Debate contribution: Tree Protection Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Peter McReynolds on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter McReynolds
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 21 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Tree Protection Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5742759
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his point. It is clear that he has thought about and forensically engaged with the Bill. I do not foresee that happening. I view the Bill as giving councils clarity. A number of points that have come up today, such as about the term "causes or permits", are about giving councils clarity and removing any potential ambiguity. We have to remember that, if a tree that were subject to a TPO were to be felled, the Bill provides for what should happen next with its replacement. Ongoing inspections should not be onerous. I have conversed with council officers about that. All that they should entail is uploading a quick photograph from a mobile phone. It is not meant to be an onerous, arduous task. That is certainly not the intent of the clause. I am happy to look at the issue in Committee in more detail, but my instinct is that, hopefully, that would not be the case.
163 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.