In a worst-case scenario, the costs of Army compensation claims if 150,000 cases were taken would be £4.5 billion, but a more realistic figure would be 50,000 claims at £1.5 billion, the secretary general of the Department of Finance said yesterday.
Mr Paddy Mullarkey, giving cost details to the Dail Committee of Public Accounts, rejected a suggestion that he was scaremongering. He said the committee had asked him for a potential figure and he had given it at two levels.
"The potential costs in a worst-case scenario of 150,000 cases being taken is an astronomical figure of £4.5 billion, but it would be more realistic that there will be in the region of 50,000 claims which at present would add up to £1.5 billion," Mr Mullarkey said.
Mr Jim Mitchell, committee chairman, said the figure of 150,000 came from the numbers of former and reserve personnel.
Mr David O'Callaghan, secretary general of the Department of Defence, was asked if any of the cases where awards had been made would be taken on appeal to the Supreme Court.
He said: "It is open to us, and I can see us going down that particular avenue in the near future."
On Wednesday Mr O'Callaghan had said that the Minister would seek an adjournment of all Army compensation cases before the High Court today until a report on a standard hearing assessment system was completed. The report is expected at the end of this month.
When asked yesterday if he could have foreseen the number of cases, he said: "In our wildest nightmares, we never saw this."
The flow of cases was unabated and he had read that the legal profession had put advertisements in the UK's Irish Post. Solicitors were flying over to interview complainants there.
On Department of Finance figures, Mr Mullarkey said that £80 million was this year's estimate for the cases and £90 million for 1999 and 2000. Last year more than £40 million had been spent: in 1996 it was £6 million, and in 1995 £1.5 million.
Mr Mitchell said that meant that between 1997 and 2000 £300 million had been provided for already.
Mr Mullarkey said that was based on present levels of processing through the courts and awards.
He said there had been nothing like it before. The flow of claims assumed significant proportions only in late 1995 and 1996. He considered this could be because of several "very surprising" court decisions.
An inter-departmental working group was looking at several policy options, but nothing had come out of the group so far.
Mr Mullarkey was asked about the progress of a national claims management agency. He said it had been given priority in the Attorney General's office and he hoped the Bill would be published before the end of the year.