Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): On 2 July, Sinéad Ennis proposed that the Committee's decision on 1 July not to issue a call for evidence on the Tree Protection Bill prior to referral to the Committee following Second Stage be rescinded. Today's meeting has been convened according to member availability, and due notice has been given. I will ask the Committee Clerk to explain the procedure.

The Committee Clerk: I will clarify the procedure for members. First, the proposer of the motion — in this case, Sinéad Ennis — will give her reasons for wanting the decisions to be rescinded. Due notice to do so was given on 2 July. There are proposals to rescind two decisions, both of which were made last Wednesday 1 July. The first was that the Committee should wait for the Tree Protection Bill to formally stand referred to the Committee before issuing its call for evidence. The second was that the Committee should wait for the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill to formally stand referred to the Committee before issuing its call for evidence. Those two matters will be taken separately. The Committee will consider whether to rescind each decision, essentially making them null and void. The Committee has the option of making new decisions on those matters. That is the process in a nutshell. Unless there are any questions, I will hand back to the Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Does anyone have any questions for the Committee Clerk? No. OK, that is fine. I will hand over to Sinéad to make her proposal.

Ms Ennis: Thank you, Chair and members, for agreeing to recall the Committee, which interrupts your much-needed recess. I want to explain my reasons. I made it clear at our last Committee meeting that the decisions were not based on the content of either Bill. We had had less than 24 hours to look at those Bills. I do not believe that anybody could say that they had a deep understanding of either Bill. Our decisions were not about the content of either Bill or our positions on them; they were purely about process. At our last meeting, the specific question was put to the Committee Clerk as to whether this was the norm and whether any other Committees were considering doing likewise. We were told that there was no evidence of other Committees being willing to step outside the normally agreed process. My rationale was to question whether we would be setting a precedent. Our decisions were based purely on process.

I understand that, since our previous meeting, a number of Committees have decided to step outside the normal process of waiting for a Bill to be formally referred to the Committee after Second Stage, and have agreed to go out for the call for views over the summer. In light of that information — that other Committees are setting a precedent and stepping outside normal Committee involvement in a Bill process — which we received after our Committee meeting, I thought it is only right that the Committee be given the chance to look at its decision again. That is really the long and the short of it. Given that other Committees are doing it, I believe that we should look at our decisions again and allow both Bills to go for a call for views over the summer.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Thank you, Sinéad. If anyone wants to come in and raise anything regarding that, they have a chance to do so now. I do not want to exclude anyone who has particular views. We all have reasonable positions on it.

Mr Stewart: This is not necessarily a view but a question. I apologise for missing this section of the last meeting; you will recall that I left early. I just want to get my head around it: is this us, as a Committee via the Clerk, making a call for potential witnesses to come forward, should the Bill be referred to us? Am I correct in my understanding that no actual scrutiny will begin until that point?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Yes. It is a standard call for views. John, the list that you have says what we plan to do if we rescind the decisions today. There will be a call for evidence and a press release. A Citizen Space survey will be released, and there will be a stakeholder list. I know that you missed that last meeting, but I will summarise. There was general acceptance that Committees would not go to a call for views prior to a Bill being referred to the Committee, because it would not have passed Second Stage. However, Sinéad has just made the case that — because of compressed time frames, I assume — some Committees are stepping outside what would be considered the norm and issuing a call for views prior to the Bill being referred to the Committee. I hope that that is a fairly reasonable and balanced summary of where we are, John.

Mr Stewart: Yes, OK. That is good to know. There is no Standing Order pertaining to not allowing a call for evidence to take place before a Bill is referred to a Committee. Is that right?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is one for the Committee Clerk, who has been around longer than I have.

The Committee Clerk: Yes, that is correct, Deputy Chair. The standard — the norm — is to wait until the Bill is formally referred to the Committee after Second Stage, but there is precedent for calls to take place a bit before that under certain circumstances. It is not hard and fast in Standing Orders.

Mr Stewart: Thank you. Sorry for the questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): No, the questions are good, John. They help to clarify it all. Does anyone else have any questions or comments that they want to flag up?

Mr McNulty: Excellent. The Committee Clerk clarified last week that it is not unprecedented to accelerate a call for evidence. I would welcome a change of heart and a change in our position and us moving on.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): OK. Thank you for that, Justin. Unless members have anything else to say on the issue, the Question will be put. That will be the first step towards rescission. I suspect that we will then have a vote on it, because I have not changed my position. Clerk, do you want to facilitate a vote? .

The Committee Clerk: Yes. We will administer a vote unless the Committee is content to pass the motion without a vote.

Ms Ennis: I beg to move

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I now need to seek Committee agreement on a 10-week consultation period, from 9 July 2026 to 16 September 2026, on the proposed call for evidence, and on the draft press release, signposting notice, questions for the Citizen Space survey and stakeholder list.

Clerk, do we need to take a vote on both of those if the Committee accepts that the results will be the same as for the previous vote?

The Committee Clerk: If the Committee is agreed, and no member wants to push them to a vote, there is no necessity for further votes.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Is the Committee happy to assume that the result would be the same as the result of the previous vote: five Ayes and four Noes? Does everyone understand what is happening? Do you agree that how we voted previously is how we would vote for the next two items?

The Committee Clerk: Chair, for the minutes, may I clarify that there is Committee agreement that there is no necessity for further votes?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Apologies, Clerk. I may be making it more complicated than what it is. If I seek Committee agreement on both of those items, I suspect that we will have two votes the results of which will be exactly the same as for the previous vote. Do you want votes on both of those items to take place for transparency and clarity?

The Committee Clerk: That is not necessary, Chair, if the Committee is agreed. Unless any member wishes to push it to a vote, there will be a standard Committee agreement for both. Members may nod if they are content.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): We will assume that the voting would be the same. If members are content, I will assume that the Committee agrees on a 10-week consultation period and on the draft press release, signposting notice, etc.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Are you OK with that, Clerk?

The Committee Clerk: All good, Chair.