Lords Sitting of 7 April 1959

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

TERRITORIALS' ANNUAL TRAINING
2.35 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are taking steps to bring to the notice of employers the importance of members of the Territorial Army being given leave to attend annual training this summer on full pay in addition to their annual holiday.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the normal means of approach to employers which has been found to be successful, and which will continue this year, is through the county Territorial associations. Their work goes on constantly to secure the interests and good will of firms in their area, and an employers' representative sits on every local Territorial Army committee. The success can be measured by last year's remarkable increase of some 30 per cent. in the volunteer strength of the Territorial Army. This could not have been achieved without the co-operation of employers. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for the opportunity to express again the importance which is attached to this subject by Her Majesty's Government. We receive a great deal of help already and we trust that as many more employers as can possibly do so will encourage members of their staff to join the Reserve Army and attend annual camp.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the terms of his Answer, but if there are any really hard cases—and there is one to my
382
personal knowledge—would he and the appropriate Department be prepared to look into it with a view, if necessary, to bringing pressure to bear on the particular firm concerned?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it is not really a question of bringing pressure to bear on an individual firm, for there is not really any pressure that we can bring to bear. We can only try to persuade, and if the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, cares to let me have details of the case known to him, I will certainly look into it.

DETAINEES IN RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many persons, men and women, are at present in gaol in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland without charge or trial; whose is the responsibility for the gaols and prison camps; what provision is made for the maintenance of the families of the prisoners and whether it is proposed to bring any of the accused to judgment]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, my right honourable friend informs me that the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland have been consulted about persons belonging to those territories who have been detained. There are reported to have been 642 men and 8 women of Nyasaland origin detained under the Nyasaland Emergency Regulations, of whom 41 have been released; and 97 men but no women of Northern Rhodesian origin and 105 persons of Nyasaland origin are reported to have been detained under Southern Rhodesian law.
All gaols and prison camps are the responsibility of the Federal Government; but the Governor of Nyasaland has, with the agreement of the Federal authorities, undertaken the physical administration of holding centres and enclosures at out-stations. The Governments of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland (and, for that matter, the Government of Southern Rhodesia) have

383
arranged for the payment of allowances on the basis of personal need to detainees' families in the territories under their administration.
The question whether a prosecution should be initiated in any particular case is a matter for the Attorney-General of the territory concerned. Persons belonging to Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia detained under Southern Rhodesian regulations will be returned to their countries as soon as the territorial Governments are prepared to receive them.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, who has had a very heavy burden in the last few days, for his Answer. But may I ask on whose advice or information the Attorney-General will decide whether or not to prosecute?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the Attorney-General will make that decision on the advice and information usually open to an Attorney-General. It will be for the Attorney-General himself to decide, of course; but I will make inquiries as to what advice he will receive.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, will it not be the natural function of the new Commission to advise the Attorney-General as to whether charges can be sustained?
THE EARL OF HOME: I should not have thought that that was the case.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive my saying so, I think it is important that we should have a clear definition of what the Lord Justice and his fellow-members of the Commission are doing. Are they there to ascertain whether or not these people were rightly detained or to make general observations on the state of public order in the Territory?
THE EARL OF HOME: If I remember correctly the terms of reference, they were to look into the disturbances and the causes of the disturbances, and the Commission will report accordingly. I do not think that this has any connection with the Question that the noble Viscount is asking, but if he wants any further information I will gladly get it for him.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, could the noble Earl tell us whether there is any limit to the period of time during which people can be detained without trial?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, some of those detained will be tried, but some measure will no doubt have to be passed under which those who are not tried continue to be detained. Perhaps if the noble Lord will at some future date put down a Question I can make clear what is in mind.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Earl. There is one other question I would ask him: would the Commission which is proceeding have access to the people detained under these regulations?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I must ask for that question to be put down on the Paper, because it does not arise out of the original Question, and it is a pity to extend Questions.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the noble Earl has said that some further legislation would he required in the Territories. Will this House be given details of that legislation which, the noble Earl said, would supplant the need for the emergency? In particular, can the noble Earl give us some particulars of the new law which is contemplated to permit the whipping of young children?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should like the noble Viscount to put all these questions down.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are all very glad to see the noble Earl the Leader of the House back safely after his journey, and we are quite sure that he will handle this matter in the most humane and sympathetic manner possible. We are still very anxious about the position of these detained people in relation to possible charges which may be brought against them and in regard to their being able to get proper legal advice and counsel during the inquiries of the Commission presided over by a British Judge. We are very dissatisfied with the

385
present position arid the latest statement by the right honourable gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Has any progress been made in that direction?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, for the protection of the House I must not go outside the terms of the Question on the Paper at this time, but if the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition would like to put down a Question, I will of course give him full information on this subject as soon as it is available.

ABANDONED CANALS
LORD GLYN: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action it is proposed to take in regard to abandoned canals, owing to the difficulty of ascertaining the ownership and responsibility for preventing flooding of adjacent areas, to the detriment of agricultural drainage schemes authorised and financed by the land drainage authority.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, the old problem of abandoned canals whose owners have long since disappeared was examined by the Bowes Committee of Inquiry into Inland Waterways. The Committee recommended that canals inadequately covered under past measures should in suitable cases be dealt with under the re-development procedure proposed by them. It is open to a local authority or a drainage authority (including a river board) in appropriate cases to seek control of such a canal by acquisition or private legislation.
The Government hope that it will be found possible to re-develop or eliminate some of these canals under the arrangements set out in the "Government proposals following the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Inland Waterways". In any event the problem to which my noble friend has drawn attention will certainly be examined when general legislation flowing from the Bowes Committee Report is considered.

BRITISH SCIENTIFIC ATTACHE IN MOSCOW
2.44 p.m.
LORD GLYN: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are yet in a position to make a statement about the appointment of a scientific attaché at the British Embassy, Moscow.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, an appointment has now been made, and the scientist appointed is at present making a preliminary visit to Moscow.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, are we not going to be told who is the scientist?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, yes, indeed, since the noble Viscount asks. There is a Press release of details of the scientist. His name is Mr. D. A. Senior, M.A., A.M.I.E.E., aged 35.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether I am correct in assuming that there are scientific attaches appointed to other Embassies, and that this is in no sense a special appointment?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, yes; there are scientific attaches appointed to other Embassies. I think it would be wrong to say that they are not in a sense special appointments, because not all Embassies have them; and I think that this is the first time we have had one in Moscow.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I take it from what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has said that this attaché, who is appointed for scientific purposes, will have full diplomatic status and, therefore, will not be under any restrictions which are not applied to other United Kingdom representatives.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, he is an attache at the Embassy, with all that that implies.

DRAFT CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (DISTRIBUTION OF LEVY) (AMENDMENT No. 2) REGULA- TIONS, 1959
2.46 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE)THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE) rose to move. That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations. 1959, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the effect of these Draft Regulations will be to make two amendments in the existing Regulations which govern the distribution of the cinematograph levy. The cinematograph levy was at first a voluntary arrangement, asked for by the industry itself, in return for concessions in the entertainments duty, and in return for which a condition was made that the industry should take steps to improve the production of British films. Under the voluntary levy each cinema made a contribution in proportion to its number of seats occupied, and the money was distributed among British film producers. That voluntary arrangement was made statutory by the Cinematograph Films Act of 1957.
The levy is now distributed through the British Films Fund Agency under Regulations which are made by the Board of Trade. The distribution, as a general rule, is in proportion to the earnings of the films. But there is one important exception to that, in the case of short films (and a short film is defined as a film of less than 3,000 feet), where they receive payments from the levy not on the basis of their actual earnings but on the basis of two and a half times their actual earnings. The reason for that is that it is considered particularly desirable to encourage the production of short films, which British producers do articularly well.
My Lords, all sections of the film industry, or nearly all, have been pressing the Board of Trade very strongly to make a similarly favourable provision in the case of what I will call second-feature films: that means long films which are subsidiary to the main feature, to the main film, which is being shown and which do not cost nearly so much to produce; which are not so ambitious; and which, therefore, do not earn nearly so much money. Consequently, the contributions which they receive from the
388
levy are very small. The great majority of the industry have asked, and the Board of Trade have agreed, that their contribution shall now be on the basis of twice their earnings. The industry desires to encourage production of these second-feature films, because it is said that the public like them and they provide favourable ground for the training of actors and technicians.
It is not possible to get a satisfactory definition of a second-feature film. and they are therefore described in the regulations as "low cost films." On the first page, in sub-paragraph (b) of Paragraph I it is provided that in the case of a low cost film twice its earnings shall be taken as the basis of distribution under the levy. On the next page, in sub-paragraph (3), near the end, a low cost film is defined as:
"a long film the labour costs of which do not exceed £20,000."
My Lords, the effect of this amendment will be to give more to these low cost or second-feature films at the expense of the other films. That has been asked for by the great majority of the industry, who are dealing, of course, not with public money but with money raised from the industry itself; and it has been approved by the Cinematograph Films Council.
The other amendment is to restrict the definition of what is an eligible film in respect of which distribution from the levy may be paid. That is now to be restricted to films
"the maker of which was throughout the time the film was being made, a person ordinarily resident in, or a company registered in, and the central management and control of whose business was exercised in, the United Kingdom.
The effect of that will be to exclude Commonwealth film producers who have hitherto been receiving a levy on films shown in the United Kingdom. They will continue to receive it for films registered before December 31 of this year, but after December 31, 1959, they will be excluded. We are not doing anything to alter the status of Commonwealth films for quota purposes: they will still continue to rank as British films for the screen quota. But it has been represented to us by the United Kingdom film industry that it is unfair that a Commonwealth film should rank for receipt of levy on films shown in this country when the Commonwealth countries do not give any

389
reciprocal advantages to United Kingdom films there.
All the Commonwealth Governments have been consulted about this change, and none of them has raised any objection. Nothing is being done, of course, to discourage United Kingdom producers from making films in the Commonwealth and showing them here. I understand that some anxiety, or some fear, has been expressed that United Kingdom-resident companies which may be subsidiaries of American or other foreign companies will be excluded from the levy. That is not so, however. The definition which I have read to your Lordships—namely, "a company registered in, and the central management and control of whose business was exercised in, the United Kingdom"—is adapted from the recognised definition already contained in the Income Tax Act, and if a company is resident here for income tax purposes its films will continue to be eligible for levy.
My Lords, both these amendments have been asked for by nearly the whole of the film industry. The Cinematograph Films Council, as they are required to do by the Act, have considered the amendments in detail, and have given their approval of them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations, 1959, be approved.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
2.53 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I do not wish to oppose the approval of the regulations, but I should like for a moment to make one or two comments and to ask a question. With regard to the first amendment, which provides that second-feature films shall get a double contribution from the levy, I would first of all congratulate the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary draftsmen on their ingenuity in finding some method of defining what a second-feature film is. The noble Earl has referred to the difficulty, and I am bound to say that I think they have met it extremely well. I must say, however, that I think that the proposal that these second-feature films should get a double contribution from the levy is a mistake. The argument which has been used is that second-feature films very largely provide a training ground for actors, technicians, et cetera; but I think
390
that that argument is more specious than sound. I do not know of any of the outstanding people in feature film production, whether producers, directors, technicians, or actors, who have come out of the second-feature school. I think that people outside the industry have been over-impressed by that, as I say, rather specious argument. However, the Cinematograph Films Council have blessed the amendment; and, although I think that it is a mistake and a great pity, I am not at the moment opposing it.
With regard to the second amendment, I should say that I am 100 per cent. in favour of the objective that is involved here. In the past, it has been most unfair that films from Commonwealth countries —where, as the noble Earl has said, no reciprocal advantages are given—have been recipients from a levy which is raised entirely from the industry in this country. The question that I want to raise on this matter has partly been answered in anticipation by the noble Earl, but I am still a little worried, as a layman, and not being a lawyer, by the phrase
ߥa company registered in, and the central management and control of whose business was exercised in, the United Kingdom."
I have particularly in mind the fact that for many years—practically, I should think, from just before or just after the First World War—the major American companies have had their subsidiary companies operating in this country, in the early days only as distributors, but in more recent days also taking an important part in British film production. It would be no exaggeration to say that in recent years what might be called Anglo-American film activity has been of supreme importance in the level of British film production.
Now these subsidiaries of the big American companies carry out their film operations here in two ways: partly by financing what one might call native film producers, and partly by making films under their own steam. "If a company —Paramount, United Artists. 20th Century Fox, or Metro-Goldwyn Mayer; any of the well-known companies—makes a film here under its own name, under its own organisation and with its own finance, I should have thought that, from the point of view of the layman, it could well be argued that none of these companies has in fact its central management and control in

391
this country: its central management and control is certainly in the United States of America.
I am quite sure that the Board of Trade and the Government have not in mind to put the status of the production of these companies in jeopardy; and that, like myself, they want these companies to go on either financing or making British films here: but it certainly could be argued that if Metro-Goldwyn Mayer, for example, make a film at their studios at Elstree, the ultimate decision about making that film is made not in this country but in New York or in Hollywood, and to that extent the central management and control is not in the United Kingdom but is overseas. I am quite sure that it would be a profound relief to the British film industry as a whole, and to this Anglo-American production film activity, which is so valuable, in particular, if we could get a reinforcement of the assurance which the noble Earl offered: that this phraseology is not what the layman would read it to be, and that there is no possibility of the registration of these films as British being challenged in the courts on a question of interpretation. As I have said, I am entirely in support of the objective of the second amendment, but I should like to get that point put beyond any shadow of doubt.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Archibald. for his observations about the first proposed amendment. Of course, I appreciate the force of the noble Lord's arguments. He has recognised that this amendment about second-feature films has been strongly asked for by the great majority of the film industry and approved by the Cinematograph Films Council, and it is the money of the industry with which we are dealing. With regard to the second proposed amendment, I, too, like the noble Lord, am a layman, but I do not think that he need be unduly concerned about the position of United Kingdom-resident companies which are subsidiaries of American or other companies, because the definition which I read to your Lordships is taken from the Income Tax Act and it is quite certain that if a company is resident here for income tax purposes, its films will then continue to be eligible for the levy.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONWEALTH DEVELOP- MENT AND WELFARE (AMEND- MENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons read la, and to be printed.

SEA FISHERIES (COMPENSATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Sea Fisheries (Compensation) (Scotland) Bill. As your Lordships will perceive, it is a very short Bill and accordingly needs only a brief explanation. Its purpose is to right an injustice of long standing. For a good many years it has been apparent to us that we have to conserve our sea fishery resources and, to that end, various laws have been enacted, of which two of the principal ones are referred to in Clause 1 of this Bill.
As the law now stands, if a prosecution is levied against the master of a vessel, his gear is impounded as an exhibit in the case. If no conviction follows, the gear is returned to him, and if it has deteriorated in the meantime, he can claim compensation for that deterioration. This applies to the master of a ship like a deep-sea trawler but, by some extraordinary omission, it does not apply to small vessels that fish with seine nets. The omission was not on purpose; it was merely an oversight—and it is to put right that wrong that I present this Bill to your Lordships to-day.
I will be perfectly frank with your Lordships. Very few people will be actually affected by this Bill—only nine would have been affected in the year 1951 and only perhaps two or three in each of the intervening years. But though the number may not be impressive, the hardship that falls on the men in this case is very great. Men who are operating small vessels, with a very short purse, cannot stand any very high expenses. If, at the moment, the master of a seine-net vessel is brought to prosecution, without conviction, and his gear is impounded, his nets will almost certainly not deteriorate. But the ropes (or warps, as they call them), which are nearly two miles long, will inevitably deteriorate, saddling him with a

393
grievous expenditure arising out of the case in which he has been acquitted. Because more and more people are now taking part in the seine-net fishing industry, I feel that this unjust and long-standing anomaly should be righted and I would ask your Lordships' House to give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Tweedsmuir.)
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lords who sit on these Benches I should like to raise my voice in support of this small Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, who has introduced it, has made the position quite clear and I need not enlarge upon it. It seems to me that although this is a small Bill, covering only a comparatively small number of people, that is no reason for leaving this anomaly, this injustice, unremedied, and I have the greatest possible pleasure in associating myself with the Bill and in asking for it an unopposed progress to the Statute Book.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I, too, should like to rise for just one moment to support the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir has brought in. For a number of years, I was closely connected with a fishing community on the East Coast of Scotland. and I am sure that the passage of this Bill will give great pleasure to the people involved. Therefore I should like to encourage its progress to the Statute Book as fast as I can.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything to the very clear explanation of the Bill which has been given by my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would be glad to see the removal of the small anomaly with which the 13111 deals, and which was raised not long ago in another place by a noble Lady with whom the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, is acquainted. The Government are glad to support the Bill.
On Question. Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill be read a second time. This Bill is an even shorter one than that which has just been moved so successfully by my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir. I hope that I shall not detain your Lordships any longer than he did. In the first instance, I must mention to your Lordships that I am a solicitor, although I sincerely hope that this Bill will not have any effect upon me personally.
This is a domestic Bill, which concerns our profession. In the course of time, Parliament has laid upon the Council of the Law Society the responsibility for ensuring that the members of the profession observe certain rules and regulations and subject themselves to the discipline of the Law Society. The object of this Bill is to increase the size of the Disciplinary Committee of the Council of the Law Society—that is, the Committee through which the Law Society ensures that discipline is maintained throughout the profession. It can be increased in size or varied only by Act of Parliament, because it is a Committee which has statutory recognition. It was most recently referred to in Section 46 of the Solicitors Act, 1957, under which the limit of the Committee was fixed at the maximum of nine members.
The Committee is entitled to sit in divisions and the minimum number of members who can sit in any division is three. It has been found, particularly during inclement weather and because of difficulties of travel, that it is sometimes exceedingly hard to man a division when the whole Committee can consist of only nine persons, some of whom—for instance, whoever is serving in the office of President of the Society—are not available to sit upon the Committee. I think that your Lordships will appreciate that the Committee can be manned only by senior practising members of the profession, because they carry out an exceedingly responsible duty, not only to the profession but also to the public whom we serve, and it is difficult to get people of that sort to perform these voluntary

395
duties if they are too frequently pressed to do so. We therefore find it necessary to seek your Lordships' authority for an enlargement of the size of the Committee. Most of the offences I have dealt with are of a purely technical character infringements of what have now become rather complicated sets of rules concerning accounts, and matters of that sort; nevertheless, they are offences, and have to be dealt with by the Committee.
I have reason to hope that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will regard this measure without disapproval. I know that the proposal meets with the blessing of the fairy godfather of our profession, the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls; and I hope that we shall not meet with any opposition from the official Opposition in this House. I shall be grateful if your Lordships will accord a Second Reading to this small but, I believe, meritorious Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Viscount Brentford.)
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, I rise, as a member of the Council of the Law Society, to support the plea made so admirably by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. It is obviously a heavy burden on busy practitioners to sit on this Committee, as we all know is the case with sitting on any Committee. It has been found in practice that the number of nine is too small, having regard to the fact that each division requires a quorum of at least three. During recent months, as the noble Viscount has said, it has been found difficult to man the Committee. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and it would appear to be desirable, in the interests both of the profession and of the public, that the Master of the Rolls should be authorised to appoint to the Committee a maximum of twelve members, instead of the present maximum of nine. Therefore, I also venture to hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading and unopposed approval.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships will accept the assurance of my noble friend Lord Brentford that the Law Society approach the problem of so important a Committee with a due sense of responsibility. As to the composition and numbers, I think
396
your Lordships will agree also that that is a domestic matter on which we should be content to accept the view of the Law Society. We have had that view justified most ably by my noble friend Lord Brentford to-day, and on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I have pleasure in supporting the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESin formed the House that the Opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 10th and 19th February last discharged, and Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
RAILWAY PASSENGERS ASSURANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1aand referred to the Examiners.

GLAMORGAN COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
RAILWAY CLEARING SYSTEM SUPERANNUATION FUND BILL [H.L.]
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.