All 4 Vicky Ford contributions to the Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24

Read Bill Ministerial Extracts

Tue 12th Dec 2023
Thu 11th Jan 2024
Thu 18th Jan 2024
Tue 30th Jan 2024

Criminal Justice Bill (Second sitting) Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Home Office

Criminal Justice Bill (Second sitting)

Vicky Ford Excerpts
Committee stage
Tuesday 12th December 2023

(4 months, 2 weeks ago)

Public Bill Committees
Read Full debate Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2023 - (12 Dec 2023)
Jess Phillips Portrait Jess Phillips
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I will crack on with that, then.

Vicky Ford Portrait Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
- Hansard - -

Q Rebecca, when you were talking about clause 67 and the CPNs, I think you suggested at the beginning of your comments that this was not a unanimous view from your members. Is that correct?

Rebecca Bryant: Yes, it is.

Vicky Ford Portrait Vicky Ford
- Hansard - -

It is not a unanimous view from your members.

Rebecca Bryant: No, it is not a unanimous view. There are some mixed views. Some people represented by some organisations suggested reducing the age to 14 rather than 10, particularly when we are talking about the 10 to 13 age group, who are particularly young. Yes, of course they have criminal responsibility in this country, but we are talking about antisocial behaviour here rather than—

Vicky Ford Portrait Vicky Ford
- Hansard - -

Q I just asked a very simple question: were your members unanimously opposed to this measure? And you said no, it is not unanimous—correct?

Rebecca Bryant: Yes, that is what I am saying.

Vicky Ford Portrait Vicky Ford
- Hansard - -

Thank you.

Stephen Metcalfe Portrait Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Q I have a question for Harvey—a point of clarification, really. You mentioned that you did not think that there was any need to increase the sentence for shoplifting; you thought that it just needed to be applied more uniformly. Is that right?

Harvey Redgrave: I suppose it is more about saying where I think the priority should be. I do not have a particular problem with increasing sentences for shoplifters; it is just that I do not think that that is where the biggest challenge is.

Criminal Justice Bill (Fifth sitting) Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Home Office

Criminal Justice Bill (Fifth sitting)

Vicky Ford Excerpts
Committee stage
Thursday 11th January 2024

(3 months, 2 weeks ago)

Public Bill Committees
Read Full debate Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 January 2024 - (11 Jan 2024)
Chris Philp Portrait The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Dame Angela, as it will be in the Committee’s sittings in coming days.

I will not try to respond to the shadow Minister’s opening remarks in any detail, as we debated the wider issues on Second Reading, but I will observe in passing that we have record numbers of police officers, and overall crime, measured by the crime survey on a like-for-like basis, is 56% lower today than it was in 2010.

Chris Philp Portrait Chris Philp
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am glad that has met with approval, from Essex at least.

Criminal Justice Bill (Ninth sitting) Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Home Office

Criminal Justice Bill (Ninth sitting)

Vicky Ford Excerpts
Committee stage
Thursday 18th January 2024

(3 months, 1 week ago)

Public Bill Committees
Read Full debate Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 January 2024 - (18 Jan 2024)
Vicky Ford Portrait Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
- Hansard - -

The Minister is making an important point. An excellent point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley on the importance of prisoners being close to their family.

There is a very busy local prison in my constituency of Chelmsford. From time to time, I get the prison governor and other experts explaining to me that sometimes it is important to split people up. For example, if people have come from the same criminal gang or opposing criminal gangs, it can be important to move them so that they are not all in the same prison. There are parts of the country where getting “overseas” can sometimes be easier than visiting a family member who may, for example, be a long distance away in our own country. Sometimes, cases are different and are not about making sure that the prisoner stays in the local prison. That might not provide the best circumstances for that prisoner’s rehabilitation.

Laura Farris Portrait Laura Farris
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention. She is quite right. I will try to distil her point. I expected the challenge from the Opposition this morning about the circumstances of each prisoner being vital—whether they have family or connections—but it is true, as she said, that some prisoners will not have family or connections; there may be different imperatives. Obviously, we would be looking precisely at considerations of that nature before making a decision about prison transfer.

It is not possible to say that every prisoner needs to be imprisoned locally or is going to be the primary carer for all their children. Look at how decisions on the deportation of foreign national offenders are made by the immigration appeal tribunal: if an offender who has committed a serious offence tries to rely on the fact they have children in the UK, the tribunal will very often say, “You have already abandoned them because you were in prison for 10 years.” Some of that claim is lost anyway.

Criminal Justice Bill (Fifteenth sitting) Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Home Office

Criminal Justice Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Vicky Ford Excerpts
Jess Phillips Portrait Jess Phillips
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

For nearly 10 years I have had Ministers stand in front of me and say, “We are a bit worried about” some legal word or other. How many children have died because of family court proceedings in the 10 years that we have been trying to raise the alarm? The family courts in our country will be the next Rotherham or Rochdale. State-sanctioned child abuse is going on and we all just turn a blind eye. The things that I have seen in courts are harrowing. I have watched children being removed from their loving mothers and placed fully in the care of paedophiles—proven child abusers. For me, we cannot casually sit here and pretend that that is okay.

Funnily enough, one of the people I started this campaign with, all those years ago, was the current Justice Secretary. Why is it taking so long to do something about the family courts in our country? They are actively dangerous, everybody knows it and nobody is doing anything about it. It is like the Post Office; I will not be one of those people who sat by and did nothing.

I will not press the new clause to a Division, because its scope is not wide enough and does not deal with half the harms that I see. If the Minister wants to take away the parental responsibility for children from terrorists she can knock herself out—I will support it. I will support any movement towards progress in the family court, because I have seen none. I look forward to the Government coming forward with an all-singing, all-dancing proposal that will make children safe. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Vicky Ford Portrait Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
- Hansard - -

On a point of order, Mrs Latham. I find it really hard to hear my colleagues in this room. Could I ask you, and other hon. Members, to please speak as loudly as possible?

None Portrait The Chair
- Hansard -

I agree. I do not think the microphones are doing a very good job today, so I will try to speak up.

New Clause 5

Sexual interference with a corpse

“(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 70, insert—

70A Sexual interference with a corpse

(1) A person “P” commits an offence if—

(a) P intentionally performs an act of physical interference with the body of a dead person, and

(b) the physical interference is sexual.

(2) For the purposes of this section, physical interference may include—

(a) P touching the body of a dead person with any part of P’s own body, and

(b) P causing any item or substance to make contact with the body of a dead person.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.’”—(Stephen Metcalfe.)

Brought up, and read the First time.