My hon. Friend has given some reasons for objecting to the ceiling, in this Financial Resolution, of £300 million. I do not know whether that limit is a correct estimate or not. It is clear from the right hon. Gentleman's Second Reading speech that he formed his figures in relation to development of land for building only. He sought to justify the figure by pointing out the greater development of land outside towns in the prewar years, 45,000 acres a year. Valuing that land at £200 an acre, he arrived at the sum of £9 million. At 16 or 17 years' purchase, he arrived at £150 million. He then estimated that another £150 million would be required for development or redevelopment in urban areas. I think he will agree that in making those estimates he was only counting development values in relation to land for building. If that be so, I would put a question to him. Clause 76 (1) provides: In relation to development consisting of the winning and working of minerals, the provisions of this Act shall have effect subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed by regulations. Therefore it must be contemplated—because we do not see the Regulations and do not know the scheme in relation to minerals—that the Bill will apply to the building of houses on land and to the extraction of minerals from land in precisely the same fashion. If that be so, the Minister ought to give us a specific answer to the question: Is it the case that out of this £300 million no compensation will be given in any case of hardship in respect of the loss of mineral rights? If the answer is "No," it means that all those who own agricultural land under which there are minerals, will lose those rights of development. If the answer is "Yes," does it not follow that the Minister's ceiling of £300 million is inadequate to provide compensation? The right hon. Gentleman made his estimate for building development, and provided nothing for mineral development, so that any sum given for hardship for loss of mineral rights will have to be added to the £300 million. In that respect, the limit fixed in the Money Resolution is wrong. I do not know what the answer is to the question I have put and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should tell the House the answer before we pass this Resolution, having regard to the fact that the £300 million is only his own guess. We should have a higher limit than this and should be enabled to thresh out the matter properly in Committee.

A further point is that mineral owners may not always be landowners. They will be deprived of the development value, and will have to pay, under the Bill, development charges of an unfixed and unknown amount. This is a question of no small importance when one realises that leaving coal out of the question the amount of minerals extracted from our land in 1938, was something like 100,000,000 tons. I assume that the amount is now very much larger. If it be the case that the people who are extracting minerals are going to receive something from this £300 million, it might follow that very little of that £300 million would be left for division among the building developments to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in making his estimate. I do not want to take up any further time developing this point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is a serious point, and a point worth developing, even by hon. Members opposite who made that interruption. I am not however going into it at any greater length because I want to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of dealing specifically with it.