HC Deb 20 November 2003 vol 413 cc1265-6W
Mr. Keetch

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of each service are medically downgraded; what percentage of the trained strength this represents; and if he will make a statement. [139273]

Mr. Caplin

[holding 19 November answer 2003]The fact that an individual is medically downgraded does not mean that they are not working. The vast majority of those downgraded will be working normally, albeit with their deployability limited by their medical condition. Those who are categorised as medically downgraded includes not only those who are ill, or injured and awaiting treatment, but also pregnant personnel, and personnel who are permanently downgraded because of a long-term condition, but are retained in the Services in recognition of their training, skills and experience.

The latest figures available are for July 2003, when the following numbers of trained Regular Service personnel were reported to be in a medically downgraded category.

Total number of trained personnel in medically downgraded category Percentage of trained strength, by Service, who are medically downgraded
Royal Navy 2,410 8.0
Royal Marines 590 9.2
Army1 10,600 12.5
Royal Air Force 4,470 9.2
1 Figures are not currently available for Army Officers

Notes:

1. These figures exclude Full Time Reserve Service personnel (FTRS), Gurkhas, Royal Irish (home service) and reservists who have been mobilised for duty.

2. The Royal Navy and Royal Marines figures are based on their Medical Category, and are all those who are not categorised as P2 (Fit for worldwide service without restriction)

3. The Army figures are based on the PULHHEEMS standards, showing those who are not able to be graded Forward Everywhere (FE), which means that they are not employable in full combatant duties, in any area, in any part of the world. The figures include those who are temporarily and permanently downgraded.

4. The RAF figures are based on the Medical Employment Standard, and are all those who have a limitation against their "Ground" work capability.

As the Services each have a different method of determining who is medically fit for role, the figures are not comparable.