It is really for clarification only. Are these clarificatory gains worthwhile? I hope they are, but it would be wrong to give the impression that we have somehow significantly amended the law when we have not done so. The Bills Digest summarises the impact of these clarifications, which it states are not an amendment of the existing law. It states that the Bill makes certain there is no obligation to retreat from the dwelling and, in this respect, ends the confusion created by section 20 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997. It gives greater guidance on what constitutes the dwelling, which we all welcome; it removes the defence of the dwelling from the ambit of the 1997 Act; and it updates the 1997 Act to take account of section 52(1) of the Children Act 2001, which contains a general commitment not to charge or prosecute children under the age of 12. I note what the Minister said in his speech about this. Of course, there are exceptions in the case of serious offences. The Bill also provides that justifiable force used in defence of the dwelling will not lead to a home owner being sued.

See this item in context