Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Nov 1998

Vol. 496 No. 4

Written Answers. - Hearing Impairment Claims.

Liz McManus

Ceist:

59 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Defence if he will give the number of claims settled to date and the total amount paid in compensation in regard to army deafness claims; the number of claims outstanding; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22849/98]

Michael Ring

Ceist:

62 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Defence the cost to date of the deafness compensation claims submitted by members of the Defence Forces; the legal and administrative cost in this regard; and the awards made. [17891/98]

Michael Ring

Ceist:

87 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Defence the cost to date of the deafness compensation claims submitted by members of the Defence Forces; the legal costs and the administrative cost in this regard; and the awards made. [22809/98]

John Perry

Ceist:

100 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Defence the implications of the recent Supreme Court decision for deafness compensation claims; and the total cost to the State in this regard. [22741/98]

Jim O'Keeffe

Ceist:

105 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Defence the position in relation to Army deafness claims; the number of these claims to date; the estimated cost for dealing with them; and the changes in legislation or procedures, if any, which he proposes for dealing with claims. [22767/98]

Frances Fitzgerald

Ceist:

144 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence the implications of the recent Supreme Court decision for deafness compensation claims; and the cost to the State in this regard. [22762/98]

Frances Fitzgerald

Ceist:

149 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence the cost to date of the deafness compensation claims submitted by members of the Defence Forces; the legal costs and the administrative cost in this regard; and the awards made. [17889/98]

Bernard J. Durkan

Ceist:

160 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the number of Army deafness claims settled; the number pending; the final number likely to claim; if he will have the necessary financial provision incorporated in the forthcoming budget; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23150/98]

Ivor Callely

Ceist:

184 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Defence the cost of loss of hearing claims from members and ex-members of the Defence Forces; if the number of claims being made is perceived to be high; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23219/98]

Minister for Defence (Mr. M. Smith)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 59, 62, 87, 100, 105, 144, 149, 160 and 184 together.

By 30 October, a total number of 13,639 claims for army hearing loss compensation had been received in my Department. Of this number, court awards following hearing have been made in 124 cases while a further 106 cases were successfully defended or withdrawn. Out of court settlements have been reached in a total of 1,745 cases. 11,664 claims are therefore still outstanding. New claims are still currently arriving at an average rate of 50 per week, with a total of 2,749 received to date in 1998. About 30 per cent of claims received to date have been from serving members of the Defence Forces.

The amounts paid out to date are: £2.4 million in respect of 124 court awards; £41.5 million in respect of 1,745 out of court settlements; and, £12.25 million in respect of 1,401 claims where legal costs have been paid to date. The total cost to date is close to £56 million. Administrative costs are currently estimated at approximately £750,000 per year for staff and overheads in the Department of Defence; £850,000 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 Solicitors Office. A total estimate for administrative costs is, therefore, £2,395,000 per year. A provision of £70 million will be provided in 1999.

Cost projections for the likely eventual cost of Army hearing loss litigation have fluctuated up and down over the past number of years, particularly as various "milestones" have been reached. Given the current and potential scale of the problem, allied to the complex legal and medical variables, it is impossible to give an accurate computation of the future cost. What is clear however, regardless of how the problem is approached, is that the State is facing a cost burden of huge magnitude.

In light of the award made in the Hanley test case last July, my Department has estimated that the cost for loss of hearing on over 11,500 claims which are currently outstanding is of the order of £550 million. If legal costs and damages for matters such as loss of earnings are included, the potential bill is of the order of one billion pounds. The effect of this cost on the public finances will be damaging beyond reasonable acceptance. Such damage is not acceptable to the Government and nor do I believe is it acceptable to the taxpayer.

With regard to the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Smith v Minister for Defence, I was clearly pleased that the court upheld the State's appeal and referred the matter back to the High Court. First, I understand that the court stated that the case in question was heard in the High Court before the passing of the Civil Liability (Assessment of Hearing Injury) Act, 1998. Deputies will recall that this was the legislation which required that judicial notice should be taken of the Green Book method of hearing disability assessment. The court stated that before its introduction there was no measurement system which the courts could regard as fair, just and reasonable between both parties. Second, the court stated that just because a person has been in the Army and has been exposed to gunfire noise without ear protection does not mean that a person is automatically entitled to damages.

While this judgment will not resolve the Army hearing loss issue, I am nonetheless interpreting it as being favourable to the Government's position on this issue. In this regard, Deputies will be aware that the Government is committed to ensuring that appropriate compensation is paid in deserving cases. However, I do not believe that the taxpayer would wish to see the Government preside over the payment of large amounts to persons who have little or no perceptible disability. I would hope in this regard that the Supreme Court judgment would be particularly noted by persons who think there is a handy compensation bonus due to them just because they served with the Defence Forces. There are no changes in legislation being brought by my Department at this time. The procedures for dealing with claims are under ongoing review, particularly in response to jurisprudence laid down by the courts.