Download Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 10                                                 p 358

Anticipation of detail stage amendment

A reasoned amend ment may not anticipate an amendment which may be moved during consideration in detail. ¹ Following a Member’s explanation that an amendment had been drafted not with reference to the clause but with reference to the principle of the bill, an amendment which could possibly have been moved in committee (i.e. the former consideration in detail stage) was allowed to be moved to the motion for the second reading. ² The principle underlying an amendment which a Member may not move during consideration in detail, may be declared by means of a reasoned amendment. A second reading amendment to add to the question an instruction to the former committee of the whole was ruled out of order on the ground that the bill had not yet been read a second time. ³

S.O. 145(a)(iv); VP 1920-21/90. There is a sound reason for this rule because, if the wording of a second reading amendment is similar to the wording of a detail amendment and the second reading amendment is defeated, the moving of the detail amendment could be prevented by the application of the ‘same motion’ rule, S.O. 114(b).

VP 1951-53/246; H.R. Deb. (29 and 30.11.51) 3140. The Speaker accepted a second reading amendment, some aspects of which could have been moved in committee, as it was the wish of the House (it was felt preferable to have one clear-cut issue than to be involved in numerous discussions in committee), H.R. Deb. (10.9.52) 1214-16; and see H.R. Deb. (28.9.54) 1666. See also VP 1978-80/727—in this case the proposals of the Opposition were so complicated that resources were not available to draft committee amendments. Following an assurance that the amendments would not be moved in committee, the proposals were incorporated into a second reading amendment.

The amendment was also ruled out of order on the ground of irrelevancy, VP 1912/143.