| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Mar 2003 : Column 633—continued
2.15 pm
Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on reintroducing—I suppose that is the correct term—the Bill, and on speaking in its favour in such an entertaining but serious manner. I thought the balance of his remarks was absolutely correct, because this is a very important issue. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who has been in the Chamber for a large part of today, for introducing the Bill in 2001. He did so because of the great concern that existed, and still exists.
In general, the Conservative party recognises the problems associated with high hedges. As has been said, they block out the light and the sun, they can harm soil
conditions and damage drains, and fast-growing leylandii trees in certain areas can be a particular problem. Those problems, and the resulting disputes between neighbours, destroy previously good relations, harming the quality of life of people who have been caught up in them. The problem seems to have been the lack of a remedy, which has caused difficulties to drag on. I understand that the hon. Gentleman's Bill is intended to enable local authorities to take remedial action where necessary—that is the point; it is important to ensure that action is taken only where necessary. As he rightly said, the Bill does not ban high hedges or tall leylandii trees—I have tall leylandii trees in my garden, and I do not think that those will be banned because I have no neighbours. I do not think that the legislation would be a problem to me; if it became a problem, I would take the matter up again with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Apart from the concern highlighted in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that a naturist defence might lead to a sudden exponential increase in the number of professed naturists in this country buying their high hedges on that basis, has my hon. Friend considered whether the profession of naturist would be self-verifying or open to external inspection?
Mr. Robertson: I have neither my hon. Friend's intellect nor eloquence. It therefore might be better if I say that, in certain cases, whether people object to high hedges will depend very much on the people who were displaying themselves. In view of the lack of time, I will duck his intervention.
Sir Paul Beresford: On a more serious note, I see that my hon. Friend's constituency is Tewkesbury. My knowledge of this country's geography may be somewhat limited in comparison with that of Members who are not immigrants, but I suspect that most of his constituency is rural. Would he agree, therefore, that a high proportion of the hedges in his area would be considerably more than 2 m above the ground, and that the definition in the Bill, which is that a high hedge rises to a height of more than 2 m above the ground, should not really apply to his constituency, and certainly should not apply to mine?
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend has made many good and serious points, but probably three quarters of Tewkesbury lies in built-up areas, and I have had many letters from a great many people on this subject. I recognise the point that he makes, however.
The nightmare of high hedges has gone on for some years. I regret that there has not been Government action to tackle it. They have made noises: the Minister for the Environment has mentioned it, as has the Under-Secretary. Apart from publishing the "Over the Garden Hedge" leaflet in 2002, however, we have not seen a great deal of Government action in that regard. I wonder whether the Government intend to take over the Bill, because the Minister said that we should not reach a point at which councils or the courts need to intervene. Will he clarify their position in his winding-up speech?
Several hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, expressed concerns about aspects of the Bill. I shall not repeat them all owing to the shortage of time,
but I shall highlight one or two. We recognise the worries of people who live next door to high hedges. However, they can protect people's privacy, as we heard. People write to hon. Members saying that they want their windows or gardens to be protected and kept private, and high hedges and trees might be the only way to do that. We should bear in mind people who live near roads. I live near a motorway that can be noisy in certain atmospheric conditions and the trees in my garden protect me from that.We want to avoid creating excessive bureaucracy for local authorities because they will have to consider complaints, issue remedial notices and ensure that people comply with them. Will they receive proper financial support to enable them to do that? The hon. Member for Ealing, North referred to clause 21, which relates to financial provisions, but it would not guarantee that the Government would provide the money necessary to enable local authorities to take on yet another duty.
We recognise the problems, disputes and misery that are often caused by high hedges, and people who suffer must be able to access a legal remedy. I hope that the important caveats that my hon. Friends and I have mentioned will be addressed during later stages of the Bill and with that proviso, I hope that it receives its Second Reading.
2.22 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) not only on promoting the Bill, but on his work in the past. I commend all that has been said about Baroness Gardner of Parkes, Lord Graham of Edmonton, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and the former Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, who started the process some time ago. I shall not go through the list of hon. Members who spoke in support of the Bill, although that would all be terribly nice, because it is more appropriate to deal with the serious, well-measured and informed points made by those who have problems with it.
The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) was right to say that the focus of the Bill is height and light and that the quagmire of the law, owing to its complexity on the notion of what is a nuisance, has been unsatisfactory. Hon. Members may know that I do not cling to the notion of consensus being virtuous in itself, although it might be on the odd occasion. I happily endorse the fair point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about unanimity among the three Front Benches because that does not always result in good law or legislation that would be looked at with pride down the ages.
I agree with a point made by the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). Although this rather imitates the position of the National Rifle Association—with no malice intended toward America—it is not the plant that is at fault, but the owner. That is entirely right. The Bill is not about the eradication of leylandii or other similar hedgerows and trees. It is not as though
they are triffids, growing regardless of what the most well-intentioned owner does to them. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is right to say that civil legal action is a rather tortuous route by which to resolve these issues.The hon. Members for Mole Valley, for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) made some fair points about the Bill's rough edges. However, the hon. Member for Christchurch slightly misinterpreted the Bill; there is no appeal process under clause 4(2). If the council determines that the person bringing the complaint has not exhausted all other avenues, the complainant has no right of appeal, and if the council decides that the complaint is vexatious or frivolous, there is no appeal, so people cannot get into a loop of making appeal after appeal.
The hon. Member for Christchurch is right to suggest that the problem is conifer rage or hedge rage, as he described it, although I do not know whether it is caused by attempts to pass legislation such as this. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman serves on the Standing Committee, I may have some dispute with him about the cause of these problems. I disagree with his correspondent who suggests that the Bill will create serious pitfalls and is unworkable.
I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North that the Bill is not offered up as a panacea. If it were, it would not contain the trip switch identified by the hon. Member for Bath, which allows that there may be scope to revisit the nature of complaints and the definition of high hedges. That is important, because if, as a result of the pitfalls and drawbacks suggested by Opposition Members, the Bill is not successful, there is scope to reconsider those matters rather than taking up the valuable time of the House.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Mole Valley was being a bit presumptuous in assuming what form the appeal body will take. As he will know, the regulatory impact assessment and the explanatory notes say that appeals may be considered by the planning inspectorate, but the make-up of the appeal body is deliberately not explained. The Bill prescribes the appeal process, but not the appeal body. That is a matter for the council.
The Bill is meant to be flexible, and I do not think that it is a significant shift away from the objectivity of the Building Research Establishment guidelines that featured in the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Solihull. We are not about to see hedge wars raging throughout suburbia in south-east England, but these are serious matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North is slightly wrong on one point: about 260 MPs have written to me on this matter since last April or May. I am glad to see many of them in the Chamber.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell made a serious point in asking whether the Bill is just about boundaries. It is not—nuisance can transcend boundaries. He also talked about the implementation of remedial action, which should be more fully explored in Committee. Other hon. Members made serious points about whether the stated height of 2 m and over is sufficient, and those should be tackled in Committee.
However, underlying everything that Members have said is the belief that the Bill should receive a Second Reading, and I commend it to the House.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |