| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman should listen, because I am attempting to make points that should perhaps have been considered by Conservative Members, and make progress on the points made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.
One way in which the TA must change is that, in the event of a major crisis, we must be prepared to call out reserves compulsorily and in their thousands if we are fully to exploit the military potential of the TA and other reserves. We ought to consider how we will engender that cultural change, which will enhance the TA's position within our overall force structures.
If we are to give practical effect to past rhetoric, we must also improve the mobilisation procedures for the TA, whether for major operations or for individuals volunteering to reinforce the Regular Army on current operations. We need to improve our administrative methods so that they are not ad hoc, and provide a dedicated system of mobilisation for the TA, so that it can be used in its desired roles.
Thirdly, we envisage that the Army we deploy in future operations will be one integrated force, part regular and part--a substantial part--reserves. It would include terries in a wide range of skilled roles, some as individuals working with regulars, many in Territorial Army units. We would be unable to fight a war at any serious level without them. I give testimony today to our gratitude to the TA in the past and to our continuing commitment that it will be usable and relevant in future.
We will need a substantial Territorial Army, which is capable in crisis of reinforcing our armed forces in many areas where we should not try to maintain a full regular capability in peace time. The TA must be shaped to roles that will be relevant to our strategic aims. It must be usable in pursuit of those aims--ready when needed, willing when called out. A relevant and usable Territorial Army, closely integrated with all other armed forces within the United Kingdom defence configuration, is a modern TA, and right for the service of a modern Britain.
Mr. Gill:
The Minister is aware of Conservative Members' great concern about the prospective numbers of the Territorial Army. Does he acknowledge that, if one reduces the size of any organisation below a certain critical mass, it ceases to be viable and sustainable?
Dr. Reid:
Of course I accept that there is a level of critical mass, but that level may be debated. One can increase the effectiveness, capability, usability and relevance of our armed forces while reducing their size. If that is not the case, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why he supported a reduction of 32 per cent. in
After nine months of a strategic defence debate, Conservative Members' only criticisms have been about size, which is one aspect of one role of one of the reserve forces out of the whole force configuration. If size were the only issue, we would never have given up conscription. We now have a better and more capable Army than we have ever had, but it is much smaller.
Mr. Brazier:
The Minister has singled out infantry and armour as the only two roles that he does not think are particularly appropriate for the Territorial Army. Will he explain why the most exhaustive trials that America has ever carried out on its armoured infantry forces--in 1992--show that its reserve armoured infantry was only three weeks behind its regulars in readiness?
Dr. Reid:
I am not going to discuss the hon. Gentleman's conclusion, because his premise is wrong. I did not say that there was no role for infantry or armour in the Territorial Army. I said that its traditional role was the defence of the United Kingdom and reinforcement in a conventional war against Russia, which none of us thinks is imminent. Therefore, we must rethink the size and roles of that element. I am trying to create a Territorial Army that, in practice, is relevant, usable, integrated and more professional in future. That does not merely concern size.
I stand second to no one in my respect for the individuals who make up the Territorial Army and who have contributed so much to this country. We will not preserve their future by maintaining them constantly in their past configuration. It is our role to give them a future as well as a proud past--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down when I am on my feet. We move to the next debate.
Mr. David Lock (Wyre Forest):
I am extremely grateful for the opportunity that this debate provides to speak about the important subject of fluoridation in water.
None of us likes going to the dentist. The shrill whirring of the dentist's drill causes most of us to feel our shoulder blades coming together as we are reduced to a state of quivering submissiveness. Despite many strides that have been made in recent years, a visit to the dentist is even more frightening for children than for adults.
However unpleasant a visit to the dentist may be, I hope that everyone accepts that dentists should be a vital part of our national health service. Living with poor dental health for years is infinitely worse than the pain of a visit to the dentist. Years of unnecessary toothache, having tooth after tooth removed and replaced by dentures at an early age, is a reality for far too many people in Britain today. However, in many parts of the country there are no NHS dentists. The systematic removal of dentistry from the NHS may not have been the previous Government's intention, but their policies had that effect. Despite being warned about those effects, they took no steps to promote NHS dentistry. Poor dental health for our children is the result.
Poor dental health is also the result of poor diet and poor oral hygiene and is symptomatic of poor education. We have known for many years that illnesses disproportionately affect our poorest citizens. That was conclusively shown by the Black report that was published--or, rather, not published--as long ago as 1979. Heart disease, cancer and mental health all strike hardest on our most vulnerable citizens. It should therefore be no surprise to find that tooth decay is no exception.
This is an appropriate time to raise such issues because in February the Government published the highly acclaimed Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation", which rightly raises the issues of health inequality, including those of dental health. The Green Paper recognises that the single most effective step that can be taken to improve the dental health of our poorest citizens is to fluoridate water to an optimum level of one part per million.
Fluoridation is strongly approved by the British Dental Association, which is to be commended for promoting better public health above the financial interests of its members. Fluoridation means fewer fillings, fewer extractions and thus fewer painful visits to the dentist. It also means a cut in the money that the NHS spends on dentists. I wryly reflect that the public health arguments for fluoridation must be compelling for the BDA--and others--to press for a measure that is so much against its members' financial interest.
The arguments for water fluoridation are strong. I shall illustrate that by using my constituency as an example. Kidderminster does not have--and has never had--the benefit of fluoridated water. The adjacent Worcestershire towns of Bromsgrove and Redditch were part of the old Birmingham system and are fluoridated. Differences in dental health between the two areas are startling. There is about 2.5 times as much tooth decay in children in Kidderminster as in Bromsgrove and Redditch, despite the fact that Kidderminster has a better Jarman score--the
accepted indicator of social deprivation--of minus 16.8, in comparison with minus 21.6 for Bromsgrove and Redditch. The effects of greater social deprivation have, in dental health, been more than outweighed by the simple expedient of putting minute traces of fluoride in drinking water.
The effects are not confined to children. Adults' teeth are worse in Kidderminster than in the neighbouring towns, with a 37 per cent. higher rate of dental extractions compared with fluoridated areas. Those figures have been validated by a comprehensive study in Anglesey, which confirmed the long-lasting benefits of fluoride for children and adults. It is also clear from academic work that such benefits accrue most to those in the worst economic circumstances. Proper levels of fluoride in drinking water are a simple and effective way of achieving equity in dental health across Britain.
Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West):
There may be other medical conditions that could be improved by the adding of medicine to the water supply. Does the hon. Gentleman support those as well?
Mr. Lock:
The hon. Gentleman's point is--I am afraid--confused because it assumes for the purpose of the argument that fluoride is not a natural constituent in many areas of Britain. In fact, fluoride is naturally present in many areas, and adding it would merely bring some areas up to the natural state of others.
Adding fluoride to water will save the NHS and our country many millions of pounds. Every tooth that is unnecessarily filled or extracted is an unnecessary expense. Every day off work due to avoidable toothache is a day lost to British industry. Surely there are better uses for scarce NHS resources than paying dentists for work that could be avoided.
What are the arguments against fluoride? As I see it, there are essentially three: first, medical objections, secondly, civil liberties objections, and thirdly, indemnity problems. The anti-fluoridation lobby sees adding minute traces of fluoride to water as a threat to health. The health issues are now as clear as the drinking water itself. I do not have time in this short debate to recite the history of every health scare that has been based on half-baked research over the years. Skeletal fluorosis, cancer, hip fractures and many other conditions have been laid at the door of fluoride in drinking water, but the core of problems for those promoting such theories is that there are large areas of Britain, such as Hartlepool, for example, where fluoride at the optimum level is naturally present. Also, in countries such as the United States of America, very large areas--about half the country--are fluoridated. There is no chemical difference between added and natural fluoride.
The absence of diseases and complained of conditions in such areas compared with areas where there is no fluoride should be more than sufficient proof to satisfy the experts that the hypothesis of a link is unfounded, however the claims have been subject to extensive scientific analysis and found wanting. For example, the cancer scare was examined comprehensively by a Department of Health working party under Professor George Knox in 1984, and just as comprehensively dismissed. There are, of course, those who refuse to be convinced. However, given the tangible and demonstrable benefits of fluoridation, opposing it on scientific grounds against the views of scientists is unreasonable.
I turn to the civil liberties argument, for which I have more respect. At its base, it is an argument for individualism and against democratic bodies working for the public good. There are many occasions when we, as a society, take decisions that impact on the freedom of an individual to carry on life as he or she desires, justifying the decisions on the basis of greater public good. Speed limits on our roads, gun control law, prohibited drugs and restrictions on certain foodstuffs that have public health concerns all come into that category. In such cases, the individual's freedom is curtailed to a limited extent for the greater public good.
1.30 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |