House of Commons Hansard Debates for 12 Jul 1991

Column 1281

The Government have many arguments about why no incentives should be offered. We have written to the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport--and to the Treasury, because it decides on tax concessions. I imagine that the Departments have consulted each other, so we end up with responses similar to the one from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury. She said in a letter to me :

"Diesel fuel, derv, contains roughly 14 per cent. more carbon per litre of fuel than petrol does, and thus generates correspondingly more carbon dioxide per litre consumed."

That is true, but it overlooks the fact that, for the same amount of fuel, a diesel car will go a lot further.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders--I assume that the House understands that it is well versed in these matters--says : "Allowing for relative carbon content by volume of fuel, the fuel economy advantage of the diesel, up to 30 per cent. per litre per 100 kilometre term, translates into a CO advantage in grams per kilometre of up to a 20 per cent. saving over a petrol equivalent." Although the Treasury and Government Departments say that there is more carbon in diesel, the fact that the car travels further on diesel fuel wipes out the discrepancy and provides a 20 per cent. benefit. Diesel cars are more expensive to manufacture because they are more complex and robust. If, however, we can reduce both the price of diesel cars and the price of diesel fuel, the Government will be able to meet its road transport target by 2005.

If our amendment is selected on the Report stage of the Finance Bill, we hope to introduce a clause that will provide some latitude as regards the 10 per cent. special car tax. We shall concentrate on banding cars, based on their touring fuel consumption. I hope that the Government will consider carefully that interesting concept. Unless they encourage people to purchase fuel-efficient cars--and the only way to do that is through the wallet--they will never meet the target they have set themselves. As soon as the Government appreciate that fact and introduce financial incentives, the target will be met. The car industry will manufacture the products that it knows that it can make and that it wants to make, and that will be good for everyone.

2.1 pm

Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre) : Both Opposition parties have a hang up about nuclear power. They always find a way round admitting that it is a very efficient means of generating electricity. However good our energy conservation measures may be, nuclear energy produces less carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide than power generated by fossil fuels. The sooner we get that message over, the better it will be for our energy policy.

I welcome the debate. I have always believed that we need to keep environmental issues at the forefront of political discussion. I shall concentrate on how local communities can improve their environment. Environmental improvement is not just a matter of the Government telling people what to do. It is up to individuals and organisations to get on with it themselves. That requires a considerable amount of explanation and objectivity on the part of local pressure groups and councillors.

I intend to give an example from my area to demonstrate how things can go right. It might provide a

Column 1282

few lessons for the future. It will not be a complete surprise to hon. Members to hear that the coastline around Blackpool, near my constituency, needs to be cleaned up. Neglect over decades by North West Water was largely the result of lack of Government funding, particularly during the period when the Labour Government were in power between 1974 and 1979. In real terms, the amount spent on cleaning up the sewage around our coasts was reduced from £900 million in 1974 to £400 million in 1979.

It should also be noted that the local Labour party first became involved in environmental matters when the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council opposed a scheme to improve the quality of sewage disposal along the Fylde coast. The method suggested by North West Water was old-fashioned and inadequate, in my opinion, but I suspect that the county's opposition to it had much more to do with the imminent privatisation of the water industry than with any long-term concern for the environment.

I shall not detain hon. Members by describing the subsequent events, apart from saying that the Government rightly decided that the scheme was not good enough and asked North West Water to think again. In the intervening period, environmental awareness locally has increased tremendously, partly as a result of the environment becoming an important issue nationally, but also because local people began to discuss in detail the best way that the coastline could be cleaned up.

Over the past two years the political climate on the Fylde coast has also changed. We now have a Labour-controlled borough council in Blackpool and greater representation by the Labour party in Fleetwood. It will not surprise my colleagues to learn that Labour's view on environmental improvement matters has, as a result of those political changes, also changed. We now hear less about Blackpool's dirty beaches, and although Labour councillors in Fleetwood were largely elected on the basis of their opposition to the pipeline, they now face the possibility of the construction of a sewage works and a pipeline beside the town, both of which seem to have the approval of their Labour colleagues at county hall.

Therefore, it is not surprising that many people in Fleetwood feel betrayed by the Labour party which gave the distinct impression that it supported the town against organisations like North West Water which wanted to treat all Fylde's sewage by way of a long sea outfall or by a sewage plant near Fleetwood.

It is interesting to note that the county council now supports the present scheme. It would be no exaggeration to say that the Labour party locally is hopelessly split on the issue. County politicians want the sewage works to be built so that they can support their Labour colleagues in Blackpool borough. In doing that, they have ditched Fleetwood.

I make that point because it shows the difficulty with local environmental issues if they become bogged down in local politics. That is certainly what has happened in this case. We must ensure that in future environmental matters are dealt with on a slightly higher plain so that we can move forward and find the best solution from an environmental point of view.

The scheme on the Fylde coast needs further improvement. We must find ways to dispose of the sludge effectively. The Select Committee on the Environment--of which I was a member for many years--has said that incineration rather than landfill is the way forward. It is

Column 1283

also worth stating that landfill has problems because of the need to comply with the EEC directive on landfill sites that will come into force in 1997.

I very much support what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said recently about the creation of a new environmental protection agency. I should like it to be called the environmental improvement agency, because that it is what it is all about. It is important for the Government to create targets, for outside agencies to regulate and for everyone else, in the best way possible, to try to improve the environment individually as well as in groups.

2.7 pm

Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend) : We have had a long and interesting debate in which, unfortunately, because it has been so wide-ranging, we have not been able to consider in depth some very important subjects. It is also a pity that we could not have this debate until almost a year after the White Paper was published.

Perhaps the delay was due to the fact that the Government did not want to be reminded of the reaction of the press to the White Paper. Although most papers normally support the Government, the response of the press to the White Paper was lukewarm, to say the least. For example, one paper said that the White Paper contained 350 proposals with more conditions and caveats than an insurance policy. The Times described the White Paper as "a white flag" rather than a White Paper. The Times editorial stated that

"pressure for further improvements is more likely to come from Brussels than from Whitehall, a sad comment on the efficiency of National Sovereignty."

We were told also that it was a

"compendium of muted declarations of hesitant intent" ; and that it set

"a floor below which it would be disastrous to sink."

Another paper said that it was

"as feeble as it is lengthy."

It described it not as an action programme but as a discussion paper, and that is after 11 years of Conservative government. The immediate response to the White Paper was not very promising. Just about everybody in the press, whatever their political complexion, felt that the Government could have done far better. Several hon. Members have referred to an environmental protection agency to deal with all environmental protection matters, and some hon. Members have queried the birth of the idea. The idea was probably born in one of the fine pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, the Marine Conservation Society or the Council for the Protection of Rural England. A host of bodies are doing fine work and are acting as an irritant, as the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) described it, provoking us to improve our environment.

The Labour party's proposal for an environmental protection service under one roof was first made in a statement to the Labour party conference in 1986. It was included as a manifesto commitment in 1987. I have been looking at the White Paper, because the Minister said that it intimated that the Government would consider an environmental protection agency. All that I have been able to find in the White Paper are some references to it on page 232. When describing the medium-term options, the Government said :

Column 1284

"The disbenefits of administrative change will diminish over time, and experience with the new systems may add to the case for some further rationalisation of these structures. One option which the Government will wish to consider in due course would be to create a new umbrella body responsible for overseeing the pollution control work of the NRA and HMIP. Under such an arrangement these bodies would keep their separate identity and independence, but the new umbrella body would oversee their implementation of pollution control and work for greater consistency of approach."

That is the medium-term option, which still does not envisage a single body. Nevertheless, I would be quite happy for the Minister to direct me to the spot in the White Paper at which there is eminent consideration of introducing a single environmental protection agency. Of course, that is only to be lauded. The Prime Minister made a statement earlier this week, and I hope that, as a result, we will develop a coherent position on an environmental protection agency. The National Society for Clean Air believes that there are many undecided questions about how the agency will work. Reading between the lines of its brief, it suspects that that idea has not properly been worked out and that it has yet to be considered properly by all Departments. Perhaps the Minister could tell me how many times the ministerial committee for co-ordinating environment policy has met since the publication of the White Paper. I have been given to understand that it has met just once, which hardly seems a good record for a Government who are supposed to be concerned about our environment.

The truth is that the Government are reluctant participants in the effort to clean up our environment. They have been forced to act. Let us not forget that they have been in power since 1979. The White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", was produced only after the Government had been shocked out of their wits by the performance of the Green party in the European elections in areas that are normally thought of as Conservative strongholds. That is why the Government were pushed and prompted into action. However, our policies were already well developed. In 1979, after the European elections, the British Labour group, of which I used to be a member, provided the first chairman of the European Parliament's environment policy committee in Mr. Ken Collins, who is a very good friend of mine. He was the first chairman ; he was then vice-chairman for a brief period and is now once again the chairman of that committee. That shows the priority that the Labour Members of the European Parliament attached to participating in environmental policy making.

In virtually every policy area, the Government have been dragged along by European legislation. Let us take water quality as an example. The directive on beaches, about which we have heard a lot this morning, was supposed to have been implemented in full by 1986, but the Government will be lucky if they can implement it by 1996. Although the target date in most cases is 1995, there already seems to be some slippage in the programme. It does not look as if those dates will be achieved. Although, as I have said, the directive was supposed to be fully implemented by 1986, it was not until that year, after seven years of Conservative government, that the number of British beaches falling under the terms of the directive was increased from 27 to the top 300. As was revealed by my own questions in the European Parliament, the Government decided to act only after they had been threatened with action in the European Court of Justice.

Column 1285

Although the privatisation of the water industry resulted in the plus of a separate National Rivers Authority to supervise and to try to control the activities of the errant water companies, sewage works were given derogations that allowed them to pollute the water. Despite having those derogations, there have still been instances of privatised water companies polluting water and being threatened with prosecution or prosecuted by the NRA.

On top of that, the chairmen of the water companies have been giving themselves huge pay rises. The chairman of Welsh Water has had an 88 per cent. rise while that company's workers have received about 8 per cent. The water company increased its charges by 16.5 per cent. In the same year its chairman received a massive pay rise, supposedly to reflect the improved performance of the company. It is true that the company made a huge profit, but the chairman was in charge of a company in which the number of pollution incidents for which it was responsible doubled.

The Government should do something serious about such massive pay increases, which the Minister condemned at environment questions last Wednesday. He should consider introducing a fine scheme. A modest £10 reduction for each pollution incident could be knocked off the salary of the chairmen of water companies. In the case of the Welsh chairman, who is one of my constituents, that would result in a cut of more than £7,000.

The chairman of Welsh Water had the cheek and the humbug to be quoted in a long interview which appeared in yesterday's issue of the Western Mail. He said :

"What bothers me more and upsets me greatly is when my boys, the workers who provide the water and clean up our mess, get the flak as well. People just do not realise the value of what we at Welsh Water provide--and all for about 25p a day."

Those workers were not valued sufficiently for the chairman of Welsh water to give them a similar increase to that which his board gave him. That was at a time when pollution incidents doubled. The Government have hamstrung the National Rivers Authority in taking water companies to court when they pollute. An unpleasant incident has been the result of some correspondence between the Minister and me. It involved the pollution of Eaglie brook with PCBs. In a reply dated 27 June the Minister said that the Germans had been allowed two years to meet the pollution emission standards. Yet a letter was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) from the free university of Berlin. It arrived with us the day before the letter from the Minister. It says :

"Concerning your question whether in Germany the textile industry was given a two-year permit to fulful the PCP directive of the European Community, I have asked the German environmental agency Mr. Neihardt, who is responsible for PCP. He told me that the PCP regulation and the regulation for dangerous materials in 1989-90 came into force and that PCP for textiles was forbidden immediately in Germany."

That means that the textile industry had no transitional period. There seems to be a conflict between what the Minister understands about the position in Germany and what the Germans understand. Across the board the Government have been dragging their feet. For example, for the sake of energy efficiency, how do we cut CO emissions? Simply by following the

Column 1286

recommendations in the House of Lords report which was leaked this week--undoubtedly we shall have the benefit of it shortly--we could make a 10 per cent. reduction in our energy use. We could do that if only, instead of cutting the money available for the Energy Efficiency Office, the Government increased it and made a serious effort to deal with energy efficiency problems. That is one simple way in which the Government could take some immediate action. The Planning and Compensation Bill does not contain a single measure sponsored by the Government which has anything to do with improving our environment.

Mr. Trippier : Does the hon. Gentleman intend to allow me to reply to the debate?

Mr. Griffiths : The Minister will realise that the informal agreement made behind the Chair has not been honoured. I can see no reason why I should not complete the points that I want to make and leave the Minister whatever time is left at the end. Even if I do that, I believe that every Conservative Member has spoken longer than me. I shall complete my remarks and in the time left the Minister can reply to the debate.

Mr. Mans : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Griffiths : If I give way, that would take time out of the Minister's speech.

The Government have dragged their feet on air pollution, because they have not honoured their commitment to clean up power stations.

Mr. Trippier : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Griffiths : No, I will not.

The Government have not honoured their commitments on flue gas desulphurisation which were made when the directive on emission standards was discussed in Europe.

Mr. Mans : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) claims that his speech will be shorter than that of any Conservative Member. I ask him to withdraw that inaccurate claim.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : That is an interesting point, but it is not one that the Chair can resolve.

Mr. Holt : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many of us came here to participate in the debate. We had hoped that, at the end, a Minister of the Crown would answer the points and criticisms that we have made. Is not it wrong, unusual and unparliamentary that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman should deliberately seek to speak out time to preclude the Minister from replying to the points raised by my hon. Friends and me?

Madam Deputy Speaker : It is usual for both Front-Bench spokesmen to have an opportunity to wind up such a debate. That is what I would expect to happen.

Sir Hugh Rossi : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is there a possibility through our Standing Orders to prolong the debate by resolution of the House? It is clear from what the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has said that he has no intention of allowing the Minister to reply to the debate. As Chairman of a Select Committee representing all parties, I

Column 1287

raised a number of important questions on the Prime Minister's statement at the beginning of the week on which I and many people outside the House are anxious to hear an answer. The hon. Member for Bridgend is now denying us that opportunity.

Madam Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing and experienced parliamentarian. He knows that the Chair has no authority in such matters. We have three minutes only left ; we must now make progress.

Mr. Holt : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been here when the Chair has ordered someone to sit down. When Bruinvels was here he was ordered to sit down and shut up because the Chair had had enough. Could not you use that authority today?

Madam Deputy Speaker : I use much gentler tactics and hold my fury for another occasion.

Mr. Roger King : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What advice would you give to me? I asked my hon. Friend the Minister a number of questions and I am now awaiting a response. Have you any suggestions as to how I might receive that response, Madam Deputy Speaker? Will I receive it via the written word or--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman understands our practices and Standing Orders, so he will know that the Chair does not offer advice across the Chamber. It is normal for such advice to be sought outside the Chamber. The hon. Member is seeking information from the Minister, and all I can suggest is that he now gets it in writing, unless we can make some progress so that the Minister has a couple of minutes in which to reply.

Mr. Griffiths : When I was interrupted, I had spoken for less than 20 minutes--far less than many Conservative Members. Nearly five minutes have been taken up by the points of order, and I am sorry if the Minister will not have time to respond. Frankly, the time left for the wind-up speeches was 23 minutes, all because Conservative Members spoke for so long.

Sir Hugh Rossi : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In relation to the hon. Gentleman's last statement, do you agree that it has been the time-honoured

Column 1288

practice in the House that, whatever time may have been taken in speeches by Back Benchers, the remaining time at the end of a debate is divided equally between the Minister and the shadow Minister? That practice has been breached disgracefully this afternoon by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).

Madam Deputy Speaker : I have always understood when I have been in the Chair that the time remaining is divided equally between Members on both Front Benches.

Mr. Trippier : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the disgraceful behaviour of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), I assure hon. Members who have participated in the debate that I shall reply to them by letter on the points that they raised. I shall at least observe that courtesy, even if the hon. Member for Bridgend does not seem to recognise any courtesy. It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (FINANCE BILL)

Ordered,

That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House.-- [Mr. Wood.]

FOREIGN CORPORATIONS BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,

That, in respect of the Foreign Corporations Bill [Lords] , notices of Amendments new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.-- [Mr. Wood.]

CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS

Ordered,

That, in respect of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill [Lords] , the Deer Bill [Lords] , the Land Drainage Bill [Lords] , the Statute Law Revision (Isle of Man) Bill [Lords] , the Statutory Water Companies Bill [Lords] , the Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords] , the Water Industry Bill [Lords] and the Water Resources Bill [Lords] , notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bills have been read a second time.-- [Mr. Wood.]

Column 1289

Community Charge

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Wood.]

2.30 pm

Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) : I welcome this opportunity to raise in the House a very important matter. The roots of this debate lie deep in the grubby soil of municipal extremism. For years Labour party activists have seen what they think is an opportunity to attack the Government through town halls. Never mind the provision of good, affordable local services ; the cry went up that the town hall must oppose the House of Commons.

The latest manifestation of that was announcements by Labour elected representatives--councillors and, I am sorry to say, Members of this House- -that they would refuse to pay the community charge. By what perversion of parliamentary political principle they decided to do that I do not know. If anyone should know that in this country the rule is that of law, it should be democratically elected representatives.

The main result of that was to give heart to those who decided to follow their example, doubtless on the ground that if the people at the town hall, the leaders of the community, said it was all right, it must be all right for them.

In my borough, the London borough of Waltham Forest, £60 million should have been collected last year, but £16.79 million is still outstanding, so that only 72 per cent. has been collected. That makes Waltham Forest the seventh worst performer in the country. The top six-- Lambeth, Liverpool, Islington, Newham, Southampton and Birmingham--are all Labour, as is Waltham Forest.

The average collection rate across the country is 90 per cent. Waltham Forest and those others come nowhere near that. By the fact that they have collected so little, they have inevitably dragged the average collection rate down, though in some authorities it is nearly 100 per cent.

One can tell at a glance which authorities are Labour and which have a poor record in collecting community charge--the two go together--as they have all imposed heavy surcharges on their community charge payers this year to make up for their incompetence last year. The surcharge in Waltham Forest is no less than £50.29. That has caused enormous resentment and public outcry. What a record that Labour council has since it was elected in 1986. In 1987 it increased rates by 62 per cent. It has one of the highest community charges in the country, £438 last year, and is now imposing a heavy surcharge of more than £50 to pay for women's committees and nuclear-free zones. But it has rubbish-strewn streets and the worst education results in London, despite spending the most money. In other words, it has all the manifestations of extreme loony left socialism.

May I dwell a little further on that point. The whole debacle was made even worse by the fact that the chief revenue officer responsible for collecting the community charge was suspended last September. Just before Christmas he was reinstated but was demoted to a lower grade, whereupon--not surprisingly--he left and his position is still vacant. Several other staff members were also suspended. Some were disciplined, some were sacked, and others left. Why did that happen, and why did those in authority let it happen, at such a crucial time? It

Column 1290

happened because one of the staff made allegations of racism. Although I believe that allegations of racism should be looked into, we must also ask why they are made. That member of staff took offence at the picture of a chimpanzee on a wall. Apparently, the chimpanzee had been there for several years--rather longer than many members of staff.

Another important fact is rent arrears in council dwellings. That is germane because under the old rating system, rates were collected--or not collected--with the rent. Under the community charge, that becomes a separate item so that if tenants have become used to not paying their rent and therefore do not pay their rates, by logical extension they will want to get used to not paying their community charge. The London borough of Waltham Forest has a dreadful record in that respect. Arrears as a percentage of the rent roll stand at 18 per cent. and some £4 million are outstanding. That is the ninth worst record in the country. The council is always complaining about lack of resources, but if it collected those £4 million it could start to reduce its capital debt, which now stands at more than £150 million.

The headline in a local paper dated 10 July 1991 said : "Row over Poll Tax Non-Payers--Labour councillor slams selfish' rebels and free-loading' residents."

The article says.

"A Labour councillor has made a stinging attack on fellow Socialist councillors who have been refusing to pay their poll tax. And Councillor Greg Hayman rebukes selfish' and free-loading' residents who think they can pull a fast one and escape paying the much criticised tax. Councillor Hayman has hit out because he has received many complaints from residents about the extra"

money that the council

"has put on to this year's poll tax to make up for the shortfall created by non-payers last year."

He said that the extra surcharge was "simply not fair." The article continued that Councillor Hayman said :

"Some people have been jumping on the non-payment bandwagon because a few councillors, who should have known better, set a bad example. Any freeloaders, who think they can get away with it, will find that the council is not soft on non-payers.' Five Labour councillors have so far been prosecuted for not paying their poll tax Cllr Hayman said : Just what were these councillors trying to prove? They have certainly not helped those conscientious people who are struggling to pay their poll tax and certainly not the borough's pensioners who still have to pay one-fifth of the poll tax. The actions of these councillors and other non-payers was totally selfish because cuts are now being made which affect residents who need to use the services we provide. If we don't collect the money, we have to cut services as well as putting up the poll tax.' Cllr Hayman said councillors who have still not paid up should resign from the Labour group. He is considering ways of forcing non-paying councillors to stand down. At least two of the rebels have yet to pay the poll tax even after they were taken to court."

That article was in the Islington Chronicle. There seems to be a mild outburst of realism and common sense in one small section of the Labour party. Let us hope that it spreads from Islington to Waltham Forest, although so far it has shown no signs of doing so. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) was sent to prison yesterday for not paying his poll tax.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key) : Disgraceful

Mr. Summerson : As my hon. Friend says, that non-payment was disgraceful--and what an example to

Column 1291

set. Are we law makers in this place or law breakers? The hon. Member for Broadgreen certainly learnt the lesson that if one breaks the law, one must pay the penalty.

I am well aware of the difficulties of collecting the community charge, but I am also aware that many conscientious and public-spirited people--the majority--have paid their poll tax and resent enormously the imposition of a huge surcharge as a result of Waltham Forest council failing to collect a reasonable proportion of last year's community charge and of Labour councillors and Members of Parliament, by their example, encouraging non- payment.

What is to be done? I have three suggestions. First, those elected councillors who have publicly announced that they will defy the law should be held responsible, not only for their own non-payment, but the non- payment of others. They should be surcharged and disqualified from office. Secondly, a list of payers and non-payers should be published so that people can see who have paid their dues and who have not. Thirdly, there should be more stipendiary magistrates. Those who organised the "Can't pay won't pay" campaign knew very well what they were about when they urged as many non-payers as possible to turn up at court--the idea being to block the system. They should not be allowed to succeed.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider those suggestions carefully, as my constituents are crying out for redress. I hope that he will also take this opportunity to condemn those Labour councillors who publicly announced last year that they would refuse to pay the community charge, thus heaping an even greater burden on my constituents this year.

2.43 pm

Next Section

Home Page