It was in the second half of 1997 that the "Army deafness" issue exploded on to the national media. Certainly it had been bubbling away under the surface for several years, with small but increasing numbers of cases being brought since 1991. The number of cases in 1997 arose from well-publicised large settlements in and outside our courts and from aggressive touting by a minority of solicitors.

At the heart of the matter was a simple fact: firing of high-velocity weapons can damage hearing. This had been known in the Defence Forces since the 1950s, but the military authorities placed an emphasis on the use of cotton wool and, latterly, ear plugs rather than well-policed supervision. This changed in 1987. Since then strict procedures have been enforced, and the best ear protection that technology can produce is now provided. This, of course, parallels a growing health and safety culture in our society since the mid-1980s.

Certainly some of those who were firing weapons without ear protection before the mid-1980s have genuinely damaged hearing, but not all of those claiming awards are damaged.

The problem arose from the fact that there was no agreed method of measurement which differentiated between hearing impairment and hearing disability.

From his appointment in 1997, the Minister for Defence, Mr Smith, has been very active in tackling this problem. He called on solicitors to reduce fees. He pushed for an agreed measurement and said he believed the problem was best dealt with outside the courts.

Subsequently, he met the Law Society, fees stabilised and "ambulance-chasing" advertisements disappeared. However, the problem has not been taken out of the courts. This is because of problems with the agreed measurement and the size of current awards.

Medical experts, who had been unable to agree on a standard, finally came up with one in early 1998. Very liberal in comparison with other countries, it nevertheless constituted an agreed measurement for this State. It became colloquially known as the Green Book.

The first case using the new standard came quickly before the court. The settlement, though some would say generous, was substantially down on previous awards. The legal profession, unhappy with the new measurement, commissioned another standard, subsequently called the Blue Book.

The Blue Book was much more generous, and soon we had a Green-Book-versus-Blue-Book case, and so it drags on, with appeals and continuing confusion.

The judges have no agreed scale of measurement. The awards, therefore, vary widely, and controversy and criticism continue. Obviously it is distressing for the judiciary, as evidenced by private talks held recently between three High Court judges and the Minister for Justice, during which they expressed their concern at public and media comment on the size of the awards.

Because of the uncertainty the Department of Defence has not been able to move towards taking the problem out of the courts since no logical cost per disability has emerged.

Now we have the appalling vista of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) claims. The first such case was heard last week, and a former Army private was awarded £218,900. The case is to be appealed. The secretary-general of the Department of Defence, Mr David O'Callaghan, has said this should create "another minor industry". He is correct.

PTSD was discovered in the 1980s. Essentially, it is a reaction to the trauma of being witness to, or being involved in, a traumatic stress situation. This self-defence mechanism will try to block out the incident from the minds of the victims. In certain serious cases this may, in turn, lead to involuntary flashbacks of the traumatic event, or even exaggerated recollection of it. In a small minority of cases the condition can be extreme and debilitating.

It is common in jobs which put employees in potential traumatic situations such as firemen, paramedics, nurses, doctors and military personnel. It can also occur in the case of "ordinary people" who witness, say, a car crash or traumatic accident at work.

Treatment varies depending on the stress level. Prior knowledge is a starting point. Group discussion among those involved suffices in most cases. Guided discussion is a more advanced therapy.

Of course, the problem is that like degrees of hearing impairment degrees of PTSD are impossible to judge in a court of law. Again, the presiding judge must listen to contrary medical opinion and then make a decision. The prospect of a "new industry" is, therefore, a very real one.

A soldier, from the first day he or she joins the Defence Forces, is aware that he/she must learn to shoot. Soldiers are also aware that they may witness traumatic events. It is part of the job. It goes with the territory.

Certainly it is the duty of superiors to brief soldiers on the dangers inherent in their chosen career and to ensure that the risks are minimised.

The courts are not, however, an efficient or inexpensive way of dealing with the problem. It is patently unfair to ask judges who have no military background or training to rule on such matters as degree of supervision, personal culpability of litigants, exact degree of impairment disability or stress disorder when there is no agreed standard of measurement.

Our Defence Forces are not unique in the world. Other forces have the same problem. We are unique in that we force soldiers to pursue claims through the courts. It is common practice, for instance, in the UK for pension boards to deal with deafness and other medical claims by adding a percentage to the soldier's pension, based on an agreed formula.

This has several advantages. It incurs no legal costs; the matter is disposed of with quiet dignity; the amounts paid are substantially lower than those granted by courts; the cost is spread over a long period rather than paying a lump sum; the attendant bad publicity and its impact on the morale of the forces are minimised.

It is time to get this whole area out of the courts. It is hoped the Minister will introduce out-of-court procedures based on the pensions board, which already exists, or some other such body.

The Irish fascination for litigation, tribunals and such is a very expensive pastime for everyone. In the meantime the Defence Forces are vulnerable to those who would like to see this State virtually demilitarised. This has been very evident over the past two days with the leaking of the Department of Finance's memo on the Defence White Paper.

A White Paper on Defence is currently being drafted in the Department of Defence. It is the first attempt at putting in place a cogent defence policy. As such it is to be welcomed. Parties with an interest in the White Paper include the Defence Forces, the representative associations, various interested Departments of State, such as Foreign Affairs, Justice, Marine and, of course, the Department of Finance.

The idea of the White Paper is to state a defence policy which is co-ordinated across a wide spectrum of interests and then propose a Defence Forces organisation, equipment and training programme to implement such a policy.

What the Department of Finance's input has done is to put the cart before the horse. Without waiting to see what policy is to be implemented, the gnomes of Merrion Street have shown their hand by suggesting an emasculated Defence Forces with an army one-third the size of the reorganisation currently being implemented, and an amalgamated Air Corps and Naval Service organised as a coastguard (obviously such a suggestion is being driven by cost-cutting rather than being part of a logical process).

If taken seriously such a suggestion will:

Undermine our commitments to our European partners post-Amsterdam for a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).

Drastically reduce Ireland's peacekeeping capability and undermine a worldwide reputation gained over the past 40 years.

Severely restrict our aid-to-the-civil-power capabilities at a time when the Garda and Defence Forces must ensure a stable, secure situation in which the peace process can develop and grow.

It is an opportunistic intervention by the Department of Finance based on a perceived Defence Forces vulnerability brought about by various court cases and claims for deafness and other occupation-related impairments and disabilities.

Lieut Gen (ret) Gerry McMahon is a former chief-of-staff of the Defence Forces