S4M-06038 High Hedges (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott): The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-06038, in the name of Mark McDonald, on the High Hedges (Scotland) Bill.

15:35
... ... ...
16:03

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP):

As I am sure that other members will do, I congratulate Mark McDonald on bringing home this important bill. To that, I add my congratulations to Scothedge. We are employed to legislate, but the volunteers in Scothedge who have campaigned on high hedges over a long period exemplify the strength and depth that there is in Scotland, beyond the small number of people who are in the Parliament, to engage in the political process in a way that ultimately delivers for the public good. I commend the members of Scothedge, whose campaign is an excellent example of a voluntary campaign and who have persisted over a long period to see their objective delivered.

I say that as someone who, as a north-east MSP, has never been approached on the subject of high hedges during my time in the Parliament. For climatic reasons and because of the relatively large areas of land on which houses are built in a rural area, high hedges have not—to my knowledge—been as much of an issue in my area as they have been in other parts of Scotland. However, through the work of Scothedge and others, we have heard compelling evidence about the utter misery that is caused to many people across Scotland by the issue that we are discussing.

I was delighted to hear Mark McDonald say that a consultation response from the Forestry Commission Scotland has identified one of the things that I previously raised in relation to urban woodland as an issue that can be addressed.

As a member of the committee that dealt with this issue, I should remind members of some of the things that that committee said. Paragraph 67 of our stage 1 report remains as true now, in relation to the amended bill, as it was when we wrote it. It says:

“The Committee believes it is desirable that the application of the Bill seeks to resolve as many disputes as possible, but considers it unrealistic to expect any single piece of legislation in this area to resolve 100% of cases. This Bill is the simplest way of addressing the majority of cases relating to disputes over high hedges.”

Of course, following the extension of the definition, we might say that it will address the overwhelming majority of cases. Apart from that, I think that that comment stands the test of time.

One or two things have emerged during the passage of the bill that I think are useful. We have clarified that it is perfectly possible for action to be taken against a local authority, even though local authorities are responsible for guarding the principles and practices that are encompassed in the bill. We included national parks—I am delighted that Mark McDonald saw fit to lodge amendments on that. Further, we learned many things of which we were previously ignorant. I congratulate Christine Grahame on the horticultural explanations that the committee received. I have now heard of Russian vine and clematis montana rubens. I remain relatively ignorant about what any of that means, but I am sure that members of the committee who are more engaged in these matters might be better informed.

I have flicked through the stage 1 report while sitting in the chamber this afternoon, and I believe that almost every recommendation that the committee made appears to have been addressed, which is unusual—I assume that Kevin Stewart will touch on that when he speaks. It is a model of good parliamentary process, and I commend the bill to all my colleagues.

16:07