This is in the nature of advice offered to the chair. Our rules and practices provide that an amendment is not procedurally admissible if it goes beyond the scope of the bill as it was adopted by the House at second reading.
The bill provides in proposed section 79 an appeal “only if the judge certifies that a serious question of general importance is involved”. The amendment proposes a right of appeal, firstly, on any ground of appeal that involves a question of law, on any ground of appeal that involves a question of fact or a question of mixed law, on any ground of appeal not mentioned above or that appears to be sufficient grounds. And then we return to the original terms of the bill.
In my view, this went beyond the scope of the bill as it was adopted by the House at second reading, and this is why I offered that advice to the chair.