Debate contribution: Tree Protection Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Deborah Erskine on .
- 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 5742695
Read the official Assembly record
Text
OK. Thank you. We are obviously passionate about this, so we want to talk about the Bill and tease out the issues that will be raised at Committee Stage for the Committee to look at. What I have spoken about are issues that the Committee could consider at the next legislative stage. I touched on the Woodland Trust providing training as well, but I will move on. Clause 5 states:
"Where the council requests the owner of the land to provide evidence of the establishment of the tree, the owner must provide the evidence in such form and within such reasonable period as the council may specify."
Again, that could create differences among councils. The requirement should be unified, taking account of staffing levels to handle the legislative needs appropriately. I have another question about clause 5, where it states:
"if no period is specified, as soon as that person reasonably can."
It is not clear when remedial action could occur. The Bill sponsor may unwittingly have opened a loophole, particularly given what clause 6 states. We should therefore be cautious about imposing the consequences of someone else's wrongdoing on an innocent landowner. A right to pursue the offender is of limited practical value if the offender is insolvent or cannot be found, and those are the very circumstances in which, under clause 6, the cost would be transferred to the landowner. The Committee should examine whether a clear defence, exemption or appeal mechanism is needed, because the Bill would create a system in which the landowner is more likely to try to get rid of a tree than keep it, for fear of falling victim to some of the provisions. Clause 7, which refers to an online tree protection map of the tree preservation orders, is one of the most practical elements of the Bill, but there is uncertainty over whether a protected tree could create difficulties for householders, landowners, contractors and developers. Having a free, accurate and easily searchable map could increase transparency and help prevent accidental breaches, but it would be useful only if the underlying information were complete and current. Councils would have to upload historical records and provide updates at least every three months. It would therefore be hard to strike a balance between ensuring that real-time information was provided and having the staffing levels to do so. I am concerned that, if information were uploaded, for example, only every three months — it could be longer, because of the administrative burden — someone could unwittingly be subject to sanction under the Bill, as they might not have been aware of a particular tree's being under a preservation order. The Department would have to establish the cost of such a map, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister about that. The cost was discussed earlier in the debate, and knowing that is crucial. We understand that councils and the Department have huge and significant budget problems at the minute, so I would welcome her comments on that issue. Clauses 8 and 9 contain some of the most far-reaching provisions, covering planning permission for development within 15 metres of woodland and the deterioration of protected ancient trees.
Permission would be granted only where "wholly exceptional circumstances" are demonstrated. I am interested in what "wholly exceptional circumstances" means.
Yes.
555 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 (0.97).
- 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 | 0.97 | 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 16:37 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.