Army officers yesterday suggested that the Minister for Defence, Mr Smith, should as a matter of urgency convene an expert group to consider the Army deafness compensation cases and recommend an alternative system for dealing with them.
Commdt Brian O'Keeffe, of the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, told the Dail Committee of Public Accounts that since the Department of Defence had failed to effect a solution in the past seven years, it was now necessary to enlist the collective support of all the main interested parties.
"The association suggests that the Minister for Defence, as a matter of urgency, convene an expert group to consider the matter and, within a defined time scale, recommend an alternative mechanism and systems for dealing with hearing claims," he said.
The group should be chaired by a member of the judiciary and include representatives of relevant Departments, military, medical, and legal professions.
Commdt O'Keeffe said the RACO was not suggesting the State was necessarily liable in every case brought relating to the period before 1987. Nor were they suggesting that any individual was negligent in carrying out his duties.
However, it appeared that those who should have informed themselves of developments in hearing protection did not do so.
Those who should have ensured that adequate protection was procured as soon as it became available on the market did not do so.
Those who should have ensured that equipment once provided was used at all times did not do so, and those who should have policed the overall system by research, from procurement to usage, did not do so.
"Some may wish to classify this as a systems failure of massive proportions. However, the association believes that the term `organisational negligence' is more appropriate," Cmdt O'Keeffe stated.
For the Army Pensions Board, Mr Robbie Lyons said that any former member following discharge could apply for an Army disability pension. Deafness was not excluded under the Pensions Act and came under the heading of an injury or wound.
The total number of applications for disability pension last year was 267; of these 103 were related to deafness.
In 1996, of 107 applications, 53 were related to deafness and in 1995, of 66, 30 were related.
"There has been somewhat of a backlog before the board at present.
"Of the 103 related to deafness for last year, none has yet been decided. In 1996 the position is likewise. In 1995, of the 30 cases 21 have been finalised, but the hearing loss would vary considerably." He said there had not been an avalanche of applicants in the same way as civil actions because serving Army personnel may not apply.
In his submission Mr John Lucey, chairman of PDFORRA, called for a judicial inquiry so that the facts could be established.
He said they had not given any advice to members about compensation claims.
PDFORRA had said that it was an individual's constitutional right to pursue any claim.
He added that a hearing test was made compulsory in 1995-1996 but he did not know what had brought that on.