The evidence that we have received this morning would disappoint all the witnesses we had at a round-table discussion, because from what I have heard, it appears that all the witnesses want to further neuter this already fairly toothless legislation.
My constituents who have raised concerns about the matter not only balk at having to pay the outrageously high fee, which is not returned to them when there is a finding against the person with the high hedge, but face all the semantics around what is and what is not a hedge.
It is clear that the meaning and spirit of the legislation are to make it clear that if someone’s quality of life is being ruined by leylandii or other shrubs or even trees, blocking out their light and making their life a misery, it should be dealt with. Let us think about the case of an 80-year-old constituent who buys a house in large with her life savings and who has a husband who is suffering from dementia. If, a couple of years later, huge trees suddenly sprout up and block the light, why should that person not get restitution? There is some talk about what constitutes a hedge, but the spirit of the legislation is quite clear on that.
Surely the legislation should not be made more toothless by making it apply only to hedges, as people would understand a hedge, but should include the things that we want to exclude. What are people meant to do about high trees? Are people meant to be able to plant trees wherever they like and ruin someone else’s view? We have taken evidence from people who had trees surrounding their property on all four sides, who were told, “Tough. It’s not a hedge. Go away.” People who are not affected by the issue might think, “So what?”, but for the people who are directly affected by it, it is a quality-of-life issue. The people concerned are often very elderly and they get deeply upset.
Mr Wright talked about people who have corresponded with him umpteen times. That is because they feel that they have been let down by the legislation. I know that you are wincing, but I can honestly say that, across the parties, the intention of the MSPs involved in passing the act was not to have very narrow legislation, but to have legislation that could be interpreted in a commonsense way.
I will make one other point before I let the panel come in. We have had evidence of people deliberately trying to get round the legislation by chopping every second tree of a leylandii hedge or whatever you want to call it, knowing that the remaining trees will sprout sideways and have the same adverse impact on the person who made a complaint. The council has just shrugged its shoulders and said, “Sorry—it’s not a row of two trees”. Well, it might not be a row of two trees above 2m, but it certainly is a row of two trees below 2m. Surely the council should be taking a more flexible and more human approach to the issue by looking at the impact on people’s lives and saying, “As far as we’re concerned, this has been deliberately planted with a view to obscuring someone’s light.” Whether or not the trees are planted in a straight line, in a slight curved or are not specifically a hedge should not really be at issue. Surely the issue should be the impact on the people’s lives that are blighted, Mr Wright.