I am glad to have this opportunity to address the House on this important matter. It has received considerable attention in the media in recent days and, therefore, I am grateful to Deputy Power for providing me with this opportunity to place the factual position before Deputies and into the public arena.
More than 5,200 claims alleging hearing impairment from exposure to gunfire have been initiated by ex-members and currently serving members of the Defence Forces against the Minister for Defence and the State. New cases are arriving at the rate of 100 per week.
The avalanche of claims began in 1992, when 49 claims were received, and has quadrupled each year since. In 1996 some 2,522 claims were received and to date this year there have been an additional 934 cases. The basis of most of these claims is that the individual involved was, in the course of his duty, exposed to gunfire, usually at range practices, whether small arms, rifle fire or artillery.
Since 1992 some 170 cases have been settled at a cost of approximately £6.5 million. The projected cost to the State of the 5,200 claims on hand alone is in excess of £200 million. The plaintiff's legal costs usually run to a minimum of a third of the award, increasing the expenditure to £270 million. This is before any of the State's costs are included, which could bring the total to £350 million.
The damaging effect on hearing from exposure to excessive noise has been recognised for many years. Over the years, since 1952, the Army authorities issued general routine orders, instructions and guidelines on the need to protect the hearing of personnel involved in firing weapons. Subsequent revisions were made in later years. These guidelines were incorporated into a comprehensive training circular in 1987 detailing the incidences of exposure to excessive noise, clearly warning of the danger involved. This 1987 circular which stands as a watershed in the evolution of hearing protection in the Defence Forces, also limited the number of rounds that could be fired even while wearing hearing protection. These regulations continue to be updated from time to time in the light of current best practice. Most recently, in 1993, a "Manual of range practices, Small Arms 1993" was issued which describes both the cause and effect of noise induced hearing loss and states exactly when ear plugs and/or muffs must be worn. In addition it lays down the duties of an officer or NCO in charge of firing practices, for example, ensuring that appropriate ear protection is available and worn and that the order to check hearing protection is given, repeated and heard by all personnel. This manual also lays down the maximum number of rounds that may be fired in a 24-hour period. Current procedures also include (a) tests of elementary training which must be passed annually by all personnel that include four questions on care of hearing and (b) a lecture on care of hearing to be given to all recruits before attending a range practice.
With regard to hearing loss, I am advised that it is possible to have good hearing at relatively low frequencies, with impaired hearing at higher frequencies. It is also a fact that as age increases, the ability to hear very high-pitched sounds decreases. Other factors can affect hearing. For example illness, such as ear infection, or environment and lifestyle, such as use of motorbikes or attendance at discos, can produce hearing loss particularly when exposure is over a prolonged period. Noise-induced hearing loss usually manifests itself in a loss of high-tone hearing. However, a person may be able to hear quite adequately sounds which would arise in normal conversation at medium frequencies. Some difficulty may be experienced in hearing in a crowded environment such as a public house. I am told that one in four people who have perfect hearing have similar problems.
Once an individual's hearing has been assessed it is necessary to determine whether his hearing deviates so far from the norm as to represent an actual hearing handicap. The major issue facing the State is the present high degree of compensation awarded by the courts for hearing patterns which, I am advised, in other jurisdictions would be regarded as being within the normal range and which would attract little or no compensation. Clearly, against this background I have a duty to the taxpayer to fight those cases where the level of handicap is not significant when judged against internationally accepted criteria.
It has been suggested that a compensation tribunal should be established. In the case of loss of hearing claims, liability is still an issue in each claim. It cannot be automatically assumed that a plaintiff's loss of hearing is attributable to his service in the Defence Forces or that the military authorities were negligent in each case. Ear defenders have been provided to military personnel for very many years. The plaintiff may have exposed himself to some other source of acoustic trauma, as a member of a golf club or at discos where noise levels have been excessive since the late sixties. There may be medical evidence to suggest some other cause of his hearing loss, such as a previous illness or ear infection.
Under the Army Pensions Acts, compensation by way of a disability pension or a gratuity may be granted to a former member of the Permanent Defence Force who, on retirement or discharge from the force, is found to be suffering from a disablement due to an injury attributable to military service at home or abroad. Such compensation is payable whether the injury was accidentally or maliciously inflicted. These provisions are unique to former members of the Permanent Defence Force in recognition of the fact that Army life can place soldiers at risk from time to time.
I assure Deputies and the public at large that the issue of Army hearing loss cases, and the huge financial threat they pose, is receiving priority attention in my Department. I am in frequent contact with the Attorney General on this matter and the situation in the courts is monitored on a daily basis. Every avenue to minimise the cost to the State has been explored and the strategy adopted is under constant review. I thank the Deputy opposite for having given me the opportunity to put these matters on the record.
The Dáil adjourned at 11.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 6 March 1997.
