Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Susan Elan Jones

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems of the married couples tax allowance as proposed by the Government is the situation of what might traditionally have been called the deserted spouse, often the wife who was left? What would happen in that situation? That is a very real issue to be answered.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I say once again that we must have shorter interventions? I know that many Members wish to speak. We have been going for a long time and have not even got to the Back Benches yet.

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Susan Elan Jones

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There has been some concern about today’s Westminster Hall Select Committee on Welsh Affairs debate on inward investment in Wales. It did not appear on the Order Paper at any point this week until today and notification only came in the business statement on 8 November. Furthermore, there is concern that that important debate will clash with the Prime Minister making a statement on the Leveson report. Will you look into what went wrong concerning the debate, which is obviously important for the people of Wales?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It was an administrative error, which has been corrected, and we will certainly try to ensure that it does not happen again. The two debates would have taken place whether it was on the Order Paper or not, but the point is absolutely correct. It was an error—it was a mistake—and we must ensure that it does not happen again.

Home Affairs and Justice

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Susan Elan Jones

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order, but I am sure that the Ministers were listening. Who knows, they might even have been discussing the case. We should not make judgments about others; otherwise we would end up with such points going around the Chamber. I am sure that everyone takes seriously the views of Members of all parties when they are speaking.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I would like to deal now with the issue of what is legally defined as “dangerous driving”—that is, where a court of law can prove that the driving was extremely negligent, not just bad or careless. Sentences here, too, can also be very short in cases where victims are seriously injured, even to the extent of being paralysed, but not actually killed. The maximum sentence for that crime is also two years, and of course most people are given much shorter sentences. I believe that the current average is about 11 months. Eleven months for wrecking someone’s life through reckless criminal actions? There seems to be to be very little justice in that. Sentences for assault are longer, even when the act is not premeditated. Why should a sentence be so short when the injury was caused by a car rather than a weapon? I sincerely urge the Government to consider tightening the law in that regard. I commend their introduction of new drug-driving laws, but I believe that they must be followed by proper laws to deal with other serious driving crimes. That is what my constituents want, and I hope that the Government will include such measures in their Bill.

I have done all that I can in my speech to be positive about a change in the law that I greatly welcome, for, as we know, it matters precious little whether someone is Labour, Tory, Liberal Democrat or a non-voter if that person is mown down by a vehicle steered by someone who is high on drugs. In welcoming that change, however, I must raise a question about the implementation of the policy, and especially about how it will affect areas such as mine in north Wales which are geographically spread out. Laws on paper mean nothing if there are unmanageable cuts involving the people who are needed to enforce them. Our north Wales police force faces 20% budget cuts, which means that by 2015 it will have to lose 179 front-line officers—the very people who will be needed to carry out roadside drug tests.

The cuts will also affect so-called “back-room” officers and other staff. They are not people who are drafted in to make cups of coffee or count paper clips; they are people working in forensics and labs, the very people who will be needed to analyse and process the “drugalyser” results which will be vital to gaining convictions. Without those people, the Government’s own excellent new law is likely to fail in its day-to-day implementation.

Whatever the differences between Members’ ideological and political viewpoints, I believe that Ministers are sincere when they tell us that they believe in localism. I offer a challenge to the Government. If they are prepared to offer referendums to people on whether they want mayors, why on earth are police and crime commissioners being foisted on us whether we want them or not? There have been various estimates of the cost of introducing them, including an estimate of £136 million over 10 years, and it is likely that elected officials overseeing forces in England and Wales outside London will be paid hefty salaries. Given that police forces face cuts of between 14% and 20%, how in heaven’s name does that policy make sense? No wonder Mr Rob Garnham, chairman of the Association of Police Authorities and himself a Conservative councillor, described it as the

“wrong policy at the wrong time”.

I have no doubt that the Government’s new and welcome policy on drug-driving will not be helped one jot by cuts in the number of trained police officers while police commissioners are foisted on us whether we want them or not.

Let me end by making three points. First, let me praise the Government for rightly introducing a new law on drug-driving; secondly, let me request them to consider introducing tougher laws on other driving offences; and thirdly, let me ask them to remember the words of one previous Conservative Prime Minister—I am sure that I need not remind them who it was—who famously said:

“Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.”

Today, as we have seen outside and heard in the House, our policemen and policewomen also need the tools and the resources, so that they can get on with their unique and essential task of tackling crime.

General matters

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Susan Elan Jones

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making the case eloquently for the links between good transport infrastructure and economic development, but does he agree that direct train services are pivotal to that? Sometimes London does not realise that direct services—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. That is far too long an intervention. May I just say to Members that time is tight? I want to get everybody in, but time is very tight indeed. If people are going to give way, they should remember that the extra minute will come off somebody else’s time. Please let us try to ensure that we get everybody in.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Susan Elan Jones

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman hopes to catch my eye later. He cannot make his speech now.

[Susan Elan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman could have made a much better intervention about funding. If the intervention that he made was intended merely to back up his party’s crib sheet, I do not think that that was very sensible. He could have pointed out that yesterday the Department said that it would remove the reference to S4C from schedule 4 and give it a clause of its own, but, unbelievably, no additional funds and no commitment to funding after 2015.