Criminal Justice Bill – in a Public Bill Committee am 5:11 pm ar 6 Chwefror 2003.
Mr James Cran
Ceidwadwyr, Beverley and Holderness
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.'.
David Cameron
Ceidwadwyr, Witney
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.
Rhif adran 29
Adults Abused in Childhood — Clause 154 - Functions of Sentencing Advisory Panel in relation to guidelines
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
In a general election, each Constituency chooses an MP to represent them. MPs have a responsibility to represnt the views of the Constituency in the House of Commons. There are 650 Constituencies, and thus 650 MPs. A citizen of a Constituency is known as a Constituent
The House of Commons votes by dividing. Those voting Aye (yes) to any proposition walk through the division lobby to the right of the Speaker and those voting no through the lobby to the left. In each of the lobbies there are desks occupied by Clerks who tick Members' names off division lists as they pass through. Then at the exit doors the Members are counted by two Members acting as tellers. The Speaker calls for a vote by announcing "Clear the Lobbies". In the House of Lords "Clear the Bar" is called. Division Bells ring throughout the building and the police direct all Strangers to leave the vicinity of the Members’ Lobby. They also walk through the public rooms of the House shouting "division". MPs have eight minutes to get to the Division Lobby before the doors are closed. Members make their way to the Chamber, where Whips are on hand to remind the uncertain which way, if any, their party is voting. Meanwhile the Clerks who will take the names of those voting have taken their place at the high tables with the alphabetical lists of MPs' names on which ticks are made to record the vote. When the tellers are ready the counting process begins - the recording of names by the Clerk and the counting of heads by the tellers. When both lobbies have been counted and the figures entered on a card this is given to the Speaker who reads the figures and announces "So the Ayes [or Noes] have it". In the House of Lords the process is the same except that the Lobbies are called the Contents Lobby and the Not Contents Lobby. Unlike many other legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords have not adopted a mechanical or electronic means of voting. This was considered in 1998 but rejected. Divisions rarely take less than ten minutes and those where most Members are voting usually take about fifteen. Further information can be obtained from factsheet P9 at the UK Parliament site.
