Mr John Taylor (Solihull, Conservative)

As I said when we began to consider the Bill, it is limited to complaints about obstruction of light and certain types of high hedge. It will solve the main problem cases and I understand that consultation responses support that view. Nevertheless, experience might reveal that the Bill does not cover particular high hedge problems that we have not yet thought of, in which case people could wait years for another Bill to be introduced. The clause foreshortens matters by allowing the Secretary of State to bring other grounds of complaint within the scope of the legislation and to alter the definition of ``high hedge'' by regulation. As I said when we discussed clause 13, given the sensitivities involved, such regulations would be debated in both Houses of Parliament under affirmative resolution procedure.

Mr Andrew Rowe (Faversham & Mid Kent, Conservative)

May I ask my hon. Friend whether matters such as root peril or the type of hedge involved might be included? There are types of hedges that shelter undesirable pests, or hedges that in extreme cases create terrible problems for asthmatics.

Mr Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North, Labour)

I am pleased that the clause is included in the Bill because it leaves open the possibility of extending the legislation. I do not want to set up a silly example, but if a beautiful view of mountains and hills from the window of a house were blocked by a neighbour's 50 ft leylandii, the amenity, the value of the property and the pleasure derived from living in the house would be damaged. In short, there are circumstances in which overall height limits might be considered as a case for future legislation. I am pleased that the clause is included because it leaves that possibility open.

Mr David Madel (South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I should like to add to the point about roots made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent. I presume that if the roots of a hedge start to interfere with the public drainage system, immediate action could be taken without going though a lengthy procedure. I also presume that if the roots of a high hedge interfered with the drainage system serving a house, or with the electricity, gas or any essential service to the house, it would not be necessary to go through what is, understandably, an involved procedure to obtain action to get it stopped.

Mr John Taylor (Solihull, Conservative)

The hon. Member for Luton, North has returned to the point about overall height and welcomes the flexibility available to the Secretary of State, subject to parliamentary procedure. He is not only consistent, but his analysis is correct. This is a ground-breaking Bill. Several attempts have been made in the past to address the problem and this is the distillation of the best thinking to date—a state of the art provision, as good as we have got. However, if the Bill is enacted, we shall learn from the collective experience of local authorities, individual cases, exceptions and anomalies and we can build on the provisions in the light of that experience. We are breaking new ground, but we are not complacently presuming that we have covered everything.

Mr Andrew Rowe (Faversham & Mid Kent, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is hedging his bets.

Mr John Taylor (Solihull, Conservative)

That remark is probably rooted in experience.

My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent referred to roots and different varieties of hedge, but it is openly conceded that the Bill does not deal with roots, which create different problems. Trimming the height of a hedge may produce a collateral saving in terms of root nuisance, but the Bill does not attempt to address that. It is the sort of area in which, with the benefit of experience, a Secretary of State might wish to go further, and the clause makes that possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.