Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue. I am considering the recommendations very carefully, and will respond shortly.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Given that 40% of crime is now economic crime, it is disappointing that the Law Commission has recommended restricting corporate criminal liability for failing to prevent economic crime to fraud, and leaving out key crimes such as money laundering and false accounting. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me to discuss the benefits of a review with a much wider scope?

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

Yes.

Assisted Dying

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under you, Sir Roger, and I welcome the debate. I should declare that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for dying well.

Let me start by saying how much I recognise the good faith, integrity and powerful arguments of the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), all hon. Members speaking in support of the petition and all the campaigners who support it. I recognise the extreme distress and anxiety felt by families who have been through the agonising death of a loved one who experienced suffering that no human being should go through. I will address the issue of bad deaths in a moment, but first I want to look at the implications of assisted dying as I see them, and what would happen if we did it in this country, based on our experience and that of other countries.

I do not have a suite of powerful personal stories, although I recognise the enormous moral value of them all; I invoke the nameless and numberless people who will be affected if we introduce this law. The main argument for assisted dying is the simple one of autonomy. I think a lot of the support for assisted dying comes from the simple and natural resentment that anybody should try to stop people doing what they want, especially about something as important as this—literally a matter of life and death. But in this case, things are the other way around for many people. In my view, we need to keep assisted dying illegal because, as a matter of practical fact, for many people, it would narrow their autonomy. It would reduce their freedom substantially, because it would put them on a path with only one destination. That is because of the incentives that assisted dying would introduce.

The first incentive would be in our healthcare system. The simple, blunt fact is that it is cheaper for the system to help people end their life early than to care for them for weeks, months or years. That is not an argument we hear for assisted dying, but it is compelling. The cat was let out of the bag rather when the Member of the Scottish Parliament who is trying to legalise assisted dying in Scotland cited research from Canada showing that the health service there has saved hundreds of millions of dollars in care costs. We see, in contraction to a point made by the hon. Member for Gower, that where assisted dying is introduced, investment in palliative care stalls or recedes in comparison with countries where assisted dying is illegal.

Meanwhile, in Oregon, we see people being refused palliative care on cost grounds and then choosing assisted dying because there is no other option. I know we pretend that we do not have rationing in the NHS, but obviously, with finite resources, we do. Do we really imagine that assisted dying will not become an option that doctors and medical managers will not tacitly—even unintentionally—encourage?

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some very interesting points, although I am on the other side of the argument. With such controversial issues, we tend to point to facts on either side of the argument. Would it not be sensible to have an independent inquiry, by the Health and Social Care Committee or otherwise, to look at the points that he raises and the points that others would raise on the other side of the argument?

[Danny Kruger]

I recognise the force of that point, but the fact is that Parliament has debated the topic repeatedly over the last 20 years. We have devoted considerable hours of parliamentary time to it already.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

My father’s last six months were horrible and frightful. Yes, I did want him to die more quickly, to end his suffering. However, he did not. He wanted to come home. I would therefore not change the law.

We have heard much about the polling, but the fact is there is nothing new there. Ever since we started polling on this question, there have been large majorities in favour of changing the law, so there is nothing new in that phenomenon. However, a poll is not an argument. The Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland believes that the polling is driven by reports in our newspapers of the awful deaths that some people experience, without giving proper consideration to the advances in palliative care and the fact that many people with terminal illnesses die a peaceful death with their family around them. It is not as if that case is presented fairly and equally.

We have also been told that the medical profession is changing its view, with the Royal College of Physicians changing its position from being against assisted dying. I understand that in a vote by its members, 43% voted to retain its opposition to the proposals, 31% wanted to support assisted dying and only 25% wanted to adopt a neutral position. The Royal College of Physicians is now in the absurd position of having adopted the position that was voted for by the fewest of its members.

We have also heard about the impact on palliative care. Obviously, there is a difference of views. However, I have sat in this Palace and heard clinicians from Canada tell us in terms that palliative care budgets were being squeezed to provide for the new service of assisted dying.

We have to be clear on both the implications for the medical profession—the way the nature of the medical profession will change when doctors can bring death as well as life—and the scale, which my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) touched on. My figures are rather different from his. I understand that about 400 people a year take their own lives in this country as a consequence of a terminal diagnosis. I understand that if we were like Holland, the figure for deaths assisted by the medical profession would be 21,000, taking account of the different size of population and all the rest. As many as one in six deaths in Holland may be accounted for by deaths assisted by the medical profession. Once we normalise that as a way of death, I think we would definitely dealing with dangers—

[Steve McCabe in the Chair]

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Clearly, it would depend on how we drafted any legislation brought forward, but my right hon. Friend mentioned 16%—in Oregon, 0.7% of deaths are through assisted dying. It depends on us.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I was speaking about the Dutch figures, not Oregon, but my hon. Friend is right that it depends on us.

I last debated this issue at Durham University earlier this year against Baroness Meacher. She wanted to confine the debate clearly and specifically to the terms that she had set out in her Bill, with all the provisions and the safeguards, such as that it has to be within six months of the end of life prognosis and all the rest. Unfortunately, she was rather undermined by the seconder of her motion, who was a psychiatrist and, I understood, represented an organisation called My Life, My Death, My Choice. There was no question that this was a service that should be available for us all at whatever stage of our lives. Once we open the door and go down that road, it is a one-way street. We have certainly seen that in the evidence from Canada.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

That was a very good speech. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this debate. I thought that her speech was excellent; it was incredibly touching and very sensitive. It was a perfect opening on this very difficult subject.

Of the public, 74% want their Member of Parliament to vote for a law on assisted dying. I did that in 2015 and I would do it again, given the chance, today. By a remarkable quirk of fate, in that vote in 2015, 74% of Members of Parliament voted against bringing in a law on assisted dying, which I think is entirely unsustainable. It is not holding back the tide; it is holding back a tidal wave of support for this.

We have heard so many times in recent years that we must trust the public. I absolutely agree with that, and I trust the 350 people in my constituency of Thirsk and Malton who wanted this debate. I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) on this. I agree with him on many topics—he is a man of great common sense, normally—but this is not about economics. This is about the people and what the people want. I say to the very well-behaved members of the public in the Gallery that I guess that the percentage who want assisted dying is much, much higher, because this is such a sensitive subject.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will look to the Chair—who says no; I apologise. We will talk about it afterwards.

As has been said any number of times this afternoon, this is about choice. Of course, all of us in this country are so lucky to have this free society we live in. This is about freedom of choice, but it is not about freedom of choice over anything; it is about freedom of choice about the thing we fear most in life: death.

I would say today that I do not actually fear death; I might think differently in a few years’ time—that point in time is getting closer—but I will tell you what I fear, Mr McCabe. I fear a painful death. I absolutely fear a painful death. I may have options. Some of us are lucky enough that we could plan ahead and say, “Well, we’ll make that trip to Zurich”, or we might take the terrible path that the father of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) had to take. People have a choice, of course, to do what they think is right and not to take that option, but instead to take the natural path. However, I think it is wrong to remove from people the choice, a choice that other countries and other places allow and that we can choose to have, as well—the ones who are lucky enough to have that choice.

There is one thing that we have probably not discussed in this debate. It is not just about the fear of dying; it is about the fear of what might happen. There is a quote from Dr Sandy Briden, who died of a form of cancer that is rare in the UK:

“Knowing I had the option of an assisted death when things get too much would allow me to live now, without the constant fear of what might happen at the end. For me, assisted dying isn’t about dying; it’s about living.”

It is about living that last time we have, knowing we have the choice—away from that anxiety, which must be terrible for people nearing these situations—and it is certainly something that I would have wished for my mother when she passed away at the end of 2019. The palliative care was there, but still it was, for all those around her, a traumatic experience.

I do not get the slippery-slope argument. We have seen that in Oregon, which has not changed its law in 25 years, a very low percentage of people—0.7%—take this path of death through assisted dying.

However, I understand that there are really cogent arguments as to why we would not have this law, which is why I support an inquiry. I just do not see what the argument against an inquiry is. We could look at best practice around the world and decide what is best practice for the United Kingdom.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

We have got 31 speakers into this debate. We have had to squeeze the Front Benchers a little bit to do that, so if they could confine themselves to nine or 10 minutes, the mover of the motion might just get a last word.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

Those proposals were not appropriate for support, but we are having a think and will make an announcement shortly.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to help ensure that appropriate compensation is disbursed to Medomsley Detention Centre victims.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

I have every sympathy for the survivors and victims of Medomsley detention centre, who suffered abhorrent abuse. The Ministry of Justice has been working for several years to compensate properly survivors and victims. Where necessary, claimants are able to submit medical evidence to support allegations of abuse so that damages can be appropriately assessed. That includes both physical and psychological injury. The majority of claims for compensation have now been settled under a settlement protocol.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful for that answer. The compensation scheme covers physical, not sexual abuse. My constituent suffered terrible, much more serious abuse. He was drugged and raped, which has had a profound effect on his health for over 40 years—both his physical and his mental health—and that of his family. Will my hon. Friend agree to meet me, my constituent and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Medomsley detention centre to discuss a proper compensation settlement for my constituent?

[Alex Chalk]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and he paints a truly harrowing picture. For the avoidance of doubt, cases involving serious sexual harm and psychological injury can be dealt with by the Government Legal Department, albeit outside the standard compensation scheme. Because of their seriousness and complexity, they are considered on a case-by-case basis and awards made have been significant. We take great care to ensure the level of compensation properly reflects the seriousness of the abuse. It is of course always open to claimants to issue proceedings in the courts outwith the scheme, should they see fit. I would be happy to meet to discuss the protocols, but I just say this: it is important that Ministers do not interfere in specific cases when litigation is ongoing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion and would be interested to know more about the specific approach being taken. I assure him that south of the border the concept of supported accommodation and a supported approach is very much at the heart of what we are seeking to do, particularly with regard to young offenders. The development of the use of smaller units and diversionary work has been very much at the heart of what we have done over the past 10 years. The hon. Gentleman will see that the number of children now incarcerated has fallen from 3,000 to just over 500 or so in the past year. That is a dramatic improvement, but I am certainly interested to know more about the Scottish Government’s initiative.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Does not the collapse of the Serco fraud trial and the fact that the Serious Fraud Office was prosecuting only mid-level managers rather than the people responsible for defrauding the taxpayer, which they admitted, high- light the need to bring forward a “failure to prevent economic crime” offence at corporate level, and to make it a criminal offence?

[Robert Buckland]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his assiduous campaigning on this important issue. He knows that I have always placed heavy emphasis on the need to examine the law carefully in this area, because I accept that there are loopholes. I asked the Law Commission to undertake an in-depth review of economic crime law and, if necessary, to make recommendations on options for reform. It began its work last November and is aiming to publish an options paper later this year. We will work with the Law Commission to implement any next steps.

Child Cruelty Offences: Sentencing

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for being in the Chair this afternoon, and I am grateful to be called to speak about what is a very important subject, not just for me in Kent but for many across our country and, as I know from the messages of support I have received, for many around the world.

Lockdown has brought home to many of us the stress of childcare, and we have all learned to respect teachers even more than we already did. Certainly, I know that I am not alone in being delighted that schools have reopened and that our children are able to expend the energy that they accumulate through the day in charging around a playground rather than charging around a sitting room.

We have spoken frequently about the importance of childhood and of protecting the most vulnerable in our society, because we understand that failing to care for children is not just wrong; it is a betrayal of the trust that they should be able to have in our community and in the adults around them. But few betrayals are worse—in fact, no betrayal is worse—than parental abuse. That has long been recognised: 700 years ago, Dante wrote about it, putting the betrayers of family into the lowest circle of hell. He was right to do so, because those who harm their own children are beneath contempt. Our society should reflect that in our laws, and that is why I have secured this debate.

Over the past few years, I have had the privilege of getting to know an extraordinary young man whose story has moved much of the nation. Tony Hudgell, from Kings Hill, has become a household name in recent months thanks to his exceptional fundraising efforts in June. This House has had the pleasure of his company before—indeed, were we not under the current regime, I have no doubt that he would be in the Gallery now. I am delighted to say that I am perfectly certain that he is watching from home as we speak. I know that Paula and Mark, Tony’s parents, will be supporting him, and he will be picking out individuals he recognises, because he has followed politics for several years.

Tony’s first visit to this House happened on 8 January 2019, when I presented a petition hand-signed by more than 12,000 people asking for tougher sentences for child cruelty offences. Tony, his parents and his supporters, who have come to be lovingly known as Bear’s Army, spent the summer of 2018 heading across Kent in support of their campaign. It was not possible to travel very far without hearing about their petition, or to go into many shops without seeing it.

Tony made a further visit on 12 February 2019 when I introduced the Child Cruelty (Sentences) Bill to the House. Unfortunately, we were unable to have time for its Second Reading because of the general election that followed last year. The purpose of this debate is to ask the Government whether they will adopt the policies that that Bill aimed to introduce. It sought to increase to imprisonment for life the maximum custodial sentence for the offences of child cruelty, and of causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die or suffer serious physical harm. It is more commonly known as Tony’s law, in honour of that extraordinary young man, Tony Hudgell himself.

It is worth remembering that Tony’s story is pretty extraordinary and, sadly, horrific, but it is not unique. Shortly after Tony was born, he was attacked by his biological parents. His fingers and toes were broken and the ligaments in his legs damaged. Despite extensive surgery, Tony had to have both legs amputated. He was only admitted to hospital 10 days after the injuries were sustained. It is impossible for us to know the pain that Tony must have suffered in his first few weeks of life.

Tony was lucky, however—extraordinary to say after what I have just recounted—because he was adopted by a real and loving family. His real parents, Paula and Mark, who have loved him and cared for him like a real family does and should, have given him an extraordinary home. His brothers, sisters and parents are an inspiration to so many, and certainly to me. They have given Tony the best possible upbringing after the hardest start in life. They are rooted in the community, both in Kings Hill and in the great kingdom of Kent. They are forces to be reckoned with, and their campaigning on this issue has won the appreciation of so many.

For many years, I have worked with Paula and Mark for justice for Tony. We started back in 2016 when the Crown Prosecution Service initially failed to bring charges against Tony’s biological parents. Eventually, charges were pressed, and in 2018 they each got 10 years in prison. Witnessing Tony’s biological parents being charged and sentenced for the crimes that they had committed brought a sense of closure on Tony’s first few difficult weeks alive. Unlike his birth parents, however, Tony got a life sentence.

Tony’s law, as I shall refer to it throughout this debate, is not intended to help Tony. His biological parents got the maximum sentence available at the time, and—thank God—he has now found the home that we all wish he had had to start with. I hope that this law will sit on the statute book and never be used, but it is the very least this House can do to recognise the extraordinary efforts of this inspirational young man. Tony’s law aims to send the message that we cannot and will not tolerate severe offences committed against the most vulnerable among us; that although they are not old enough to vote or stand for Parliament, still their life and safety matter as much as that of an adult.

Tony became a household name for many of us this year. Across the nation, he captured so many hearts. As part of his quest to improve his walking on his prosthetic legs, he set a goal of walking 10 km in 30 days to raise £500 for Evelina London Children’s Hospital—just across the river at St Thomas’—where he was treated and recovered from the horrendous injuries he had sustained. Tony, his family and his friends are hugely grateful to the hospital and I personally offer it my deepest thanks.

Tony, who always seems to achieve the impossible, despite anything put in front of him, has demonstrated that his courage and the love of his family can carry him anywhere. He did not raise £500: he raised £1 million, and more. Not only that but he smashed his target even further, and just last week he started walking into school for the very first time. In this debate, I am asking the Government to do what Tony has been doing for ages: helping those who need it most. I know they are already aware of the remarkable young man that Tony is.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is speaking so movingly about this case. I add my support for Tony and his family, and for my hon. Friend’s campaign and for doing anything to bring about the changes that he wants. Would he support a wider look at sentencing for offences against children, which often seem to be unduly lenient in some of the most egregious cases?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank my hon. Friend for his words. He is absolutely right that a review of child sentencing is required, because we are really talking about demonstrating that our society and this country recognise that the most vulnerable require the most protection.

I am very pleased to say that in July Tony received a award, and I was very honoured to carry it to him. The Prime Minister himself asked me to present a Points of Light award to Tony. Only a few weeks later—completely by chance, I am sure—the Prime Minister visited Tony’s school, the fantastic Discovery School in Kings Hill. I know the Prime Minister will be listening to this debate, and I am sure he remembers the conversation, because Tony was not exactly shy about putting his case. As anybody who knows him will attest, he has an amazing sense of life and passion and no lack of confidence. He would make a fantastic Member of Parliament one day. Tony has not forgotten meeting the Prime Minister, and I know that the photos take pride of place.

For those of us who have had the honour of knowing Tony for many years, and who share his drive, determination and commitment to the nation through his fundraising challenge, it is only right that we as parliamentarians show the support that the nation has already shown by introducing this law in his name.

I should like to focus much of this debate on how we can enshrine Tony’s law in our legislation, having been unable to progress the Child Cruelty (Sentences) Bill in the last Parliament. That Bill sought to amend the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 and the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 by extending the term of the relevant sentences. They are small amendments that would go a long way to ensuring adequate sentencing for the most extraordinary cases, such as Tony’s.

Let us be clear: Tony’s case is both unusual and extraordinary, and Tony’s law only seeks to address sentencing of the most extreme cases. Figures from the Office for National Statistics reveal that for offences of cruelty to and neglect of children from 2014 to 2018 only 114 offenders received an immediate custodial sentence for those crimes. Each of these 114 cases is one too many and horrific for not only the victims but the whole community. The purpose of Tony’s law is simply to increase to life imprisonment the maximum sentence possible for judges to resort to in the most serious cases. Not all those 114 offenders received the maximum sentence, and when a judge decides to give a more lenient sentence because of circumstances brought out in the trial, this legislation would make no difference; it would not change that.

In Tony’s case, which is included in these figures, the judge was extremely clear when he sentenced Tony’s birth parents. Indeed, at the sentencing hearing in February 2018 at Maidstone Crown court—a court I know well, having been put in the visitors’ box as a form of childcare when my father was sitting as a Crown court judge—Judge Philip Statman painted a vivid description of the case. Understandably, he could not comment on the maximum sentence being 10 years—that is a matter for Parliament and the sentencing authorities—but he could say the following:

“I cannot envisage a worse case than the one I have had to deal with over the course of the last two weeks.”

That is quite something for a judge who has dealt with so many serious offences in his career. Following the two-week trial, the jury took less than an hour to return a unanimous verdict. Anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of our Crown court system will recognise that not much of a debate was needed on this case.

The courts are rightly separate, and sentencing is up to the judge, but it is up to us, as a Parliament, to reflect the views of our society and to legislate to ensure that judges are able to give sentences that reflect the crimes committed and the abhorrence that our society feels towards them. We can do our bit to support Tony’s family by ensuring that the maximum sentence is appropriate for the crime. Under current law, the maximum sentence for this crime is 10 years, which is what Tony’s biological parents received. However, if Tony were an adult, the perpetrators would most likely have been charged with grievous bodily harm with intent, which carries a maximum sentence of life. How is it right that our law treats the most serious abuse of children differently from the abuse of adults?

A child’s life, as any parent will know, is the greatest responsibility that anyone can be trusted with. Children are, of course, particularly vulnerable. They are under the care of others, and unlike most groups in society, they do have not have the ability to influence not just policy and law but the space around them. We have a duty to protect children where the system or those responsible for their care fail them. We have a moral obligation to ensure that the law, in no uncertain terms, spells out that a child’s life matters just as much as that of an adult. To do this we need to empower the courts to give sentences to those who commit offences against children that match those for offences against adults. Whether it is an offence of child cruelty or grievous bodily harm with intent, sentences must be consistent, and we need to give judges the option of handing out longer sentences when needed, as Judge Statman could have done in Tony’s case.

I understand the Government’s argument. I have been told that the maximum sentence is capped because, in cases like this, it is impossible to be certain who committed the harm, because of the impossibility of such a young child bearing testimony. Of course I understand that that usually makes sense. There should be a limit on the sentences applicable when we cannot be certain and the charge is shared, but this is very different. This is not just about the violence committed against the child but about the very betrayal that the parents committed. This is a violation of the foundation of our society, the basics of family and the essence of community. It is not just a crime of violence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not understand the argument that, because of the lack of certainty around guilt, a sentence should be capped. Clearly the court can make a decision where there is doubt and can make a judgment on the length of the sentence accordingly. That capability should be left to the judge. Surely my hon. Friend is simply trying to give the judge more discretion to give a longer sentence in the most egregious cases.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This law—or rather, the law that I tried to introduce and am now arguing for—would not change the minimum sentence. If there were extenuating circumstances or reasons why the judge said that perhaps domestic abuse meant the situation was not the same for both parties, the judge would have the discretion, but would also have the ability, were it needed, to increase the sentence.

In Tony’s case, it is true that I could not say whether one party or the other inflicted the blows that did the particular damage to baby Tony, but I can say that both failed. I can say for certain that, in not calling an ambulance for 10 days, in watching Tony suffer, they both failed. They both failed in the most egregious and horrific way a parent can, and unless there are mitigating circumstances, as my hon. Friend says, that could easily be reflected and easily come out in a court, the judge would have the discretion to impose a maximum sentence beyond the 10 years available.

I am sorry to say, because I wish it were not so, that this has become more urgent, not less. Coronavirus and the lockdown that we have all been through have increased the dangers faced by vulnerable children, not decreased them. New research by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children found that Childline has seen a 22% increase in the number of counselling sessions about physical abuse and a 53% increase in contacts from people with concerns about children experiencing physical abuse since lockdown started. While clearly not all these will be criminal, and far fewer worthy of the maximum sentence, the justice system must be able to respond to the most serious offences committed.

The impact of physical abuse on children is not just severe but enduring. Both the Alberta Family Wellness Initiative and the Harvard Center on the Developing Child have published well-respected research showing that experiencing trauma of any kind at a very young age can have a sustained and devastating impact on brain development. This impacts the ability to form and maintain relationships, results in lower educational and employment outcomes and increases the chances of being victims once again. It can create extremely severe and long-term issues. Increasing the maximum sentence will not solve that, but parents must have a good understanding of developmental harm to children, and our court system must be able to set sentences to reflect that. Our judicial system already has the ability to determine which crimes should be classed as having aggravating circumstances, and it is essential that the legal maximum sentences address the impact of any crime on the victim and on our whole society.

Back in 2019, after the introduction of Child Cruelty (Sentences) Bill, I met the Minister responsible, the right hon. Rory Stewart, who presented me with Ministry of Justice data showing how few cases of this nature and gravity occur per year. That is something that I personally welcome, as I know does everyone in the House. However, we also need to accept the need to ensure that those few who are victims of these crimes are given justice that reflects the severity of crimes committed. We cannot have a justice system that fails to amend the necessary legislation on the basis simply that only a few children will be impacted.

I consequently wrote to and met the Crown Prosecution Service on 4 July last year, and I am pleased to note that the Director of Public Prosecutions raised my concerns with the senior judge who chairs the Sentencing Council. Indeed, I have a letter from the director of legal services at the Crown Prosecution Service, dated 19 July 2019, which states that they

“still stand by to assist with any further work”

in relation to extending the statutory maximums for offences involving child cruelty. It is my firm belief following these meetings that, should this Government be willing to introduce Tony’s law, the Sentencing Council would be able to update its guidance appropriately and the CPS would be able to lend its support to this.

As I mentioned at the start of this debate, in Tony’s case we –I must emphasise that I played only a small part, because Paula and Mark are absolutely the heroes here and they led the way, with help from Kent police and the police and crime commissioner, Matthew Scott—were able to help persuade the CPS to re-evaluate its original decision on pushing charges against Tony’s biological parents for the crimes which they had committed. It shows that much work yet remains to be done. Not all children have a Paula and Mark in their lives, and it falls on us in this House to ensure that those children are heard too. The introduction of Tony’s law would be the best way to make this happen. I am not particularly bothered if the Government seek to amend either of the two Acts I mentioned earlier or find an alternative route to bring in legislation—that is a matter for them and for the Clerks. It really does not matter how it is done, so long as the aims contained in Tony’s law can be implemented. What does matter is that those who have committed the most horrific crimes against vulnerable children serve the appropriate sentence.

As a parent, I know there is no guidebook on how to care for or raise a child; it is hard work, and all of us know how many mistakes we have made. But having a child and watching them grow is the greatest privilege I have ever had, and I am sure I speak for many in this House when I say that. Making the abuse of children the ultimate act of betrayal and the ultimate breach of trust is a duty that falls to us all. On average, about 700 people a year are convicted of cruelty to or neglect of children. They are rightly punished by our criminal justice system. This change seeks to focus only on those most serious cases, where the abuse suffered by the victim causes life-changing injuries, and it seeks only to give judges a wider set of tools and the discretion to use them—tools they would have if the victim were an adult.

Tony Hudgell will never be able to walk like me or you, Mr Speaker. Tony’s first steps have been harder than anyone’s. He has proved, not in private but in front of the whole nation, that he has the drive, determination and character to overcome any challenge or hardship placed in his way. He has won the nation’s hearts and is one of the many heroes our country has cherished during this extraordinarily difficult time. He was won the appreciation and recognition of everyone from the Prime Minister to the Duchess of Cambridge and, probably most importantly for Tony, Chelsea football club.

I hope the Government are willing to recognise this extraordinary young man and his achievements, and introduce the law that is rightly in his name. Tony’s law seeks to ensure that individuals who commit the most serious acts of cruelty against children face appropriate punishment when convicted of this crime. It would be a welcome and important step towards ensuring that our policies and our laws reflect the importance we place on our children’s lives and wellbeing. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and hope very much that we will be able to work together in days to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Member makes two important points. He may have heard my answer to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), when I said that in fact for the first time, September to September last year, we had a reduction in violence—a slight reduction but a good step in the right direction. As I mentioned to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), we have recruited more prison officers—4,300 net since 2016.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The introduction of a corporate offence of failing to prevent economic crime could well have prevented a succession of banking scandals: PPI, the rigging of LIBOR and forex and the scandalous mistreatment of thousands of small businesses. What plans does the Justice Secretary have to introduce such an offence?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend has raised this issue on many previous occasions, and he knows that I have engaged very closely on it. Now that we have the time and space with regard to the further development of policy, I want to work with him and, indeed, other parts of government to develop these proposals. There is still more work to be done. We have two failing-to-prevent offences in the realms of tax evasion and bribery. We need to understand the learning from those in order to apply those principles to any future further economic crime offence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

I am delighted that Labour Members are working with us to try to get a good Brexit deal in place, and if we can get such a deal, we will be able to continue through the transition period. In a no-deal situation, however, it will become significantly more difficult because we will have to fall back on older and more cumbersome ways of moving prisoners. That would not be good for us or for Europe.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Despite the wilful destruction of thousands of small businesses by their own bank, no senior executive has ever been held to account. Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s proposals to bring forward legislation to make failure to prevent fraud a corporate criminal offence?

[Lucy Frazer]

Of course, when people suffer economic crime it is as devastating for them as it is with any other crime. As my hon. Friend will know, we put out a call for evidence and we are looking carefully at the responses across the Departments. We will be responding in due course.

Missing Persons Guardianship

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Bambos Charalambous]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. One thousand people go missing a year, but some people have been missing for many more years, and the figure will obviously be far higher than the 1,000 I mentioned.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I promoted the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017, and in my experience the financial services are keen on its provisions. They wish to help and to take a different approach when these tragic situations occur, but the difficulty is that they are tied to the law on such issues. We therefore need this change so that they can provide more assistance to those who face such difficulties.

[Bambos Charalambous]

I entirely agree. If a person dies, probate can be granted to financial institutions and used as a way of allowing the executor to access a person’s accounts. More needs to be done, and financial institutions need to be protected in that area.

I hope the Minister will agree that those who have a missing family member should not have to endure the indignity of being unable to deal with their loved one’s affairs because they cannot prove death, especially when they should not need to. The 2017 Act needs to be implemented as soon as possible, because no one should have to endure the anguish endured by my constituent. The Act will make a huge difference to the lives of the families of the missing. It will bring closure to some of them, as well as some comfort following the suffering and anguish they will have endured not knowing what fate may have befallen their loved one. This is a great opportunity for the Minister to show Parliament at its best, with Members coming together to make a real difference and doing something that we all agree on and that will make a positive change to some people’s lives.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this debate and keeping up the pressure to ensure that the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017 is implemented to help the many people in need. The Act is vital because around 2,500 people waiting for such measures have already been affected when someone they know has gone missing—perhaps a relative or loved one—and it must be implemented as soon as possible. I am delighted that the Government have nailed their colours to the mast by providing a date of July for the implementation of these measures, rather than saying “shortly” or “in due course”, and that those who face such devastating circumstances will be helped from July this year.

This issue came across my desk early in my parliamentary career, because my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and I co-host the Lawrence family in our constituencies. Being a local person, I was aware of the tragic and mysterious disappearance of Claudia Lawrence, which will be 10 years ago on 18 March this year. Despite the fact that it is 10 years on, Mr and Mrs Lawrence still need this Act, and I wonder how many other people it will help. It is vital.

I promoted the Act as a consequence of Peter Lawrence pushing me to push Ministers to raise the issue up the political agenda, which we managed to do. The Government were always supportive of the Act, but even in easier times parliamentary time is not easy to secure. I pay tribute to Peter Lawrence and to many others, as well as to the charity Missing People, which has kept up the pressure and highlighted the issues caused when people go missing and in the aftermath of such tragic circumstances.

The Act is referred to as Claudia’s law, to recognise the 10 years that Claudia has been missing. I was lucky enough also to sponsor the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, which was called “Will’s Bill”, after my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) and another tragic circumstance. Many people stood up in those debates—including me, as a father of four children—to say that the worst thing that could possibly happen to any parent would be to lose a child. I wonder, however, whether it is actually even worse to have a child who goes missing, because of the anxiety about what happened. People want to know and they hope not to receive terrible news, but they probably accept that such news will be the inevitable consequence if somebody has been missing for some time. Just as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate outlined, when a person goes missing, although people know that something tragic has happened they do not know what, and that is probably even worse than a bereavement. It is therefore right to move this issue forward as quickly as possible.

Thousands of people go missing annually, and the Government estimate that the 2017 Act will help between 50 and 300 people a year, with a mid-range estimate of about 100 people. Those 100 cases affect thousands of people—their loved ones and friends—and this Act is vital. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, in the aftermath of someone going missing many things need to be dealt with, including direct debits, rents or mortgages, and the Act will introduce measures that are similar to the power of attorney. It is a simple measure, and based on a well tried and tested formula. The Act has been well drafted to meet those requirements, and we have learned from our experiences with such legislation over recent decades.

It can certainly be argued that the legislation has been a long time coming. It was first talked about in the Justice Committee in 2012. The Government consulted on it in 2014, and the private Member’s Bill started, probably, with Peter Lawrence pushing me to push the Government, in 2015. It started with a ten-minute rule Bill, and not many of those become legislation, so I am delighted that we were able to use that route. We did so, of course, with Government support. Ministers were always supportive. The process from drafting and First Reading to the moment the Bill passed through the House of Lords—the last day before Parliament prorogued, so it was pretty tight—took 11 weeks. That shows what cross-party support and consensus there was for the legislation. I am grateful to Members on both sides of the House, and to Ministers and shadow Ministers of all parties who helped to get it through. I am also grateful to others who acted, not least the Missing People charity, and the all-party parliamentary group on runaway and missing children and adults.

The finish line of July 2019 is now in sight. Of course it is not the finish line for the loved ones—the people who face such terrible tragedies. However, it will make life just a little easier. I again thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate for bringing forward this important debate and the Minister for doing a tremendous job in making sure that we get over the line in July. He is a great fellow. I thank other Ministers as well—Lord Keen and successive Justice Secretaries—and many officials, not least of them Paul Hughes, who did a brilliant job of drafting and has been supportive from day one. The Act is vital legislation and it will help thousands of people. Let us get it into operation as soon as possible.

Bailiffs: Regulatory Reform

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) on obtaining this important debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) on persuading me to sign the letter of the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) about trying to get change through a meeting with the Justice Secretary.

I am making my speech partly in my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on poverty. Clearly, poverty and debt are inextricably linked. I totally agree that there is a problem with bailiffs and support the call for an independent regulator. There are also problems with debt. Collecting debt must be a commercial matter. It can be very effective. I have to tell the House that in my business life we have a number of offices and, in 2008 when things were pretty tough in the economy, we were visited by the bailiffs and paid our debt very quickly on the back of that. We did not realise how quickly bailiffs could enter premises on a commercial lease without any notice, but we soon found out, so they can be very effective. However, there are other and better ways to collect debts in many instances.

Debt is a commercial matter and those to whom people are not paying their debts have a perfect right to try to collect them, but several hon. Members have spoken today about local authorities, over which we should have some influence. The local authorities in question should learn from and develop best practice on debt collection. I had a meeting with StepChange, the debt advice charity. Thirty per cent. of the people coming to the charity are behind with their council tax. That is by far the No. 1 area for debt that it works with. There has been a huge increase over the past seven years. Seven years ago, 21% of total debt was owed to utilities and local government. Today 26% of debt is with utilities, but 40% of total debt is with local authorities. Local authorities have been criticised by the Treasury Committee for being overzealous in their recourse to bailiffs and could make a significant difference to people’s lives if they adopted debt collection best practice. The Justice Committee will also consider that. Interesting research from Citizens Advice said that one in four people had made their bailiff an affordable payment offer that was rejected. Clearly there is a better way to deal with the matter.

What is best practice? The Money Advice Service has developed what it calls a supportive council tax recovery toolkit for local authorities to adopt, which talks about best practice and how to liaise with debt advice agencies, taking specific approaches to specific cohorts, particularly vulnerable people. On utilities, I have had dialogue with Yorkshire Water about how it deals with vulnerable households and how it makes sure it identifies those people. According to the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, 50% of people who are in debt have mental health problems, so it is a case of identifying them and taking a different approach. In my constituency, as in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), an excellent debt collection agency works with the utilities. I have visited it and it takes a supportive and collaborative approach to debt collection. The collection rates are at least as good as those obtained by traditional routes.

I absolutely support the calls for an independent regulator, but I also suggest developing best practice and perhaps creating a requirement for local authorities to follow it in the first instance. That would make a huge difference to people who are in debt and to people in poverty.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We will award the contracts to those best placed to carry them out. I have to say that the hon. Gentleman’s hostility to the private sector, in all its forms, in all contexts, is not a sensible or pragmatic approach to trying to ensure that we get best value for money for the taxpayer while making improvements to reducing reoffending.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Senior managers at Lloyds-HBOS were found guilty of a scandalous fraud against their own business customers but, thus far, the bank itself has avoided or evaded any corporate sanction. Would my right hon. Friend support the Solicitor General’s efforts to make failure to prevent an economic crime a corporate offence?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend, who campaigns tirelessly on these issues, will be aware that we ran a call for evidence on corporate criminal liability to determine whether the current law is adequate. This is a complex part of the law and consultation responses offered a broad range of views. We are currently analysing those with Departments across Government and we will publish our response in 2019.