Debate contribution: Tree Protection Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on 21 September 2026.

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 5742733

Read the official Assembly record

Text

We have covered quite a bit. I am sure that the Bill sponsor will be thankful that I have put lots of lines through most of what I was going to talk about, because my colleagues have already covered a lot of it. I see the Member opposite agreeing with the sponsor. We have consensus across the House, which is unusual. The Chair of the Education Committee has just reflected on this, but most of us will agree that trees matter. They certainly matter to the sponsor of the Bill. This weekend, I will try my best to get my kids out to get some conkers. We have done that for a number of years. They will probably agree to it, but, considering their age, that will most likely be out of sympathy rather than a desire to follow me in trying to find some. We will end up in Castle Park in Bangor. The Bill sponsor may or may not be aware that a tree located there is one that the Duke of Schomberg tied his horse to during the Williamite wars. That tree, whilst being significant, is not in the best order, but it is an important aspect of how we remember and value our culture. As the sponsor has mentioned, trees play an important part in our landscape. They provide environmental benefits that go beyond simple aesthetics — a point that has already been made. I did not get a chance to meet the Woodland Trust at our party conference at the weekend. Had I done so — it was there, I believe — it may have told me that this was the Waterloo for those who wished to remove trees that already have TPOs. The much talked-about clause 1(3) talks about "prohibiting the causing or permitting". That is the operative phrase in that subsection. If we are to continue the Waterloo metaphor, that is probably the arrival of the Prussians.

Some of that is an Abba reference, and some of it is taking Waterloo and moving it to the arrival of the Prussians, which meant that the good guys eventually won the battle of Waterloo. The Deputy Speaker would have loved it; I simply apologise to you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Members will remember the national outcry over the illegal cutting down — I cannot believe that we have managed to get to this point and it has not, I think, been mentioned — of the iconic Sycamore Gap tree in England and understand how much some people really care about trees. When I saw that, I was simply gutted that that had happened. That tree had stood at Hadrian's Wall for about 150 years. Its felling shocked many people across the United Kingdom and internationally. The National Trust described it as an iconic feature of the landscape that meant a great deal to the local community and visitors. It stood there for over a century but was cut down in a matter of minutes. It was born when Queen Victoria was on the throne; absolutely remarkable. The Bill would not have saved that tree. It probably will not save trees from people who are intent on taking chainsaws to them and cutting them down. It is a really good Bill, however, and I commend the Member for bringing it forward. As my colleague the Chair of the Justice Committee will say, anyone who brings a private Member's Bill to this stage deserves credit. My two colleagues have taken us through where, we feel, we are on the Bill, and I do not plan to rehearse those arguments. I fully understand the thinking behind TPOs and heritage tree designations, and I fully support the principle of protecting trees. As we have indicated today, however, what is important is how we do that and how that works in practice. That will be the job of the Committee as it turns to the Bill. We have thrashed out the financial aspects, and I will not come back to those. I will pick up on one point and will give the Floor to the Bill sponsor should he wish it. We talked about the word "modest", and I am sure that the Committee will look at that. He said that 75% of respondents agreed with that definition and that, at that level of cost, the Bill should continue. I looked for the Bill's consultation document but could not find it. I just found reference to some of the consultation material in the EFM. I am happy to give the Floor to the Bill sponsor. Is his consultation in the public domain, or is there a reason that it is not in the public domain?

It was yours.

Thank you. Just to clarify, did the Bill sponsor conduct any consultation of his own, or is he basing the consultation on the Woodland Trust document?

814 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