Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 28 March 2013
28 Mar 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
High Hedges (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
As I have taken the bill forward I have been keen to listen to the views and representations of members, interested organisations, professional bodies and members of the public. I know that many people are happy that the bill’s current definition of a high hedge will solve the vast majority of high hedge problems, the typical scenario involving fast-growing conifers.
Although the current definition includes hedges containing deciduous trees and shrubs as long as they do not form a majority of the hedge, I have been conscious that that definition would not deal with problems caused by high hedges that are wholly or mainly composed of deciduous trees or shrubs. Although wholly deciduous high hedges would typically pose less of a problem than coniferous hedges in respect of forming a barrier to light, I want to ensure that the bill solves as many problems as possible. I therefore have sympathy with people whom I have spoken to or who have written to me about problems with deciduous hedges.
For me, the question has been whether the bill can be extended in that respect without causing problems for its operation in practice. Some of the potential problems have been highlighted in correspondence, to which Patrick Harvie alluded and which members will have recently received, from the Scottish Wildlife Trust and RSPB. Their correspondence re-emphasises the points that they raised at stage 1 about the greater wildlife and biodiversity value of deciduous trees in comparison with conifers, and it underlines their concerns about the potential for a wider definition to have a negative impact on biodiversity.
Those are important issues, which deserve serious consideration, and officials supporting me in relation to the bill met representatives of both those organisations at a very early stage in the bill’s development to ensure that my consideration has been fully informed. As a result of that, I am aware that there are already many measures in place to protect wildlife and biodiversity, ranging from legislation such as the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to local authorities’ biodiversity action plans. Local authorities will need to take all those protections into account in making decisions regarding high hedges, and I am satisfied that they are capable of doing so.
For that to happen in practice, it is important that the guidance that the Government is to issue on the operation of the legislation provides full details regarding those matters. I have discussed the issue with the minister, and he has agreed that the Scottish Wildlife Trust and RSPB will be invited to contribute to and comment on the guidance before it is published to ensure that it fully addresses their concerns. I have written to both organisations to confirm that, and I hope that they will accept the minister’s invitation to participate actively in the development of the guidance.
I have been keen to ensure that the bill provides local authorities with a means of resolving disputes without demanding that they find additional resources to do so. I was pleased that the Minister for Local Government and Planning wrote to local authorities at stage 2 to consult them on the potential impact of widening the bill’s definition. I believe that the majority of the issues that local authorities raised about that potential impact can also be addressed through the guidance that will be produced by the Government. I know that local authorities will be fully involved in that, and I welcome the minister’s confirmation that the initial meeting to discuss implementation earlier this week was a positive one.
The main issue that cannot be addressed by way of guidance relates to the concerns that were expressed by some authorities about the potential for additional costs to be incurred in dealing with deciduous hedges. I am satisfied, however, that the bill provides that local authorities can charge on a cost recovery basis, and that the flexibility exists for different fees to be charged for different types of case, should local authorities choose to do so. That should enable local authorities to address any issues around additional costs should that prove to be necessary in practice.
Taking all of that into account, I am happy to support Anne McTaggart’s amendment 5, and I urge all members to do likewise.
Although the current definition includes hedges containing deciduous trees and shrubs as long as they do not form a majority of the hedge, I have been conscious that that definition would not deal with problems caused by high hedges that are wholly or mainly composed of deciduous trees or shrubs. Although wholly deciduous high hedges would typically pose less of a problem than coniferous hedges in respect of forming a barrier to light, I want to ensure that the bill solves as many problems as possible. I therefore have sympathy with people whom I have spoken to or who have written to me about problems with deciduous hedges.
For me, the question has been whether the bill can be extended in that respect without causing problems for its operation in practice. Some of the potential problems have been highlighted in correspondence, to which Patrick Harvie alluded and which members will have recently received, from the Scottish Wildlife Trust and RSPB. Their correspondence re-emphasises the points that they raised at stage 1 about the greater wildlife and biodiversity value of deciduous trees in comparison with conifers, and it underlines their concerns about the potential for a wider definition to have a negative impact on biodiversity.
Those are important issues, which deserve serious consideration, and officials supporting me in relation to the bill met representatives of both those organisations at a very early stage in the bill’s development to ensure that my consideration has been fully informed. As a result of that, I am aware that there are already many measures in place to protect wildlife and biodiversity, ranging from legislation such as the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to local authorities’ biodiversity action plans. Local authorities will need to take all those protections into account in making decisions regarding high hedges, and I am satisfied that they are capable of doing so.
For that to happen in practice, it is important that the guidance that the Government is to issue on the operation of the legislation provides full details regarding those matters. I have discussed the issue with the minister, and he has agreed that the Scottish Wildlife Trust and RSPB will be invited to contribute to and comment on the guidance before it is published to ensure that it fully addresses their concerns. I have written to both organisations to confirm that, and I hope that they will accept the minister’s invitation to participate actively in the development of the guidance.
I have been keen to ensure that the bill provides local authorities with a means of resolving disputes without demanding that they find additional resources to do so. I was pleased that the Minister for Local Government and Planning wrote to local authorities at stage 2 to consult them on the potential impact of widening the bill’s definition. I believe that the majority of the issues that local authorities raised about that potential impact can also be addressed through the guidance that will be produced by the Government. I know that local authorities will be fully involved in that, and I welcome the minister’s confirmation that the initial meeting to discuss implementation earlier this week was a positive one.
The main issue that cannot be addressed by way of guidance relates to the concerns that were expressed by some authorities about the potential for additional costs to be incurred in dealing with deciduous hedges. I am satisfied, however, that the bill provides that local authorities can charge on a cost recovery basis, and that the flexibility exists for different fees to be charged for different types of case, should local authorities choose to do so. That should enable local authorities to address any issues around additional costs should that prove to be necessary in practice.
Taking all of that into account, I am happy to support Anne McTaggart’s amendment 5, and I urge all members to do likewise.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick)
NPA
We now move early to the next item of business, which is stage 3 proceedings on the High Hedges (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with amendments, members should h...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
Amendment 5, in the name of Anne McTaggart, is in a group on its own.
Anne McTaggart (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lab
I am pleased to begin the debate by speaking to my amendment 5. The amendment seeks to achieve the same effect as one that I proposed at stage 2 at the Local...
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
As Anne McTaggart knows, we have had a long discussion about this matter. We have been up hill and down dale trying to find a way to get “deciduous” into the...
Sarah Boyack (Lothian) (Lab)
Lab
I am glad that the amendment has been put in front of us. We debated the issue at stage 1 and again at stage 2. My sense is that we could address it today or...
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con)
Con
The question of whether we should include deciduous trees in the bill was discussed at length in the committee. Scothedge presented compelling evidence for i...
Stuart McMillan (West Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
I have a couple of comments to make.I welcome Anne McTaggart’s amendment and am delighted that I dissented at stage 1 to keep the item on the agenda so that ...
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green)
Green
I apologise for coming to the chamber a wee bit late for the debate, given the early start.
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
That apology is noted.
Patrick Harvie
Green
As a result, I may have missed something in Anne McTaggart’s initial comments. If she has covered this matter already, I hope that she will be able to repris...
The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Derek Mackay)
SNP
Anne McTaggart’s amendment 5 reflects the amendment that she lodged at stage 2, and it seeks to widen the bill’s definition of a high hedge to include all ty...
Patrick Harvie
Green
Will the minister reflect on the biodiversity arguments as well as those that he has listed? Will biodiversity specifically be considered in guidance?
Derek Mackay
SNP
I am sure that that is a reasonable request and that those arguments can be considered when guidance is produced and issued in due course.I have every confid...
Mark McDonald (North East Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
As I have taken the bill forward I have been keen to listen to the views and representations of members, interested organisations, professional bodies and me...
Anne McTaggart
Lab
I am pleased that the Minister for Local Government and Planning and Mark McDonald, the member in charge of the bill, have fully considered my amendment and ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
Amendment 2, in the name of Margaret Mitchell, is grouped with amendments 3 and 4.
Margaret Mitchell
Con
Amendment 2 would reduce the maximum period after which a review must be carried out from five years to two years. The bill was amended at stage 2 to ensure ...
Mark McDonald
SNP
Does Mrs Mitchell agree that there is nothing in the current drafting of section 31A that would prevent a review from being carried out and a report from bei...
Margaret Mitchell
Con
I concede that, but it might be five years before a review is carried out and six and a half years before the report is published. There is nothing in the bi...
Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
SNP
We very much welcomed the amendment in the name of Christine Grahame and moved by Anne McTaggart—
Christine Grahame
SNP
Other way round.
Stewart Stevenson
SNP
I am reminded that the amendment was moved by Anne McTaggart and supported by Christine Grahame. The context of that amendment touches in many ways upon what...
Stuart McMillan
SNP
I lodged the original amendment that included section 31A in the bill because I thought that the five-year period would provide for a measured examination of...
Derek Mackay
SNP
Amendments 2 and 3 seek to impose a tighter timeframe for the review period set out in section 31A and a tighter timeframe for when a report must be made by ...
Mark McDonald
SNP
Although I am grateful that Margaret Mitchell did not bring back some of the amendments that she withdrew at stage 2, I am nevertheless disappointed that she...
Margaret Mitchell
Con
The combination of the three amendments—especially amendment 4—ensures that there is clarity that deciduous trees are included rather than, as in the current...
Mark McDonald
SNP
Does Mrs Mitchell agree that amendment 4 would potentially set an alarming precedent of legislation prescribing what a committee of the Parliament should do ...
Margaret Mitchell
Con
If the member takes the time to look again at the provisions regarding what must be covered in the report, he will see that the report would not be limited t...
Stuart McMillan
SNP
Will the member give way?
Margaret Mitchell
Con
If the member does not mind, I will make some progress.Secondly, amendment 4 looks at the cost to local authorities, which is germane—is that preventing them...