Vol. 501 No. 2
55 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Defence if he has considered establishing a tribunal to deal with deafness compensation claims; if he will establish a new way of dealing with compensation within the Defence Forces, particularly in view of recent cases for post-traumatic stress disorder; if he has satisfied himself that the present procedures are adequate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5137/99]
56 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Defence the number of serving members of the Defence Forces who have now lodged claims arising from deafness; if he will establish a tribunal to deal with these claims; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5033/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 55 and 56 together.
Last weekend I announced that I had directed my Department to produce proposals for the Government for the establishment of a scheme of compensation for Army hearing loss. The objective of the scheme will be to provide those with a genuine disability, as measured in accordance with the "Green Book" system, with an alternative to proceeding against the State in the courts. It is my intention that this scheme will ensure that persons with a grave disability should receive compensation which fairly reflects the seriousness of their injury, while those with minor disability should receive payments which reflect the lesser effect of their injuries in their everyday life. I would envisage the scheme settling the outstanding claims within three years instead of the estimated 17 years required to process them through the courts.
In recent months, many individuals contacted me expressing support for a proposal on these lines and asking me to provide an alternative mechanism to litigation in the courts for the processing of genuine compensation claims. I hope the representative associations will come on board and support a genuine attempt to resolve this issue fairly and speedily.
To date, my Department has received a total of 13,880 claims for alleged loss of hearing from current and former members of the Defence Forces. Almost 4,000 of the claims have been received from serving members of the Defence Force. This figure is approximately 35 per cent of the current strength. Of the total number of claims received, 143 have been cleared by way of court awards, 2,197 by out of court settlements and 126 have been withdrawn or dismissed which leaves a total of 11,414 outstanding. Almost £51 million has been paid in awards and settlements and £14 million has been paid on plaintiffs' legal costs.
Does the Minister believe a tribunal can be established before the results of the Hanley case, which has been appealed to the Supreme Court, are announced?
We expect the Hanley case to go before the Supreme Court in April. It is extremely unlikely that the alternative out-of-court system I am proposing will be in place at that stage.
Up to yesterday, the book of appeal in the Hanley case, which was heard on 21 July 1998, had not been lodged with the Supreme Court by the Minister's lawyers. Is that not somewhat inconsistent, given the Minister's statement that he intends to establish a tribunal to which the Hanley case is central in terms of any decisions he might make? I welcome the U-turn he has made on establishing the tribunal but the delay in lodging the appeal in this important case shows that his policy is questionable.
The Minister stated that he directed his Department to produce proposals last weekend. Is he stating that he has no detailed proposals in his possession and that he has gone public without the agreement of or without concluding negotiations with those people who will be affected by a tribunal, if one is established? Why did he do that?
Deputy Fitzgerald is aware that I have not made a U-turn. As long ago as last June I informed the House that I was interested in establishing a non-judicial system to deal with these outstanding cases.
The Hanley judgment increased dramatically the potential liability of the State. Preparations are being made for the appeal which is to be heard in April. There are no guarantees but I am proceeding along the lines outlined last year. I was asked by Members and others to provide an alternative system on which considerable work has been done. A scale of tariffs has been devised. There has been considerable consultation with the legal profession. Individual legal firms which have submitted a considerable number of cases have also been consulted.
It is extraordinary that the case which the Minister said is central has not been appealed since last June. Why did the Minister go public before agreement was reached with PDFORRA? The provision of a tribunal would ensure fairness for the taxpayer and claimants and lead to a considerable reduction in legal fees. What attempts has the Minister made to bring PDFORRA on side on this important issue?
I was delighted with the response of the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces and RACO in favour of the proposals. I am disappointed that PDFORRA has not come on board. I have, however, a much wider remit. I represent the taxpayer and the members of the Defence Forces who have not made a claim. A huge number of claimants are retired members of the Defence Forces who are represented by me, not PDFORRA. I have indicated the direction I have taken and I am seeking a response. From the positive response I have received from a number of quarters, including this House, I am on the right road.
PDFORRA is the largest representative body in the Defence Forces. As a former shop steward, I find it unusual that the Minister has been unable to obtain its view. How many meetings has he had with PDFORRA since its AGM in Ennis? Approximately 75 per cent of cases are settled out of court without an admission of liability. What is the reason for this? To remove doubt and demonstrate that claimants have a major health problem the obvious thing to do would be to proceed with cases in court. Is it the Minister's intention to discuss his proposals with the representative bodies before the tribunal is established?
The Chief of Staff and RACO which represents officers support the proposal. I would welcome the view of PDFORRA, of which the majority of claimants are not members. I am anxious to help in any way I can to reach a consensus. From the comments of its representatives it appears PDFORRA wants to extract the last penny from the taxpayer, regardless of whether injuries are serious or minor and claims genuine. Negotiations take place between the legal representatives of the State and the plaintiffs. When the amounts sought are reduced to a level that is fair and affordable we will settle outside court. We are not interested in haggling in court.
How many times has the Minister met PDFORRA since its AGM in Ennis?
I have received no request for a formal meeting with PDFORRA since its AGM in Ennis. The normal practice is for representatives of PDFORRA to meet officials of the Department. If they come unstuck, I may be requested to intervene. They are to meet today. I have had private discussions with individual members of PDFORRA. They are anxious to ensure a non-judicial system is put in place. There is no argument between me and PDFORRA. The question is how far can I go in representing the interests of the wider community. This gives rise to conflict.
Will the Minister discuss his proposals with PDFORRA before the tribunal is established?
Every request from PDFORRA will be considered. I would welcome its view on this issue, which is of concern to me, the Department, the Defence Forces and the public.
The Minister will meet the interests of the broader community if a successful tribunal is established. I am appalled at his lack of concern about his failure to reach agreement with PDFORRA. It appears he has not even tried to negotiate. Who will constitute the tribunal and will provision be made for interim or provisional payments?
Will he allow for interim or provisional payments and for the age deterioration question, which has arisen recently and was an issue in the Hanley case?
The question of future loss of hearing will be debated in the context of the Supreme Court case. I await the outcome with interest. The main thrust of the appeal is on the level of quantum. I am anxious to establish a compensation board or tribunal which reflects the interest necessary to solve this problem once and for all and I will consider its composition.
I have already indicated publicly that I am anxious to solve cases that come forward on an interim basis as best I can. There are already letters and telephone calls to my Department from people indicating their interest to try and have their cases solved in a non-judicial way. I look forward to seeing in what way an interim arrangement can do that.
