Official Report 166KB pdf
We have received a petition from Mr Roderick McLean, on the subject of injuries sustained in Crown service. Mr McLean is here and would like briefly to address the committee. Normally there is a three-minute time limit on petitioners' speeches, but today we will waive that. You may take as much time as you want to address the committee, Mr McLean.
Thank you very much. I intend to support my petition in the form of questions and musings on the issue that it raises: service with Her Majesty's forces resulting in noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss—NISHL—of less than 20 per cent. From 7 January 1993, the condition has been pension barred.
Members may now question Mr McLean.
I missed a bit of what you said, because I was having a word with the clerk. You mentioned a gratuity. Did you get one? Was there a gratuity for people with NISHL of less than 20 per cent?
No. I have been through the gamut, ending in a tribunal last November in Melville Place in Edinburgh. The doctors said that it was a tremendous pity that I had not contacted them prior to 1993.
You are in a particular category, and your disability is a degree of deafness. Do you know of any other people who are to some extent disabled and who have been barred by this statutory instrument?
Yes. It is quite common.
But do you know of other types of disability that have been barred?
This is the only form of disability in the services that is pension barred under 20 per cent.
The only form?
That is what I have been told.
Are you faced with the difficulty that people say, "We all get deaf as we get older"?
My hearing has been measured by an audiogram by the Ministry of Defence, which has determined that I have an NISHL of 14 per cent. Any other form of deafness is age related.
Can doctors distinguish between NISHL and deafness caused by advancing age?
They can tell from the audiogram.
What effect does your hearing loss have on your life?
My wife would be better able to answer that than me. People who are hard of hearing rely tremendously on teletext. At social gatherings and on occasions when people are speaking all at once, I simply cannot hear, whereas when I can watch someone speak, I have a fairer chance of picking up what they are saying.
The cause of deafness is one of my special interests. Have you gone to lip-reading courses and so on?
Not so far, although I have only recently joined the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. I find its literature very persuasive, so I may take up the options offered. At the moment, like most people in my situation, I do not manage too badly when I have a direct view.
Do you have any information about how other countries in the European Union treat people who have lost hearing as a result of serving in the armed forces?
I like to think that, if I had been called up to the Luftwaffe, the story might have been different. All the armed services tend to treat their personnel in much the same way.
When did the injury occur?
Between 1948 and 1950. I have asked the consultants on more than one occasion why it has taken me so long to find out that I had hearing damage. The answer is that the good ear always masks the bad ear—it runs ahead, in a manner of speaking, of the bad ear and compensates for it. It is only when your hearing is measured by audiogram that the nuances make themselves apparent.
Had you applied for compensation before 1993?
No.
Had you done so, might you have been eligible for compensation?
Yes. As I have mentioned, when I went to tribunal I went through the whole gamut. The doctor said that it was an awful pity that I did not apply prior to that date because I could have been offered a pension. I am raising this subject now because this is happening all the time. If someone is hurt in service, they should be compensated.
Have you pursued the matter through your MP?
Mrs Margaret Ewing has been kept advised. In my file of correspondence, which recently attained its 100th enclosure, are the 24 letters that have been exchanged between Mrs Ewing and me.
Mr McLean, do you understand that this is a matter reserved to Westminster?
Yes.
The Scottish Parliament does not have the power to alter the statutory instrument.
That is right. I have been careful in the wording of the petition and in correspondence with Mrs Ewing—I want to establish whether steps could be initiated.
By steps, do you mean anything that this Parliament—or the committee—can do to help you?
Yes.
As members have no further questions, let me thank Mr McLean for speaking to the committee.
This is a fundamental issue, as it concerns injuries that have come to light only after they have been, in effect, time barred. If there is no way of dealing with such cases, perhaps there should be.
This raises the spectre of the European convention on human rights, with which we are gradually becoming acquainted—sometimes with horror. Following Mr Scott's point, I think that there may be a human right involved. It is not the petitioner's fault that he did not make an application, as he did know about the injury. When it came to light, he took reasonable steps. In addition to doing what the convener has suggested, we could consider the European aspects of the case. I am happy to produce a note on those for the committee.
I have written to the European ombudsman on another case and received the same response, which was that these cases were in effect time barred and that, as the law stood, there was little or nothing that could be done. The issue was entirely different, but the problem was similar.
Perhaps the arrival of the European convention on human rights, which seems able to interfere in all kinds of way that we never dreamed of, might make a difference.
In my letter to the UK Government minister I could ask the minister to address the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 for such cases. Mr McLean made the point that it is only this kind of disability that has been barred from any kind of grant. That may indeed constitute discrimination under the act.
We do not know how many people could be involved. I cannot imagine that the floodgates will open if this petitioner were to be given some consideration.
I do not think so. It is certainly harsh for people such as Mr McLean who find themselves in these circumstances. The suggestion is that I take this matter up with the relevant UK Government minister, raising the implications of the European convention on human rights, and that we respond to the petitioner thereafter. Is that agreed?
Next
Current Petitions