Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 May 2001

Vol. 535 No. 1

Written Answers - Hearing Impairment Claims.

John Browne

Question:

177 Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) asked the Minister for Defence if, with reference to an Adjournment debate of 5 April 2001, he will indicate the reason the person, who was fined £18 approximately by the Civil Power, was discharged from the Army due to this offence, while an Army colleague who was also fined £18 approximately in the same court for the same offence went on to serve for a further 20 years. [11326/01]

John Browne

Question:

178 Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) asked the Minister for Defence if he will cite the regulation that says a person must be discharged from the Army if convicted by the Civil Power. [11327/01]

John Browne

Question:

179 Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) asked the Minister for Defence the number of former Army personnel who have been awarded compensation for deafness to date; the number of those compensated who left the Army more than 30 years ago and 20 years ago; the number of those compensated who served less than five years; and the number of those who received awards having been discharged from the Army. [11328/01]

John Browne

Question:

180 Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) asked the Minister for Defence if, in relation to his reply to the Adjournment debate on 5 April 2001, he will outline the reason for his reference to the persons discharge from the Army 35 years ago given that the matter under discussion was a deafness claim; and the accuracy of his statement in this regard. [11329/01]

Minister for Defence (Mr. M. Smith)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 177 to 180, inclusive, together.

The Deputy has raised the matter which is the subject of these questions previously by way of a parliamentary question on 3 April 2001 and on the Adjournment Debate on 5 April 2001. I welcome the opportunity to provide the Deputy with the further information which he is seeking, and to provide him with clarification of my previous replies.

By 31 March 2001, 5,389 litigants who had been former members of the Defence Forces when they initiated their legal claim against my Department had been awarded compensation in respect of loss of hearing. The number of those who had left the Defence Forces more than 30 years ago is 537, while 2,402 had left the Defence Forces more than 20 years ago. Some 1,024 members of the Defence Forces who served less than five years have received compensation. As stated above, the number of claims settled in respect of discharged – that is, former – members of the Defence Forces is 5,389.

When the Deputy raised this matter on the Adjournment, he had indicated that he had been dissatisfied with the reply he had received to his earlier parliamentary question on the matter. Notwithstanding the fact that this matter is before the courts, and that I am therefore limited in the extent to which I can discuss the case, my replies on this matter on both previous occasions have been as full and complete as were appropriate in the circumstances. When dealing with the matter on the Adjournment I provided as much additional information regarding the background to the claim in question as I was in a position to so provide. This included the information regarding the circumstances of the individual's discharge from the Army – a matter which is routinely investigated as part of the defence of the legal claim.

The person to whom the Deputy is referring was discharged from the Army on 7 April 1966 having completed a nine year engagement. His discharge papers record the reason for discharge "as a result of conviction by the Civil Power". The particulars of the offence which led to the conviction are further recorded on the person's conduct sheet, and accordingly I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the details of the conviction as recorded. Neither do I have any reason to doubt the accuracy of the date of discharge 35 years ago. I do not have any details available in respect of the individual whom the Deputy states was similarly convicted but who continued to serve for a further 20 years. Paragraphs 58(f2>m) and 58(f2>o) of Defence Force Regulations A.10 deal with the question of the discharge of military personnel as a result of conviction by the Civil Power. I am arranging to have a copy of the regulations forwarded to the Deputy.

The claim from the person in question has been dealt expediently by the State at all times. The reasons for the delay in concluding the claim, as outlined during the Adjournment Debate, are outside the control of my Department. Indeed, I suggested in my reply on the debate that the person could participate in the early settlement scheme by instructing his solicitor in this regard. In all of the circumstances, I believe that it is reasonable to view my suggestion to enter negotiations under the scheme as optimistic progress for the person concerned in relation to the matter which the Deputy has raised.