Dr Dickson Mabon: I wholeheartedly agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has said about welcome proposals. We are talking about 11 changes. In all fairness, the Government have met more than half of the requests made by the industry. Admittedly, it is a last-minute repentance. Indeed, they have inhibited the development of the North sea in the past two or three...
Dr Dickson Mabon: I admit the criticism of myself as old-fashioned and wrong, and agree that the Department has become enormously modern and is able to process annex Bs at the rate of one every six weeks. Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that the new system will give us one annex B every six weeks? I am asking him to give a hostage to fortune.
Dr Dickson Mabon: APRT was a Tory tax. It was never postulated by the Opposition in 1978 — to which the hon. Gentleman has referred—and 1979. Why did the Government introduce it? Was not that wrong?
Dr Dickson Mabon: In fairness to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), the Minister has the audacity to talk about a reduction in corporation tax. It is conceivable that a marginal field would reach the stage of not paying PRT at all and could be developed only if it were below the level at which it would be liable for corporation tax. There is no provision to allow a marginal field to be below that...
Dr Dickson Mabon: I understand the difficulty of drawing a line, but why have the Government chosen 1 April 1982? I realise that if the Government moved back one year there would be complaints and assertions that they should have moved back two years. However, what is the intellectual justification for drawing the line at 1982 rather than at 1981?
Dr Dickson Mabon: One every six weeks.
Dr Dickson Mabon: Of the 11 changes that the Government have made, five have been substantial. The proof of the pudding is the fact that, from August 1980 until August 1982, no new fields were approved, because the companies would not bring them forward as a result of the penal taxation.
Dr Dickson Mabon: What happened to them?
Dr Dickson Mabon: There have been 11.
Dr Dickson Mabon: Is it not the case that Sir Robert has made public speeches criticising the extraordinary subsidisation of the Korean industry, and its dumping practices? Is it not enough for the chairman of a public industry appointed by the Government to make this point for the Government to believe it?
Dr Dickson Mabon: The Minister's speech was uncritical of the industry. I welcome that because, if any industry needs sustenance from the Government, it is the shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering industry. In the classic sense, the Government could abandon the industry to the vagaries of the free enterprise system, whereupon it would disappear altogether. I gather, however, from what the...
Dr Dickson Mabon: Of course, but I am trying to be uncontroversial. The Government might last another year, which will be a vital year for Birkenhead, Merseyside, Clydeside and Tyneside. It is vital that the Government do something. It is in no one's interest to prejudice the Government against the shipbuilding industry. We must persuade them to help shipbuilding to survive. The idea of a Labour campaign to...
Dr Dickson Mabon: Has the General Council of British Shipping advocated the idea of a scrap and build programme, or does it argue that the fleet is so modern that such an idea is irrelevant?
Dr Dickson Mabon: s the Secretary of State telling us that the Budget provisions for an increase in unemployment of about 300,000 will not affect Scotland and that we shall not suffer an increase in unemployment, or is he saying cautiously that there will be an increase in unemployment?
Dr Dickson Mabon: The right hon. Gentleman's statement refers to the problems of over-production and uncompetitive costs. As he said that he does not want to see any provocation of the mining industry, may we take it that during his chairmanship Mr. MacGregor will be very much concerned with his relationships with the unions as well as with the Government? Is this not a reason why there should be a reconvening...
Dr Dickson Mabon: Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that he has put no pressure on the British Gas Corporation to reduce its valuation of Wytch Farm? Can he assure us that the valuation is a proper one, given by a nationalised industry acting in the nation's interests? Whatever conversations the right hon. Gentleman has had with the bidders, can he say that in the last analysis he cannot refuse...
Dr Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with Ministers whose Governments are members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries in the past six weeks.
Dr Dickson Mabon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the Ministers was the Nigerian Minister? Will he accept that if there is an oil price war between Nigeria and ourselves the British National Oil Corporation will be seriously hurt? Is it not in Britain's and Nigeria's interests that we avoid such a conflict?
Dr Dickson Mabon: I shall certainly heed your observation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was confused by the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram). I do not know what he will do in the vote because the vote is clear. It is clear for my party because we have been demanding a debate on this subject for some time, in fact, since before Christmas. It is because of the division of time in the House...
Dr Dickson Mabon: We have not been allowed to discuss this for three months because of the incompetence of the Opposition, who have never been able to find the time to discuss it. These matters are too serious to be left to frivolous Oppositions who are incompetent in the way that they deal with the time at their disposal.
