Amendments to Money resolutions
35.22In accordance with the constitutional principle which reserves the initiative in finance to the Crown (and which is set out in Standing Order No 48), the terms of the resolution recommended by the Queen are treated as laying down a maximum charge, which amendments may reduce in scope but may not extend in respect of the amount of the expenditure, the area of its operation or the objects to which, or conditions under which, it is to be applied.1
An amendment proposing to substitute for the resolution an argumentative justification for the refusal of the request is out of order,2 as are also amendments proposed with a view to substituting an alternative scheme to that proposed in the Money resolution.3 Where the terms of a Money resolution have recommended payment of a grant from public funds, it has been held that an amendment to substitute for that provision a repayable advance of public money was out of order, on the ground that the amendment changed the method of financing from that recommended by the Crown.4
The limitation on the power of proposing amendments applies equally to Ministers as to private Members. If the Government itself wishes to extend, or to accept amendments extending, the scope of the expenditure proposed to be authorised, it is necessary to withdraw the resolution and submit another containing the desired modification,5 or at a later date to submit a second resolution.6
Footnotes
- 1. For a selected amendment limiting the amount of expenditure, see HC Deb (16 October 2018) 647, cc 568–89.
- 2. HC Deb (1910) 19, c 1624; ibid (1920) 134, c 1552; ibid (1936–37) 320, c 1035.
- 3. HC Deb (1917) 98, c 617.
- 4. HC Deb (1953–54) 525, cc 1753–56.
- 5. CJ (1929–30) 165, 169. See also HC Deb (1930–31) 248, cc 1095–49.
- 6. For example, CJ (1992–93) 367. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (2008–09 and 2009–10) had four Money resolutions, CJ (2008–09) 641; ibid (2009–10) 187, 217, 275.