|
Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. In a moment, I shall ask the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment. I am mindful of the criticisms that have been made of the proposal; it was not perfect, and I realise that it had inherent problems. However, it is too easy for such a parliamentary dimension to be watered down and sidelined. I fear that it will be diminished if it is left to the mechanism of a Select Committee; history shows all too clearly how easily that can happen. I have served on other Select Committees and seen how easy it is to shunt a subject into the long grass. If we want Parliament to do something, Parliament must play an affirmative role in the process.
I realise that that is difficult, but I hope that the Minister will consider that aspect and that we can reconsider the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.1 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
5.11 pm
On resuming—
Clause 153 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 154
Functions of Sentencing Advisory Panel in relation to guidelines
Mr. Cameron: I beg to move amendment No. 709, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 11—Custodial sentences for burglars—
Column Number: 900
(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.'.
Mr. Cameron: 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
Column Number: 901
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.
Division No. 29]
AYES
Allen, Mr. Graham
Baird, Vera
Benn, Hilary
Clark, Paul
Harman, Ms Harriet
Heppell, Mr. John
Hermon, Lady
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Lucas, Ian
Mann, John
Singh, Mr. Marsha
Stinchcombe, Mr. Paul
NOES
Cameron, Mr. David
Francois, Mr. Mark
Heath, Mr. David
Malins, Mr. Humfrey
Simmonds, Mr. Mark
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clauses 154 to 156 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 157
Duty to give reasons for,
and explain effect of, sentence
Amendment proposed: No. 550, in
clause 157, page 87, line 37, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
'(a) where guidelines indicate that a sentence of a particular kind, or within a particular range, would normally be appropriate for the offence and the sentence is of a different kind, or is outside that range, state the court's reasons for deciding on a sentence of a different kind or outside that range,'.—[Hilary Benn.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 4.
Division No. 30]
AYES
Allen, Mr. Graham
Baird, Vera
Benn, Hilary
Clark, Paul
Harman, Ms Harriet
Heppell, Mr. John
Hermon, Lady
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Lucas, Ian
Mann, John
Singh, Mr. Marsha
Stinchcombe, Mr. Paul
NOES
Cameron, Mr. David
Francois, Mr. Mark
Malins, Mr. Humfrey
Simmonds, Mr. Mark
Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. Cameron: On a point of order, Mr. Cran. Given that we are in the extraordinary situation of being unable to discuss all the provisions on community orders, suspended sentences—
The Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.
Clause 157, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 158 to 162 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 902
Schedule 7
Breach, revocation or amendment
of community order
Amendments proposed: No. 571, in
schedule 7, page 188, line 38, leave out from 'Schedule' to end of line 41 and insert—
'(a) a requirement falling within any paragraph of section 160(1) is of the same kind as any other requirement falling within that paragraph, and
(b) an electronic monitoring requirement is a requirement of the same kind as any requirement falling within section 160(1) to which it relates.'.
No. 572, in
schedule 7, page 189, line 24, leave out from 'and' to end of line 27 and insert 'does not include a direction that any failure to comply with the requirements of the order is to be dealt with by a magistrates' court'.
No. 573, in
schedule 7, page 189, line 42, leave out from 'and' to end of line 3 on page 190 and insert 'does not include a direction that any failure to comply with the requirements of the order is to be dealt with by a magistrates' court'.
No. 574, in
schedule 7, page 190, line 9, leave out from 'order' to end of line 14 and insert 'which was made by the Crown Court and includes a direction that any failure to comply with the requirements of the order is to be dealt with by a magistrates' court'.
No. 575, in
schedule 7, page 190, line 36, leave out from 'which' to end of line 39 and insert 'does not include a direction that any failure to comply with the requirements of the order is to be dealt with by a magistrates' court'.
No. 576, in
schedule 7, page 194, leave out lines 28 to 31 and insert 'does not include a direction that any failure to comply with the requirements of the order is to be dealt with by a magistrates' court'.
No. 577, in
schedule 7, page 195, leave out lines 37 to 43 and insert—
'(a) in relation to any community order which was made by the Crown Court and does not include any direction that any failure to comply with the requirements of the order is to be dealt with by a magistrates' court, the Crown Court, and'.—[Hilary Benn.]
Question put, That the amendments be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 4.
Division No. 31]
AYES
Allen, Mr. Graham
Baird, Vera
Benn, Hilary
Clark, Paul
Harman, Ms Harriet
Heppell, Mr. John
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Lucas, Ian
Mann, John
Singh, Mr. Marsha
Stinchcombe, Mr. Paul
NOES
Cameron, Mr. David
Francois, Mr. Mark
Malins, Mr. Humfrey
Simmonds, Mr. Mark
Question accordingly agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 163 to 165 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 903
Clause 166
Restrictions on power to make intermittent custody order
Amendment proposed: No. 551 in
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 4.
Division No. 32]
AYES
Allen, Mr. Graham
Baird, Vera
Benn, Hilary
Clark, Paul
Harman, Ms Harriet
Heppell, Mr. John
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Lucas, Ian
Mann, John
Singh, Mr. Marsha
Stinchcombe, Mr. Paul
NOES
Cameron, Mr. David
Francois, Mr. Mark
Malins, Mr. Humfrey
Simmonds, Mr. Mark
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 166, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 167 to 169 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
