§ 5 Mr. RookerTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has had to his plans for safety netting the poll tax in the metropolitan districts of the west midlands; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope)We have pointed out, in response to a number of inquiries, that there is nothing new about the principle of a temporary safety net, which has always been part of the Government's proposals. Initial contributions to the safety net reflect resource transfers under the present system, but there will be a phased reduction of these distortions so that they are totally eliminated by 1994.
§ Mr. RookerDoes the Minister deny that the Conservative Opposition leader in Birmingham, Councillor Hales, has sent what he describes as a rocket to the Secretary of State for turning the safety net in Birmingham and the rest of the west midlands into a surcharge? Will the Minister and his Department cease their vendetta once and for all against the city of Birmingham? The west midlands has been a soft touch long enough for the Government.
§ Mr. ChopeThe hon. Gentleman is being a little slower than normal on the uptake. On 1 April 1987 my right hon. Friend first declared what the safety net was to be in Birmingham, on 1986–87 figures. The exemplification shows that the safety net was £65. The present exemplification shows that it will be £63. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recognition of what Conservative 918 Members have been saying for a long time — the resource equalisation process is extremely unfair. We are committed to removing that unfairness over a four-year period. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is unfair and must be removed.
Mr. BeaumontDark: Has my hon. Friend's master yet to reply to Councillor Hales, the Conservative leader on the city council, who talked about his sense of incredulity and outrage at the way that Birmingham is being treated? Does he think that a man of that stature would say such things unless they were true? Why is Birmingham to be penalised when it has been penalised already? Why change one unjust tax for what is possibly an even more unfair tax?
§ Mr. ChopeI am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that I think that he has completely missed the point. We are removing an unjust system, resource equalisation, but we shall phase it out over a four-year period. I cannot answer for those who did not realise that that would happen when the information was provided in a parliamentary answer in April to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett).