No. NC1, to move the following Clause:—

'After section 57 (Planning permission required for development) of the principal Act there is inserted the following section—

''57A Planning permission for high hedges.

(1) Planning permission is required for high hedges.

(2) In this section 'high hedge' means so much of a barrier to light for, or access to, residential property as—

(a) is formed wholly or predominately by a line of two or more evergreens.

(b) rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level.

(3) In this section 'evergreen' means an evergreen tree or shrub or a semievergreen tree or shrub.

(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any high hedge existing on the date on which it comes into force.''.'.—[Mr. Andrew Turner.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a matter of great regret that the title that I have come up with for this new clause does not share the resonance of some of the titles that the Government have given to their new clauses. Some of those titles—such as ''Old mining permissions: Scotland''—remind me almost of a barrel of real ale from the Ventnor brewery.

My new clause is an attempt to deal with a serious issue of which many of us are aware. It adopts two principles. The first, which has been enunciated by the Minister, is that the whole is the enemy of the parts. The second principle is one of conscientious plagiarism taken from Bills introduced by noble Friend Baroness Gardner of Parkes in another place and by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) in this place.

I hesitate to intervene on my hon. Friend, but I would like to put on the record that the noble Baroness Gardner of Parkes's Bill was almost identical in every respect to the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I would not like his contribution not to be recognised.

My hon. Friend is kind to remind me about that. Looking further down in my notes, I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull did introduce such a Bill, which nearly got through the whole parliamentary process.

The Government carried out a detailed consultation in 1999 on the impact of high hedges. More than 3,000 people and organisations responded, which for a Government consultation must be approaching a record—it is certainly more than responded to some consultations on regional referendums. The result showed that 94 per cent. of respondents believed that new laws were needed to control high hedges. Some 70 per cent. of local authorities that responded supported that belief. The proposal was made that local authorities should be able to determine complaints. I have not gone along that road because it has failed twice at least, for various reasons. Therefore, I have adopted a slightly different route.

Unfortunately, the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull fell in April 2001 because of an imminent general election, although the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Environment and the Regions reminded us that it is

''the Government's commitment to introduce new laws to solve hedge problems in England and Wales.''

He added that

''we could not find room for such a Bill in this Session''—

that is, the Session that ended in 2001. He also said:

''We are therefore pleased that the hon. Member for Solihull is pursuing the matter and that the Bill would apply to England and Wales.''—[Official Report, 9 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 575.]

The 2001 Queen's Speech also failed to mention a high hedges Bill. Government officials said that they were committed to bringing forward legislation when parliamentary time became available and the then Secretary of State told Hedgeline in a letter on 26 July 2001 that the Government remained committed to introducing new laws as soon as there was space in the parliamentary timetable. I will not go through the frequently reiterated Government commitments on the matter, but this is the opportunity for the Minister to give us half a loaf, if not a whole loaf, and to respond to that need.

Two Bills were introduced in the current Session—one in the Lords and one by the hon. Member for Ealing, North. When the Commons Bill failed, the hon. Member for Ealing, North asked the Prime Minister, no less, on 17 September 2003, what he was going to do about it. The Prime Minister repeated that

''the Government have had a long-standing commitment since August 2000 to bring forward new laws to give local authorities in England and Wales powers to determine complaints about high garden hedges and will make every effort to get them on to the statute book at the earliest opportunity. I cannot say better than that.''—[Official Report, 17 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 859–60.]

Now is the opportunity for the Minister to score lots of brownie points, but she is not the only one who is trying to do so. My noble Friend continues to persist, and tabled amendment No. 194 to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill as recently as 7 October. The Front-Bench spokesman, Lord Bassam, expressed great sympathy for her case:

''I understand why inserting suitable provisions in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill is on the face of it a very attractive proposition. This is a thoroughly anti-social problem. I believe that the noble Baroness described people who are victims of it as hedge victims. She is absolutely right about that. We recognise that some people are victims of such anti-social behaviour on the part of their neighbours. I certainly admire the vigour with which she has attempted to argue the new clause into the scope of the Bill.''

He went on to say that he was not prepared to accept the amendment, adding:

''As Members of the Committee have said, we do not get too many legislative opportunities, and I could not give a commitment as to when the Government could find a legislative slot in the future.

We as a government want to see such legislation ultimately on the statute book. We recognise the matter for the problem that it is.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 October 2003; Vol. 653, c. 251–52.]

To be fair, he did say that he would look at it again, but ''ultimately'' is a long way away.

The new clause will deliver only half of what people want—it will prevent such problems from arising in future—but it does not pretend to deal with the difficult question of what happens to those who already suffer from such problems. I have had many letters, as I am sure other Members have, asking me to support various legislation, but I have also had letters asking me not to support the proposal in the Bill because of its retrospective nature. It allows people to ask those who believe that they have grown nice tall hedges for good reasons to have them cut down. My proposal would not do that. Let me give an example from Bembridge in my constituency that shows why it is appropriate.

Somebody sold a plot of land adjacent to his home for housing purposes and planted a hedge that was designed to rise to about 6 ft, or 2 m. That was many years ago and the hedge has now grown that high. Now, the people who have bought the houses—some of them the second or third owners—are complaining about the hedge, but it was there before they were. Many feel that it is unfair that they should be able to do nothing about the hedges, while others feel that it would be unfair were they able to do something. I solve the problem by doing nothing about it, although I am proposing a mechanism that will ensure that it does not arise in future. I shall now try to describe that mechanism, and I am indebted to the officials of the House who have helped me by drafting the proposal.

Planning permission would be required for high hedges, and the new clause describes what would be considered to be a ''high hedge''. The first requirement is that it would be

''a barrier to light for, or access to, residential property.''

Therefore, one would not have to get planning permission unless the hedge, or part of it, were such a barrier. The second requirement is that it

''is formed wholly or predominantly by a line of two or more evergreens'',

and the third is that it

''rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level.''

I would much have preferred to specify 6 ft, but I am told that this is what we have to say nowadays. The new clause goes on to define an evergreen—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, as a former president of the Institute of Arboriculturalists, could do so too—and says:

''The provisions of this section shall not apply to any high hedge existing on the date on which it comes into force.''

In other words, if one's hedge had grown beyond 2 m on the date on which the requirement came into force, the new clause would not apply to it. I leave Ministers with half a loaf and this Minister with the opportunity to satisfy at least half the Prime Minister's pledge, as well as the problem of satisfying the rest of it. I believe that the new clause would ensure that people no longer risked finding themselves in the circumstances that are able to claim them as victims at the moment.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having suggested the new clause. I was one of the named supporters of the Bill championed by the hon. Member for Ealing, North. The only problem with the most recent of the failed Bills—in his potted history, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned three, but I think that there have been five in recent years—was that the hon. Member for Christchurch talked it out. Fortunately, he is not on this Committee, which is welcome if we are to debate the issue as that gives us an opportunity to legislate on it without having certain Members talking out a measure that has the overwhelming support of Members of all parties. It may be only half a loaf, but it is a good half loaf. However, I have been on too many Committees in the past few years to believe that the Minister will accept it as it stands. I suspect that she will say that she will consider the matter and possibly return to it, but that may not be enough. It is usually done to suggest that something should not happen.

The Minister may have been advised that the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for this issue, but it is likely to be the most appropriate that we will have for a very long time. We have seen the problems with private Members' legislation, so unless the Minister knows something that she cannot tell us such as that an appropriate Bill might appear in the Queen's Speech—I suspect, however, that the Government may have more pressing priorities than a high hedges Bill—she will be doing the House a disservice if she does not take this opportunity, because I cannot foresee when the next one will arise for incorporating such a proposal in Government legislation.

I fully support the new clause. If the Minister picks me up on any technical drafting errors—the other reason that Ministers use to reject new clauses—I suggest that with all three parties working together, we can rapidly find ways of reintroducing it on Report. It would take very little time on the Floor of the House to do that. My only regret is that in this instance, it has been introduced by a Member whose name is not quite

as appropriate to the subject as is that of the noble Baroness Gardner of Parkes. For the sake of posterity, I wish that it had been her Bill, as that would have made it one of the most appropriate Bills that could ever have been invented.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight on the way in which he introduced his new clause. I have heard three memorable speeches about the need to tackle the problem of high hedges; they were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight and for Solihull, and by the hon. Member for Ealing, North—all of whose facility for style and wit I admire. I particularly admire the hon. Member for Ealing, North, whom I regard as the living personification of Mr. Punch—but in saying that, I hope that I am not thought to be the living personification of the Reverend Obadiah Slope.

My hon. Friend asked me to tell the Committee what a coniferous shrub or tree is. Before I attempt to do so, I should say that although I was the instigator of national tree year in 1973, and was president of the Arboricultural Association for many years before I became a Minister, I am not an expert on trees; I simply love them. I understand that, in layman's language, a coniferous tree does not shed its leaves, whereas a deciduous tree does. The point is that because an evergreen or coniferous tree does not shed its leaves, it forms a permanent barrier that light cannot get through.

As my hon. Friend said, the issue raises great emotions. There are some—certainly one or two in my party—who, if I judge their views rightly, think that we have enough pressing problems with town and country planning laws and regulations, and we do not need any more. They think that to try to extend the planning system to hedges is taking a step too far. There are others—I am in this category—who recognise that high hedges are a real menace, and involve the loss of rights for neighbouring properties.

We rightly always pay regard to the need to preserve rights of way for ordinary people, but we make rights to light a second-class issue, although they are equally important. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has recognised the qualification someone should be required to take action to reduce the height of a hedge only when there is loss of light for a neighbour. That usually happens because a property owner puts high hedges on his or her northern boundary—which is, of course, the southern side of the property behind, and materially affects the light to that property. I applaud my hon. Friend for making that distinction.

It is right that the new clause specifies

''a line of two or more evergreens''.

One could perhaps live with one evergreen, because evergreens, or coniferous trees, tend to grow high but are relatively narrow. The definition of a hedge is, I suppose, two or more shrubs or trees—although I am not a lawyer, so perhaps I will be picked up on that definition.

The new clause also defines a high hedge as one that is 2 m in height. I come from an age where imperial

preference had two good meanings, and I resist using the metric system, although of course it is now part of our law and we have to live with it. Suffice it to say that 2 m is about 6¼ inches higher than 6 ft. That is, however, by the way. My point is that if one wishes to put up a fence on the side boundaries or at the back of a property, it must be less than 2 m high. One has to get planning permission if one wants to put up a fence higher than 2 m, so the choice of the 2 m height limit is very apposite.

I can understand, although I will be very sorry, if the Minister feels that the new clause should be resisted. In the light of what my hon. Friend said about the commitments and semi-commitments of Ministers, not least the Prime Minister, I hope that if the Minister asks us to resist the new clause he will feel able to give a commitment that legislation will be mentioned in the Queen's Speech on 26 November. If not, I hope that the Government will make a specific commitment to support a private Member's Bill, and to help draft it if necessary, in the new Session.

I did not speak earlier, because I wanted to hear what hon. Members had to say about the new clause first. I unhesitatingly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight on bringing it before the Committee. It gives the opportunity for an important subject to be debated.

I know that some members of our party take a different view, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, but the Conservative Opposition's view is that the matter is a significant problem. Some 10,000 cases are outstanding, and we believe that the Government should honour their promises to legislate on the matter. Without exception, all Members of Parliament will have had correspondence about difficult cases in which people have been severely inconvenienced by high hedges. I know of a case of one London resident who has a 30 ft hedge within a yard on both sides of their small property, and nothing can be done about that. We need some legislation.

To that end, I considered tabling the Bill that was promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull in its entirety as a new clause. I do not want to be churlish about the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, as it provides an excellent opportunity to debate the subject, but it has several shortcomings. I am sure that the Minister will pick up on them, but it might be helpful if I pick up on them first.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, I have spent many hours, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee, on this problem. I sat through the debates on the Bills introduced by both my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull and the hon. Member for Ealing, North. The Government should take the earliest opportunity to remedy the problem with legislation. We want there to be some flexibility, because if two neighbours living side by side are happy with a high hedge, the Government should not intervene. Intervention should occur only when one of the parties has a problem with the hedge. We are wary about blanket legislation, and I would want to see some arbitration procedure built in, so a local

authority could be invited to resolve a dispute if either party has a problem.

New clause 1 would be prospective, not retrospective, and the Government already have 10,000 problems to deal with, which would be a massive work load for planning authorities throughout the country. On top of the heavy work load provided by the Bill, that would be a real problem, so the Government should perhaps introduce some phasing to deal first with prospective problems and then with retrospective problems.

My hon. Friend's new clause has some specific problems. I emphasise again that in identifying them, I am trying to be helpful rather than churlish. As Committee members know, evergreen hedges can grow by at least 3 ft a year, especially if they are leylandii. What was not a problem at the beginning of the year can become a significant problem by the end of it, and we need to find a mechanism to deal with it. A hedge can, and should, be trimmed to a height of 2 m—or 6 ft 6 in—but if one party is obstinate and does not trim it, and an order is made against them, who will be entitled to do the work? The Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull provided that the local authority could do the work and charge the occupier who was causing the problem, and there should be some such safeguard in the Bill.

I had a problem with the Bills introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull and by the hon. Member for Ealing, North, because they both refused to contemplate amendments on this matter. We would not want to make any legislation too all-encompassing, but the problem of high hedges occurs only with leylandii, Lawson cypress and laurel. Any legislation would need a tight definition of those species, because otherwise rare and more special species could be caught up. We would have to be very careful before cutting down hedges of unusual species, because the more special the species, the more likely it is that trimming it too hard can kill it.

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the problem is confined to those three species of tree, I will happily tell him about a problem in my constituency. Indeed, the problem is not always a hedge directly against someone's boundary. My constituency case concerns a house in a green lane. The hedge on the other side of the lane is a mixture of species. It has grown to about 30 or 40 ft, and completely blocks the light because of the angle of the land. I have visited the couple involved, who would not find redress if the restrictions proposed by the hon. Gentleman were accepted.

I am grateful for that intervention. I shall come to the issue of light being blocked in a moment. The hon. Gentleman said that the hedge was a mixture of species; the most common species in most hedges is thorn, which is not evergreen. Bearing in mind the enormity of the problem, I would want the three species in question to be dealt with first; it may then be possible, by order, to extend the proposal to other species.

I tend to follow the line taken by some of my hon. Friends that the measure should not be all-encompassing. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight what would happen when a hedge that had been planted properly and had not caused a nuisance was deemed to be a barrier to light in a development built after it was planted. Would retrospective legislation be required? I had such a case in Northleach in my constituency: someone innocently planted a hedge next to an agricultural field. It was not a problem to anyone at the time, but new houses were built and a constituent has written to me saying that the hedge now is a problem. That possibility should be addressed; perhaps an amendment with a retrospective element is needed.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is likely that such a hedge would require permission subsequent to the construction of the houses concerned? Does he accept, too, that it is also likely that if the person were growing the hedge for the purpose of providing a barrier he would seek planning permission when he sold the land? I accept that there is a lacuna in the measure, which Ministers could plug at a later stage, in respect of houses built after the growth of a hedge on a site that had not been in the ownership of the person growing the hedge.

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I do not want to get too bound up in the argument. I am not being churlish about the new clause; I am merely pointing out what needs to be considered when the Government draft legislation.

On the issue of light, the amendment does not define a barrier to light, and a definition is needed. The Building Research Establishment has issued some excellent guidelines on the subject, which deal with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow. As he said, a house 1 m away from a hedge is in a very different situation from one that is 40 or 50 m away; the same hedge can cause different problems, depending on the angle of the light and the height of the hedge. There are different problems in the winter and the summer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, whether the hedge is on the north or the south side of a house is also important. The matter has been considered in some detail in the BRE guidelines, which should, at the very least, be incorporated into any proposed measure.

Hedge roots, too, create difficulties. As every surveyor knows, hedge roots can cause problems of subsidence, and get into the drains of neighbouring houses. Hedge roots like drains, which provide them with the nutrients that they need to grow even faster, so hedges whose roots find their way into someone's drains are likely to become an even greater problem.

There are lots of matters that need to be dealt with, such as who is to hear appeals, what sanctions are available when the legislation is not complied with, and so on. I have identified some of them, but there will be others. I join my hon. Friend in urging the Government to act on the matter. About 10,000 people are already affected, and if there is to be a reasonable level of house building, which we need, that

number will grow rapidly. Indeed, if the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's guidelines are to allow the density of housing to increase, I suspect that the problem will become even greater. This is a pressing matter and I hope that the Government will deal with it.

The hon. Gentleman is in danger of sitting on the fence—or should I say the hedge? Will he make clear whether he supports me in my belief that the Bill is appropriate legislation for the Government to use to introduce suitable clauses on Report to deal with this question?

That is a matter for the Government; it is their Bill. The Opposition merely say that the Government should find the first legislative opportunity. The matter would clearly be within the scope of the Bill, or the Clerk would not have selected the new clause. I simply say that it is an urgent problem, which needs to be dealt with at the earliest opportunity. If the Government can prepare an appropriate new clause in time for Report, and get it through the other place, they should use this opportunity. However, this is a complex subject and I suspect that it will be difficult to deal with in the Bill, so it will probably need separate legislation.

The thrust of the speeches from the Opposition Benches is that the Government need to do something, and I hope that something will be included in the Queen's Speech. I cannot be any clearer than that.

I see that have only a few minutes to respond to the debate. I shall answer as many points as I can, but we may need to return to the debate this afternoon. I strongly support the intention behind new clause 1. We were extremely disappointed by the failure of the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North. Only a small minority of Opposition Members opposed it; otherwise, the issue has cross-party support.

I wish to correct the Minister. It was not only Opposition Members who opposed that Bill. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) tabled a large number of amendments, which delayed our discussion of the Bill on the Floor of the House.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon supported the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of exactly what was going on when the Bill was discussed on those Fridays. I was about to give his party credit for the fact that the majority of Conservative Members supported the Bill, so it was a little churlish of him to try to cast aspersions on the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon.

In the short time since I took responsibility for this matter, it has been my experience that one requires considerable persistence and ingenuity to make progress. Many Members in the House and in the other place have shown that persistence and that ingenuity by continuing to raise the subject, and they do so because constituents continue to raise it with us. The problem makes people's lives a misery, especially those who live next to a house with huge high hedge, classically a leylandii hedge, as it can leer over the garden wall—some are double the height of the house—and can block light, and the view. As a result, and given the failure of the private Member's Bill, we have given much consideration to what we could to.

The hon. Member for Cotswold said that he had considered tabling my hon. Friend's entire Bill as an amendment to this Bill. We, too, considered that.

I suggested that idea to the Government, who said that they would consider the idea carefully.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have done. However, using my hon. Friend's Bill would raise problems of scope. We also considered whether other ways might be found to include such provisions, in order to address the many problems that hon. Members have raised, but they too would have created all sorts of difficulties—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.