Jack Wall
Ceist:19 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Defence the number of claims for deafness compensation lodged on a weekly basis for each of the years from 1995 to date. [27021/98]
Priority Questions. - Hearing Impairment Claims.
Frances Fitzgerald
Ceist:20 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence the number of cases in the Defence Forces' deafness compensation claims settled both in and out of court for each of the years from 1995 to date; and the cost for each category in each year. [26989/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 19 and 20 together.
The information is set out in the following tabular statement.
|
Number of Claims Lodged |
Average per week |
Number of out of court settlements |
Cost |
Number of court awards/dismissals |
Cost |
|
|
1995 |
1,488 |
29 |
34 |
£1,025,951 |
1 |
£45,000 |
|
1996 |
2,400 |
46 |
132 |
£4,131,650 |
4 |
£67,000 |
|
1997 |
6,286 |
121 |
1,155 |
£27,666,318 |
47 |
£625,730 |
|
1998 (to 7 Dec.) |
2,835 |
55 |
555 |
£10,461,597 |
109 |
£1,459,172 |
The number of claims lodged amounted to 1,488 in 1995, 2,400 in 1996, 6,286 in 1997 and 2,835 in 1998 to 7 December. The number of out of court settlements was 34 in 1995, 132 in 1996, 1,155 in 1997 and 555 in 1998.
I put this question down to get an idea of the progression of case numbers since this started in 1995, as well as the number of cases settled out of court. Is there a levelling off in applications or does the Department see this continuing? Have compensation claims come from the Air Corps, the Navy and the FCA? Have there been further applications from other sections of the Defence Forces?
There has been a significant downturn in the number of cases coming forward. It has scaled down from 121 per week last year to 55 per week this year, and it is now at approximately 40 per week. This is very encouraging but we still cannot say for certain what are the causes or, alternatively, when they will end and it continues to be an extremely worrying factor. The cases across the different strata in the Defence Forces predominantly involve retired members from the Defence Forces and the next group involves those still serving, with smaller numbers from the reserve Defence Forces, the Naval Service and the Air Corps. There is a substantial difference in the percentages between the groups mentioned by the Deputy and the first two which I outlined.
I tabled this question because it is important to look at whether the number of cases involved is declining — the Minister has indicated that the number is down to 40 per week. It is still a significant number but there is a decrease. There was a question relating to the number of cases to be settled out of court. For example, the Minister settled 1,000 cases out of court one year.
The Deputy must ask a supplementary question.
Given the large number of cases settled out of court in recent years, is it time to begin discussions between RACO, PDFORRA and the Department of Defence in order to set out an alternative way of dealing with this problem and set up a tribunal? Clearly, the Department has amounts in mind with which it is happy to settle each case and will compensate for the percentage loss. The Minister is operating with such a formula given that so many cases have been settled. Is the Minister considering the establishment of a tribunal to settle cases out of court, which would lead to a reduction in legal and administrative costs and fairness for both the taxpayer and individual claimants?
I appreciate very much that there has been a united approach in this House to tackle this issue. Deputies Fitzgerald and Wall have asked on a number of occasions whether these cases can be solved in an out of court environment. That is my priority but I am handicapped because the Hanly case raised the ante and projection for settling all the cases was substantially increased as a result of that setback. To establish a tribunal or out of court environment for settlement of the cases, without appealing that case first, would not work because I would be confined to a level of quantum decided by that case, which has been adhered to primarily by the courts since then in out of case settlements and is still at a level too high for those cases involving minor disabilities.
However, it is a priority of mine to establish an out of court environment to reduce the legal costs. I have taken a number of steps in recent times in terms of a private scheme following negotiations with the plaintiffs' solicitors to reduce costs. I have also instructed in regard to the Michaelmas term that the question of negligence will not be fought in the majority of cases. I am handcuffed by the Johnson-Hanly case which set the bar at a level which, if it were to be adhered to across the board, would cost up to £1 billion, between the number of cases already on hand, those that are anticipated, compensation for loss of earnings or hearing and legal and administrative costs. That is not sustainable as far as the taxpayer is concerned nor is it fair. I want to move in that direction but I am handicapped.
What was the highest amount paid in an out of court settlement?
I will obviously get that detail for the Deputy but he can take it for granted that all settlements out of court relate very much to what is anticipated would happen in court and the regular decisions by the courts in such cases. The amount tends in general to be a little below that, but not by much, unfortunately.
Is there a contradiction between the Minister saying on the one hand he cannot establish a tribunal while at the same time the Department is settling out of court?
I remind the Deputy that these are statistical questions.
I am not asking for the detail of individual cases. However it seems contradictory that on the one hand the Department has settled a large number of cases out of court with varying costs and, yet, the Minister says that he cannot move to set up a tribunal? At the end of the day each case will be dealt with individually and there will be variations. The Defence Forces are continuously saying that it is very hard to deal with morale problems as long as this issue is dominating the headlines. When the Minister attended the recent RACO conference, the issue again dominated the headlines. Is it in the interest of the Defence Forces to move this issue to a tribunal where settlements could be reached which are already being reached by the Minister out of court anyway?
The greatest damage that could be done to the morale of the Defence Forces would be for me to allow the situation to accelerate to a point where the level of compensation required from the taxpayer to settle the problem would be approximately £1 billion. Therefore, it is crucially necessary to work the appeals system as best I can to try to get the quantum of award for minor disability down to realistic levels. In terms of the morale of the Defence Forces, these claims are pursued by members serving or retired. I have said many times that they are hurting us now and will haunt us for a while. The Department has undertaken positive initiatives to try to overcome that. We cannot hide from the facts and reality that 12,000 or 13,000 claims have been made, which has not happened in any other part of the world.
It is not fair to draw a comparison between settling cases out of court and a tribunal because these cases are listed for court. They are settled on the steps of the court and sometimes after the court has gone into session. They very much relate to what the courts decided in other cases. What the Deputy and I want is similar, but there must be an affordable level of quantum, particularly for the numbers who have minor disabilities.
It should be borne in mind that in the survey carried out by my Department on the claims lodged so far this year, 54 per cent have zero disability according to the green book. To enter a commitment for a tribunal based on the level of quantum which would currently be expected by the plaintiffs' solicitors, and knowing that is the basis of the disability in a huge number of cases, would be reckless. I need to get to a stage where the courts, the plaintiffs' solicitors and the claimants recognise that the level of quantum that can be afforded for minor disabilities is well below that which is currently awarded.
If this is to drag on through the courts until all cases are dealt with, obviously the morale of the Army will be at zero. Is it within the remit of the Department or the Minister to increase the number of judges processing the cases so that we can get back to what matters most, which is the training and development of the Defence Forces and raising of morale among its members, which all parties want?
I could not agree more with the Deputy and I would give anything, even though I cannot afford much, not to have to deal constantly with a problem such as this and to concentrate on positive areas. However, we are doing well but our efforts are blighted to a certain extent by this major stumbling block. This issue will not drag through the courts for years as it would do lethal damage to the Defence Forces. I am extremely anxious to move to a situation where it can be dealt with much quicker in an out of court environment and save legal costs. However, I cannot do that given the current levels of quantum.
Frances Fitzgerald
Ceist:21 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence his views on the Chief of Staff's comments at the recent RACO conference in relation to the Defence Forces' role in aid to the civil powers with the Garda and the prison service; and the need to review these. [26990/98]
Frances Fitzgerald
Ceist:149 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence his views on the Chief of Staff's comments at the recent RACO conference regarding the Defence Forces' involvement with security duties and the need to review these with the Garda and the prison services. [26936/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 21 and 149 together.
The primary responsibility for internal security rests with the Garda Síochána. The Defence Forces, pursuant to their role of rendering aid to the civil power, assist the Garda as required. This entails assisting gardaí at roadblocks, checkpoints and searches, including in the Border area. The Defence Forces also assist the Garda in relation to prisoner escorts, cash escorts and explosives escorts.
The demands on the Defence Forces in relation to Border duty depend on the nature of the requests for assistance received from gardaí at any particular time. Currently these requests include the provision of armed parties in aid of the civil power for the purpose of protecting gardaí and the carrying out of such duties as manning vehicle checkpoints and mobile security patrols, specialist search team tasks and explosive ordnance disposal tasks. The Defence Forces continue to respond to requests from the gardaí in relation to Border security and other operations.
The comments made by the Chief of Staff at the recent RACO conference relating to the aid to the civil power role are, I believe, expressions of genuine concern regarding the need for a new training regime to update the skills of the members of the Permanent Defence Force to equip them for the range of tasks which they undertake. I am satisfied that the Defence Forces will continue to maintain ability to respond, at short notice, to any requests from the Garda for aid to the civil power. The question of the level of demand on the Defence Forces in aid of the Garda in the Border area following the British-Irish Agreement will be kept under review in my Department, in consultation with the relevant Government Departments as well as with the Garda authorities.
Is the Minister in a position to review the aid to the civil power requirements currently met by our Defence Forces? The Chief of Staff said the daily grind——
Deputies may not quote during Question Time.
——of helping gardaí and prison officers was extremely damaging to morale and should be reviewed in light of the peace process and changes in the North. Is the Minister hopeful that there could be changes to this role in the near future?
There is much sense in what the Chief of Staff said. We do not envisage circumstances in which the Defence Forces would not be required to give aid to the civil power. It would be in the interests of the Defence Forces, in the medium to long-term, to make troops available for collective training, operational and security duties, particularly in view of any extended role we may have in our UN mandates. I look forward to discussions with the relevant Departments about scaling down, having regard to the security circumstances, the British-Irish Agreement, Border controls, etc. We should bear in mind that in the escort of prisoners many things could happen for which the Defence Forces would have to be called in. They do that job well and do not complain about it even though, as the Deputy said, it is not what they have been trained to do. We also rely on them to maintain public services during strikes, and they must be trained to carry out technical operations, such as those recently required in Ballymun. It is not easy but it is important that we scale the operation down in a sensible, proportionate way over time.
Has there been any scaling down of the role of the Defence Forces in providing these back up services to gardaí and prison officers, given that there have been changes in the security position? The Chief of Staff said he would like these duties to be returned entirely to the other services. Is the Minister actively examining the position?
There has been no significant scaling down but there is room for it to take place. There have been discussions between the Chief of Staff and the Garda Commissioner about what the Garda feel they can take over and where we can disengage. It is at a preliminary stage but it is ongoing and being pursued rigorously. I have a definite interest in supporting that development and I will see to it that we achieve changes; we expect some, particularly in the Border regions.
I am pleased to hear there have been discussions but it sounds as if they are at an early stage. Is the Minister confident the gardaí and prison officers have the resources to take charge of these tasks again?
In some areas — which for obvious security reasons I will not detail to the House — the Garda authorities feel confident they can be primarily involved without aid from the Defence Forces.