Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): We are joined today by one of our own Committee members, Peter McReynolds, who is here to give us his thoughts on the consultation on the Tree Protection Bill. The Bill was introduced in the Assembly yesterday so has yet to progress to Second Stage. Peter, I invite you to make a presentation on the Bill. It will hardly be a surprise to you that you might even get some questions from Committee members. The floor is yours.

Mr Peter McReynolds (Northern Ireland Assembly): Thank you, Chair; just let me get settled.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Do you want me to keep talking and stalling while you get everything connected up?

Mr McReynolds: Yes, of course; I love your dulcet tones.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Are members content that this session be recorded by Hansard?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is probably as much stalling as I can do, Peter.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Chair. It is unusual to be on this side, with everybody looking at me. Thank you for the opportunity to present my Tree Protection Bill. There are only nine slides in this presentation, but I have made it about 20 times in the past four years or so. It gives you a flavour of what we are trying to achieve with the Bill.

I will begin by laying out the context for a Tree Protection Bill. Northern Ireland has the lowest woodland cover in the UK and Ireland and the lowest urban cover in the UK. We rank twelfth for biodiversity loss throughout Europe as well. We are starting from a low base, but to quote someone who spoke to me in the early days, the most important tree to plant is the tree that you planted yesterday. What we commonly see from local councils is a scramble to plant as many trees as possible, but how many of those grow to be 10, 15 or 20 years old? The Bill seeks to protect the trees that are already there rather than simply planting lots of saplings.

The context is that Northern Ireland really likes trees. Extensive polling has been done on the public's views of trees. Examples come to mind of trees being felled against the wishes of the public. In south Belfast, DFI cut down lots of trees at the Lagan towpath, and there was public anger about that. At Orangefield Park in east Belfast, some 400 trees were cut down, against the wishes of the public, quite suddenly by a contractor of Belfast City Council. They were not subject to a tree preservation order (TPO), but they were still cut down. Sycamore Gap is another example that was in the media even this morning. There has been lots of public anger and outrage, and that is why more protections are needed. Once a tree is gone, it is gone.

There was a public consultation from 27 November 2024 until 9 March 2025. The 15 weeks, to include Christmas, gave it extra time. It received 716 responses, and there was really strong support for the Bill, with about 90% in favour of many of its proposals.

The Bill has three broad strands. The first is strengthening the protection provided through tree preservation orders, which all our local councils will be carrying out in various ways and strengthening enforcement of what happens when a tree is felled, including replacement of the trees and monitoring of the trees to make sure that they reach five years old and are of heavy standard. The second is supporting our oldest and most significant trees; they are ancient and irreplaceable. The third is safeguarding ancient and long-established woodland from development.

I will now go through a bit more information on what TPOs will achieve by lifting from English legislation provisions on causing or permitting the felling of a tree. Many local councils are trying to implement TPOs, but when the legislation comes before a judge, the judge will go by the primary legislation, which in Northern Ireland deals with causing the felling, whereas, in England, Scotland and Wales, the legislation deals with causing and permitting the felling of a tree. We are looking to incorporate that. The Bill introduces ecosystem services as additional grounds for making a TPO. Currently, the only one is the amenity of the tree. A number of other reasons why a TPO would be applied are contained in the schedule in the Bill.

There is provision to speed up the application of a TPO. Currently, you get a provisional TPO when you apply for one. Under the Bill, if no objections or concerns are raised after six months, rather than have a council official go back every six months to carry out an observation of the tree, the provisional TPO will automatically become permanent. That will speed things up for local council officials. That provision was devised in conjunction with local council officials.

I mentioned the replacement of trees, ensuring the establishment of trees and the introduction of an online tree protection map, which was contained in the 'Strengthening Our Roots' report from 2023. Ancient trees will have increased protection contained in ecosystem services.

Lastly, there are development safeguards, which may be of interest to you, Chair, and to Stephen as Members for North Down. With the Bill's provisions in operation, the issues at Tullynagardy Wood would not have happened.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I thought for a minute, Peter, that you were going to reference the tree in Castle Park that the Duke of Schomberg tied his horse to and which is still protected by a fence. There is a new one for you. That tree is protected. It has a big barrier round it.

Mr McReynolds: I have learnt a lot about trees over the past four years. I have learnt something even today.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Is that a new one for you today, Peter?

Mr McReynolds: Exactly. It is.

Mr Dunne: The Tullynagardy area is in Strangford rather than North Down.

Mr McReynolds: Of course. It is in the Ards and North Down council area. With the Bill's provisions in place, that would never have been an issue. I think that I was one of the few Members who was watching the planning meeting that night and saw what unfolded. With this Bill in place, we would not see that. I am not sure whether everyone saw my presentation. I am happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is great. Thank you, Peter, and thank you for bringing forward a really interesting Bill. My first question is nearly a quiz question. The fact that the tree in England in the gap was cut down made national news. That tree was hundreds of years old. I suppose that it was already covered by a TPO, but somebody cut it down anyway. How do you feel about that? Is the Bill trying to reinforce the fact that trees will be subject to better protection and that we will not see things like that happening?

Mr McReynolds: Yes. When we were discussing what one would seek to achieve with this legislation, I saw the Thomas Thompson fountain in the city centre, just across from the BBC studios. Constructed in 1885, it is a listed fountain and has various protections. At the Wetherspoon's just across the road from that fountain is a tree that was planted at exactly same time but which has zero protections.

We are seeking to give more trees the protections that already exist for buildings. We protect listed buildings — some of our oldest buildings that have so much history behind them — but there is a major gap in protections for trees. What happens in a situation such as what happened at Sycamore Gap? Regardless of the policies or rules that are in place, if someone wants to destroy a tree, they can go out and destroy a tree. The Bill fits into a wider piece about increasing knowledge and awareness of and protections for trees, because once they are gone, they are gone.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): You mentioned replacement trees. The Bill seeks to place a duty on councils to inspect replacement trees for a period of five years. Have you made any assessment of the number of trees that might require assessment?

Mr McReynolds: We do not have precise figures for TPOs. There are 11 councils. We want, as part of this, to have a map that shows where the TPO trees are. Six councils already do that; five do not. This is about trying to bring a bit of uniformity to how we measure some of our oldest and most significant trees. We have engaged with the tree forum in Belfast City Council and will do so again over the summer so that we can go back to it with the finalised proposals in the Bill. Broadly, it supported the map proposal, because it will increase its knowledge, awareness and overall ability to monitor the TPO trees.

When we included replacement trees in the Bill, there was initially concern that that could be a burden on councils. It will not, however, require someone to constantly go out to check the trees; it will be sufficient to provide a quick photograph. That is contained —.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is useful to know. I was asking about the replacement trees rather than the TPOs. If the Bill passes Second Stage, that detail and those numbers will become more important. I was just seeking your initial assessment of the number of replacement trees that might require assessment and about the assessment process to ensure that it is not particularly onerous.

Mr McReynolds: There may be a modest uptake in applications for TPOs, but I do not think that there will be a sudden increase of thousands. There are plenty of such trees in Belfast, for example, but fewer as one moves outside that urban area, so I do not think that it will be hugely significant. I should also say that Belfast is doing really well with regard to the map that the council has in place and the work that it is carrying out.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): OK. That is fine. The only other question that I have is on planning applications and permitted development. There is an aspect of amending the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. Clause 8(2)(c) states that planning permission would be refused where the granting of planning permission would result in:

Will you give the Committee some idea of what those "wholly exceptional circumstances" would look like? That might be important for someone who is trying to build houses or whatever within the criteria.

Mr McReynolds: Yes. Conversations about that get a little bit philosophical. I know that you appreciate such conversations, Chair. When we were kicking this around, we found that that phrase is used in legislation in areas in GB. The term "wholly exceptional" is usually defined by the judge. The judge will determine what is "wholly exceptional" because you have reached court. It is so exceptional that it is hard to put it into legislation, because it changes over time. What will "wholly exceptional" look like in 50 years' time? Are we going for what "wholly exceptional" is in 2026, or for the circumstances that exist, whatever they may be, in 50 or 100 years' time? It will be helpful for a judge to be able to lean on that.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): OK. That is fine. Essentially, there could be case law sitting behind previous judgements in England and Wales that will give some illustration of what "wholly exceptional circumstances" would be.

Mr Stewart: I apologise for not being there in person; I have an event this morning.

Peter, thanks so much. I think that you have probably met most members of the Committee, one to one. We have already discussed aspects of the Bill. You said that six councils are currently tracking and mapping TPOs and five are not. Will you talk me through the engagement that you had with the five councils that are not? What would it take for them to get to that stage? Is that the direction of travel that they are on, or do you sense that there will need to be a push to get them onto that wavelength?

Mr McReynolds: It is fair to say that there is a desire amongst council officials to have increased support. During the consultation process, we met the tree forum which involves the main directors of all the various different councils in Northern Ireland. Post-consultation, once the proposals in the Bill had been tightened somewhat, we did two further engagement sessions online. It became clear to me that there is a frustration among council officials that they cannot do more. A lot of the council officials are trained planners who have to operate as tree officers at the same time. There is a gap across the various councils. The tree officers whom we have in place need to be better supported; they want to do more but feel constrained and maybe under-resourced. I think that clarity will flow from the Bill provisions. They will close loopholes in respect of what eventually gets to a court. Guidance will be provided to council officials, and horticulturalists will have an increased role. There is definitely an appetite for that.

I cannot name the five councils off the top of my head. I am digging pretty far back into my memory. However, if resource were provided by the Department to ensure that they were all fully able to have a map and some sort of uniformity across the 11 councils, they would be very much supportive. As I said earlier, Belfast City Council is doing a really good job; it has the technology and the ability to lift information from its map and apply it across the various areas. As I also mentioned, the urban area in Belfast is doing really well, but, as you move outside Belfast, that is not as much the case because there are fewer trees. There will not actually be that much work required to apply what the Bill requires.

Mr Stewart: Thanks, Peter. That is useful.

I was kicked off briefly during the start of your presentation, so you might have covered this. Have you had feedback other than from the councils? Do you anticipate there being any impact on the likes of Forest Service, the Woodland Trust or Northern Ireland Water? All of them have vast numbers of trees in their estates, albeit for different reasons. I am interested in the feedback that you have received from Forest Service and the Woodland Trust about how they see the proposals working.

Mr McReynolds: The point about Forest Service has come up quite a lot online. It is managed by DAERA. The Bill is strictly about the Planning Act, the Department for Infrastructure, urban trees, and environmental resource management systems (ERMS) that are accessible and visible to the public. DAERA, for example, will have a lot of commercial trees through its Forest Service; it actually makes money from growing trees and cutting them down. That is a really important part of ensuring good biodiversity but also working with trees, rather than just having them sitting there as something pretty to look at. TPOs would not be applicable to the trees DAERA is responsible for because they are commercial. These are for trees that are, as I said, usually found on public land and places such as that. It would not be fully relevant.

I have constant engagement with the Woodland Trust. Its staff are the experts. They are really supportive and yesterday welcomed the Bill's introduction. The trust will have an important role in ensuring that local councils are well supported through training and guidance and even in the design of the map that I mentioned. The Woodland Trust has been engaged throughout the past four years.

Mr Stewart: You set out with the best intent to make things perfect. On the back of people engaging since the proposals were published, do you want to add anything that might strengthen or amend the Bill at this stage, or is it pretty much where it needs to be?

Mr McReynolds: I had a similar conversation with Kellie Armstrong yesterday. Kellie likes to talk about her private Member's Bill from the last mandate. I am keen to work with the Committee and other Members. For the past four years, the Bill has gone through peaks and troughs and has changed significantly. The proposals have taken account of a conversation with the Department; it got an early look at the first draft and raised some interesting points, and the Bill was refined a bit as a result of that.

We are keen to work with everyone to make sure that we have a practical, focused Bill that will improve tree protections. I believe that it already is, but I am always ready listen to experts. That is why the Woodland Trust has been engaged throughout and why we shared the first draft with the Department. I am not sure what amendments will be needed, but I am happy to work with the Committee to make sure that we get to a good place and, hopefully, get it through before the end of the mandate.

Mr Stewart: No problem, Peter. Thanks so much. Apologies, Chair, if you can hear my rooster. He is at the window, crowing away.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I thought that you were making those sounds, John.

Mr Stewart: It is either a cat or a rooster. You never know in this place.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Just make sure that those two do not meet.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, Peter, for coming in today. It is good to see you on the other side of the table. I commend you for the considerable work that you have done to get to this stage.

I have a couple of points to make on how you have quantified the financial implications of your proposals. The Department might have given some feedback along those lines at an early stage. It links to the fact that councils face pressures in doing what they do currently. From experience with a number of councils, I know that resources are a huge issue. Even where there are TPO officers, there may be only one or two people in that role, which is a challenge. Has any work been done to assess the financial implications at this stage?

Mr McReynolds: As part of the process, a Research and Information Service (RaISe) paper was done on what that might look like. It is difficult to quantify externally, but I would expect a modest uplift in costs; for example, for increased training and the creation of additional posts so that councils can perform their roles more effectively. As I said earlier, I met the tree forum at director level in Belfast City Council: one of the directors pointed out that the proposals could be seen as imposing increased resource constraints, but they could also be seen as opportunities for good, green jobs, which is an important part of what we are all trying to achieve in the Assembly.

We need good jobs that work with our environment. Such things do not just happen; they require people who are skilled and trained to a high enough level to carry out jobs quickly. One positive mentioned in the proposals is the automatic application of a TPO after six months rather than officials constantly having to go back out again. That compromise will reduce the burdens on local councils, because replacement trees that are planted will not require someone constantly going out to check them; they will only require someone to send in a photograph, which will then be looked at electronically. Compromise and flexibility are built into the Bill to reduce the pressure that it might put on local councils rather than making their lives more difficult.

Mr Dunne: Have you noticed much variation between the 11 councils? You said that six have the mapping system and five do not, but is there much variation in resources and how they administer and prioritise TPOs?

Mr McReynolds: It is fair to say that the 11 councils are doing their best to adapt to the legislation. Amenity is not defined well in legislation at present, so it is applied in 11 ways. As an East Belfast MLA, I am going by what Belfast City Council does, but they all apply it in the context of their unique circumstances, which may be based on the resources in each council. From the tree forum meeting that I mentioned, which I will go back to over the summer, Belfast had applied it in a really good way.

Others saw the Bill as something that could frustrate them and put more work on them, but there is, I think, enough reassurance in the Bill and in the explanatory and financial memorandum, which explains that it should not have too much impact on them. It will clarify things and make their jobs easier than they are at present.

Mr Dunne: In feedback that came through the consultation, there was concern, which also exists out there, about the Bill's having unintended consequences, such as further delaying the building of much-needed houses to tackle housing shortages. I am keen to hear your thoughts on that. Could the Bill add a layer of red tape when it comes to tackling housing supply issues, for example?

Mr McReynolds: Ancient and long-established woodland accounts for 0·04% of land in Northern Ireland, so our starting point is a minuscule percentage of land. We already have areas of townscape character, which are well established in Northern Ireland, and conservation areas. Rules are already in place for planning and development. In providing protections for ancient woodland and trees, the Bill does something that England, Scotland and Wales do, so we absolutely should do that here. To be honest, I do not think that it will frustrate developers at all. It is about building houses in the right areas rather than focusing housebuilding on minuscule patches of land. The Bill will increase knowledge and awareness of where those areas are to make sure that that does not happen.

Mr Dunne: OK. Finally, I presume that there is provision in the Bill for trees that are damaged by disease and so on and that might carry safety risks. Is there any provision for those issues?

Mr McReynolds: Not in the Bill — I clarified this recently — but section 122(5) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 provides that, if a tree is diseased or dying and poses risk to human life or property, it is totally reasonable to remove it. That came up in the meeting with the tree officers.

Mr Dunne: Do you accept that that would override any —?

Mr McReynolds: Absolutely. I would never say that a tree should take priority over human life or property. That provision is in the 2011 Act, and the Bill does not seek to remove it.

Mr Dunne: OK. That is important. Thanks, Peter.

Mr McHugh: Tá fáilte romhat, a Peter. Tá tú ar an taobh eile den bhord.

Peter, you engaged with councils: did you engage with Derry City and Strabane District Council?

Mr McReynolds: It came along, I think, to one of the online meetings.

Mr McHugh: Did Prehen Wood come up in your discussions with it?

Mr McReynolds: I recognise the name, but I do not know why.

Mr McHugh: I know why; the issue was alluded to earlier. It is about planners having to make judgements on particular wooded areas. Whether Prehen Wood is ancient woodland has always been disputed in Derry. That may be a difficult question to answer, but it shows the complexity of the issue that we are dealing with. Was the impact on planning raised in your meetings with the Department?

Mr McReynolds: Prehen Wood?

Mr McHugh: The wider impact of that issue on planning.

Mr McReynolds: We had two meetings with the Department, one here and one in my office. Ancient and long-established woodland came up as a point of discussion. We had initially kicked around the idea of proposing to follow England, where the desired buffer zone for ancient and long-established woodland is 50 metres, but, after the conversation with the Department, we felt that that was maybe slightly less reasonable, so we scaled it back to 15 metres.

Mr McHugh: I come back to the point about Prehen Wood. If you were to approach Derry from the Strabane side —

Mr McReynolds: I do that regularly.

Mr McHugh: — you would see it — the area is obvious — to the right of the road. As I said, there is a long-running dispute over that area —

Mr McReynolds: That is really helpful.

Mr McHugh: — the context of which is exactly what you talk about in proposing the Bill. Will the Bill have any long-term impact on planning?

Mr McReynolds: It will not have a long-term impact on planning. It will give clarity. It will protect trees and ancient woodland that we already have, which make up 0·04% of our total land area. You have given a precise example, but this is about 0·04% of our total land are, and it is biodiversity that cannot be replaced. I remember having a moment and asking my previous researcher, "Where is this going with the ancient woodland?". She said, "In 100 years' time, people will see the benefits of the Bill". She said that because we are looking to protect what is already there and, hopefully, expand on it, because it is irreplaceable biodiversity. I do not think that it will have any long-term impact. From an environmental perspective, it is a good thing to do.

Mr McHugh: Will it limit critical infrastructure development?

Mr McReynolds: No, there are built-in mechanisms. Take Tullynagardy, for example, where five luxury homes were to be built on ancient woodland. Did they need to be built on ancient, long-established woodland? I do not think so. If it is critical, it is the type of thing that can be worked out further down the line. If it is critical infrastructure and a refusal would upend society, the Bill should not get in the way — absolutely. There are mechanisms built into the Bill for "wholly exceptional circumstances" and so on. I do not think that that should be a barrier to the Bill 's moving forward.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Peter. We have had Schomberg's tree, which dates from 1689, and the 1798 trees of liberty, but we will not dwell on those, Peter, you will be glad to know.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): You bring balance to this Committee, Andrew.

Mr McMurray: If I bring anything, it is balance. Peter, you touched on development and the ancient woodlands in your previous answer. Have you engaged with the construction sector? Has it made any assessment of the Bill?

Mr McReynolds: During the consultation process, we reached out to as many people as possible. I would never want the Bill to be seen as subjective and operating only within a vacuum. That is why it has shifted as much as it has and, until very recently, has continued to do so. We reached out to a number of bodies. I have a good relationship with the Construction Employers Federation (CEF), given that I am on this Committee, as are all of you. It took a while to get a response from the federation — in fact, I chased a response on two or three occasions to make sure that I was able to reflect its views. It said in writing that it had no concerns about the Bill. I think that that is included in one of the consultation documents. Having the construction sector aware and mindful of the Bill is an important part of this. It was reassuring to see that the Construction Employers Federation came back with that in writing. As I said, it is included within one of the documents.

Mr McMurray: You mentioned the low tree cover that we have, the biodiversity benefits and the general annoyance that people feel when trees are cut down. I have experienced that in my constituency. What are the additional benefits of trees? Will you expand on their societal benefits?

Mr McReynolds: The only criteria applied in the current legislation on the application for TPOs relate to immunity and the expediency of applying a TPO. The inclusion of ecosystem services in my Bill broadens that to reflect the variety of ways in which trees bring benefits to all of our lives. It is well known that they bring in carbon; emit oxygen; impact on lowering temperatures, which is important; and enhance physical and mental health. At the moment the EastSide Partnership in my East Belfast constituency is carrying out a cross-community project in which it is working with Ballymacarrett and Short Strand residents to plant more urban trees. There are areas that, historically, have not had trees. Straight away, you think of Shandon Park or the Malone Road, but Ballymacarrett and Short Strand have lost out on the benefits of trees. There is a desire to plant more urban trees to acknowledge the positive impacts that they have on our lives, such as recreational impacts. They even impact on road safety. Studies show that tree-lined streets reduce the speed of vehicles. That is a flavour of some of the benefits, and they are reflected within the ecosystem services by which someone could apply for a TPO.

Mr McMurray: Castlewellan has 50 Irish and British champion trees. If you want to come to see champion trees, you are very welcome.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): What is a champion tree?

Mr McMurray: Trees, like anything, have all sorts of classifications. Castlewellan Arboretum has 50 British and Irish champion trees — that is on the basis of their height and girth — for instance.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): We always seek to educate at this Committee, Andrew, as you know.

Justin, brother, you are very welcome. Over to you.

Mr McNulty: Perfect timing, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Perfect timing as ever, Justin.

Mr McNulty: Thank you. Believe it or believe it not, Peter, I am a tree lover and a tree hugger. I have a lot of time for trees.

You mentioned that we have the lowest rate of forestation on the continent and only 0·04% of ancient woodland coverage. The Bill will not do much about that. Have you had discussions with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs about its planting ambitions as opposed to simply preserving what is already there?

Mr McReynolds: As I mentioned earlier — you may not have heard it because you were dialling in — the Bill primarily focuses on the Planning Act, which is the responsibility of the Department for Infrastructure. DAERA was consulted, and the consultation document is probably in your pack. I cannot remember its response, but it was probably that DAERA had no concerns about the Bill. The Bill is expressly about planning and addressing breaches of TPOs, which, again, are the responsibility of the Department for Infrastructure. It will run in parallel with the recommendations that came out of the 2023 ‘Strengthening our Roots’ report, which found that 369 breaches of TPOs led to only one court case and zero enforcement. There is a major gap in the legislation from a DFI perspective rather than that of DAERA.

Mr McNulty: Obviously, the Department is one of the culprits. I can think of many cases in which ancient Irish oaks were felled for departmental purposes. Is there a hierarchy of trees?

Mr McReynolds: There is, I suppose, a hierarchy of trees. Not all trees are created equally, and the experts, including the Woodland Trust, would agree with that.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): It is a bit Orwellian, though he was talking about pigs.

Mr McReynolds: In a famous LBC interview — I do not know whether you have seen it, and I did not think to mention it to the Committee earlier — a man was criticised for being a carpenter and cutting down trees, which had to be a bad thing. He said, "Well, trees are restorative. We can grow trees. They grow back". Christmas trees are famously grown to be cut down. If there is a hierarchy of trees, Irish oaks, which can grow to be 150 years old, would be more important than a Christmas tree. I am not an expert on trees and do not know what the hierarchy looks like, but there definitely is one.

Mr McNulty: The hierarchy that I am talking about prioritises native Irish trees, such as the oaks, pines, ash and hazel. The Castlewellan Gold was mentioned, which I would describe as a weed tree.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Steady on.

Mr McNulty: It is a genetically modified tree. Will more credence be given to the ancient Irish oak and the other native Irish trees that have been here for centuries, even before the planters?

Mr McReynolds: There is no mention of that in the Bill as is, and it could make an interesting amendment, Justin. It was not discussed in the proposals for the Bill, and the Woodland Trust has not raised that with me in our conversations. I am more than happy to look into that over the summer.

Mr McNulty: Protecting Irish trees would make a nice amendment.

Mr McReynolds: Yes. I am happy to look into that over the summer.

Mr McNulty: We have tried to meet on several occasions, Peter, but good luck with your Bill. I strongly support the idea behind it. Well done, and the best of luck with it.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I did not think that we would get into such contentious areas as the hierarchy of trees. To provide some balance, Justin, I will say that English oaks are also available. Let us not forget chestnut trees, which are important in providing our children with a facility to throw sticks at them to get chestnuts in the autumn. I declare an interest: that is what I did as a child, and I brought my kids up to play conkers.

Peter, that was very interesting. Thank you so much for coming to the Committee.

Mr Harvey: Chair, could I ask a quick one?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Sorry, Harry; of course you can.

Mr Harvey: I probably did not raise my hand in the proper order, but no problem.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That's OK. You are always welcome.

Mr Harvey: Peter, what about the impact on our farmers? What impact will the Bill as it stands have on our farmers?

Mr McReynolds: I do not think that it will have any impact on farmers, Harry. The Ulster Farmers' Union responded to the consultation as well. I cannot remember precisely what the union said, but the response from farmers was positive. I would be surprised if any farmer is unaware of a 200-year-old tree being on their land. There was a point during the early stages of the various conversations that we were having on the matter — that is why it was really helpful to meet and have a conversation with the Department — at which we were looking at having a scheme in place for ancient trees whereby, if you had an ancient tree on your land, you could apply for money or assistance to help you with that. We were thinking of farmers and the financial impact that the Bill could have on them. Having met the Department, we were told, "You are kind of trying to solve a problem that is not really there. We know where those 50-plus-year-old trees — ancient trees — are. There are about 50 in Northern Ireland. Everyone is aware of where they are. Some are on National Trust land, and some may be publicly owned in other areas. They are not just randomly located somewhere. You are trying to solve a problem that does not seem to actually exist". That is why we amended and refined the Bill.

In answer to your question, Harry, I do not think that it will have an impact on farmers. Certainly, the response from farmers is that they do not have any concerns that it will either.

Mr Harvey: That is great. Thank you very much. Thank you for all your work on it.

Finally, are there any exemptions? Is anyone exempt from the Bill?

Mr McReynolds: Exempt? Exempt from applying a TPO or —?

Mr Harvey: Yes, for smallholders and owners of small areas of land. Are there any special cases where there could be an exemption in place?

Mr McReynolds: There is not an exemption per se. If someone wants a TPO to apply to a tree, one of our agriculturists will have to go out and inspect it. If they deem it inappropriate to apply a TPO, for whatever reason, that is for them as an expert to decide, but there is no exemption per se built into the Bill at present.

Mr Harvey: That is great. Thank you; I appreciate it.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Thank you very much for your evidence, Peter.