Debate contribution: Tree Protection Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter Martin
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 21 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Tree Protection Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5742510
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member is doing an incredible job of getting through the Bill. I intend to speak on it, but I want to ask him one question before he finishes. I take him to clause 11 for what, I suppose, is a techie question. He referred to some of the definitions. Clause 11(1) gives the definition of "ancient tree", which he mentioned. The criteria for an ancient tree are to be those that are:
"published by the Ancient Tree Forum" —
I admit to the Member that I did not know that that existed, although I do now —
"and the Woodland Trust (or any successor body to either)".
I want to ask the Member about the next bit, which is:
"or such other criteria as the Department may by regulations prescribe".
I want his opinion on the way in which that is drafted. Does that mean that the Department can essentially override criteria previously published by the Ancient Tree Forum and the Woodland Trust if it determines that it is in its best interests to do so? Can that go both ways? For example, could the Department say, "We are not happy with those criteria; we want this to be in there" and put in place regs to either increase or lessen the standard of the definition provided by those two bodies?
222 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:36 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.