§ 6. Mr. Viggersasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will clarify the official statement that cuts in defence expenditure will be in the tail of the defence forces rather than the teeth by further defining the terms tail and teeth.
§ Mr. MulleyI assume that the hon. Member has in mind my statement on 28th February that I was looking for savings to slim the tail and not blunt the teeth. My aim is to minimise the effects of the cuts on the front line by concentrating savings as far as possible on support and administrative services.
§ Mr. ViggersIs not this nonsense about "tail" and "teeth" a deliberate smokescreen to cover the damage done to our defence forces by the defence cuts? Is it not also an insult to those who have devoted their working lives to supporting the Services to say that they should be cut rather than the front line?
§ Mr. MulleyI hope that no one feels any sense of injustice or insult by the use of the terms "teeth" and "tail", which have been current in military phraseology for many years. It is absolutely true that both aspects are important, but, as I shall hope to show in my speech later today and as the White Paper indicates, the current cuts for next year are concentrated on support and not on front line formations.