The expenditure involved must be new and distinct

35.3Standing Order Nos 48 and 49 apply in cases when a proposal involves ‘a charge upon the public revenue’ (see para 33.4 ). In practice, this is interpreted to mean a proposal for new or increased expenditure which is not already covered by legislative authorisation. So it is possible, though infrequent, that a proposal involving expenditure may escape the requirement for a Money resolution because an existing statute and the Money resolution associated with that statute were framed in sufficiently broad and open-ended terms to provide adequate authority in the new situation.1 This can be established only by a comparison between the new proposal and the existing law. If there is any doubt on the matter and it appears that the new proposal may entail an extension of previously enacted purposes of expenditure or an increase in the expenditure potentially liable to be incurred in pursuit of such a purpose (see para 35.12 ), a Money resolution will be required.

A Money resolution is also required in the case of a totally new legislative purpose which imposes only a potential liability on public expenditure. For example, a proposal to confer on a Minister a discretionary power to expend money in certain circumstances does not escape the need for a Money resolution on the ground that the circumstances may not arise or the discretion may not be exercised.

Footnotes

  1. 1. HC Deb (3 April 2019) 657, c 1130. See also Erskine May (24th edn, 2011), pp 751–53 for several earlier examples of matters involving money which did not require the Queen's recommendation because the expenditure was covered by existing statutory authority.