"Front Line First" (Hansard, 11 January 1994)

§ 12. Mr. Mans
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the purpose of the "front line first" review.

§ 14. Lady Olga Maitland
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on provisions within the "front line first" report.

§ Mr. Rifkind
The purpose of the "front line first" study is to identify areas where we can reduce the costs of support to our front-line forces so as to ensure that defence provision is properly concentrated on front-line operational effectiveness. That comprehensive and radical study is now well under way.

§ Mr. Mans
Will my right hon. and learned Friend indicate early in the process the elements and units in the front line that are unlikely to be affected by the review and those that are more likely to be affected? [Interruption.]

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I should be obliged if the House would settle down. It is very difficult to hear hon. Members.

§ Mr. Rifkind
The instruction that has been given to those carrying out the study is that it would not be appropriate for them to consider any proposals that, if implemented, would reduce the fighting capability of our armed forces. I believe that that is the right criterion to apply to such a study.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
While assessing operational effectiveness under "front line first", will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that putting extra tanks, helicopters and men into the field is worthless unless those forces are properly sustained by training, fuel and spare parts?

§ Mr. Rifkind
I do, indeed, accept that. It is important to ensure that our armed forces are not only well manned but well trained and well equipped. Only the combination of those three factors will enable them to be certain of winning any conflict in which they might be involved and of maintaining the high reputation that they deservedly have.

§ Dr. Reid
First, I sincerely wish the Secretary of State a much happier year in his job than he has had in the past few miserable years and I congratulate him on his low press profile over the recent recess. However, by what curious twist of logic does the Secretary of State feel it appropriate to conduct a formal review of the efficiency and administration of our armed forces when he has pointedly refused for the past three years to carry out a proper and thorough review of their commitments and strategic objectives? How can we possibly review our structures without knowing the strategy and commitments? Is it not clear that the Secretary of State's main priority during the review will be to identify Treasury-dictated budgetary savings rather than to provide for the defence of the realm?

§ Mr. Rifkind
The hon. Gentleman, as usual, fails to understand the purpose of the review. We are seeking to reduce unnecessary costs and to be able to use at least some of the savings to enhance the fighting capability of our armed forces. It is precisely for that reason that I was recently able to announce an increase in the field Army and the go-ahead for new tanks, support helicopters and mine hunters as indicated a few weeks ago.