House of Lords
Thursday, 31st January 2002.
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.
Trees Act 1970
Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they propose to amend the Trees Act 1970 in the light of the House of Lords decision in the case of Delaware Mansions Ltd and others v The City of Westminster and, if so, whether they will include hedges in any proposed new legislation.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Does he agree that the Delaware Mansions case clearly established that invasion of or damage to one's property by the roots of a neighbouring tree or hedge is definitely the responsibility of the owner of that tree or hedge? Therefore, will not the decision help people with that problem? However, what is the position when a tree preservation order is attached to a tree? That is the real essence of the case. Where does liability lie when one wishes to deal with a tree nuisance in those circumstances and applies to the council to do so, but the council refuses because of a tree preservation order? Is the tree owner responsible, or is responsibility transferred to the council that has refused the request?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in the circumstances that the noble Baroness has described, the position is clear—
Lord Filkin: My Lords, for the second time this week, wait on—the position is clear. If the council refused permission for necessary work to be done to a tree or hedge whose roots were causing damage to an adjacent property, the council would be liable.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many people are labouring under a great nuisance because of high hedges? We have discussed the issue
before, but the answer that he has given today—holding out the prospect of future legislation—really does not take us any further forward. Will there be legislation fairly soon, please?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, have asserted on a number of occasions: while these issues are not the most major issues of state, they cause substantial unhappiness to a reasonably large number of people. Precise figures on the number of people who are adversely affected are not available, but 10,000 is probably not an unreasonable estimate. The misery for some people can persist for a long time, but they are currently without an effective remedy. As the noble Lord knows, the Government have been clear about their wish to legislate, and a draft Bill is on the stocks to introduce when a suitable time is available. For obvious reasons, I cannot give a commitment for a Bill in this Session or the next, but I am certain that noble Lords will be keeping the primacy of such legislation before the Government's attention.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, my noble friend will know that legislation under the Private Member's procedure was introduced in another place and became part of a procedural wrangle. If a short Bill were to be introduced in the other place in government time, is it not likely that it would go through on the nod?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, if the Government were able to introduce in government time the type of Bill that we have on the stocks, its prospect of passage in another place would be very substantially improved. However, I do not think that that is the issue. The issue is when the Government can find time to introduce such legislation, and whether another route might be effective.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that for some people in these circumstances obtaining insurance for their property is difficult and that the value of their property may appear to decrease? If the Government are not going to find time, is not one possible remedy for those affected to sue their own local council in order to get something done? We seem to be in a ridiculous situation and we are not moving forward at all.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I grant that in extreme cases, if one's neighbour is not prepared to operate reasonably and trim back an excessively high hedge, the saleability and sale price of one's property could be damaged. We are discussing this issue because, unfortunately, the owner of the affected property currently does not have a very effective remedy. As I said, the Government therefore believe that it is necessary to introduce the type of legislation that we have indicated when it is possible to do so. Such legislation would effectively make it possible to identify whether, in certain circumstances, the
infringement on the light of the adjacent property is substantial and measurable, so that the matter does not require a complex court judgment but can be dealt with almost mathematically.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, may I congratulate the Government—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we have already had the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
I congratulate the Government on the action that they have taken. Following very many years in which administrations were unable to tackle the issue, by producing their report on hedge abuse, this Government have brought a great deal of hope to a great many people. Will the Minister bear in mind that thousands of people affected by the issue rely on local or national government to protect them? They are the silent, and very often frightened, majority. Will the Minister also bear in mind that the legislation would perhaps result in peace between neighbours who often cannot see the wood for the trees?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thought that my inadvertent pun was venial but I am not sure that that of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was at all venial. The evidence from the consultation that the Government carried out in 1999 put it clear beyond doubt that a substantial number of people were seriously affected. Those who responded to the consultation expressed the strong view that local authorities should be given powers, which they do not currently have, to act in these matters. Most local authorities that responded also supported that view. Therefore, there is a body of opinion converging on the need for such a route. It is a pity that the Bill was talked out in the previous Session. There was clearly a filibuster with 100 amendments tabled on Report which made the Bill fall just before the election. The Government will produce a guidance leaflet which may help to avoid some new cases arising. The guidance leaflet will indicate what circumstances are considered unreasonable and how best to tackle such problems. But, clearly, that will not deal with the hard-core cases that have been going on for a number of years. That is why legislation is needed.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Lord say why, if it is so short of time, the other place is taking an extra week's holiday?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I can only conclude that it is because Members of the other place have been working so hard.
Foot and Mouth Disease: Inquiries
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether their decision that the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should submit only written answers to Northumberland County Council's inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak was in the public interest.
The decision for Ministers not to attend the oral hearings of the Northumberland and other inquiries was because we are co-operating fully with the official inquiries under Dr Iain Anderson and Sir Brian Follett. The decision not to send officials to attend these local inquiries was primarily to prevent staff resources being diverted from the task of final eradication of the disease and its aftermath.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I fear that noble Lords will find the Minister's response inadequate and disappointing. I refer to the European Parliament inquiry. Will the Government submit written evidence to that or will they attend in person and give oral evidence? As I am sure the Minister understands, oral evidence comprises much more than simply answering specific questions. When discussing DEFRA's future, the Minister, Alun Michael, said that it would be appropriate for the Government to respond to those inquiries. In the end the Government will have to respond anyway.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page