Protection and Management of Young Trees

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

Let me begin by thanking organisations including the Woodland Trust, the Arboricultural Association, the Forestry Commission, Highways England, the Horticultural Trades Association and the National Forest Company, and Ness Champion, founder of the Biophilic Design Conference, for their engagement ahead of the debate.

I think most people like trees. I go around saying they are great—tree-mendous, indeed—so much so that my mum and dad got me an “I Spy Trees” book for Christmas, which I think will become somewhat easier to complete in the spring and summer months. Trees are woven into the very fabric of our nation, our culture and our heritage —the apple tree that sparked Newton’s revolutionary thinking on gravity; the Tolpuddle Martyrs’ tree, a symbol of solidarity and the birth of the trade union movement; Sherwood forest, immortalised by Robin Hood; and the famous 100 acres, home to Winnie-the-Pooh, Tigger and co. Trees are place-makers.

I recently visited a new development called Linmere, where trees are quite literally used to sell the place, with marketing material suggesting that residents

“stroll through tree-lined avenues and take in the nature around you.”

Everyone moving in gets their own new tree in the garden. Trees improve our lives. They improve our health, both physically and mentally. Urban trees, shrubs and hedges reduce exposure to air pollution by dispersing and capturing pollutants such as particulate matter and ozone. Collectively, urban woods in the UK do a brilliant job of removing an estimated 7.5 kilotonnes of pollutants every single year. Trees can also be lifesavers. Research suggests that increasing green space by just 1% in the most deprived urban neighbourhoods in England is linked to 37% fewer preventable deaths.

Trees also reduce flooding. I was struck when I visited a local school on a soggy day last year, when many homes and businesses had experienced flooding, and asked the headteacher whether the school had had any problems, and it had not. She pointed to the trees on the surrounding playing fields, which had intercepted the rainfall and absorbed so much water. Forest Research estimates that trees deliver over £400 million a year in flood protection. In the summer, the same trees offer vital shade. Crucially, our trees lock away carbon for decades or even centuries. UK woodlands store around 1 billion tonnes of carbon.

Despite all those brilliant benefits, as a nation we are under-treed—we are well below the European average. That makes us the second largest importer of timber in the world. I am delighted that the Government have pledged to plant three new national forests. The first, in the west of England, is under way, and next the Ox-Cam growth corridor will see growth of a different kind—from seed to sapling to forest. With £1 billion of investment in tree planting and forestry support over this Parliament, and tree planting at its highest rate in over 20 years, with 10,000 football pitches-worth planted last year, “plant, plant, plant” is a good mantra.

But we also need to think about something rather less catchy: “establish, establish, establish”. The first three to five years of a tree’s life are critical. That is when trees are most vulnerable to drought, damage, disease and death. Of course, tree and woodland creation will always involve some risk. There will be years when the weather means more trees do not make it, even when best practice is followed, but what we are seeing goes far beyond unavoidable loss—to the planet and the public purse.

University of Sheffield research found that only 61% of the trees meant to be present on new developments were there.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nesil Caliskan.)

[Alex Mayer]

The research found that 39% of the trees were missing or dead. Along the A14, National Highways planted over 860,000 trees in 2020, but the failure rate was 45%. More detailed evidence comes from the evaluation of urban tree planting across four cities—Bristol, Birmingham, Nottingham and Leeds—covering trees planted between 2012 and 2022. The team says that just finding out what was planted and where was far harder than it should have been. Record keeping is not good. Even freedom of information requests did not yield data. “Do the trees exist?” they kept asking. Of the 820 expected trees, they discovered that only 687 were actually planted, so 23% of funded or required trees were never planted at all. Of those that were planted, only 42% were in good condition. Around one in five had died or been removed—we might call that a trage-tree—and nearly a third were in poor condition, showing stress, damage or inadequate growth. Very few were growing as we would want them to.

The National Audit Office reported that £48 million of Government investment went into the urban tree challenge fund. If these outcomes are representative, around £10 million of that investment may already have been lost—literally dead wood. This is not a marginal issue; it is a systemic value-for-money problem.

Why are these young trees dying? The research consistently points to similar causes: the wrong tree in the wrong place. I am struck by how often, especially in new builds, the trees are the responsibility of landscape gardeners. There can be a tendency to over-prioritise aesthetics, or even a rightful desire to create a sense of place, over choosing trees that will survive and thrive.

We need better species selection—the right tree in the right place for the right reason—with climate resilience built in. But even if it is in the right place, research shows that young trees are prone to damage from poorly managed stakes and ties, strimmer damage, soil compaction and, sadly, vandalism. Staking in particular is an issue. It should be a temporary support, not a permanent restraint, but there are too many examples of trees literally being strangled by ties that are far too tight and so restrict the natural expansion of the trunk, so as the tree grows, the ties cut into the bark, disrupting the flow of water and nutrients. Sometimes it simply is not anyone’s job to remove the stakes and ties after a year or so. We see on new developments that landscaping and management fees often do not translate into tree care at all and, in some cases, actively contribute to tree loss.

Another cause of early tree death is insufficient water because young trees are thirsty. Newly planted trees need to be watered two to three times a week. They knock back 50 to 100 pints each time. They need deep and regular soaking. Establishing trees need water once a week in dry weather. Watering in the first one to two years is one of the most important factors in whether a tree struggles long term or goes on to thrive.

What needs to change? I know that this Government are committed to early years, so do we perhaps need a best start tree hub as well where everybody learns about watering, mulching and formative pruning?

As I have outlined, the data is patchy. How do we do better as a nation? Does the Minister support mandated record keeping, minimum three-to-five year aftercare plans and reporting requirements tied to planning permission, grants and public contracts? In housing developments, should tree planting and aftercare contracts always be bundled together, so responsibility cannot be passed away? How do we better implement those planning conditions relating to aftercare?

I do not expect the Minister to be able to give me answers to all this; she may direct me to other Departments. That is important, as the issue of trees is not just for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; it is also about housing, communities, transport, health and more. However, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government currently lacks an in-house tree expert. It has been over a decade since the Department had an arboriculturist role, which previously provided expertise on urban trees, including tree planting and tree preservation order regulations. The sector says that it feels that gap keenly. Will the Minister reassure me that the welcome England tree action plan will have cross-departmental buy-in? Will it contain best practice, including clear schedules for watering, mulching, pruning and monitoring?

Of course, much of that already exists, for example in the Arboricultural Association, which I know stands ready to support the Government, and Highways England, which learned from its A14 debacle—the survival rate for trees in its 3 Million Trees project now stands at 85%. Maybe there could also be a section on performance-related tree payments—bonds with sums released only when trees are established so that the reward comes not for trees that are planted, but for trees that thrive, so that aftercare can no longer be treated as an after- thought.

For the Government’s ambitions to flourish, we will need thriving tree nurseries. The excellent “Strong Roots” report has many recommendations to nurture the sector and increase the number of British-grown trees: for example, to better align tree supply with planting grants to give nurseries confidence to invest, so that we avoid situations like the Scottish Government cutting their forestry grant scheme budget by 41% back in 2024, and to boost training, apprenticeships and skills development in tree production. One thing that stood out to me was that the report suggests introducing a British-grown tree certification logo to strengthen market identity. I can very much imagine the Minister launching the “Great British Trees” logo, so I would love to hear her comments on that.

Tree planting without establishment is not climate action; it is waste. However, with simple policy changes, we can ensure that young trees survive, thrive and deliver the economic, environmental, social and economic benefits that we all know they promise.