Skip to main content

Armed Forces: Hearing Impairment

Volume 503: debated on Wednesday 13 January 2010

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what progress has been made in the provision of hearing protection for service personnel since 2001; (309691)

(2) how many service personnel are recorded as having experienced hearing loss as a consequence of their duty in each year since 1990.

The Ministry of Defence is continually looking at ways of monitoring and mitigating the risk in operational areas, including the development of improved hearing protection which does not hamper the operational effectiveness of combat personnel.

The Surgeon General (SG) has set up a multi-disciplinary Defence Hearing Working Group (DHWG) to address the impact of current operations on the incidence of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) in serving personnel, set in the wider context of the Health and Safety-led MOD Hearing Conservation Programme, changing legislation and emerging technology. Compared with civilians who may suffer hearing loss due to industrial noise exposure, the relationship between troops' exposure to noise on military operations and hearing impairment is a complex one. Since January 2009, MOD has been working with the charity Deafness Research UK to develop a number of lines of research that will not only provide a more robust means of diagnosis but will also ensure that personnel have the most effective possible protection from hearing loss. Deafness Research UK hosted a highly successful symposium in December 2009, bringing together experts from the field of hearing impairment with members of the Defence Hearing Working Group.

Regarding protective systems, on the present deployment in Afghanistan, some 3,000 sets of an improved hearing protection system known as personalised interfaced hearing protection (PIHP) are in use by front-line troops. This innovative system has been designed to protect against impulse and continuous noise, to be comfortable to wear for prolonged periods, to be compatible with personal radios, not to interfere with equipment designed to counter improvised explosive devices, and to allow the user to keep situational awareness.

Data held centrally does not allow a comprehensive summary of how many Service personnel are recorded as having experienced hearing loss as a consequence of their duty in each year since 1990. The DHWG work now in progress includes improved data capture to allow the effects of current operations on the hearing of personnel to be assessed op a proper basis. However, patients who have attended or been admitted to our field hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan within the 'ear/nose/ throat' (ENT) medical classification can be identified. These data are shown in Table 1 and include UK Service personnel, other NATO forces, civilians (both UK and nationals) and detainees. Note that this information is not limited to those with complaints related to hearing damage, but includes all ENT patients.

Table 1: Initial ear/nose/throat attendances at UK field hospitals by year and operational area

Number

All

Iraq

Afghanistan

All

1846

1682

1164

2003

1290

1290

2004

102

102

2005

74

74

2006

1101

76

125

2007

120

64

56

2008

126

62

64

2009

133

114

119

1 Figures cover from March 2003 to April 2009 for Iraq and April 2006 to May 2009 for Afghanistan

The numbers of UK personnel in the last 10 years who have left the Services with a medical discharge with a principal cause given as hearing loss are shown in Table 2. Note that such discharges cannot be specifically linked to operational exposure.

Table 2: Medical Discharges with a principal cause of hearing loss, 1 January 1999 to 31 December 2008

Number

ICD 10 Cause Group

1Naval Service

Army

RAF

All

51

155

45

Diseases of the ear (H60-H62), H65-H75 and H80-H83)

26

65

17

of which:

Noise-induced hearing loss (H833)

8

39

5

Other disorders of ear (H-90-H95)

25

90

28

1 Includes Royal Marines and Royal Navy

This table is not subdivided by year as, in accordance with Office of National Statistics guidelines, numbers less than five would be suppressed by reason of patient confidentiality, which would effectively obscure all information provided.