§ 8. Mr. Ernest G. Perryasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the performance of the Nimrod aircraft in the fishery protection rôle.
§ Mr. WellbelovedI can tell my hon. Friend that Nimrod has carried out effectively and excellently its requirement for fishery protection. This is not just my view; it is also the view of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.
§ Mr. PerryI thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he assure the House that his view is shared by British fishermen whose livelihood is tied up with these considerations and who at present are threatened by foreign trawlers fishing in our seas?
§ Mr. WellbelovedIf we judge by the evidence given recently by the Scottish trawlermen to the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, they believe that Nimrod will be extremely effective in fishery protection. I was interested to note that Nimrod is seen not only as a flying surveillance aircraft but as a significant deterrent to those who fish without authority.
§ Mr. Michael McNair-WilsonIs not the Nimrod an expensive aircraft to operate in this rôle? Does it not cost about £1,200 per hour? Has the hon. Gentleman seen the claim by Fairey Britten, that its aircraft will cost only £45 per hour to carry out the same job?
§ Mr. WellbelovedI have seen the Fairey Britten pamphlet. On the evaluation that I have carried out the advertising material seems to refer only to the cost of fuel—petrol and oil—and probably spares. I doubt whether it covers the cost of crews' salaries, expenses, and the cost of ground support facilities. Therefore, the comparison that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make is not fair.