In the controversy about the deafness claims by soldiers, one point bears repetition. Gunfire is an integral part of army life. Every person who joins the Defence Forces knows they can expect to hear the sound of gunfire; all of them will expect to be trained in the use of firearms as a matter of routine. A soldier without a gun and without the expertise required to handle it, is of little use to an army which must at all times stand in readiness for hostilities.
This is not to suggest that every one of the compensation claims is baseless nor that the authorities - military and political - are immune from criticism. Mistakes were made. No safety procedures were in place on Army firing ranges prior to 1987. No serious effort was, apparently, made to ensure that soldiers wore ear protection equipment. Other mistakes were made once the compensation claims began to arrive in the Department of Defence. It seems clear they were not, initially at least, accorded the priority they deserved. The authorities appear to have responded in a haphazard manner to each claim. There appears to have been little in the way of a co-ordinated legal strategy to contest the claims. There appears to have been little effort to determine an agreed method of interpreting the level of hearing loss. Medical experts have presented conflicting evidence about the extent of actual hearing disability.
The State is now paying heavily for this catalogue of errors. Over 10,000 claims for alleged hearing loss have been lodged. Claims are coming in at the rate of about 100 per week. The legal bill alone is running at £50 million - and rising. With an average award of about £24,000, the total cost to the State could be anything from £400 million to almost £2 billion if claims from 50,000 serving or retired regular soldiers and up to 100,000 FCA personnel also surface.
But the taxpayer is not the only casualty. The traditionally high level of respect accorded to the Defence Forces by the people of this State has been damaged. Most fair-minded persons would probably concede that some of the claims are bona fide. But in their hearts, most people - even the soldiers themselves - will know many of the claimants are motivated solely by the prospects of making a cash bonus, courtesy of the public purse. The truth is that only a very small minority of claims would be entertained if the standard procedure used to assess hearing disability in Britain or the United States was employed. As it is, claimants are being compensated for levels of hearing loss that would not be considered a disability in most other Western states, nor indeed by the Department of Social Welfare's agreed method of assessing hearing disability.
The Government has now begun a rearguard action to stem the tidal wave of claims. The Department of Health is preparing a hearing handicap assessment system. The hope is that the new criteria will be accepted by the courts and help to reduce the rush of claims. Such an outcome would best serve the interests of the taxpayers and, not least, the long-term interests of the Defence Forces themselves.