Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 5 Apr 2001

Vol. 534 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Hearing Impairment Claims.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I thank the Minister for attending to reply to this matter. I hope he will not give the usual answer provided in advance on these occasions. I have a reply which stated that the person did not attend on 28 February 2000. That is correct. He was not notified but that may not be the fault of the Department. However he has attended the following places: Waterford, Rathmines, Clonmel, Rosslare and Bunclody, all for the purpose of hearing tests. He has attended Waterford court but the case was not called. That may be understandable. He again attended Waterford court but it was going on holidays. He was transferred to Dublin for a meeting in January which did not take place. The last appointment in March for Waterford was cancelled because of the foot and mouth disease.

This individual spent about ten years in the Army and was subjected to noise from rifles, Gustav machine guns, Bren guns and he served in the Congo with 84 mm tank guns. He has given ten good years of his life to the Army. Two other Army personnel who did not serve one third of that time did not have to go to court but have received phone calls informing them of the amount of money allocated to them. Yet this individual who seems to have undergone enough hearing tests for the whole Army is still waiting to go to court. Why can two individuals who served in the Army for a third of the time he served be informed of their allocation of money through a call from a solicitor? He has been to Waterford court three times and he should have been in a court in Dublin. If the court hearing was cancelled because of a lack of medical evidence on behalf of the State, I do not know where the fault lies. I think he has undergone enough hearing tests that somebody should listen to him. He has served in a situation where most Army personnel have not served for the same length of time in the same firing range. I ask that he be treated with reasonable justice in view of the fact that he knows two others who have not been subjected to the same torture and have not served a third of the time he has served. I ask that he be treated fairly, quickly and justly.

Minister for Defence (Mr. M. Smith)

On 4 June 1996 an initiating letter was received from James Harte and Son, Solicitors, 39 Parliament Street, Kilkenny, on behalf of the individual concerned. On 21 June 1996 the Department wrote to the solicitor asking for personal details, Army number, date of birth, etc., in order to identify the claimant. The solicitor replied on 17 July 1996. The Army records section reported that the individual concerned who had served in the 9th Infantry Battalion was discharged 35 years ago "as a result of conviction by the Civil Power", after nine years service in the Permanent Defence Force. There is no record in my Department of the claim having been pursued at that time.

On 21 February 2000 a statement of claim dated 28 January 1998 was received in my Department through the Offices of the Chief State Solicitor from a different solicitor, Messrs, Peter G. Crean and Company, Solicitors, 24 Court Street, Enniscorthy, on behalf of the individual concerned. Medical reports subsequently received in my Department in July 2000 indicate that the individual concerned had attended an ENT specialist and an audiologist in 1997 as arranged by his own solicitor. Subsequent developments are as stated in my reply to the parliamentary question. The case was set down for Waterford High Court, the choice of the individual concerned. The Chief State Solicitor's Office made arrangements for the individual concerned to attend an audiologist and ENT specialists on behalf of the State on 28 February 2000. He did not attend either appointment.

The notice for trial was served on 27 May 1999. Initially the case was listed for the High Court sittings in Waterford, 11 and 12 July 2000, but was adjourned because of the lack of medical evidence on behalf of the State due to his non-attendance for earlier medical examination. The individual concerned attended rescheduled appointments with an audiologist and ENT specialist on behalf of the State on 2 October 2000.

The matter was listed for the sittings of Waterford High Court due to commence for two weeks on 5 March 2001. The sittings were cancelled due to the foot and mouth disease precautions. There was no delay on behalf of my Department at any stage of the proceedings to date. As the matter is still before the courts it would not be proper for me to enter into discussion on any further details but if the individual concerned wishes to participate in the early settlement scheme he should instruct his solicitor to contact the Chief State Solicitor.