'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.

Question proposed [this day], That the clause be read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

As I was saying this morning, we have considered whether it is possible to address the issue of high hedges in a different way through the Bill. However, a series of difficulties—many of them similar—arise in the new clause, and they are worth talking through.

The new clause would treat the problem of high hedges and disputes between neighbours as a planning issue, whereas it is, in fact, a dispute between neighbours that is not being resolved. The first problem with new clause 1 is that it is not retrospective and so, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) honestly recognised, cannot resolve the problem for the many people who have horrible high hedges blocking out their light and suffocating their houses. That means that the genuine problems of huge numbers of people across the country would not be resolved by the new clause. Moreover, it would be difficult for them to resolve their problems through a planning approach, given that it is the nature of planning permission that it is applied for in advance.

There is also a slight difficulty in subsection (4). There is the question of how one would prove at what point a growing tree or hedge passed the 2 m point, and the issue of whether one could argue that a tree that was 1 m 90 cm before the Bill came into force would need planning permission, but that one that was 2 m 10 cm would not, because of the way that the

clause was drafted. The new clause would be slightly difficult to enforce and interpret.

Another aspect that would be difficult was alluded to by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). There are many cases in which a hedge more than 2 m high is not a problem. It may not lie along the boundary between two neighbours; it may be a long way from a house; two neighbours may strongly want a high barrier between them; or the hedge may block out an unsightly view at the end of the garden. There may be no need for anyone to intervene in the growth of a high hedge. Putting additional burdens on the planning process when many cases would not need to be covered seems an inappropriate way of trying to solve a genuine problem.

We are not dealing with a planning problem. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight said that some would argue that it is right that the measures should not be retrospective. The planting of the leylandii or hedge may be seen as a retrospective act, but the dispute is what remains. The problem is that there is an incredibly high hedge between two neighbours that is making a misery of one party's life, while the other is not responding to resolve the issue. They have an ongoing dispute. The issue is not one of passing legislation to cover acts that took place in the past, which is what it would be if the matter was regarded as a planning issue. The issue is about how we resolve the dispute between two neighbours, and that is a current and ongoing problem. We should have legislation that allows us to respond to that fact.

The Minister will recall that I intervened on the hon. Member for Cotswold earlier to mention that, in my constituency, there is a green lane between a high hedge and a property whose owners no longer get light through their windows. We need to be careful; the problem is not always the neighbours, but we keep talking as if it is a matter of dispute between neighbours. In fact, it is a dispute between two parties who may or may not be neighbours.

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, although obviously the most passionate stories are often those where the hedges are growing close to people's kitchens, and where that is having an immediate impact on people's lives and their enjoyment. He is right that the approach taken in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) was to ensure that his legislation could deal with a range of circumstances.

We have examined the issue addressed in new clause 1 in considerable detail, and we were keen to do something about it in this Bill, if an appropriate way could be found. However, it has proved too difficult. New clause 1 is the wrong approach, but we shall continue to consider the matter.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to the remarks of my noble Friend Lord Bassam on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. We are considering this issue very seriously. The term ''antisocial behaviour'' is an appropriate way to describe the problem that we are talking about. This is about neighbours being a nuisance to one another, and it can be far more

destructive and more of a harassment to people's lives than a neighbour playing loud music or a teenager who puts graffiti on the fence opposite a house. Antisocial behaviour is not just about young people on low-income estates, but about the middle-aged middle Englander who will not lop the leylandii and leaves his poor neighbour to suffer as a result.

We are sympathetic to the points that have been raised about the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, and we are examining the issue closely. As we have maintained throughout, we are keen to get legislation on to the statute book. We will respond to the House of Lords on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill very shortly—within the next few days. There will be further opportunity during the planning Bill, perhaps on Report after the Queen's Speech, for hon. Members to have further discussions if they are not happy with the way in which the Government have responded to the House of Lords. However, given the difficulties of approaching this issue from a planning point of view and our strong interest in considering further the antisocial behaviour element and other possibilities for taking action as rapidly as possible, I ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to withdraw his new clause.

First, I am grateful to all hon. Members on this side of the Committee for the support that they have given to the principle of my new clause. Secondly, I am grateful to the Minister for her thoughtful and reasonable response to it. We have more promises on record than we had before about the timing of the Government's response to the issue of this serious nuisance. The Minister has said that she is keen to get legislation, and that she will respond to the House of Lords on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill shortly. She expects that, if we are not satisfied, we will have the opportunity to reconsider the matter on Report. I am grateful for that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) was helpful in describing how evergreens grow. His comparison of rights of way and rights to light was singularly appropriate. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said that all three parties appear to have the same objective—I am sure that that is true also of Cross Benchers in the other place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold came up with so many criticisms that he was almost drafting a new Bill rather than responding to the new clause. That is his prerogative. It is clear that he is preparing himself to be on the Government Front Bench, responding to new clauses from the Opposition Members, and I am sure that he will fulfil that role very well when he gets the chance to do so after the next general election.

My hon. Friend raised some issues that I would have regarded as carping if they had been raised by a less generous Minister—so to speak. However, my hon. Friend is not less generous than the Minister, so I will not describe his comments as carping. He came up with the sorts of criticisms that Ministers sometimes come up with about how the new clause fails on a

number of technicalities, but in my view it is the Opposition's job to table new clauses and it is the Minister's job to tidy them up if we do not get them absolutely right. I offer that bit of career development advice to my hon. Friend, should he find himself on the Front Bench in the future.

May I offer a piece of advice to my hon. Friend, by telling a little anecdote that I am sure the Committee will enjoy? I was talking to a strong supporter of our leader yesterday, when a Labour Member of Parliament came up to us and said, ''I see that you two are plotting.'' I said, ''There is a big plot: it is to get rid of the Labour party. The problem is that some of our people have lost the plot.''

I do not want to go too far down that road, not least because I have to speak again in a few moments and I hope to get as generous a reception as I have received so far. I am grateful to the Minister for her promises: we will examine the fruits of them on Report.

My hon. Friend has done the Committee—and everyone involved in the 10,000 problems outstanding—a huge service. It was necessary to debate this matter this afternoon. I congratulate him on the ingenuity of his new clause: it is short and simple—it fulfils all the criteria that I have been talking about in this Committee.

This problem must be addressed—the Government need to deal with it as soon as possible. I hear what the Minister has said, but I wish to press her a little further. The short title of the Bill states that its aim is to

''Make provision relating to spatial development and town and country planning''.

Therefore, there is no doubt that the Government could include this issue if they wished to do so. There was a slight lacuna in the Minister's reply, when she said that if hon. Members are not satisfied with her reply they can raise the matter at a subsequent stage. I am sure that my party and the Liberal Democrats will closely examine how it can subsequently be raised.

I wish to press the Minister on this matter, because either the Government are determined to do something about it or they are not. The Minister says that it is not a planning issue. However, at the end of the day, local authorities will have to be involved: I chose my words carefully, in my criticism of my hon. Friend's amendment. There are 10,000 disputes, and there must be some mechanism of resolving them. It may not be to do with planning, but I am sure that it is to do with local authorities, so they must be given the necessary power.

The Minister says that the matter is not within the scope of this Bill: that might indicate that the Government are considering other possible routes, and that she is being a bit coy about them this afternoon. I have no doubt that this issue will not go away: I hope that the Minister can give a slightly stronger hint that the Government are determined to legislate in this area in one way or another, because the situation is unsatisfactory at the moment. As things stand, the Opposition are determined to press the

Government, because we believe that there needs to be legislation in this area.

I am happy to respond to the further remarks of the hon. Member for Cotswold. He seems to have changed his position a little since lunch-time.

A good lunch.

Clearly, he has had a good lunch.

The hon. Member for Cotswold has switched from carping to congratulating the hon. Member for Isle of Wight—I use that word cautiously, because it came from his hon. Friend, not from me.

The hon. Gentleman spent some time this morning speaking about the difficulties of treating this as a planning issue, and the consequences for planning departments of having to deal with many cases that do not need planning permission. However, this afternoon he seems to be saying that this is a planning matter and could be dealt with.

I should like to repeat the points that I made as clearly as possible, given parliamentary procedures. We have considered in detail whether we could do certain things through the planning Bill. We have concluded that that is not possible, without trying to do things differently. To treat this as a planning matter, rather than one of disputes resolution or antisocial behaviour, would cause considerable problems and would not be the ideal solution.

May I press the Under-Secretary a little further? We are getting to some common ground. A serious conciliation issue needs to be addressed. Can we take it from what the Under-Secretary says that she believes that there is a need for legislation on this issue as soon as possible? Whatever route we take, can she assure us that the Government are intending to legislate as soon as possible?

I have said many times that the Government strongly support legislation on that issue. As I said at the beginning, we regret that the private Member's Bill did not get through. We have been seeking different ways to get the legislation on the statute book at the earliest opportunity.

As I spent some time saying earlier, we are considering very, very seriously whether it is possible to deal with this issue in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, as my noble Friend Lord Bassam said. We have given as many hints as possible about the routes we are exploring and we have mentioned the timetable within which we have to respond formally and publicly to the House of Lords on that Bill. As I have said, the House will have plenty of opportunity to return to the matter on Report—if the Committee chooses—after we have responded to the House of Lords on the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill and after the Queen's Speech.

I understand the logic of what the Under-Secretary is saying. She is coming to the conclusion that the correct place for measures to deal with the problem is probably not a planning Bill. There is a possibility that such a provision might be made in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.

If that Bill is found not to be the route, for any reason, we would enter a new Session of Parliament, at which time the Under-Secretary could argue with perfect sincerity that the Government were hoping to bring forward legislation, but that it is not a priority in that Parliament. Perhaps she could respond to my earlier point. Could she give a commitment that the Government would give every possible help to a private Member who chose to bring the measure before the House and who was fortunate in the private Members' ballot at the beginning of the Session?

We have already done that. We gave considerable help to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ealing, North and supported his Bill through the House. We have to recognise that, given the persistent opposition of a small number of hon. Members, for whatever reason, the private Member's Bill route is difficult. Nevertheless, I give the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet an undertaking that should it not be possible to resolve the matter through any timetable, or other vehicle, we would continue to support any private Member's Bill that came forward, just as we have done with the one introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North.

There will be further opportunity on Report for hon. Members to return to the matter if they wish to do so. I urge the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to withdraw the new clause.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.