Clause15
Commons Bill [Lords]
12:45 pm
James Paice (Shadow Minister (Agriculture & Rural Affairs), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
That may well be necessary, especially as the Minister just said that subsection (5)(b) is free-standing from subsection (5)(a), whereas I thought that he told me earlier that it was dependent on paragraph (a), which indeed ends with the word “and”, which suggests that paragraph (b) is not free-standing. I am happy to have the discussion that the Minister suggests.
To conclude, I have attempted to remove too much of an element of retrospection. That is why I talked about planning consent, particularly involving developments that are already under way, and why I sought to remove subsection (5)(b), which strikes me as a retrospective provision. It seems odd that only a few months ago the Minister and I were debating retrospection about a different form of access. He was arguing against my case because it was retrospective, but today the boot is on the other foot. He is trying to do things retrospectively that I believe he should not.
We have had a good debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to reconsider certain aspects and explain others.