§ Mr. John EvansTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people affected by regulation 25, industrial deafness, ruled ultra vires by the Court of Appeal.
§ Mr. ScottSince October 1974 when occupational deafness was added to the list of prescribed diseases, we 375W estimate that about 25,000 claims for disablement benefit have failed to satisfy the requirements of regulation 25 of the Industrial Injuries (Prescribed Diseases) Regulation 1985 or similar preceding provisions. They were not therefore referred for audiometric testing to establish whether they satisfied the necessary level of hearing loss.
§ Mr. John EvansTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his Department's estimate of the cost of implementing the Court of Appeal ruling on October 1989 regarding regulation 25—industrial deafness prescribed diseases.
§ Mr. ScottAs a result of the Court of Appeal judgment of 26 October 1989 in the case of McKiernon, the law on occupational deafness reflects neither this Government's intentions nor those of any previous Government. The original proposals for a scheme for paying disablement benefit for occupational deafness were made by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) in 1973. Claims were first invited in October 1974 and awards were made from February 1975. The provisions included a rule that a claim had to be made within one year of leaving the relevant occupation. The IIAC considered this to be a pre-requisite of a provision for those made occupationally deaf. Subsequently, in 1983, this restriction was eased so that a claim could be made within five years of leaving a relevant occupation. (Regulation 25 of the Industrial Injuries Prescribed Diseases Regulations 1985). The court's judgment means that this regulation and regulations 6(2) (c) and 36 of the same regulations and preceding provisions are considered to be ultra vires because they do not specifically modify section 165(A) of the 1975 Social Security Act which deals with time limits for claiming social security benefits generally. If we did not seek to validate these provisions to correct this technical legal defect and restore the policy intention of successive Governments, past claims decided under these rules would need to be reviewed, and future claims decided on the basis of the Court of Appeal judgment. The benefit costs could exceed £100 million and there would be substantial administrative costs in reviewing past cases.