Debate contribution: Tree Protection Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr John Stewart on 21 September 2026.

MLA: Mr John Stewart
Party at the time: Ulster Unionist Party
Date: 21 September 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Tree Protection Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5742635

Text

I thank the Member for his valid intervention. I absolutely agree: questions need to be asked of all the councils. I imagine that the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) or the planning officers for the 11 councils will come to us, however we want to investigate that. We need to dive in not only on the cost but the logistics of getting the expertise of the people required. Again, I am not an expert in the field. I know that the Bill sponsor is tree-mad and has done a lot of research. I am interested to know whether all the people with the required expertise who are to be appointed to councils are currently in Northern Ireland. Are they trained up? Is that expertise readily available? If it is not, is there a cost to training and where would it be acquired? There are questions around that. I do not know whether the Member has any information to give us about that expertise.
I am happy to give way.
I thank the Member for that point. My point is valid because good legislation and great intention can often be undermined by the lack of resources, logistics or not having the right people in the right place. The Committee will want to tease that out. I want to make a point about planning. We are well aware that our planning system is clogged up and of the issues around that. I do not want the Bill to have an impact on planning. I am not negating or taking away from what the Bill tries to achieve, but there are fundamental problems in our planning system. There are already logjams. I fear that the Bill will put additional pressure on councils with the absence of planners. We know how difficult councils are finding it to employ planners because many of them want to head to the private sector. I am concerned about the potential impact of that. Again, we will want to tease that out in Committee. There is also an issue in clause 1 that deserves examination. Once a suitably qualified expert determines that a tree is ancient, the Bill provides that the council must make a TPO unless the tree is dead and specifies that its condition, health or structural integrity cannot itself be a reason for refusing that order. Existing planning law contains protections allowing necessary work where a protected tree has become more dangerous, so that should not be presented as preventing essential safety work. Nevertheless, I want to be absolutely clear that new arrangements cannot create an unnecessary delay or confusion where an ancient tree presents a genuine risk to a home, a road or the public. I know that the Member has said that the right to life and protection of people and property would come first. Again, we will want to tease that out in Committee. Those are important questions. Under clauses 4 and 6, where the person responsible for a breach fails to act or cannot be identified, the responsibility and potential costs ultimately fall on the landowner, even where the landowner did not commit the original breach. The Bill gives the owner the right to recover reasonable costs from the person responsible. However, that may be of limited practical value when the person cannot be found or is insolvent. Again, I am interested to hear the Member's thoughts around that and the difficulty that it might create. The Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone previously raised the point about landowners and the pressures that they already face. There are questions there. I will want to examine carefully in Committee the balance between effective enforcement and fairness to an innocent landowner. There is also a need for clear guidance around the Bill's new concept of "ecosystem services". The definition is deliberately broad, and I understand why. It includes matters such as flood regulation, air and water quality, health benefits, sense of place and noise regulation. Those are legitimate considerations, but, if councils are to apply them consistently when deciding on TPOs, the evidential base and guidance need to be clear. I assume that we will go into detail on that in Committee. None of those questions detracts from the importance of the subject. We will support the Bill at this stage. To demonstrate why detailed scrutiny matters, we should be able to protect genuinely ancient and important trees and woodland while ensuring that the law is clear, proportionate, properly resourced and workable for councils, landowners and the planning system. I thank the Bill sponsor for bringing the Bill forward. I know the amount of work that goes into that. It is obviously a big day for you, so congratulations on that. I look forward to working with you in Committee, where we will give the Bill the scrutiny that it deserves. I look forward to seeing it at the next stage.

819 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification