| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It covers a very serious matter and one which is perhaps too important to become lost in any constitutional niceties about the way that proceedings are carried out in this House. Many noble Lords and I have challenged and questioned the cuts in the defence medical services which have been instigated over the past few years. Do the Government not acknowledge now that without those cuts we should have been in a far better position to help all those veterans who have come forward with illness? We should have been able to deal with their worries in a much more expeditious and satisfactory fashion than has been achieved so far.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I know of the noble and gallant Lord's concern for the defence medical services. I do not believe that the assessment of those coming forward has been impeded by lack of medical personnel. Those who have put forward their names for diagnosis and assessment have been seen with reasonable speed. I do not believe that we should have necessarily drafted in more medical personnel. Had we wished to do so, we could have done so. However, as I understand it, the need was not a pressing one. Doubtless, much can be said about the reductions in the defence medical services which have taken place over recent years but that perhaps is for another day.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, many of us have listened to the noble Earl's very long Statement with a great deal of interest. We note that in connection with his latest replies, he is entirely satisfied about the nature and extent of the activities of the investigation team to which the noble Countess and I referred yesterday. Will he take note that in the light of his reply, we shall reserve our position in the light of correspondence which both the noble Earl and we have seen? We reserve our position to raise that matter again.
In the meantime, I have only one question to ask to which the noble Earl can give a simple answer. Is it true or not that 10,000 medical records have disappeared from the MoD computer? I use the figure of 10,000 loosely because it may be 9,999 or
something of that order. But is it true that a substantial number, thought to be 10,000, medical records have disappeared from the MoD computer?
Earl Howe: My Lords, while transferring data at the Defence Analytical Services Agency from an old to a new computer system, it was found that 10,000 or so event records, not medical records, could not be attributed to particular individuals in the way which the new system required. Those records were not wiped off the computer and the data are still held. Very few--we estimate about 250--of the 10,000 events will have referred to veterans of the Gulf War. Therefore, the problem identified by the noble Countess was not quite as presented to your Lordships. Those were statistical records reflecting vaccinations and other such medical events to which service personnel may have been subject. That is a far cry from saying that somebody's entire medical record has been lost. As I understand it, that is not the case.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Earl is still not able to define the number of those records which are attributable to those who were in the Gulf War. He says that it is about 250. Surely, the computer system should be able to show with precision exactly which personnel were involved in the Gulf War.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I understand it, those 250 represent about 2 per cent. of the veterans who were in the Gulf War.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, convention requires us to thank the Minister for repeating a Statement. It is very difficult to do that following today's Statement but I shall do so because it is the convention. The Minister suggests that the best scientific advice has been acted upon. I wonder whether we are going through a period of what may be described as scientific conservatism. I remind the Government that we had a period of scientific socialism which may not bear close scrutiny in comparison. The Minister asks us to accept that what the Government are now saying is the full truth and that everything that they know is, indeed, the truth. However, we still have the discrepancy between the description of events by the Minister and that from the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I for one--and I am sure that I speak for a great many in this House--know which of those two Members I would believe.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I have one question for the Minister. On the last occasion when the Government came forward with such problems the only threat was to the liberty of citizens. However, on this occasion, we are talking about the future health and life of our citizens, members of our Armed
Forces. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that there is an independent inquiry into all these matters?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I very much regret that the noble Lord chose to put the matter in that way. I am sure that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, will acknowledge that there have been occasions in the past when I have been able to clarify or correct some misunderstanding which she has had. It is not simply a case of the noble Countess being right all the time and of my being wrong. I believe that there is a place for me in the process to find out the truth and to come to your Lordships' House, as I have done today, to clarify matters. Independent scientific advice is the only way forward. We are taking that route. I trust that the House will have confidence in the research programme that we have put in place.
Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill [H.L.]
Clause 3 ["The relevant period"]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 6:
The noble Baroness said: In moving the above amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 7. The amendments refer to Clause 3 and the issue of disease. As it stands, the Bill persists in distinguishing in its benefit recovery rules between the treatment of injury on the one hand and, on the other hand, the treatment of disease. With injury the clock starts ticking from the point when the injury occurs, but with disease the clock starts ticking from when the victim makes a benefit claim and not from when the disease is first diagnosed.
On this side of the Committee we do not believe that it is fair or reasonable to distinguish between the two, as is the case currently with the Bill. Therefore, the two amendments are designed jointly to bring the treatment of illness and the treatment of injury into parallel so that the period for a disease case should run from when the disease was first diagnosed, not from when the claimant first made a claim for listed benefits.
Why are we moving such amendments? First, the Bill assumes that there is a clear and easily discernable difference between the two and that, therefore, they should be treated differently. Very often that is indeed the case, but it is not always so. On Second Reading, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the question of radiation and asked whether that was an illness or an injury. Yet another example is that of a poisoning case--Gluteraldhyde. I understand that this is a chemical which is widely used for sterilising instruments in hospitals and dental practices. Breathing in the fumes of that chemical can cause appalling sensitisation which may lead to asthma-type respiratory
I shall give the Committee a further example; namely, the asbestosis sufferer. The starting of recoupment from the date of benefit claim rather than from when the illness was diagnosed could, theoretically, lead to more losses for the sufferer. At present, in an asbestosis claim case, the date of claim is regularly backdated by two years from the actual date of claim to give the claimant more benefit. But, having received more benefit, he is likely to face a larger recoupment when the case is finished. If an injury case takes two years to settle, the victim only loses two years of benefit and recoupment; but, if an asbestosis case takes two years, the sufferer will lose not only the two years of claim but also two years of backdated benefit, totalling four years' worth. If we treat disease cases from the date of diagnosis for recoupment, they will be brought into line with injury cases. That is why we believe that they should be treated similarly.
The Government may argue that it is difficult to do that in practice. However, I suggest that that is not so. The date of diagnosis is easily determined by the medical certificate of a GP, analogous to a date of injury claim. Equally, the Government may argue that this would cost the taxpayer more money. Again, that is not so: the burden would still be passed to the compensator under the general principles of the Bill. Precisely because the definition of what is an injury and what is a disease can widely overlap and because to treat them in similar ways will raise neither practical difficulties nor additional financial cost to the taxpayer, I very much hope that the Government will accept the amendments. I beg to move.
4.52 p.m.
Page 2, line 11, at end insert ("or the disease in question was first diagnosed").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page