the number currently outstanding; the strategies, if any, he has considered in relation to the handling of these; if he has considered an alternative approach; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15195/97]
2 Mr. O'Shea asked the Minister for Defence his views on whether hearing loss compensation claims by former Irish soldiers could cost the State £500 million; the proposals, if any, he has to reduce the legal bills; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15200/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together. To date about 9,500 claims have been made against the Department of Defence by serving and former members of the Defence Forces alleging hearing impairment from unprotected exposure to gunfire. New claims continue to come in at a rate of around 100 per week. At the end of August 1997 settlements had been reached in 699 cases and court awards following hearing had been made in 25 cases. A further 23 cases were successfully defended or withdrawn. Compensation of £19.355 million and plaintiff costs of £3.108 million have been paid in respect of the 724 cases finalised to date.
The strategy by the last Government for dealing with these cases had been to identify suitable cases for determination by the courts. By "suitable" is meant those cases where the alleged hearing impairment is either not significant or is not attributable to any wrongdoing on the part of the State. Those cases in which the hearing impairment sustained is both significant and attributable to the negligence of the State are being dealt with either on the basis of an agreed settlement or, where such is not possible, by the courts in the ordinary manner. The present system whereby these actions are being processed by the courts in the normal manner is both costly to the taxpayer and is a lengthy and often difficult process for injured parties and their families. I am mindful of my responsibility as Minister for Defence to the taxpayer and to the members of the Defence Forces, past and present.
If a compensation tribunal were to be established by the Government the assessment of such cases might result in a considerable saving to the taxpayer in terms of legal and associated costs which make up a substantial proportion of the costs of the claims processed to date. A tribunal might also ensure a speedy means of resolving claims. However, the absence of an agreed method of assessing hearing handicap is a major impediment to the establishment of such a tribunal. We are talking about considerable sums of money in overall terms and if there is a method whereby the bill can be reduced then it must be examined. I have, therefore, directed that a memorandum be prepared for submission to the Government for consideration as a matter of urgency on the financial implications of these actions, with a view to deciding how best the public interest and the legitimate interest of those who are suffering from hearing impairment can be reconciled.
This will be the biggest liability case in the State's history and it is important that the Exchequer and the taxpayers are protected. However, at the same time the process should be made easier for those pursuing claims. We do not wish to subject those already damaged to further trauma but we must be scrupulous in ensuring the State is not exploited. I welcome what the Minister has said with regard to the memorandum to the Government. What are the estimated legal costs to date?
As I understand it legal costs comprise about 60 per cent of the total claim, that is, the sum of the plaintiff's costs, the defendant's costs and the amount awarded. The average settlement is about £25,000 and figures of between £37,000 and £41,000 are mentioned in the context of awards plus costs. As I indicated, the plaintiff costs to date amount to £3.108 million in respect of the 724 cases finalised. It is a tale of woe for both sides. As the Deputy points out, there is an obligation to both parties involved. We must be conscious of our obligation to the taxpayers and we have an obligation to ensure that those making claims get a fair hearing.
I am seized of the problem. I am aware of what is required and I may have a number of options to offer the Government in the memorandum being prepared. I hope to put the memorandum before the Government within the next two months. I will keep Deputies informed of developments.
Is the Minister actively considering the legal strategy? Is he satisfied that suitable tests can be devised to determine accurately the level of hearing loss? If so, will he consider a forum or tribunal to assess the outstanding claims? Has the Minister an estimate of the total costs outstanding if all the claims being pursued prove successful? A figure of £800 million has been mentioned.
Many figures have been bandied about. I will put a number of options to the Government. We will seek to establish a common average of hearing impairment with the ENT specialists, for example. There is not an average hearing loss standard in this country as exists in America and Britain. Efforts have been made in the past to solve this problem but they have not been successful. I hope to be the Minister to take a decision which, although it will not cure the pain for the taxpayers, may bring to a conclusion a situation which is somewhat out of hand in terms of the number of claims made. The Deputy will be aware that claims are arriving at a rate of about 100 a week. In the context of that average and taking account of the 10,000 claims already in, a suggested figure of £350 million would be a minimum based on our knowledge to date. However, as the Deputy indicated that could be unrealistic.
I compliment the Minister on his urgent preparation of a memorandum to deal with the problems outlined here. I understood an American test was being used to assess the hearing loss. Is the Minister not satisfied with the efficacy of that test? Is a more accurate test needed? Given that an extra 500 claimants have made applications since August 31, is there any estimate within the Department of how many claims will finally emerge?
The Deputy will appreciate that I would not have the competence to make a judgment in relation to the efficacy of the American standards. I understand, subject to correction, that the American standards suggested to our courts have not found acceptability in contested cases.
In relation to the claims, over 947 claims alleging hearing impairment from exposure to gunfire have been initiated by former and currently serving members of the Defence Forces against me, in my corporate capacity, and against the State. New cases are arriving at the rate of 100 per week. Since 1992, when 49 cases were received, the number has quadrupled each year, and 2,394 claims were received in 1996. An additional 4,701 cases have been received so far this year. The basis of most of these claims is that the individual involved was exposed, in the course of his or her duties, to gunfire, usually at ranges where smallarms, rifle fire or artillery were being used.
At the end of August 1997, settlements had been reached in 699 cases. Court awards were made following hearings in 25 cases. A further 26 cases were defended successfully or withdrawn. The compensation amounted to £19,355,770 and plaintiff's costs amounting to £3,107,970 have been paid in respect of the 724 finalised cases.
The adversarial legal system is probably not the best way to handle these cases. I have heard of particular solicitors' firms as being likely to make enormous sums of money if we follow this route. Figures in the millions of pounds have been mentioned.
Obviously there are many legitimate claimants who wish to pursue their cases, but there is concern over the possibility of false claims. Is the Minister satisfied he will be able to put a procedure in place to protect against false claims? I raise this issue while accepting that there are many legitimate claimants who have every right to pursue their claims. There is concern in the Defence Forces that their position may be undermined by some of these events.
The matter of false claims is one for the tribunal before which the claims are heard. I do not wish to comment on that any further as I have an obligation as Minister for Defence not to prejudice anyone's right to a fair hearing.
Given the Minister's comments, is he not going to propose the establishment of a "no fault" tribunal like the Hepatitis C Tribunal in his memorandum to Government?
I do not want to pre-empt or prejudice any of these matters, but that would be considered among other options. I do not want to mislead the Deputy. I would hope to bring him into my confidence as this is now a crisis. It is of national importance for the wellbeing of the economy and those who have made claims that there be a structure to this issue that allows us to see where we are going. The present problem is that the case is unfocused and I, as Minister, need to give it a proper focus. It is going to be very painful for the taxpayer, but so be it. People have a legitimate complaint and I am not the judge and jury in this matter.
