Ex-service Personnel: Deafness (Hansard, 4 February 1997)

§ The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)
My Lords, I do not intend to introduce legislation. The law requires that we follow medical advice. The medical facts are not in doubt: hearing loss due to noise and hearing loss due to age are no more than additive. The advisers to the RNID not only endorse our current medical advice to that effect but say that the evidence on which it is based has been available and accepted by outside experts for a long time. We accept this, which means that some past awards have been based on incorrect advice. However, we shall honour past awards in such cases, despite their lack of foundation.

§ Lord Ashley of Stoke
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I welcome his admission that he was wrong in telling the House two weeks ago that the change was due to a change in medical opinion and his admission that there is now no change in medical opinion? That is what the experts have been telling him all along. Will he now accept the view of the experts that under the present regulations virtually no ex-service personnel will be able to win a claim? That cannot be the will of Parliament. Is he aware that these experts say that the reason is that the Government are focusing on hearing loss rather than disability? They say that Ministers are making a very serious mistake in trying to equate a 50 decibel hearing loss with 20 per cent. disability. They say that a much lower 32.5 hearing loss is the equivalent of a 20 per cent. disability. Can we not all get together—the Minister, the experts and the ex-service personnel—and try to knock out a fair and reasonable solution?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, the open letter which I received from the medical experts concentrated very much on the question of my assertion that there had been a change in medical opinion. As I have explained, I now fully accept that their current view has been held for a long time. The other issues are not included in the open letter; I hope very much that they will be part and parcel of a discussion which I hope to have. I have invited Mr. Graham Downing, chairman of the Royal British Legion, to lead a delegation to meet me to discuss all these matters. I expect and hope—as always in my discussions with the legion—that we shall be able to resolve any remaining differences between us.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that much public misunderstanding arises because a large proportion of what are called "war pensions"—and these are being claimed in this case—are received deservedly by people who have not been involved in a war but who have sustained injuries attributable to their service in peacetime, often within Britain? As battle casualties on the scale of a world war have, fortunately, not occurred for over 50 years, is there now a case for dropping the term "war pension" and substituting an accurate description such as the Armed Forces disability pension?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, with my noble friend's considerable experience in these matters, he makes quite an important point. It is certainly true that it would be more accurate to call the pension which my department gives to disabled ex-servicemen a disabled ex-serviceman's pension because many of the disabilities can arise in normal peacetime business as part of the Armed Forces as well as to those for whom the scheme was originally intended; namely, people like my noble friend who suffered their injuries in battle.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, can the Minister say how great an increase there has been in applications for pensions for deafness as I happen to know that there has been a great increase? Is that not a much stronger reason for the Government than any medical evidence they have collected?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, in recent years there has been a considerable increase in applications for a disablement gratuity—it would not be a pension—for noise-induced hearing loss, often at very low levels. In fact, something like two-thirds of claims relate to levels between 1 per cent. and 5 per cent. So there has been an increase. The issue we are talking about today is whether or not there has been deterioration. All the medical evidence shows that there is no further deterioration once the person is removed from the source of the noise.

§ Lord Gisborough
My Lords, in view of the extreme care which the services now take to protect people from noise, is my noble friend satisfied that some of the damage is self-inflicted through attending discotheques, given the enormous noise that has to be put up with?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point as regards young 1530 servicemen today. I am sure, and I am assured, that the military take every possible precaution to ensure that young servicemen wear ear protectors when they are within the sound of heavy gunfire. That should prevent the injuries which occurred in the days before we realised the effect of noise on hearing. As my noble friend rightly points out, many young people—servicemen and non-servicemen—are, I suspect, damaging their hearing because of the very loud noises they appear to relish coming from fancy equipment.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his remark that he will contact the Royal British Legion will be very welcome throughout all our branches? On behalf of the Royal British Legion I thank him most sincerely.

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. I have frequent contact with the Royal British Legion and with other organisations like the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, and so on, all of whom work very well for disabled ex-servicemen in particular. I am pleased to have been able to arrange a meeting with the Royal British Legion on 12th March.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, the Minister told the House on 21st January that, on the basis of research by Professors Lutman and Davis, medical opinion "has changed". We challenged the Minister's assertion. Professors Lutman and Davis then wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, saying that the Minister was wrong. The letter stated: There has been no change in medical opinion". Therefore, the Minister had inadvertently misled the House. In the light of that evidence—I am sure that noble Lords will wish to hear it—will the Minister do as we asked on 21st January and review the medical evidence and all the other evidence thoroughly; otherwise, to quote Professors Lutman and Davis—

Noble Lords
Order!

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
—on whose evidence the Minister relied: If that is not done the result will be a grave injustice to tens of thousands of ex-servicemen and women whose hearing has been damaged"?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, clearly the noble Baroness came with her question prepared and, regardless of what I said, she was going to read it out. The situation is as I have said. As a result of the open letter, my advisers have looked at the earlier scientific literature. We now accept that the current view of the medical experts has been held for some time. We have not held that view for that length of time. Therefore, we are changing to their view which they have held for a long time. I would have expected the noble Baroness to applaud my acceptance of the view of the medical experts, but, as I said to her, I am also having a meeting at which I hope to discuss these matters.