The proposal by the Minister for Defence, Mr Smith, for a special tribunal to deal with hearing claims from soldiers should be welcomed. For the sake of the Defence Forces and the taxpayer, it is to be hoped it will be swiftly endorsed by Cabinet.

The scale of the Army deafness problem is now immense.

The total number of claims to date stands at 14,000, with about 2,500 already dealt with either in the courts or by out-of-court settlement. The final cost has been variously estimated at between £300 million and £2 billion.

While the upper ranges of the estimate have made eye-catching headlines, the final cost is likely to be in the lower register.

The actual cost so far is £65 million (including £14 million in legal costs) for 2,500 cases. A best estimate of the total cost therefore is £360 million or, roughly, the full Defence vote for one year. There are, of course, other costs, but these are harder to quantify.

Almost two years of drip-feeding of cases in the media has had a huge impact on the Defence Forces. It has chipped away at the public confidence so necessary for defence forces in a democracy. The Defence Forces have always enjoyed a wide public respect.

Historically, they have guaranteed our democracy: in the troublesome 1920s; in the 1930s, when they backed Eamon de Valera's democratically-elected Fianna Fail government which contained many of the National Army's Civil War enemy of 10 short years before; and in the 1940s, when the Defence Forces built up and trained to underpin our policy of neutrality in the second World War.

Since the late 1950s the Defence Forces have earned themselves a worldwide reputation in peace support operations and over the past troubled 30 years have backed the Garda in a wide range of tasks which guaranteed the State's stability.

It is much easier to knock down than to build. Snide innuendo is sometimes more attractive than cautious support. Public confidence in the Defence Forces has been shaken.

There has also been a cost to be reckoned with inside the Defence Forces. Disharmony between those claiming and those not pursuing damages is understandable. On the social side, criticism, ill-directed humour and "slagging" by civilian acquaintances have affected even the least sensitive of soldiers. The whole issue has even undermined the Defence Forces' once-renowned ability to laugh at themselves.

The impact on morale has also been very bad. Since 1995 the Defence Forces are being reorganised after the various reports by Price Waterhouse. Units have been reorganised; layers of command removed; there is a reorientation from "tail" to "teeth" units; the rising age profile has been stopped and is being turned around; there is a new emphasis on conventional training; and a major re-equipping is due.

It should be a time of high morale in the Defence Forces, yet the cancer of self-doubt and the feeling of lack of appreciation are being fuelled by this issue.

And there is the cost of vulnerability. At this time our Defence Forces are in a very vulnerable state. There has never been an appreciation of the sovereignty arguments for having Defence Forces in this country as an underpinning of these values.

We have never had to consider the fact that, just as roads, water and electricity provide a basis for the development of business, industry and trade, security is a very important element in the required infrastructure.

In these circumstances, the vulnerability of our Defence Forces will be seen as an opportunity for those who would see them reduced to a meaningless militia. An indication of such opportunism is the Department of Finance's input to the Defence White Paper, leaked to the press some weeks ago.

Given the financial cost and all the other implications, Mr Smith's initiative is opportune. The advantages include:

It could reduce the "waiting time" for dealing with cases from 17 to three years.

It will achieve a huge cut in legal costs.

It will reduce settlement costs.

It will stem the drip-feed of publicity and its impact on morale and Defence Forces vulnerability.

It will introduce some standardisation in the size of settlements.

It will allow genuine claimants to be dealt with in dignified confidentiality.

Of course, a positive Cabinet decision will only be the first step. The make-up and terms of reference of the tribunal have yet to be set. Medical and legal membership have been mentioned, but professional military membership is essential so that claims can be put in the context of military life, training and ethos.

Already the Defence Forces representative associations have made statements. RACO, the officers' association, has suggested extending the tribunal's remit to all personal injuries sustained by soldiers in their careers. This suggestion has merit and indeed was the subject of a submission to the Gleeson Commission in 1989, but was not accepted.

PDFORRA, which represents NCOS and privates, has told the Minister that basing settlements on the "Green Book" measurement will not work, and lawyers will advise their clients against leaving the court system for the tribunal. While one must not quibble with PDFORRA trying to get the best deal for its members, one would also have to remind the association of the cost to the Defence Forces of continued and protracted court cases and their drip-feed effect in the media. The tribunal will not, of course, close access to the courts.

Finally, linking settlement to pension should not be overlooked. It is the way some other defence forces worldwide deal with the problem. It has obvious advantages.

Mr Smith's action should be welcomed and the positive response from the Chief-of-Staff, Lt-Gen David Stapleton, is encouraging. But the Cabinet must ensure that the make-up and terms of reference of the tribunal are carefully framed. The outcome must be fair to the individual with a genuine claim; fair to the taxpayer and fair to the Defence Forces.

Lt-Gen Gerry McMahon is a former Chief-of-Staff of the Defence Forces