My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 47B.

Amendment 47A is to seek clarification that the definition of “premises” as

“any building, part of a building or enclosed area” will include gardens and grounds associated with private dwellings. The phrase “enclosed area” is a key part of the statutory definition. Gardens and grounds of private dwellings are typically surrounded by fences, walls or hedges, marking them as distinct and separate from public areas. I hope that the intention behind the word “enclosed” here is to extend the definition beyond the physical structure of the buildings to include spaces that are set apart for private use. Therefore, I suggest that gardens and grounds, by virtue of their possible enclosure and association with the dwelling, fulfil the criteria set out in the definition.

The purpose of including “enclosed area” in the definition is to ensure that areas integral to the use and enjoyment of the dwelling would be afforded the same legal protection as the building itself. Gardens and grounds are not merely decorative; they serve as extensions of the home, providing space for recreation, privacy and domestic activities. To exclude them from the scope of “premises” would be to ignore their functional role as part of the private dwelling.

UK courts have interpreted “premises” broadly in various contexts. In cases relating to trespass, burglary and other offences, the courts have recognised that the protection of the law extends to driveways, front and back gardens and other external parts associated with a dwelling. This judicial approach underscores the recognition that the boundaries of a home are not limited to its external walls but encompass its immediate surroundings.

From a policy perspective, I suggest to the Minister that it is logical and just to include gardens and grounds as premises because these are often areas where children play and families gather, and individuals expect privacy there too. If they were excluded inadvertently from the legal definition, that would create loopholes, undermining the protection that the law seeks to provide to those within their own homes. For example, in cases of trespass or unauthorised entry, it would be unreasonable to require that an intruder must enter the building itself before the law was engaged. If someone has a criminal intent to enter a property, he must have that same criminal intent in mind when he enters the gardens or the driveway of the property. In summary, gardens and grounds of a private dwelling should be considered as premises under UK law and in the Bill. This interpretation aligns with the plain meaning of “enclosed area”, the purpose and spirit of legal protection for dwellings, judicial precedent and sound policy considerations.

My Amendment 47B would simply increase the level of the fine. The Clause as drafted says “not exceeding level 3”, meaning a maximum of £1,000. But by the time the—in my view, discredited—Sentencing Council pronounces on it, no one will get near that level; they will water it down as they usually do, so it will apply to very few trespassers.

I am a great supporter of minimum sentences—prescribed, of course, by Parliament—so I suggest in this case that the minimum fine for someone illegally on a property with the intent to commit crime should be £500, which I think is level 1, with a maximum fine of £2,500. Now that I have said it out loud, £500 seems ridiculously low for trespass with criminal intent, so never let it be said that I am too harsh on criminals.

Of course, the Minister will say, “We do not set minimum sentences but leave it to the courts’ discretion”. I could go along with that, but the courts have lost their discretion because of the interference of the Sentencing Council. Therefore, in this case I want Parliament to dictate the minimum level of fines, and I cannot see anything constitutionally or morally wrong. It would give the courts great flexibility to fine from £500 to £2,500 for people who enter premises with criminal intent. I beg to move.