Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Debate between Tom Tugendhat and Kevin Hollinrake

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Tom Tugendhat]

Different devolved Administrations have been contacted in different ways. Some of them have been written to, and I have sought conversations with some, although that has not always been achieved because of other people’s diaries as well as my own. The conversation is ongoing and, although I hope the Bill will be passed soon, it will have to continue because many things are going to change over the coming years.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 160 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 161 and 162 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Change of addresses of officers of overseas companies by registrar

“In section 1046 of the Companies Act 2006 (overseas companies: registration of particulars), after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) Where regulations under this section require an overseas company to deliver to the registrar for registration—

(a) a service address for an officer of the company, or

(b) the address of the principal office of an officer of the company,

the regulations may make provision corresponding or similar to any provision made by section 1097B or 1097C (rectification of register relating to service addresses or principal office addresses) or to provision that may be made by regulations made under that section.’”.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

Where an overseas company is required to provide a service address or principal office address for a director or secretary, this new clause enables regulations to be made conferring power on the registrar to change the address if it does not meet the statutory requirements or is inaccurate.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Debate between Tom Tugendhat and Kevin Hollinrake

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Tom Tugendhat]

I do not want to know what they advertise to the right hon. Gentleman. They don’t do it by pigeon.

The reality is that there are different ways in which people are trying to hack and attack, to steal from individuals in our country and around the world. That is why the work we are doing on the Joint Fraud Taskforce, which met yesterday, and on many other aspects of regulation, such as the Online Safety Bill, which the hon. Member for Glasgow Central quite rightly spoke about, is so important. The FCA has moved forward on many of those areas, in a sensible way, to balance the need of the technology to advance with the protection of society. It is certainly true that many people have lost a lot in recent weeks and months. I do not think anybody was under any great illusion, though, that cryptocurrencies were not a high-risk item, to put it politely. Anything worth about $1 10 years ago and $60,000 a few years later is probably not a stable currency. It may be many things, but it is probably not stable. It is now worth about $10,000 or so—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)]

Thirteen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

Large amounts of financial data flow through the United Kingdom every hour. The majority relate to entirely legitimate and proper activity; however, a small proportion involve criminal activity. As hon. Members heard from several witnesses to the Committee, the sharing of information regarding criminal activity between businesses is currently constrained by duties of confidentiality. These clauses and the associated Government amendments address that constraint.

Clause 148 enables direct disclosure of information between two businesses in the anti-money laundering regulated sector for the purposes of preventing, investigating and detecting economic crime, without a breach of their obligation of confidence to their customers.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Hear, hear.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am glad to have support from further down the Treasury Bench.

To request information, a business must have reason to believe that the other business holds information that will, or may, assist in carrying out its relevant actions. Relevant actions include deciding whether further customer due diligence is needed, restricting access to products, or terminating a business relationship with the customer as a result of the additional information obtained.

Amendments 122 to 135 amend clause 148 to expand the provisions to offer protection from civil liability owed by the person sharing information to the person to whom the disclosure relates. As the Committee heard when UK Finance gave evidence, the banking sector maintains that without greater protection, information is unlikely to be shared, as doing so creates limited benefit in comparison with the risk of potential protracted and expensive litigation from customers. Greater use of the provisions will make it harder for criminals to exploit UK businesses. We have listened to the sector and tabled these amendments.

Clause 149 enables indirect information sharing by certain businesses via a third-party intermediary, on a similar basis to elements of clause 148. A business may share information about a current or former customer whom they have already decided to take action against due to an economic crime risk—or who would have been subject to that decision were they still a customer—either by terminating a business relationship or by refusing or restricting access to a product or service. The business must be satisfied that sharing the customer’s information will assist other businesses in carrying out their relevant actions. As with clause 148, the Government have tabled amendments 136 to 141 and 143 to 151 to disapply civil liability for a person who discloses such information.

Government amendments 142, 152 and 155 extend the scope of the indirect information-sharing provisions to cover large and very large accountancy and legal businesses. The benefit of bringing those businesses within the scope of the provision is that those firms have experience of dealing with high-risk clients. Criminals are known to exploit the information gaps that currently exist between businesses in these sectors, and encouraging further information sharing creates greater opportunities to prevent economic crime.

Clauses 148 and 149 do not disapply any liabilities arising under data protection legislation. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston tabled amendment 167, which would expand clause 148 to include the accountancy sector. I hope that she is reassured that the Government amendments that I have just described achieve that objective.

Government amendments 153 and 154 make express provision for aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring in the definition of economic crime. Schedule 8 sets out the offences that are included in the definition of economic crime for the purposes of direct and indirect disclosures of information, the Law Society’s fining powers, and the objectives of regulators of legal services. The schedule is divided into common-law and statutory offences. No new offences are created by the Bill; the schedule has been included because there is no existing relevant definition of economic crime. The schedule is essential to provide clarity and certainty about the meaning of economic crime, in order for individuals, regulators and businesses to use the disclosure of information provisions effectively and to properly apply the new measures relating to legal services.

Sanctions

Debate between Tom Tugendhat and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the Government’s plans for sanctions and increased action to try to clean up the mess in which we find ourselves here in the UK. This is certainly a welcome step in the right direction, and my right hon. Friend the Minister will remember that the Foreign Affairs Committee set out various options for how we should begin to think about this in May 2018, when we published our “Moscow’s Gold” report.

I welcome the direction we are taking but, along with many others on both sides of the House, I am afraid that I find myself asking, “Why not more? Why not further?” In many ways, we are using the actions of a hostile state in eastern Ukraine to justify something we should have done years ago. The UK, sadly, has for too long been an avenue for money laundering by despots and criminals around the world. For too long and on too many occasions, we have seen our institutions, our City and our service sector used to hide the gains from corrupt practices and criminality abroad.

This has now come to a head because those criminals, those thieves, who raped and murdered the Russian people for 20 years, who did not replace the oligarchs that rose up in Yeltsin’s day but merely nationalised them, have been using those same vehicles and avenues to hide the profits of their crimes—most tragically the theft of an entire country.

That act of naked brutality, that act of violence against an entire nation, an entire culture and an entire people, has sadly been allowed to profit a small number of individuals. That is an absolute tragedy. It is a tragedy for the people of Russia, who have lost so much, but it is also a tragedy for her neighbours, who are now under such pressure and such threat. It is not just Ukraine but the people of Belarus, the people of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and the people of Poland. It is a tragedy for those who are being weaponised in the human trafficking that we are seeing from the middle east, through Belarus and into the forests of eastern Europe. It is also, sadly, a tragedy for the people of these wonderful islands, the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—the people of the United Kingdom.

It is a tragedy for us because this marks what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) mentioned only a few hours ago in this Chamber. We are seeing not just the aggression against Donetsk and Luhansk—not just a raid, an invasion, an opening salvo of a war that President Putin is trying to bring to Europe, in many ways for the first time in 80 years, although of course there was an exception in 2014 when he invaded Crimea and another in 2008 when he invaded Georgia; what he is doing to us, to the people of these islands, is unpicking the values and principles that our grandparents fought for 80 years ago.

President Putin is unpicking the principle that we embedded into the constitutions of the United Nations and the Council of Europe. He is unpicking the principle that the rule of law, that the debate among sovereign peoples, should be the way disputes are settled in this world. He is replacing the rule of law with the rule of force. Sadly, he is demonstrating that it works not only on the ground, but in the wallet; he is demonstrating that a leader can profit politically and personally from the abuses he conducts against his own people and his neighbours. That is why when I asked my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister, who served with distinction in the Royal Artillery, about the classic gunner phrase “clout, don’t dribble”, what I was actually asking about—and he recognises it—is why do we not say immediately and clearly that what we are seeing today is wrong.

It is wrong for the people of the UK to have corrupt money flowing through our systems. It is wrong to have the profit of crime being laundered through our City and through jurisdictions overseas that depend on us. It is wrong to see the wages of war—quite literally—profiting a small cabal of thieves in Moscow. It is wrong because it undermines our security, it makes us more vulnerable and, sadly, it exposes the people we are privileged to represent to the dangers that we have, thank God, kept at bay for 80 years. It is wrong because it threatens the people of the United Kingdom.

We have set out ways to address that. We have spoken at various points about a foreign agents registration Act and about the exposure of beneficial ownership, not just in our own estates, but in the jurisdictions around the world. We have spoken about cleaning up the Companies House register and giving powers to the enforcement agencies, which could actually start to take action on this. We have spoken about all those things for many, many years, yet still we see names such as Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler in the list of directors in Companies House. Still we see the toleration, sadly, of fraud in too many of our institutions. Sadly, we still do not see the resources going into the policing of these different institutions.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is making a superb speech. One thing that often gets missed in this debate about how we crack economic crime is the role of whistleblowers. They are the most likely people to identify wrongdoing in the banks he mentions and bring it to light and to the enforcement agencies. Does he agree that whistleblower protection, and potentially remuneration, should be included in this context?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on that. He is completely right, as usual, in highlighting that the protection of whistleblowers is an essential part of the exposure to justice of those who have committed crimes. We need to think again about crime. We need to look again at the institutions, law enforcement bodies and agencies that are charged with protecting us and think really hard about their budgets. They are not simply ways of stopping the taxman from getting his hands on a little bit more loot; they are fundamental to our national security and to the protection of our people. We need to think of them as agents of the state in the same way as we think of the armed forces or the intelligence services. We need to think of them on the frontline of the protection of the people we are lucky to represent. Frankly, we need to put the money where so often our mouths have been when we have passed Acts in this House that have not had the resources to make them not just law but actionable law.

Child Cruelty Offences: Sentencing

Debate between Tom Tugendhat and Kevin Hollinrake

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.

Fourth Industrial Revolution

Debate between Tom Tugendhat and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend hits on one of my favourite topics: the culture of corporate obfuscation that we get from BT and its willingness to underinvest to maximise profitability. We absolutely need to get BT to up its game. I agree with Ofcom, which says that one solution is to open up the ducts and poles to other operators. Perhaps in future, when there are bidding rounds for Government investment, local authorities or the delivery authorities should themselves be held responsible for ensuring that third-party operators—smaller operators—get access to those ducts and poles in the local areas for which money has been committed.

The Government are supporting small businesses and innovations in many ways. As the Minister mentioned, there has been a 38% increase in investment in Innovate UK since 2010. Research and development tax credits have a hugely beneficial effect on companies that want to invest in new technologies. The enterprise investment scheme has unlocked investor capital for new start-up businesses and made such businesses possible on the back of these tax concessions. I support the retention and perhaps expansion of the concessions to make sure that we get new businesses to take advantage of these opportunities.

The failure rate for high-tech businesses is very high, but investors will countenance that because the rewards are also very high. Investors know that it is almost a winner-takes-all bet. They know that if they get it right, they can land themselves with an Amazon, a Google, an Uber, an Apple, or even a Rightmove or a Zoopla. In many sectors, there is either no competition or competition from just one other body, which puts those businesses in a hugely advantageous position.

In some areas of technology, business inevitably wins, and the other thing that will inevitably win is the machine. I spent my summer holidays reading a very interesting book by Matt Richtel called “A Deadly Wandering”, which talks about the ability of machines to multi-task. Richtel talks about the cocktail party effect. He describes a person in a conversation at a cocktail party. He says that it is not possible for them to listen to another conversation if they are truly engaged in their own conversation, as they can only do one thing at a time. Apparently, they can recognise their name being mentioned, but that is about it. Computers, on the other hand, can do millions of things at the same time, and they can do them better. A new computer called AlphaGo was built to try to beat the world champion of the game Go. That is not just a game of logic, but a game of intuition, yet the computer beat the world champion Lee Sedol five times in a row. The computer hones its own skills. So machines will win and big business will win.

The biggest worry I have about some of the businesses that will win in the future is their ability to dominate the entire supply chain. Uber is a good example. When it first came along, we saw it as just something that connected people who wanted a taxi with people who were taxi drivers. Uber has been clear that in the future it wants to be the taxi driver as well. In fact, it does not want any taxi drivers; it will have autonomous vehicles, and will no doubt link up with huge car manufacturers. Toyota, Nissan and other companies are looking at this. Uber will be end to end, taking away small business opportunities from taxi drivers, delivery drivers and HGV drivers.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is making a persuasive point. There will be a challenge to not only small businesses, but large businesses. After all, if someone can hail a cab for nothing at all, why would they own a car?