Clause 16 - Local development documents
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
3:00 pm
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
I shall enter into debate on Welsh matters with some trepidation. However, in the absence of an amendment that documents should be written in Welsh, it is self-evident that they will be written in English. The Minister may like to reflect on that. If he were to spell out every obvious thing, the Bill would be five times as thick as it is.
The more I listened to the Minister's comments, the more convinced I became that I was right and he was wrong. He sought to invent a new definition of ''content.'' In the end, he referred to headings. I thought that he really meant the scope of the document and I have no difficulty with that, but he insisted on ''content'' and said that that could mean approximately what ought to be included here.
As the Minister helpfully cited precedent, let me helpfully cite precedent too. If he were to go to the newsagent on the corner by Portcullis House and buy a box of Dairy Milk chocolates, he would find inside a list of the contents, which would describe what was in the box. If, when he came to munch his way through
his chocolates, he found that the description of the contents did not match what was in the box, the manufacturers would be liable to be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. There is a precedent in law that suggests that ''content'' means something exact. The contents of a box of chocolates are exactly what is in the box and no more or less. It is not a case of someone saying, ''If you are lucky, you might find the following chocolates,'' or, ''The box might contain fudge, but it might not.'' That is not what the contents are about; that is the scope. It is fine to say, ''Some of the things that we make will be in the box,'' but such a statement is not a statement of the contents.
I urge the Minister to reflect, because he says that he does not want the power to prescribe the contents, but, to me—and in my dictionary—''contents'' means simply, ''exactly what is in here.'' He might mean an index, or all sorts of other things. I support his argument that it would be helpful to ensure that all plans are roughly the same. However, whether he likes it or not, unless he is prepared to change ''content,'' he will be kept up all night writing Spelthorne's plan. I will like what a Conservative council writes, but he might not and might therefore say, ''I have the power to control the content.'' He has not persuaded me on that point. I urge him to talk to the lawyers and the draftsmen to find out whether they are persuaded, even if he is not, that this is a clumsy way in which to do something reasonable. Unless he changes the wording, he will either run foul of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 or be writing plans all night.
I have listened carefully and thought about the matter, and I do not want to vote on the single point of ''content'' with all the other amendments. I would consider returning to the matter on Report, as a separate issue on its own, when perhaps we might vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.