Paul Bradford (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach for allowing me to raise this matter on the commencement of Seanad Éireann today. I thank the Minister of State at the Department of Defence, Deputy Paul Kehoe, for being present to listen to my request. I do not expect a miracle solution today. I simply ask him to listen to my submission and see how we can progress this unfortunate case. I do not want to list private names on the record of the Seanad but the gentleman, whose concern is being discussed here, is seated in the Visitors Gallery. He is a former serving member of the national Army and served abroad in a peacekeeping capacity in a very admirable fashion. Alas, since 1989, which is a long time ago, he has suffered greatly as a result of the events of his discharge. To cut a long story short, my assertion to the Minister of State this morning is that the discharge of this Army Private was not conducted in an appropriate, proper and official fashion. Since that time he has suffered greatly as a result of that mishap.

The issue has been raised by numerous public representatives, myself included, down the years. The files have been examined by various Ministers, officials and the Ombudsman. I respect all of the investigations that have taken place but, unfortunately, there has been no progress in the case.

The kernel of the matter is the method of discharge of this gentlemen, which took place, I think, in March 1989. The discharge of a person from the armed forces must comply with Army regulations. In addition, the medical must be processed and proceeded with in a fashion that is provided for in the regulations. I have read the correspondence received from the Minister's predecessor in 2011. It was pointed out to me at the time that paragraph 1306 of "A" Administrative Instruction Part 12 is the relevant provision in this instance which reads: "[M]edical examination of personnel of the Permanent Defence Force should as far as possible be carried out by a Medical Officer of the Medical Corps and not by a civilian Medical Practitioner. The regulations clearly provide that situations may arise when a discharge medical is not conducted by a medical officer". A review of the files of personnel stationed at Fermoy barracks at the time shows that the gentlemen in question had the medical examination carried out by a civilian practitioner who had completed such examinations previously. What the Minister's letter did not point out, at the time, was that the medical doctor concerned had been retired for four years at the time of the medical examination. We need to reflect on the fact that the medical examination was carried out, in 1989, by a doctor who had retired in 1985.

There is an issue with the fact that all of the medical files and the medical report have "gone missing", and here I am quoting the report or inquiry by the Ombudsman into this case. The Ombudsman pointed out the following about the gentlemen who is with us today:

The claimant is correct in his assertion that an AF332A is required to be completed by the examining medical officer on completion of a pre-discharge medical. However, this document and another document, AF14, the medical examination sheet, are both missing from your file. It is clear that these documents were sent to the directorate of the Army Medical Services and is acknowledged as being received by them in July 1989. However, there is no record of how they were removed or lost. The CMF was copied on two occasions, once for the Chief State Solicitor's office, and once for Dr. Charles McCarthy in Fermoy. However checks that were made, with the recipients of these copies, have revealed that they do not have copies of the missing particulars.

All of that sounds very strange. I am not into the blame game but in many cases, not just in this case, mistakes were made. I do not want to use the phrase "cover-up" but there is an unwillingness to accept that mistakes were made and there is a hope that the problem will go away.

The person concerned was found to be perfectly fit but then was, rather surprisingly, found to be very far from fit by another State agency which was, at the time, the health board and is now, I suppose, the Department of Social Protection. He is now in receipt of a disability payment.It is difficult to accept that one Department claims a person is perfectly fit and another claims they are far from fit and that they should be in receipt of payment because of their illness.

I know that files are simply presented to the Minister of State and he is told what was said before and that it is difficult for him to say something different, but I ask him to reflect seriously on what has happened this person. His medical examination was carried out not by a defence personnel doctor or by a doctor who was in service at the time, but by a retired doctor, who is, unfortunately, deceased. As some of the correspondence acknowledged, obviously no verification or additional information can be obtained from that man. Mistakes do happen and the victim of this mistake left our armed service 26 years ago and has been suffering on a daily basis since then. He is not looking to cause consternation, difficulty, chaos, sackings, or anything else, but simply wants to have his case fully reopened, examined and hopefully brought to a just conclusion.

Yesterday in this House I was talking about the proud service of our Garda Síochána. The Minister of State at the Department of Defence knows from attending to his duties the great work being done by our soldiers at home and abroad. The least they can expect is a bit of fair play, courtesy and consideration. If a possibility occurs that a mistake has been made - mistakes occur in all walks of life and we all make mistakes - we should be willing to try to resolve those issues. It is not a question of apportioning blame or pointing fingers. I could reflect all day on being paranoid about missing files and documents posted and not received, but that is not going to solve the problem.

I ask the Minister of State to sit down with all sides involved. The gentleman is not represented by any legal person. He is pursuing this on his own bat, very thoroughly, but to no avail, after 26 years. Will the Minister of Stat see, from a humanitarian perspective, how the file can be reopened and re-examined with the objective of getting a fair and equitable solution? I thank him for attending the House to listen to my presentation. The time available to us here is not adequate because while I will not say the case is so complex, there is so much paperwork and so many documents, traversing various Departments and offices that we would need an hour and a half to go through it fully, which neither of us has. I hope I have given the Minister of State a brief summary.

The kernel of the matter is the medical examination which, through nobody's fault, was not carried out in the fashion required or by the personnel required. I would not like to have my medical history summarised in a five-minute examination by a retired doctor and I am sure if the Minister of State or the Cathaoirleach had a medical problem in the morning, he would not be happy if he went to his local surgery and was given a five-minute examination and then told the examining person had retired four or five years ago. That is where the problem begins and ends. I am asking the Minister of State to deal with the problem humanely and sympathetically.