| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Leigh: I am somewhat amused by the Minister's comments about amendment No. 13. I see no reason why any reasonable person cannot accept that amendment, which was tabled by one of her hon. Friends. She intimated that there are various extra factors that a local authority might want to consider, but what are they? Perhaps she could advise us.
Yvette Cooper: The truth is that such problems often arise in respect of legislation. When we want local authorities to take account of the factors that might be relevant in a particular circumstance, it is sometimes difficult to anticipate, as the legislation passes through this House, what all of those factors might be. If we could think of them in advance we could add them to the legislation, which would make matters easier.
Mr. Leigh: Unfortunately, the Minister is unable to help us in respect of the other factors that local authorities should consider. If she reads the amendment, she will discover that it says,
- "the authority shall have regard to",
Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we often have debates such as this on a wide variety of legislation, particularly in Committee. Attempts to ensure that particular factors are taken into account can often become constraints on other factors being taken into account as well. Let us consider the difference in the wording of amendment Nos. 13 and 37. The latter states that an authority must take into account
- "all matters appearing . . . to be relevant, including in particular"—
I urge the Members concerned to withdraw the other amendments, but the Government are certainly happy to support acceptance of amendment No. 37.
Mr. Chope: I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies, and indeed I am, but let us examine the facts. A version of amendment No. 37 was actually included in the previous Bill. Why was it removed, and why have we had this debate about it? The Bill's promoter and the Minister have accepted the underlying principle at the last minute, as a result of an amendment, tabled in my name, that is identical to the original version. I am delighted that the amendment will be accepted, but I am disappointed with the argument that the Minister deployed. Having listened to her comments and to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right. If we cannot make the Minister see our point of view, that is all the more disappointing.
New clause 6 is about justice being seen to be done. It may well be that the authority in the London borough of Ealing is so large and employs so many people that one can have a meaningful description of different departments—Chinese walls, and so on—dealing with a complicated issue. However, the borough of Christchurch would be lucky if it could afford one tree officer and there are probably only a handful of people in the planning department. A system in which the council is on one side of the argument and a complainant on the other—the complainant would likely view the council as judge in its own court, but the council has only 24 elected members and we also have to take into account their various roles as chairmen and others on regulatory and scrutiny committees—would not work.
1.45 pm
What is so unreasonable about new clause 6? Why cannot it be accepted? If the Government or the sponsor will not accept it, I hope that the House will in the Division that we shall shortly have. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) says that the Bill has been much discussed before and that iterative process has removed the room for flexibility. Unfortunately, the iterative process has not improved the Bill as it should have done and as I still hope that it can be. I shall say no more now, because we want to make as much progress as possible.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 1, Noes 35.
AYES
Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mr. Christopher Chope and
Mr. Edward Leigh
NOES
Banks, Tony
Barnes, Harry
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)
Brake, Tom (Carshalton)
Brooke, Mrs Annette L.
Byers, rh Stephen
Calton, Mrs Patsy
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Cohen, Harry
Cooper, Yvette
Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Gardiner, Barry
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)
Hendry, Charles
Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Holmes, Paul
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lazarowicz, Mark
McNulty, Tony
McWalter, Tony
Mandelson, rh Peter
Maples, John
Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)
Quinn, Lawrie
Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Stanley, rh Sir John
Sutcliffe, Gerry
Taylor, John (Solihull)
Vis, Dr. Rudi
Ward, Claire
Wicks, Malcolm
Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)
Tellers for the Noes:
Mr. Andrew Dismore and
Mr. Stephen Pound
Question accordingly negatived.
Complaints to Which This Act Applies
Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, after 'by', insert
- 'for an unreasonable obstruction of light caused by'.
- 'an unreasonable obstruction of light caused by'.
- 'the obstruction of light caused by'.
- '( ) This Act does not apply to hedges more than 10 metres from the complainants house.'.
No. 47 in clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out 'or access'.
No. 48 in clause 3, page 2, line 31, leave out subsection 31.
No. 90 in clause 4, page 2, line 38, at end insert—
- '(1 A) The authority shall dismiss a complaint if the height of the hedge in metres is less than
D/2+2,
where D is the distance in metres between the hedge and the nearest outside window wall of the complainant's property'.
- '(3) If the authority do not so decide, they must decide—
(a) whether the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of the domestic property specified in the complaint is being affected by an unreasonable obstruction of light caused by a high hedge so specified; and
(b) if so, what action (if any) should be required to be taken in relation to that hedge, in pursuance of a remedial notice under section 5, with a view to remedying any such obstruction or preventing its recurrence.'.
- 'the obstruction of light caused by'.
- 'the obstruction of light caused by'.
- 'the obstruction of light caused by'.
Mr. Chope: In moving the amendment and speaking to the consequential—
Mr. Forth: Before my hon. Friend proceeds, may I ask whether he is impressed with the consistency of support for the Bill? We have seen two Divisions in which 35 out of 658 MPs have exhibited their support for the Bill. Does that degree of support give my hon. Friend any encouragement that the Bill should proceed, or does he think that perhaps it indicates that a degree of caution on the part of the House would be appropriate?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |