The organisation representing members of the Defence Forces, PDFORRA, has admitted some embarrassment about recent compensation claims for food poisoning, but has blamed the culture within the forces' management for the rash of claims.
Fifteen claims for compensation have been made by soldiers who were among more than 60 who became ill with food poisoning after a barbecue in Lebanon in November 1996. The food was prepared by an Army chef, according to a spokesman for the Department of Defence.
Some of them were so ill they were taken to hospital in Naqoura, according to the spokesman, but they all made full recoveries.
"They got the best medical care," he said. "Some of them got a few extra days off. They were paid. They were all looked after."
One of the 15 claims was settled out of court for £2,500 plus legal costs before Christmas. Asked why the Department had settled, given its view that the soldiers concerned had been "looked after" by the Army, the spokesman said that was the legal advice it had received.
"Settling out of court prevented setting a precedent. It leaves all options open on the other cases," he said.
He also confirmed that one individual was suing the Department for skin cancer he claims resulted from exposure to the sun in Lebanon. He had heard there might be cases arising from sunburn there.
Mr John Lucey of PDFORRA said the cases were all being taken by individuals, and this was their legal and constitutional right.
"In preparing the food due care was not exercised and as a result people got salmonella," he said. "There is no State immunity from any individual pursuing a case.
"Successive governments have proceeded on the basis that there was State immunity, that they didn't have to exercise a duty of care as a civilian employer would. This has now steamrolled, and the chickens are coming home to roost.
"It's not about salmonella. It's not about sunblock. It's not about hearing. It's about management practices and governments who have presided over these practices.
"We asked them to bring in a Compensation Act in 1992 similar to the Garda. They consistently refused. They would not consider it."
Asked if it did not reflect badly on his members that some of them seemed ready to sue the State at any opportunity, he said: "I see your point. But if the system is there people will use it." He stressed that PDFORRA would not stand over fraudulent claims.
Asked if PDFORRA would expel any member who made a fraudulent claim, he said: "Unless there are criminal charges, we can't deprive them of their right to be a member."
He asked why the Department of Defence did not go to court and fight the food poisoning claim on principle.
"Ninety-six per cent of cases have been settled out of court or in court. That's a damning acceptance of liability. How did this arise? There was no proper duty of care."