Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 103 in this group. Its purpose at the time I tabled it was to add the expression "or restoring" to Clause 88(9)(a). I am delighted to say that the Government have, as the Minister explained, tabled their own Amendment 103A which, except with one hesitation that I shall express in a moment, seems to cover the problem I had identified entirely. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for once again meeting our concern. My hesitation may be dispelled immediately by the Minister if he gives the reply that I hope he will. In his Amendment 103A, he uses the expression, at the beginning of the relevant paragraph, ""restoring (whether in whole or in part) the condition of any place affected by that harm or interference to the condition, or a condition reasonably similar to the condition, in which the place would have been had the harm or interference not occurred"." My question is this. What do the words "whether in whole or in part" mean? Do they mean, as I hope the Minister will say, that if part of the relevant location in the ocean—and only part of it—is damaged, then, plainly, only part of it needs to be restored? If that is what the amendment means, I am entirely content. If, however, it might be said to mean that the obligation to restore might be reduced, because of some set of circumstances, to only a partial restoration, then the Minister’s amendment does not do what I would have thought would have been appropriate.