Debate contribution: Tree Protection Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mrs Deborah Erskine on 21 September 2026.

MLA

Mrs Deborah Erskine

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 5742668

Read the official Assembly record

Text

OK. Moving on, I noticed that this has sometimes been an issue with legislation that the Infrastructure Committee looked at when I sat on it in the past. When we looked at the Reservoirs Bill, there was an issue with the number of reservoir engineers who were able to carry out the work there. We need to make sure that we have sufficiently qualified people to do what the Bill says. For councils to make consistent decisions, they will require clear and practical guidance. Otherwise, the same circumstances could produce different decisions in different council areas. Clause 1 also provides that, once a suitably qualified expert determines that a tree is ancient:

"the council must make a tree preservation order in respect of that tree unless the arboriculturist has confirmed that the tree is dead. Other than if the tree is dead, the condition, health or structural integrity of that tree is not to be considered a ground for refusing to make a tree preservation order."

That wording requires careful consideration. An "ancient tree" may be of considerable heritage value while also being diseased, unstable or situated close to a home, farm building, road or other public place. The Bill sponsor has said that public safety is paramount. I agree with him, but I am not sure that that is sufficiently stated in the legislation. There is a loophole that people can use. A tree preservation order does not necessarily mean that no work can ever be undertaken, but the Bill must make it absolutely clear that necessary and proportionate work can still be carried out where a tree presents genuine risk. For my part, I think that councils, landowners and householders need certainty on that point. The clause also permits a council to:

"commission an assessment by a suitably qualified arboriculturist to determine whether the tree is an ancient tree."

We need clarity on who will pay for those assessments, what qualifications will be required and what timescales will apply. Clause 2 provides for a provisional tree preservation order to be deemed confirmed after six months:

"provided that no objections or representations have been received by the council and the council has not issued a decision to revoke the provisional tree preservation order".

There is logic in preventing an order from simply lapsing because of administrative delay. However, deemed approval must not become a substitute for proper decision-making. Councils should still be expected to maintain accurate records, notify affected landowners and conclude cases promptly. Again, that concerns me, as it brings me back to my previous question on the availability of experts across Northern Ireland. There is a real possibility that no action could be taken on trees that are protected purely because of administrative backlogs, which is a potential environmental concern, particularly if a tree is dead. Therefore, the process to be followed if DFI needs to top or lop a tree for safety reasons needs to be worked through as well. Clause 3 extends criminal liability to a person who "knowingly causes or permits" a breach of a tree preservation order. That appears to address a gap in the existing legislation and bring Northern Ireland closer to the position elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The word "knowingly" is important. The provision should pursue those who deliberately instruct, facilitate or allow unlawful works without unfairly criminalising someone who could not reasonably have known that a tree preservation order existed. That reinforces the importance of having in the public domain the accessible map that is proposed later in the Bill and ensuring that it is updated and used by Departments, such as the Department for Infrastructure, from which staff may have to go into areas to manage trees from time to time, including for safety reasons. Clauses 4, 5 and 6 deal with the replacement of trees and enforcement of those duties. Clause 4 requires a replacement to be:

"a heavy standard tree of an appropriate species".

It also establishes an ongoing replacement duty if that tree:

"dies or becomes ... diseased or is removed within 5 years".

I support the principle that somebody should not benefit from the unlawful destruction of a protected tree. A replacement should be meaningful and capable of becoming established. As somebody who comes from a farming background, however, I think that we have to look at that carefully. Newly planted trees can fail for many reasons that are outside a landowner's control, including disease, extreme weather, flooding or, of course, vandalism. The Bill should distinguish between neglect and circumstances that could not reasonably have been prevented. The clause attempts to place responsibility on the person who committed the original breach in situations where that person is not the landowner. That is welcome, but, in my opinion, the protection that is offered to an innocent landowner is incomplete. If the offender does not act within 18 months, responsibility ultimately returns to the landowner. Although the landowner may seek to recover costs, taking civil action can be expensive, stressful and unsuccessful, particularly if the offender has disappeared or has no means to pay. I am not sure that sufficient support is in place for a landowner in those circumstances.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:37 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.

Challenge this classification