asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the problems involved in issuing fishing licences to the United Kingdom fishing industry.

Following the announcement of new pressure stock licensing arrangements on 3 February, representations were received on individual cases of eligibility for licences and on the principles of the system. After careful consideration we have modified some of the rules, in particular to allow licences for vessels acquired by fishermen who were temporarily without a vessel on 3 February but could demonstrate a recent history of pressure stock fishing. But the basic purpose of the schemes, namely the containment of the number of vessels able to fish for pressure stock, stands and has the broad backing of the fishing industry.

Bearing in mind the problem that United Kingdom fishermen in general could have faced with regard to pressure licensing, is my hon. Friend satisfied that the measures that he has announced will have the widespread support of the industry?

Yes, I think that there is widespread recognition among fishermen of the need for some measure of restrictive licensing, although, of course, we shall wish to continue to monitor the new arrangements. However, I believe that the amended measures, which are designed both to protect the benefits of the decommissionning scheme and to tie in with the arrangements needed for quota management for conservation purposes, provide a fair and flexible basis.

Does the Minister recognise that one of the long-term fears of the fishing industry in certain communities is that, on transfer of boats, licences may be lost from some communities which are heavily dependent upon fishing and become concentrated in a few hands? What steps does he propose to take to avert any such danger?

That would happen only if those who had the boats in the first place decided to get rid of them. One of the safeguards therefore lies in the hands of the fishermen themselves. However, the system is new and we shall continue to monitor it.

For Grimsby, the main problem connected with licences is that people who may want to come into the industry in future should be able to do so and to concentrate at a port such as Grimsby.

I have endeavoured to make the licensing system as flexible as possible, because I do not want to restrict the fishing industry too much. There must be restrictions in the case of pressure stocks, but I have attempted to give flexibility to enable fishermen to cope with such problems.

Will the Minister take careful account of the representations that he has received from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the Highlands and Islands Fishermen's Association about a deferment of the minimum landing size for lobsters?

That is a completely different question, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have recently been in touch with various organisations about that matter.

As the Minister is so concerned about licensing, why does he turn his face so strongly against licensing lobster fishing boats?

One of the important points in that regard is that we have a minimum limit of 10 metres below which there is no licensing in the licensing system for pressure stocks. In the vast majority of cases the lobster fishing industry was looking for licensing below 10 metres. It is not clear whether we need that for conservation resons, and there are enormous administrative and other difficulties associated with operating it on that basis.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will allocate milk production quotas to the advantage of the small producer and milk producing areas.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) on 26 April. Initial provisional quotas have been allocated to producers related to their deliveries during the reference period, but a reserve amounting to about 2·5 per cent. of the quota has been set aside to deal with special cases, which will be carefully considered.

On the whole, I interpret that answer as being no. Will the Minister partially mitigate the phenomenal social damage created by what he has so far done by quickly setting up the appeals procedure and announcing today that some financial compensation will be available to those who are most harshly affected, some of whom are in danger of going bankrupt?

The detailed rules were finally debated in Brussels only yesterday and therefore we shall consider the details carefully. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that we shall move ahead with the special cases as fast as we can.

Will my right hon. Friend take into account the special problems of small dairy producers who farm extremely wet land, such as is found in many parts of Cumbria, and therefore cannot switch into any other form of farming activity such as sheep or cereals?

We shall examine all hard cases. I hope that we shall be able to consider the cases that my hon. Friend mentioned—he knows that I am well aware of them.

Is the Minister aware that, in addition to the hardship that will be suffered by all dairy farmers, considerable hardship will be experienced by the processing and distribution side of the milk industry? We already know that some creameries are likely to close and therefore considerable unemployment will be caused in that industry. Will the Minister assist in any way to alleviate that suffering?

We are well aware of the problems that the imposition of the superlevy will cause in all sections of the dairy industry. I do not doubt that it will also cause problems in some processing plants, but that is an inevitable consequence of cutting production as we have. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, quite recently, the United Kingdom had about 140 tonnes of butter a day going into intervention.

I know that my right hon. Friend fully understands that the small dairy producer who has maintained his herd numbers at a constant level has not contributed to the expansion of milk production and is probably the hardest hit as a result of the base year. Will he assure us that when the appeals procedure comes into existence it will deal with those small producers first because, at the moment, many of their provisional figures are a cut not of 9 or 15 per cent., but of 20 per cent. and more?

I assure my hon. Friend that I shall consider the possibility of helping the small producer. That is allowed for under the rules that the Commission has examined. I hate to argue in this way, but it is not strictly true that no small producers have expanded recently. On reflection, my hon. Friend will agree that some of them have.

Is the Minister aware that it is clear that there will be a much greater problem of hardship cases under the EEC milk quota arrangements in Northern Ireland? I fully support the view of the Ulster Farmers Union that it is essential that the Minister introduces measures to reduce the level of hardship for Northern Ireland dairy farmers, considering that we did not get the 65,000 tonnes which the Minister was supposed to negotiate for us in the EEC. Will the Government—

Briefly.

—give an undertaking that measures will be introduced to relieve the special problems of Northern Ireland dairy producers?

In allocating United Kingdom quotas between the regions account was taken of the trends of deliveries between 1981 and 1983. Northern Ireland was given the full benefit of the 63·1 million litres from the Community's reserves. In addition, a further allocation was made to Northern Ireland so that the reduction on 1983 deliveries would be no more than in other regions of the United Kingdom.

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when he finished his negotiation he went public on the fact that Northern Ireland dairy interests would have a good deal and that they would be advantaged by some 63 million litres? Why is the dairy industry in Northern Ireland not advantaged at the same level as that in the rest of the United Kingdom, but is getting less for its finished quantity?

I can only repeat the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson), that Northern Ireland has been given the full benefit of the 63·1 million litres which I announced in terms of 65,000 tonnes, and that in addition it has had a further allocation so that the reduction on 1983 deliveries in Northern Ireland will be no more than in other regions of the United Kingdom.

Has the Minister seen reports today of a dairy farmer with some 60 acres who increased his production from about 8,000 litres in April 1982 to 27,000 litres last month on the advice of the Ministry, and is now facing bankruptcy? Will the Minister assure us that people in this position will get an advantage under the 2·5 per cent. to which he referred earlier?

The hon. Member will recall that the quotas are based on 1983 deliveries, which was the most up-to-date pattern of production. I should have thought that that arrangement would particularly help the farmers whom he has in mind. As to the Government's advice, the level of production is only one factor in determining profitability and the Government have consistently encouraged increased efficiency and better marketing. That can lead to increased profits even, in some cases, at reduced levels of production.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in drawing up the present rules, arrangements, levels of quotas and so on, the Milk Marketing Board was closely consulted and involved and was highly regarded during the course of the discussions?

The Milk Marketing Board was consulted all through this matter, right back to the point when the Commission first produced its proposals for a super-levy last July. A document which I believe the Milk Marketing Board has circulated to hon. Members says:

"The milk board will be responsible for paying the levy on any milk producer in excess of quota and then recovering the relevant part of the levy from those producers who had sold to the board milk in excess of their individual farm quota."

Is not the truth of the matter that the Minister, having failed in Brussels, has now bungled the applications, to the detriment of the small producers? Given that one third of the herds are of 60 cows or fewer, would it not have been better to exempt, and will the Minister not now consider doing so, small herds from the levy and having a progressive scheme for the bigger herds so that the levy is recovered from those best able to face the difficulty? What response does the Minister have to the Milk Marketing Board's reference to the £200 million made available in Germany and the 3 billion francs made available in France for compensation? What will he do about that?

Come on. The right hon. Gentleman has a worse record than Bobby Robson.

The hon. Gentleman made that carefully rehearsed joke a few moments ago. I am sorry that nobody heard it the first time.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives his Department is taking to encourage farmers to plant trees.

The development of farm woodlands is promoted by the Agricultural Develoment Advisory Service, which has recently issued a display for use at shows and other countryside functions. Grants are made available for planting trees for landscaping associated with eligible farm buildings and in less-favoured areas for shelter belts. However, the main sources of grant-aid for tree planting on farms are the Forestry Commission and, for smaller areas of amenity planting, the Countryside Commission.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. As many of our rural landscapes have been dramatically changed for the worse in recent years, not only through tree diseases and drought, but through far too much uprooting of our hedgerows—the rural seedbed of much of our tree stock—is not the time appropriate to follow up the successful "Plant a Tree in '73" campaign with a voluntary campaign directed particularly at farmers to encourage them to plant many more in the autumn of '84?

I shall certainly give some thought to that suggestion. Many farmers voluntarily engage in big tree planting operations on their own account. My hon. Friend will know that we took steps last year to end all grants for the uprooting of hedges and that they are now no longer available. The Ministry, under the farm capital grants scheme, offers grants of 60 per cent. in less-favoured areas for the planting of trees as shelter belts and in all other areas for the planting of trees as a landscape feature associated with farm buildings. Therefore, we give positive encouragement.

What incentive does the tenant farmer have to plant trees, bearing in mind that the protection of succession that he had under the 1976 legislation is shortly to be removed?

The hon. Gentleman knows, because he has been very much involved in our discussions on the Agricultural Holdings Bill, that that is intended to stop the decline in tenanted farms and to start to get new tenancies on to the market. Most of those tenant farmers will have a long period during which many of them will take advantage of the incentives to plant trees.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last autumn pointing out that many farmers were burning down hedgerows and trees in the process of straw and stubble burning? Will he remind them not to do that again and to replace those trees that have been burnt down?

I am conscious of that problem. My hon. Friend will know that much tougher model bylaws for local authorities on the burning of straw and stubble have been agreed, which I hope will go a long way towards dealing with the problem of the destruction that is sometimes caused.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the effect on beef cow numbers of recent decisions by the European Economic Community Council of Ministers of Agriculture.

It is too early to forecast the precise effect of the recent CAP price settlement on beef cow numbers, but specialist beef producers will benefit significantly from the Government's recent decision to double the rate of suckler cow subsidy payable in Great Britain to the maximum amount permitted under Community rules. Those in marginal areas will also benefit from the introduction next year of hill livestock compensatory allowances as a result of the recent extension of the less-favoured areas.

Notwithstanding those two useful points, is it not a fact that the recent decision on milk has been a major blow to what one would call the balance of agriculture? Must it not now be the chief concern of my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister to seek to restore that balance to try to give some encouragement to those engaged in livestock production in Britain?

If my hon. Friend is referring to the milk arrangements, I must tell him that much will depend on the reactions of individual producers. I think that they will vary widely. The amount of meat available on the market could have the short-term effect of depressing prices. However, the more stable and better balanced conditions for milk over the period ahead will help to balance the market in the medium to long term. We have taken a number of steps, some of which I have referred to. The retention of the beef variable premium scheme, which is still at a better level than in 1982, the new carcase classification grid and achieving a better balance between cereal and livestock prices will all help.

Will my hon. Friend also undertake to consider the position of farmers who are excluded from taking advantage of the changes in the arrangements? I refer to the small dairy farmers who, because of their farm agreements, are specifically forbidden to undertake anything but dairy farming and who now have nowhere to go.

My hon. Friend refers to the impact on the conditions of the development plans. We are examining that matter closely.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of outbreaks of Newcastle disease have been reported to him; and if he will make a statement.

Seventeen outbreaks of Newcastle disease have been confirmed to date. In all but one outbreak on which investigations have been completed a link has been established with raw material for feedingstuffs contaminated by diseased feral pigeons. Measures have been taken to ensure that the possible risk to poultry from such raw materials is minimised.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the marked lack of confidence and concern in the poultry sector at the long-term nature of the infected feral pigeon problem? Will my right hon. Friend be more specific and outline the arrangements for preventing the further infection of silos? What investigations are being made on the various options open to the Ministry for minimising the risk for the future?

It is the hon. Gentleman's fault. Blame the pigeons.

Order.

My hon. Friend will recall that we took legislative measures which quickly strengthened our powers to act so that contaminated material leaves stores only under strict Ministry control. Diseased pigeons associated with stores have been detected only in the Liverpool and Birkenhead area. The degree of risk depends upon the extent to which contamination has occurred in a particular store.

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the high standard of poultry husbandry in Northern Ireland means that no cases of Newcastle disease have occurred there for many years? Will he encourage the poultry industry in Northern Ireland by ensuring that we receive an allocation of intervention grain again this year?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Any action that he can take to stop pigeons from Liverpool and Birkenhead going to Northern Ireland would be welcome.

Will the Minister assure the House that no gap remains in legislative control which will allow potentially contaminated foodstuffs to be supplied to poultry producers? There is still a fear that that can happen. What control is there over infected feral pigeons?

The legislative steps that I announced to the House some weeks ago to deal with these matters have been widely welcomed. Contaminated material from stores in areas where diseased pigeons have been discovered can leave those stores only under strict Ministry control.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial assistance he is prepared to make available to smaller dairy farmers, whose income has been substantially reduced following the recent price review.

As part of the agreement to introduce the supplementary levy scheme for milk, agreement was reached to extend the Community scheme to aid the incomes of small-scale milk producers for a further two years. There are also provisions; which may benefit smaller producers, in the Community regulations on the supplementary levy scheme for special allocations of milk quota to a producer who is implementing, or has recently implemented, a milk production development plan under either an FHDS or AHDS scheme.

Has the Minister seen the press release, which I believe has been sent to most hon. Members, by the Milk Marketing Board which makes very dismal reading? Will the collection of the levy be delayed for some time? Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a scheme similar to that introduced by the Germans and French—his answer to an earlier question on that was disappointing — under which about 200 million deutschmarks will be given by the Germans and umpteen million francs by the French to help producers who want to leave the dairy industry? Further, will he do something for the producer-retailers to help sort out the mess in which they find themselves? Will he do something to put a bottom into the cow beef market, which would seem a sensible step to take?

I am pleased to report to the House that the Commission has agreed to lump the first two payments of levy together. As a result, the first levy payments do not have to be collected until 45 days after the end of September—that is, by mid-November at the latest—and the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a good move forward, which will help many milk producers.

While congratulating my right hon. Friend on that announcement, may I ask him to consider seriously a national scheme to allow, on a voluntary basis, dairy farmers to get out, as other countries are introducing such schemes? The milk quota could then be reallocated. Is he aware that it would be a serious blow to British dairy farmers if other Community countries made such arrangements and we did not?

My hon. Friend will realise that the regulations came to fruition very recently indeed. Although a number of states, including ourselves, voted against them in Brussels yesterday, because certain details of them remain unsatisfactory, I hope that we can get them right. I hear what my hon. Friend says about the outgoers' scheme and the fact that it seems to have been taken up by some states and not by others.

As the discussions and consultations with the Milk Marketing Board in Northern Ireland have been minimal, and regardless of what the right hon. Gentleman said in answer to an earlier question, may I ask him to publish a White Paper setting out all the facts and figures governing the allocation and arrangements for the milk quota scheme in Northern Ireland?

I do not think that it is necessary to produce a White Paper on this matter. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for not making the accusation that was made earlier, that Northern Ireland had been deprived of the 65,000 tonnes allocated to it. I am glad that he did not repeat that statement, which was wrong.

In the light of the concern that is being expressed in some quarters about the volume of dairy products that we are importing from New Zealand, may I ask my right hon. Friend to comment on the possibility or otherwise of that being reviewed?

The Council of Agriculture Ministers will be meeting on Monday and Tuesday of next week, when the import arrangements for New Zealand will be an important matter for discussion. As my hon. Friend probably knows, the Commission's proposal is that this year 83,000 tonnes of butter should be imported from New Zealand, falling over each of the next five years by 2,000 tonnes, to 75,000 tonnes. The Government believe strongly that we should give that market to New Zealand, as it is essential to it, and we shall be pressing the Council next week to adopt that proposal of the Commission.

Notwithstanding the slight difference over figures that arose between us during an earlier question, will the Minister accept that by far the best way of providing assistance to smaller producers is to exempt them from the levy and to have a sliding scale upwards above a certain figure for larger producers? Now that the date of the collection of the levy has been postponed, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to rediscuss the matter with those involved in the industry to ascertain whether such a scheme can be formulated? That would do far more to help than dealing with the 2·5 per cent. reserve to which he referred earlier.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is saying that small farmers should be exempted from the levy. He will recall that we have been insistent, throughout the negotiations that have taken place over the past eight or nine months on the super levy, that small farmers throughout the Community should not be exempted from the levy. Such an exemption would discriminate very much against the British dairy industry and I am most disappointed to hear that the Opposition are taking that approach.

That is a distortion of my supplementary question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the overall effect of the common agricultural policy on British farming and on the consumer since the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community.

It is, of course, a matter a conjecture what other policies might have been pursued had we not joined the European Community, and any measurements of the kind envisaged would equally be quite conjectural.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that since we joined the Community net exports of British food have increased by about 77 per cent.? Indeed, France and the Netherlands are now net importers of butter from the United Kingdom. Will he confirm also that we are now self-sufficient in beef and for the first time are net exporters of cereals? As my right hon. Friend confirmed, food prices have declined relative to other prices. Does he accept that our membership of the Community has been of considerable benefit to the British farmer and British consumer?

I am happy to confirm what my hon. Friend has said. Our participation in the common agricultural policy has been good for consumers, for agriculture and for the nation generally.

Does the Minister recall that when we entered the Common Market in 1972–73 one of the major arguments was that the CAP would be bad for Britain and that we would gain compensating economic advantages from access to an industrial free trade market? Surely the CAP has been a disaster for the British economy, as was forecast at the time. The Minister should recognise that and turn to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for confirmation of such beneficial effects, if any, that have come to Britain from our membership of the Community.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He will recall that the Conservative party was elected to Government in 1970 on the policy of shifting from the old system of deficiency payments and guaranteed prices to a system of support based on import levies, which is virtually the same as the CAP system. We were elected on that policy, irrespective of whether we joined the Common Market, and we believe that it is the best policy for Britain.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the period of expansion for British agriculture since 1973 has produced an expansion of farm borrowings? Will he take the opportunity to urge bank managers to take a cool, calm and collected view of farmers' borrowings until the uncertainties about quotas are finally resolved?

I have noted what my hon. Friend has said. Borrowings by British agriculture have increased, but I believe that it is generally agreed that they are at a prudent level. I hope that in this period of difficulty, especially in the dairy sector, the banks will be as tolerant and helpful to their dairy farmer customers as possible.

Will the Minister reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes)? Although a European-wide operation to remove small farmers from the dairy levy is unacceptable, it is entirely within the power of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to arrange our domestic affairs so that the small farmers have less of a burden to pay and a greater burden is placed on the larger farmers.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) will forgive me if I have not answered that question. I thought that it was right to put our general principles on the line. I am glad that there is now sweetness and light between our two parties over this basic part of the Government's policy. The rules of the Community, when considering reallocations of quotas that become unused, provide for a move in favour of the small farmer. We shall be considering that point carefully.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider making special provision to help those dairy farmers forced out of milk by the quota scheme but still committed to the farm and horticulture development scheme.

A reserve quota of about 2·5 per cent. of the total England and Wales Milk Marketing Board quota has been set aside to assist producers who have been severely affected by special circumstances or who have development plans. I hope this reserve will help those who are in the process of expanding to remain in milk production if they wish to do so. Any producer with a development plan who wishes to go out of milk production will have his request considered on its merits.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which shows that he appreciates that it will be extremely difficult for dairy farmers to fine tune production. A dairy cow is not something one can turn on and off like a tap. Will my right hon. Friend go further and suggest to the Milk Marketing Board that it considers a scheme to set aside part of the Co-responsibility fund—money which is paid by dairy farmers—to provide, say, a 1 per cent. buffer above and below the quota figure, a measure which would reduce the risk of penalty to dairy producers?

I do not believe that it would be within the rules for the Government or the Milk Marketing Board to keep aside some of the money paid into the Co-responsibility fund. We have always been prepared to be sympathetic if farmers get into difficulty. In certain cases we have been able to agree to withdrawals from those plans without penalty.

If a new entrant buys a non-dairy farm, will he be allowed to change the policy on that farm to make it a dairy farm?

That is one of the matters we must consider in detail now that we are at last reaching a point when we know what the detailed rules of the super levy arrangements will be. The hon. Gentleman's question is one that we shall be considering carefully and urgently.

Will my right hon. Friend invite his colleagues to bear constantly in mind the position of a tenant farmer producing milk who has not expanded his output since 1981 and is giving up 2·5 per cent. of his quota as well as a general 6·5 per cent. of the quota? If he is forced out of milk production and his tenancy, because the land cannot be used for any other form of farming, he loses not only his job but his home. His position differs from that of people in other industries, for example, steel—which are subjected to EEC quotas — and to whom compensation is paid. A person displaced from such industries does not lose the roof over his head.

In deciding which year to make the base year for quotas, one chose 1983 for the most up-to-date patterns of production. One faces an inherent difficulty when considering people, such as those to whom my hon. Friend referred, who have not expanded since 1981. I agree that this is a difficult matter, and I hope that we can look at the specific problems. I hope that the housing problem to which my hon. Friend referred will not occur on a large scale. If they do, naturally I hope that we can give a little thought to them in talks.

After three attempts, I am glad that we have persuaded the Minister to confirm that he has room for considerable manoeuvre under the rules on the application of quotas and that he will consider the scheme that we have suggested to him.

I am glad to repeat what I said earlier. We shall look at the possibilities during the next few weeks.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that since she moved into her two new houses five years ago the number of homeless people in Britain has increased from 57,000 to 80,000? Will she further reflect that since she took on her new job five years ago the number of jobless has increased from 1·25 million to 3 million? If she fulfils her determined plan to be in office for another five years, are we to expect more than 100,000 homeless and more than 5 million unemployed?

Since one moved in some five years ago, 1·4 million more people own their own homes, the dwelling stock has risen by 700,000 and the spending on home improvement has multiplied eight times. With regard to those people unfortunately without a job, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the proportion of the population in work in Britain is better than in most other European countries in the Community—and certainly higher than in France.

In view of the allegation made by some nationalist politicians, who produced the Dublin forum report yesterday, that the Government are responsible for a political vacuum in Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister point out—at least to those who are genuinely concerned about that part of the United Kingdom—that the Northern Ireland Assembly still exists despite attempts to destroy it before it has had a reasonable trial? Will she further point out that the Assembly is working energetically within its limitations to deal with the realities of the present position in the Province and is attempting to help Protestants and Roman Catholics alike?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly—with which he has a distinguished connection—can freely express their views there, as they were elected to do.

On this election day, will the Prime Minister tell us whether she is glad or sorry that she, who was going to roll back the state, has actually brought a greater concentration of power to the central state than. ever before in British peace-time history?

That just is not true. We have abolished controls on prices, incomes, industrial development certificates, office development certificates, and also abolished many other controls, including exchange control. We have reduced the number of civil servants by the greatest number since the war.

The Prime Minister either does not know what she is doing or she has a very selective view of the past five years. Does she not recall that she has deprived 13 million people of their votes in the Greater London and metropolitan areas? Does she not understand the effect of imposing penalties and rate-capping on local services that are a matter of life and death for many people? Does she not understand the effect of making £8·8 billion worth of cuts in rate support grant on people whose rates have shot up because of that action? Does she not recall that is she who has made political obedience a condition of appointment to senior positions in the Civil Service, nationalised industry boards, wages councils and many other bodies, such as the area health authorities? If the right hon. Lady does not think that that is a process of centralisation and the assertion of central state control, she does not understand the word democracy.

With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman says about rates—I understand that he did not quarrel with any of my previous replies because they were all deadly accurate—in the four years from 1979 to 1983, prices rose by 55 per cent. and earnings by 65 per cent., but domestic rates went up by an average of 91 per cent. In 10 local authorities, mainly Labour-controlled, rates increased by 145 per cent. If people cannot look to the Government to protect them, to whom can they look, especially when one of the functions of Parliament, although the right hon. Gentleman does not recognise it, is to check tax, including rates, and not to increase it as he would like to do?

The Prime Minister is the highest-taxing Prime Minister in the history of the British economy. Does she not realise that the effect of her policies has been to increase the rate burden on households from an average of £2·46 in 1979 to ·6 in 1984? If the right hon. Lady is so keen on cutting taxes, why does she not start now for the poorest in our society, instead of making them pay for the ridiculous ambitions of her policy of starving this country into solvency?

The right hon. Gentleman is complaining about the height of rates, so he must be for rate-capping.

Will my right hon. Friend, in her gallant and worthy attempts to roll back the state's industrial frontiers, accept the fact that the appalling argument between the steel men and the miners' leaders is one where the suicidal stupidity of the miners' leaders is hallmarked by Mick McGahey's remarks yesterday, when he said that by closing down industry he would not lose jobs? Is not the conflict one between the steel men, who know that only customers make jobs, and the miners' leaders, who do not know how to keep jobs?

I agree very much with my hon. Friend. The steel industry is a very good customer to coal and one would think that an industry wanting a good future would be careful to keep its customers.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for ISTC, NUR, ASLEF and other unions to abandon their support for the strike among some miners, especially when one bears in mind its disastrous effect on job prospects at Ravenscraig and Scunthorpe? Do not the actions of some miners' leaders demonstrate the ruthless political means they are prepared to use to achieve their objectives? Will my right horn. Friend find time today to inform the Leader of the Opposition that Conservatives, who represent the workers of this country, do not expect steel workers to pay 50p a week to striking miners?

I thank my hon. Friend. The fact is that strikes lose jobs, sometimes in the industry in which the strike occurs and sometimes in other industries as well. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is the strikers' friend.

Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that, contrary to newspaper speculation, she will honour her commitments to the nursing profession and implement the recommendations of the nurses' pay review body?

The review body report on nurses' pay has reached the Government, as have the reports of other review bodies. We shall be considering them together and hope to be in a position to make a statement after the Whitsun recess.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 May.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reconsider the barristers' monopoly of right of audience in the higher courts in the light of her remarks in January that the Government wanted to be seen to be tackling all monopolies, including those in the professions?

As my hon. Friend will know, that question was considered by the Royal Commission on legal services under Lord Benson, which reported that it would be against the interests of the client to extend the solicitors' right of audience from the lower to the higher courts. The Government accepted that advice in 1983, and it is too early to reconsider it.

In response to Opposition Members' questions about the mining dispute and investment in the coal industry, the Prime Minister has several times said that the NCB should be allowed to get on with its job without Government interference. If that is the Government's policy and philosophy towards the nationalised industries, why, last year, did they force both the gas and electricity boards to put up their prices substantially, against their commercial judgment and in the face of their publicly stated objections?

The Government set objectives, including financial objectives, which are supposed to give a good return on taxpayers' money and which sometimes result in subsidies to the nationalised industries. The Government also set the external financing limits and then, broadly speaking, they leave management to get on with the job. That is what they are doing in the coal industry.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

On the fifth anniversary of the date on which the Prime Minister succeeded to office, would she care to reveal to the House what she believes to have been her biggest mistake so far?

Not enough to reveal.

What happened to the £457 million refund from the EEC which the Prime Minister told us she had negotiated? What happened to the 31 March deadline, the date by which, she told us, payment would be made, and what happened to the tough action which she said would be taken if payment were not made by the due date?

The 850 million ecu refund that has been negotiated for 1983 should, by virtue of the Stuttgart communiqué, have been repaid by 31 March this year. But the agreement is not legally binding. It was an agreement between Heads of Government, which I am the first to say—and which I do say to other Heads of Government—they have gone back on. They will not all accept that, because they say that they did not agree to the communiqué. It was an agreement by word among Heads of Government in the communiqué. It is not a legally binding agreement, and so technically the Community is not in default. If we were to withhold at present it would be contrary to international law.

Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to study yesterday's CBI survey, which shows that orders and optimism in industry are now greater than they have been for many a year, with healthier order books, higher output and high hopes for the coming year? Does not that survey show that Conservative economic policies are continuing to lead Britain back to economic prosperity?

Yes, Sir. The CBI survey was very good and optimistic this month. Industry now has a chance, because this Government have cut inflation to its lowest level for 15 years, manufacturing productivity has increased by 14 per cent., interest rates are 3 per cent. lower, and Government borrowing has fallen from 5·5 per cent. of gross domestic product to 3·25 per cent. Once again growth is increasing and is greater than in any other country in the Community.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

As the Prime Minister is determined to abolish the metropolitan counties and return those areas to single-tier authorities, will she consider providing my constituency of the Isle of Wight, which is the most over-governed constituency in the country, with one all-purpose authority, for which we would give three hearty cheers?

I am delighted to know that the hon. Gentleman is a great supporter of the Government's decision to abolish the GLC and metropolitan county councils. I thank him for his support and I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider his request.

Will my right hon. Friend impress upon the Government of Zimbabwe the importance of Bishop Able Muzorewa, who has been held for a considerable time, being brought to trial as soon as possible?

I am aware of that, but it is a matter for the Government of Zimbabwe and it is a matter in which we must not interfere. The bishop is not a British citizen, unlike other citizens on whose behalf we have made representations.