I will try to answer the questions put to me during the rather ingenious interpretation placed on the Money Resolution my the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). I must point out to the hon. Member that the Commission can take over property only by an Order under the 1959 Act, and that no money passes at all. Thus, there is no question of any transfer of property from the development corporations in any way affecting the limit of £550 million or the existing limit of £400 million.

The relationship between the Commission and the corporations in the context of the Resolution is that under the 1959 Act it was provided that the Commission should be limited to a £5 million advance. This would be alterable by future Acts, in the same way as the major sum for the corporations, for development of their own—thatis, new developments started—after the Commission had taken over by Order and not by purchase. Any other requirements it had for money to complete developments started by a corporation from whom it took over would constitute an advance which they could claim against the major sum to a total of what was £400 million and will now be £550 million.

Therefore, the only difference is that, instead of having two sums, with the £5 million being increased to £10 million, and £545 million as the limit of the development of the new town corporation, we have one lump sum, and the Minister and the Secretary of State will merely give authorisation for the money to be issued, as it is required, to the corporation or the Commission on a first-come-first-served basis. Once the money is exhausted, it will be necessary to ask Parliament for more, but there is no question of allocating it rigidly between new town development and old development, which was the only distinction relevant to the former sums of £5 million.

I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) that the decision whether or not something is in order must be for the Chair to decide. I do not wish in any way to appear to be trespassing on the authority of the Chair, but, subject to that, it seems to me quite clear that a limit in the Money Resolution cannot possibly prevent hon. Members from discussing a lower sum. It follows from that that they must be able to discuss the reasons for wanting a lower sum within the terms of the Resolution. Nor can I see anything in the Resolution that prevents discussion of the purpose of the expenditure. Whether one can go very wide within the ordinary terms of order is purely a matter for the Chair.