Gender Free Physical Training (Hansard, 6 March 2002)

§ Mr. Ingram

Numbers of women injured since 1 April 1998, when "Gender Free" testing and training was introduced have not been separately identified. Gender distributions have been monitored on the basis of medical discharges rather than on individual injuries received. For completeness, however, the following table shows the numbers of individuals attending a general practitioner at the various Army Training Regiments (ATRs) recorded as having injuries due to training or with other injuries or disease that could be related to training. The data cover both male and female trainees and trainers alike (although the vast majority are trainees) and is expressed as a rate per 1,000 per month:

Reason	1998	1999	2000
Injuries due to military training	204.74	188.05	120.70
Musculo-skeletal diseases	74.48	70.70	63.79
Knee disorders	47.41	50.34	47.28

In 1999–2000, the combined rate for female medical discharges due to injury for all Phase 1 training establishments was 4.8 per cent., when the female to male ratio of injuries among trainees was 6:1. In the following year, this combined rate dropped to 3.5 per cent. and the ratio also fell to 3.5:1. This reduction was attributable, at least in part, to changes introduced into the selection and initial training regime, as a result of the recognised higher rate of female injury in the training system.

Similarly, the number of person-days lost as a result of injuries sustained directly as a result of gender free testing and training cannot be easily identified. The following table shows the number of working days lost as a result of injuries due to training or with other injuries or disease that could be related to training injuries and is again expressed as a rate per 1,000 personnel per month at the ATRs:

Reason	1998	1999	2000
Injuries due to military training	207.55	211.06	165.23
Musculo-skeletal diseases	108.21	97.79	92.43
Knee disorders	62.80	67.73	63.93

With regard to compensation claims, the Ministry of Defence does not record separately those cases brought against the Department by female recruits injured during gender free physical training. Again, the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Costs associated specifically with treating women injured as a result of gender free physical training cannot be readily identified. The Army training authorities are constantly working to reduce the numbers of individuals injured in training and therefore the costs associated with this, both in actual treatment costs and in respect of the number of training days lost.