Dangerous Dogs

Debate between Jim Shannon and Wayne David

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Last November a 10-year-old boy, Jack Lis from Pen y Bryn, Penyrheol, in my Caerphilly constituency was killed by a vicious dog. The dog attacked and killed Jack in a neighbour’s home. The dog was an American XL Bully. In the trial, which concluded last month, one of the defendants, in whose home Jack died, was sentenced to three years. The other defendant, the owner of the dog, received a sentence of four and a half years in a youth offender institution. The dog, called Beast, had been bought on the internet only a few days earlier.

There can be no doubt that the dog had huge behavioural problems and was not going to be kept as a normal pet. Indeed, the previous owner of the dog stated that he was selling the dog because he could not cope with it anymore, and the dog was described as “aggressive” in its “For sale” advert. Moreover, CCTV recordings showed how the dog threatened and tried to attack people on the street. It is worth noting that during the course of the trial, the man who owned the dog breached his bail conditions in a blatant way.

It is the view of Jack’s mother, Emma, who has been incredibly brave, that the sentences given to the two defendants were far too lenient. That is also the view of the local community in Caerphilly, and it is my view, too. An e-petition has been launched by Jack’s mother, and it clearly expresses the view of so many people about the leniency of the sentences that have been handed down. In response to the representations that Emma has made to the Attorney General’s Office, she has been told that it is not possible to refer these sentences to the Court of Appeal. Although the Law Officers have the power to ask the Court of Appeal to review certain sentences that appear to be unduly lenient, the power does not apply to sentences under the piece of legislation applicable here. I understand, however, that the Secretary of State for Justice has the power to add legislation to the scheme where a review can take place. Will the Minister therefore speak to her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice so that they can give active consideration to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 being included in the scheme?

It has to be said that even if the sentences in this case were referred to the Court of Appeal, the sentences of the two defendants could not be changed, as there could not be a retrospective change. It is nevertheless important that we learn the lessons from what has happened in this terrible situation when we look to the future. It follows from what I have said that the sentencing guidelines should be rewritten and strengthened in the light of this case.

Another important lesson from this terrible case is that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is woefully inadequate and inappropriate to deal with the issue of dangerous dogs. The attack on 10-year-old Jack Lis is truly tragic, but attacks by dangerous dogs are not a rare occurrence. In the past 10 years alone, more than 20 people have died after being attacked by a dog. Each year, some 200,000 people are attacked by dogs in England alone. In Wales there have been more than 200 incidents involving dangerous dogs during the last six months or so. In Gwent, which includes Caerphilly, between September 2021 and February 2022, 69 dog attacks were reported to Gwent police, three of which were on children aged 17 or under.

The main piece of relevant legislation is the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which applies to England, Scotland and Wales. It was under that law that the two defendants I referred to earlier were convicted and sentenced. They were found guilty of keeping or allowing a dog dangerously out of control where death is caused. As I said, the operation of that part of the Act could be significantly improved by strengthening the sentencing guidelines, but there also needs to be a fundamental rethink of the law as it applies to dangerous dogs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. He rightly says that the law is specific to England, Scotland and Wales; it is a devolved issue in Northern Ireland, but the situation is similar. For example, about six or seven weeks ago, a constituent of mine was out walking with their young dog, which was attacked by three or four other dogs. The dog had to be put down. That is another example of legislation that does not work. To address that issue, my constituent had to bring a private court case against the person, which added to the trauma.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is trying to bring forward a change in the legislation, which hopefully the Minister can review and consider. When that is done, will he share the information with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the devolved Administrations, so that we can all have better legislation, not just for his constituents—I am sorry to hear their tragic story—but for all of us across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Wayne David]

I thank the hon. Member for his support. Although the Act does not apply to Northern Ireland, there are arrangements in place. It is a serious issue in Northern Ireland, as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. I will certainly liaise with him when I pursue the matter further.

Only four specific breeds of dogs are banned in the Act: the pit bull terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Brasileiro. Incredible though it may seem to many, the dog that attacked Jack Lis, an American XL Bully, is not listed as a dangerous dog—but I am not calling for that particular breed simply to be added to the list. There are many types of dogs, including cross breeds, that people could argue ought to be on the list, but there are two fundamental problems with that approach. First, because there is more and more cross-breeding, it is virtually impossible to maintain any kind of legislation that contains an up-to-date list. Secondly, proscribing certain breeds of dogs gives the erroneous impression that only listed dogs are dangerous, and it does not take into account how a dog is kept and trained. It has been said that most dogs have the potential to be dangerous if they are not trained properly.

We need to fundamentally change our whole approach to so-called dangerous dogs. Rather than relying on breed-specific legislation, which is clearly inappropriate, the Government ought to bring forward legislation based on a totally different approach to the issue. I know that the Government have done a lot of work on it, and I contributed to a Westminster Hall debate on it only a few weeks ago. The response of the former Minister, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), to that debate was encouraging, and I hope that the Minister will take us a bit further forward today.

The Government’s starting point has to be an acceptance that there is a lack of any real evidence to support a breed-specific approach to protecting the public. I believe that there is a large amount of independent research, funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which lays the basis for a quite different approach. It shows that simply looking at a dog’s breed is not an appropriate criterion for assessing that dog’s risk to people. I know that the Government are fully aware of the conclusions of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee inquiry, which states that the current dangerous dogs legislation fails to protect public safety and also harms animal welfare. This is also the view of a whole range of organisations that have come together under the dog control coalition. These organisations include the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club.

It is now over 30 years since the Dangerous Dogs Act was passed, and going beyond this Act, it has to be said that the legal framework for dealing with dog bite incidents is very complex, with a number of different laws applicable depending on the circumstances surrounding the incident. However, the breed-specific legislation has another fundamental weakness, which is the fact that it is to a large extent reactive in character. I believe that it is better to approach this issue of public safety before harm is caused, rather than responding to the consequences. Prevention has to be the watchword. That is why I want a comprehensive and fundamentally different approach to the issue.

A number of years ago, there were dog licences. The Government really ought to examine the possibility of reintroducing dog licences, but this time we should not simply see them as an easy way for Government to have an additional source of revenue. The money received should be used for a whole range of initiatives, including tackling the behavioural problems of certain kinds of dogs that lead to dog bite incidents. Resources could also be provided for dealing with stray dogs and for helping to fund dog training. Let us not forget that, at the moment, dogs have to have microchips by the time they are eight weeks old. Licensing could be an extension of this and a significant elaboration of it.

I am pleased that the RSPCA Cymru agrees with the approach I have outlined. As animal welfare in Wales is devolved to the Welsh Senedd, I look forward to having a constructive dialogue on this issue with Hefin David, the Member of the Senedd for Caerphilly, and the Welsh Government. Crucially, however, I also believe that an effective assessment needs to be made of potential and actual owners of dogs. At the moment, anyone in any circumstances can purchase virtually any kind of dog. I believe that local authorities should have a key role to play here. Local authorities also ought to have the statutory responsibility for ensuring that dogs are kept and housed properly, and that their owners are ensuring that their dogs are correctly and appropriately trained.

In addition, there needs to be firm control on the buying and selling of dogs. To return to the tragic case of Jack Lis, the dog that killed him was purchased on Facebook not long before the attack. Such purchases cannot be allowed to continue. That is why I would urge the Government to prevent the sale and purchase of dogs in this way.

Today, many of my remarks have focused on the tragedy of Jack Lis, and I want to pay tribute to his family, especially his mother, Emma. She has been enormously brave during this whole difficult time. Nothing can bring Jack back, but all of us need to do our utmost to prevent similar tragedies in the future. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and I encourage her to be as positive as possible.

Peace and Stability in the Balkans

Debate between Jim Shannon and Wayne David

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the maintenance of peace and stability in the Balkans.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has sent frightening shockwaves throughout the European continent, and there is particular concern in Finland and Sweden; in the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia; in Moldova, regarding Transnistria; and in the Balkans.

I well remember, as we all do, the terrible bloodshed in the western Balkans following the break-up of Yugoslavia. I visited Bosnia in 2013 as part of an inter-parliamentary delegation. I recall the harrowing stories I heard from people belonging to all ethnic groups, and I will never forget travelling by bus through the Balkans and visiting Sarajevo. We passed through numerous communities in the Balkans and saw graveyard after graveyard in every community.

A little later in the conflict, only the intervention of NATO in Kosova and Serbia prevented even more appalling bloodshed when Serbian nationalists, led by Slobodan Miloševic, tried to ethnically cleanse Kosova of Muslim Albanians. Whatever our views and our differences in this Parliament, we must all be united in our resolution to stop that happening again.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the Chamber. He is talking about the exclusion of aircraft and an exclusion zone. Perhaps he agrees that today, when we think of Ukraine, we do so for the very same reason that a no-fly zone was wanted in the Balkans—because it would stop the murder of children, babies and elderly people, the killing of innocents and the destruction of property. Does he agree that if we want to make sure that the Russians cannot win, we need a no-fly zone so that we can protect people?

[Wayne David]

I certainly understand the sentiments the hon. Member expresses so strongly, and I am sure we all agree with those sentiments, but we must look carefully at what a no-fly zone might mean in the situation we face in Ukraine. A no-fly zone would be easy to do, but it is wrong to draw exact parallels between what happened in the western Balkans and what is happening in Ukraine today.

Even before the invasion of Ukraine, there was growing concern that Bosnia and Herzegovina could once again be engulfed by ethnic bloodshed of the kind that we saw in the 1990s. The fragile Dayton peace agreement had been under strain for some time, and the President of Republika Srpska had advised of his goal of fracturing the Bosnian state. The Bosnian Serbs had announced that they were going to boycott key institutions of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Welsh Affairs

Debate between Jim Shannon and Wayne David

Thursday 3rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David]

There is a great deal of concern about it, undoubtedly. Many of us were hoping that the Government would be true to their word and that a streamlined system would be introduced quickly and effectively. That clearly has not happened, so one of my questions to the Secretary of State is whether he will provide further clarification in this important debate, in some detail, about what will happen with the shared prosperity fund.

We have heard that the Government’s intention is to match European funding pound for pound. I welcome that statement, but I have to say that I am slightly concerned that that commitment may be more apparent than real. The European funding period was seven years, but we have yet to hear any commitment from the Government beyond the current short-term spending round. That could be as short as two years, so the big question is what happens after that.

Local authorities and other organisations have long-term projections for how their money will be spent. They have fed back to a number of hon. Members their very real concern that they can now commit only to projects that last two years, whereas reality and the needs of their communities dictate that they should have a longer-term perspective. If we are to make the promise of pound-for-pound support real, let us flesh it out. I will give the benefit of the doubt to the Government, but I have to say that there is nothing to substantiate the rhetorical claim that is being made.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the shared prosperity fund, which was debated in Westminster Hall this week. There are other things that we agree on, too. Does he agree that the ties that bind us together as British and Celtic nations are worth celebrating, and that more should and must be done to make the most of our wonderful tourism opportunities through the shared prosperity fund? Between our two nations, I believe we have the United Kingdom’s most beautiful countryside and equally warm-hearted people—the Welsh and the Northern Irish people together.

[Wayne David]

Indeed. It is extremely important to celebrate the diversity of the United Kingdom and the mutual respect in our communities. That respect extends not only within the United Kingdom—long may it be united—but beyond our borders into other European countries and internationally. It is extremely important to remember that.

Palestine: Road Map to Peace

Debate between Jim Shannon and Wayne David

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Wayne David]

I very much agree with all the points that my hon. Friend made, and I will touch upon each one in just a few moments.

Britain and the international community have to focus on a number of principles and key positions, so that we lay the groundwork for an eventual peace. Those must include, first, an adherence to the rule of international law—not ifs, no buts. There must be an adherence to international law by all parties, including the Palestinians, and including the state of Israel. Moreover, the forced evictions of Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah and other communities in east Jerusalem and the west bank must stop. The ever-growing number of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are clearly illegal under international law, and the displacement of Palestinians from land that they have held for generations is clearly wrong. That is one principle—what follows from international law.

The second principle is that the city of Jerusalem must be shared by Israelis and Palestinians. The annexation of east Jerusalem by Israel cannot be accepted. Those two principles are the cornerstones on which any future negotiation has to be based. However, before we get to any meaningful negotiations, we have to press for a number of things.

[Jim Shannon]

That is a fairly balanced point of view. However, Israel is surrounded by enemies; there are rocket attacks and terrorist attacks on a regular basis. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the protection of Israel’s own people needs to be ensured before anything can happen?

[Wayne David]

Absolutely. I am a strong supporter of the state of Israel, as I am of a future state of Palestine. The state of Israel has a right to protect itself against Hamas, or anybody else for that matter, as any other state has according to international law. That is why international law is so important; it must apply to everyone in all circumstances.

The time is right for the state of Palestine to be recognised. Parliament itself has voted in principle in favour of recognising the state of Palestine, but it has not indicated a timescale, and the Government have paid, dare I say it, lip service to this principle. We now need to firm things up, and ensure that there is a recognition of the state of Palestine, which will give an impetus to the move towards meaningful negotiations.

We also need to press firmly for elections to be held in Palestine, so that those who are elected have a clear mandate to negotiate on behalf of their people. There is nothing like democracy, and nothing gives a mandate for negotiation as effectively as democracy. That is why the Palestinians need to have elections. The broadly based Israeli Government should do everything that they can to de-escalate tensions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the new Government must place an embargo on all future settlements on the west bank.

It has to be said that the United States needs to be encouraged to be more proactive in the region, as touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick). The United States needs to work with allies in the region and build on the new relationships that are being established through the Abraham accords. I know that some Members have reservations about the Abraham accords, but they nevertheless exist, and we must use them as an opportunity to encourage the United Arab Emirates and others to raise the issue of Palestine directly with the Israelis. This is a new opportunity, and we must take every advantage of it. It might be an important avenue to explore with the UAE, because the country will be on the United Nations Security Council for two years, starting from this January.

Of course, our Government can do a heck of a lot more than they are currently doing. I was interested to read that the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa spoke at a conference this morning and issued a tweet in which he said it is important that we support the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. He said:

“Important we support UNRWA to deliver on its mandate until there is an agreed solution.”

That is all well and good, but I respectfully remind the Government that they have, quite disgracefully, just reduced their funding to UNRWA. I have the figures to prove it. The British Government gave $64.1 million to UNRWA in 2020—a reduction from $76.2 million in 2019—and the projection for 2021 is $39.1 million. The Government can say what they like about supporting UNRWA and the peace process, and about ensuring that the infrastructure is in place and that the groundwork is done for successful negotiations, but they are actually undermining it through their ham-fisted policies. I respectfully ask the Government to reconsider whether those cuts are morally justified and make any kind of sense whatsoever.

It is important for our Government to recognise that the peace process is a process. It will not happen overnight, and nor will it happen over weeks or months. It will happen over years, and it is absolutely essential that the groundwork is done to ensure that there is rapprochement between people on the ground. We have to learn lessons from the situation in Northern Ireland. Great progress was made in Northern Ireland, and not just because politicians came together, talked to one another and made compromises, which are essential in any negotiations. There was also investment in the means to bring people together, so that the old enmities of the past were put to one side, or at least minimised.

We have to do a something similar with regards to Israel and Palestine. That is why I think it is extremely important that the Government give their full-hearted support to the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace. I know the Government say they support it, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green said, the Government have the opportunity to give their full-hearted support and to take up one of the seats on the board. They can support the initiative that has come from America to ensure that the essential groundwork is done, so that the Israeli people and the Palestinian people learn to come closer together. It is only when that happens that we can have a basis for a genuinely sustainable and fair peace, which is what we all want.

Driving Offences: Government Consultation

Debate between Jim Shannon and Wayne David

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Most drivers drive safely, and Britain has one of the best safety records in the world. It is good to see growing public awareness of the need for safety, and a growing number of community groups are working with the police to reduce the incidence of speeding on our roads. I refer, for example, to the excellent work of the Draethen, Waterloo and Rudry community voice project and the Machen community road watch, both in my constituency.

At the same time, with a growing number of vehicles on the road, there is growing public concern about aspects of the law as it relates to driving. In particular, the law and sentencing guidelines do not always provide a proportionate response to the crimes committed on our roads. In that context, I refer to an accident that occurred in south Wales a year-and-a-half ago.

In October 2015, an horrendous accident occurred in Georgetown, Merthyr Tydfil in which three young men from Gilfach, Bargoed in my constituency lost their lives. They were passengers in a car that crashed into a roadside telegraph post. Two of the young men were presumed dead at the scene of the accident, and the third man died of his injuries some weeks later. The driver of the car and the front-seat passenger both survived the accident.

The driver of the car was arrested some weeks later on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving. He was released on police bail and allowed to continue driving. I understand that the law has now been changed to prevent such an occurrence.

At the end of the trial, the judge stated that there was insufficient evidence to

“prove to the right standard that the defendant’s driving was dangerous”.

Instead, the defendant was found guilty of causing death by careless driving. The defendant admitted three counts of death on that basis and was jailed for 10 months. The charges of death by dangerous driving were dismissed by the judge.

The sentence that was delivered was, I am told, in line with sentencing guidelines and reflects the plea of guilty made by the defendant. But given the severity of the crime, the families of the three young men who had lost their lives were naturally shocked and appalled by the leniency of the sentence. Indeed, everyone who has read or heard about this case has been aghast at how such a lenient sentence could have been imposed. I am told that the defendant showed no remorse during the trial and, to make matters worse, he was released from prison having served only five months of his sentence.

Although I do not expect the Minister to comment on this case, I would like to make two further points relating to it. First, I am told that a material fact was not brought to the attention of the judge due to a police failing: some months before the accident, the defendant had been cautioned for a driving offence, but that caution had not been recorded properly by Gwent police and therefore it was not brought to the attention of the judge. The caution would probably have been inadmissible as evidence, but it may have had a bearing on the sentence delivered. The matter has been taken-up with Gwent police and with the police and crime commissioner for Gwent.

I am also concerned about the apparent lack of sensitivity and support for the families of the deceased young men shown by the Crown Prosecution Service. Having indicated to the families that a charge of death by dangerous driving was being pursued, the CPS did not then sufficiently explain to the families why a lesser charge was being imposed. This case is obviously germane to the Government’s consultation on “Driving offences and penalties relating to causing death or serious injury”. That consultation concluded at the start of this month. It was an important consultation and I have made a submission to it. The Government will now consider whether the sentencing guidelines ought to be modified.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman has brought a very important issue to the House for consideration, and we are all here because we support him and congratulate him on doing that. Does he agree that the average sentence of not even four years is certainly not enough of a penalty for those who take a life in this way? Does he further agree that we should consider a life sentence for those who have a history of careless driving offences, such as those he has referred to?

[Wayne David]

I have a great deal of sympathy with the point that has been made. One point I want to elaborate on later is the inadequacy of the sentencing for crimes of this sort.

I referred to the consultation and I am disappointed by it, as, unfortunately, the Government circumscribed it from the start. They did that by stating that they had already decided that there was to be no change in the legislation relating to the definition of careless driving and dangerous driving. Although the consultation paper from the Ministry of Justice acknowledges that the distinction between careless and dangerous driving has been

“the subject of extensive scrutiny and debate”,

the Government indicated that they had already made up their mind in favour of maintaining the status quo. This is most unfortunate.

The case regarding my constituents from Bargoed has, among other things, highlighted that the distinction between careless driving and dangerous driving is artificial and unhelpful in ensuring that sentences reflect the gravity of the crime they seek to punish. The definition of careless driving is set-out in section 3ZA of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and it stipulates that a person is driving carelessly if they are driving without “due care and attention'”. The law also adds that there is careless driving if the manner of driving falls below what could be expected of a competent and careful driver.

What constitutes dangerous driving is set out in section 2A(1) of that Act. It applies to a person whose driving falls far below what could be expected of a competent and careful driver.

The consultation paper makes the fair point that it is impossible to set out what might constitute careless or dangerous driving in every case because, quite obviously, every case is different. However, that is a strong argument for having a continuum of what I will call bad driving, rather than a division between careless and dangerous driving. As things stand, given that the threshold for proving dangerous driving is quite high, it is much easier to err on the side of caution and secure a conviction for the lesser offence of careless driving. That is an argument relevant to a prosecutor’s decision, as well as to a judge’s determination.

As I have said, I have made a submission to the consultation. An important submission has also been made by Brake, the road safety charity, in which it, too, argues that the distinction between careless driving and dangerous driving is questionable, particularly in cases relating to death and injury. Brake has also pointed out that there is a lack of consistency in the differentiation between careless driving and dangerous driving. Its submission says:

“the test lacks any bench-mark for consistency due in large part to the variability of facts on a case to case basis”.

In reality, the line between the low of what is expected of a competent and careful driver, and far below that, is impossible to pinpoint with any degree of accuracy. As Brake has pointed out, there is also a need to change our terminology. I accept that it is insufficient simply to advise the judiciary to refer to “bad driving”. Equally, it is inappropriate to talk of careless driving when we are referring to death or serious injury. The language of the charges needs to be changed to reflect the seriousness of the issue.

It is clear that the law needs to be changed. As it stands, the law, and the sentencing guidelines that emanate from it, do not command full public confidence. Surprising though it must seem, only a minority of people convicted of death by careless driving are given a custodial sentence, and the average sentence is little over a year. In 2011, the average length of a custodial sentence for causing death by careless driving was 15.3 months; in 2014, it was 10.4 months; and in 2015, it was 14.4 months. In the case I have highlighted, in which three young men lost their lives, the sentence was a mere 10 months.

I hope the Government listen to what members of the public are saying and take heed of what Brake is arguing for. The consultation may have concluded, but I very much hope that the Government will begin a more fundamental consultative process that will eventually lead to a change in the law. Any changes made will not correct the wrongs that have been done to the families of the three young men from Bargoed, but they will at least help to ensure that other families might not have to go through the torment that they have experienced over the past year and a half.

Police and Crime Commissioners

Debate between Jim Shannon and Wayne David

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes entirely valid points. Nobody is against having a Home Office website with information about the candidates, but that must be as well as, not instead of, other forms of information. I think that the Government have made a mistake here.

The Government have, albeit wrongly, set their face against this proposal, so in the brief time available, I will not go over old arguments. Instead, I want to focus on a number of areas in respect of which I hope the Government will listen and improve their draft legislation. Before I go on to those points, I would like the Government to assure us that the website will be accessible to all and that the information on it will be provided in minority languages. In particular, as a Welshman, I would hope that a Welsh language version of the website will be available and that Welsh language speakers will be available for the helpline. Perhaps the Minister can provide information about that. I also hope that the information will be provided in alternative formats—in Braille or in large print, for example. I shall now move on to focus on other areas where the Government could improve their draft legislation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the election of a police or crime commissioner should be based not on popularity alone, but on experience, ability and years of service? Does he have any thoughts on how that could be brought into the process in such a way that the bright person gets the job because they have the ability to do it well?

[Mr David]

I think it is important that the electorate know what the position involves and the job entails, as well as the qualities of the individuals being put forward. I am a democrat; I have faith in the electorate to make the appropriate decisions, provided, of course, that they have been given the appropriate information on which to base their decisions. That is why I believe this debate is so important.

To return to the specifics of the draft legislation, under the Government’s plans, police area returning officers—PAROs for short—will accept or reject material from candidates standing for election on 15 November. They will check and approve the material they receive, and then pass it on to the Home Office so that it can publish that material on its website. It is pretty clear to me that this will be a sensitive role for these officers, so I urge the Government to ensure that the criteria by which PAROs have to assess the material are set out clearly and in detail—much more clearly, I would suggest, than in the draft secondary legislation.

Secondly, the Electoral Commission will, to its credit, produce a booklet for every household where PCC elections are taking place. This is particularly important because the elections will take place at an unfamiliar time of year in November, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) has said, and using a voting system—the supplementary vote system—that most people will not have used before. May I have an assurance from the Government that sufficient resources will be provided to the Electoral Commission for this information dissemination work to be carried out properly?

Generally, it is essential that guidance for candidates, agents, campaigners and returning officers is provided well in advance of the elections in November. The Government should note that the Electoral Commission wants most of these guidelines in place very soon so that they can be published and disseminated widely three months before the start of the regulated period. Of particular concern is the need to publish the limits on the amount of money that PCC candidates can spend during the last few weeks of the campaign, and I would hope that the spending limit for each specific police area—not a complicated calculation and a formula—is set out on the face of the secondary legislation. That is the way to ensure clarity.