I beg to move amendment No. 709, in

clause 154, page 86, line 41, at end add—

'(5) With respect to burglary, the sentencing advisory panel and the sentencing council must have regard to the sentencing framework set out in section (Custodial sentences for burglars).'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 11—Custodial sentences for burglars—

'(1) Anyone convicted of the offence of burglary should be sentenced to a minimum of two years in prison, save for the exceptions given in subsection (2) below.

(2) The court may disregard the mandatory custodial sentence for burglars in subsection (1) above if, and only if—

(a) it is the individual's first conviction for burglary; and

(b) the court judges that the case includes exceptional circumstances, as in subsection (3) below.

(3) ''Exceptional circumstances'' includes—

(a) that the court judges that the defendant is unlikely to reoffend; and

(b) that the offence for which the defendant is found guilty does not include any violent or threatening behaviour or other aggravating features.'.

It is not often that one gets three minutes to try to bring about fundamental change in the way that burglars are sentenced. We seem to have reached new clause 11 without considering new clause 10, but no matter.

The new clause deals with the crime of burglary. There is huge confusion about the issue, some of it brought about by the Government. I do not think that it is all their fault, because the system, as we discussed this morning with reference to guidance, is so hugely complicated. I was already packed up and ready to go, so I can hardly describe my simple amendment and new clause. However, from memory, they would provide for a minimum sentence for burglary of two years in all but the most exceptional circumstances. I define those tightly; the offence should be a first offence and—I do not say ''or'', but ''and''—there should be no aggravating factors whatever.

My amendment would be a good thing because, as I said, no one understands the current guidance. It involves no accountability. My new clause is beautifully simple. It comes from a straightforward view of burglary as a hateful and in many ways violent crime—because people's houses are invaded—and a premeditated crime. Burglars are prolific criminals. The scale of the problem can be suggested by my telling the Committee that in 2000–01 there were 836,000 offences of burglary, accounting for 16 per cent. of total crime. That is more than 1,000 for every constituency in the country. The courts are not the only place where there is a problem with respect to burglary. The number of burglars against whom proceedings were taken in 1990 was about 43,000. By 2000 it had dropped to 26,000. There is an awful lot that must be done before getting to court.

Current sentencing figures for burglary may suggest whether my new clause would work or would clog up the prisons and be impractical. I do not think that it would. The figures for 2000 show that, of the burglars sentenced, 81 per cent. of those who entered a guilty plea were given custody and 17 per cent. were given a community sentence. Of those who pleaded not guilty, 85 per cent. were given custody and 12 per cent. a community sentence. The average length of sentence was 24 months for a guilty plea and 28 months for a not guilty plea. Therefore, I do not think that we are talking about a big increase in the prison population.

In the remaining minute, I want to clarify the three vital things that my amendment would do. First, it would send a clear message that burglars will go to prison—we do not send such a message at the moment. Secondly, it would provide for a tough minimum sentence—not an inappropriate sentence—that made the average the minimum, which would be highly desirable. Thirdly, it would provide for

exceptions only in the most restricted circumstances. It would, therefore, be good for confidence in the criminal justice system, good for victims and good for the police.

It being fifteen minutes past Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Question put, That clauses 154 to 156 stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clauses 154 to 156 ordered to stand part of the Bill.