I must renew my protest against the terms of this Resolution. In particular, I must protest against the insertion in the Resolution of the figure of £300 million as the ceiling of compensation for depreciation of land value in consequence of the Bill. The Government have taken the course of inserting this figure of £300 million in the Bill. They have also inserted it as a maximum in the Money Resolution, and this renders it impossible for the amount put in the. Bill to be amended upwards. Hon. Members will be able to move Amendments in Standing Committee to reduce the figure below £300 million, but if the terms of this Resolution stand, it will be impossible for any Amendments to be moved to revise the figure upward. It seems to me that the proceedings of the Standing Committee in this respect will be very one-sided.

Last Thursday evening, when I raised this matter, the Minister of Town and Country Planning said, on the Committee Stage of the Resolution: The House having voted, I think it can now be taken that the House, by a large majority, is satisfied that £300 million is the right figure, and therefore, I submit, quite properly, that it goes into the Financial Resolution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 1248.]. I think that that statement of the Minister's was a very inadequate review of the situation. The Bill covers a very wide field. This question of compensation is one very important element, but the Debate in the House ranged over a very much wider field. Therefore, I think it is hardly fair for the Minister to say that the House had obviously decided that £300 million was the right figure; that there should be no other figure, but that the amount should stand as in the terms of the Money Resolution. In the course of discussion of this figure, the Minister went into considerable detail in calculation. It was evident that in his view it had not been easy to arrive at this figure. But he had arrived at it, and expressed the view that it was the right figure Other people, however, are entitled to take a different view. In Committee the Opposition should have the opportunity of putting forward Amendments and to argue what in their view the figure should be. The Minister described this as one of the most controversial parts of the Bill but if the whole matter is to be considered as concluded, because the House gave a Second Reading to the Bill containing this figure of £300 million, then the later stages of the proceedings will be rendered very largely abortive. Last night the Minister of Fuel and Power pleaded for elbow room in regard to the figure to be adopted in the Money Resolution on the Electricity Bill. All I am asking is that the Standing Committee should have elbow room in considering the figure of £300 million in relation to this Bill.

I think that it is perfectly right that the House should require some limit of compensation to be inserted in the terms of the Money Resolution. But, I submit, that figure should be something greater than the figure inserted in the Bill, if only to permit adequate discussion in Standing Committee. I am going to read a very important statement which was made in 1937, by the present Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition. It is a statement which, if I may respectfully say so, does him great credit as a Parliamentarian. I quoted this on the Money Resolution of the Bank of England Bill, but it is not unreasonable to quote it again on this occasion. This is what the present Prime Minister said. on 8th March, 1937: I deem it to be my duty as Leader of the Opposition, to call attention to what I consider to be the danger of Members losing their privileges in this House. There is no party issue raised. It is entirely a matter for this House as a whole. I hold that it is vital that we should preserve this House as the greatest democratic assembly in the world and that we should not allow its former rights to be taken away by the growth of usages contrary to its tradition.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March. 1937; Vol. 321, c. 815–820.] That is a view which should be given very respectful and serious consideration by the House in relation to the Financial Resolution, now under discussion. In my submission, either that view should be taken and the Financial Resolution drafted sufficiently widely to enable Amendments to be moved in Committee, or else if the whole thing is to be decided at this stage, and if a ceiling has to be put on, it ought not to be treated as a matter for debate at this time of night, but should be brought on as one of the really important Orders of the Day and taken at a reasonable hour. I feel that these Money Resolutions are treated too much as a sideshow by the Government. If they are going to draft them widely, they will not meet with opposition, but if these Resolutions are to be as narrow and restricted as this one is, so that they bind the Standing Committee, and tie up subsequent consideration of the Bill, they ought to be threshed out in a full day's debate. We cannot, of course, amend these Money Resolutions by increasing the charge, therefore, the only way in which this matter can be put right, is either to have the Resolution be withdrawn, or to have it rejected by the House. I would propose that it should be rejected.