Public Bills: Rules of Relevance and Scope

HL Deb 14 July 1999 vol 604 cc52-4WA

Lord Denham

asked the Leader of the House:

In what respects the rules of relevance and scope (in relation to public Bills and amendments thereto) differ between this House and the House of Commons; and what are the different criteria on the admissibility of amendments which are used in each House. [HL3434]

The Leader of the House (Baroness Jay of Paddington)

In the House of Commons decisions on the admissibility of amendments are a matter for the Chair. In the House of Lords decisions on the admissibility of amendments are ultimately for the House itself to determine, though the Public Bill Office advises on the relevance of amendments when they are handed in. The rules on relevance of amendments in each House are in generally similar terms and are set out in Erskine May, 22nd Edition, at pages 471 (Lords) and 525–7 (Commons). The major difference is that in the House of Commons amendments which would create public charges not authorised by a money or ways and means resolution are ruled out of order. There is no restriction in the House of Lords.