---

Commons Bill [Lords]

I am not surprised that the Government have tabled the Trap Grounds amendments, which I naturally support. I welcome the other amendments, which are the Government’s response to representations that I made in Committee. I regret that the Minister has not been given the concrete examples that he and the hon. Member for South Dorset asked for. I have spoken to the individuals and businesses who originally made representations to me, who said that notwithstanding the assurances given by the Minister and his hon. Friend, they were concerned about commercial confidentiality and therefore felt unable to provide examples. I do not necessarily endorse that stance, but that is why it did not happen. I am particularly pleased that the Minister tabled the amendments, despite not having those examples—I know what they are, but it would be improper to describe them—because they represent a significant step forward. They deal with situations such as those that I described in Committee, whereby a development may have been started but not completed. There could be serious financial consequences for the developer if it was unable to complete a project that was a complete package, particularly if it had laid infrastructure or designed an estate, for example. I do not know whether the Minister has taken advice on this, but I suspect that the amendments will relieve him of the risk of claims for substantial damages from such developers if that had happened. That may have been another factor in persuading him to table them, but whatever his reasons, they are welcome. I tabled amendment (a) because I should like the Minister to clarify for me, and for my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), the precise meaning of the word ““construction””. In Committee, we had a discussion about the meaning of the word ““building””. Although amendment No. 10 initially refers to ““construction works””, paragraph (c) refers to ““works””. Most of us can understand what ““works”” means, but some people might argue that ““construction works”” can mean physical walls, steel uprights, and so on. Would it include ground works such as digging foundations, the laying of drains, or the construction of security fencing around a site, which is, sadly, an essential precursor to developing a site nowadays? It might cover a whole raft of things. The Minister is conscious of the Pepper v. Hart dictum, which at this stage in the proceedings of a Bill is about all that we can rely on. I hope that he will explain exactly what he means by ““construction works”” and how restrictive that might be in the interpretation of the wider group of amendments, which in principle I wholly support.