§ House in Committee (according to order).
§ Clauses agreed to.
§ Schedule.
*THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, the first Amendment which appears is one standing in 726 I propose, on page 11, after line 40, to insert as an addition to Scale 2 certain railways with certain maximum rates for conveyance and certain maximum scales attached to them, and a certain Amendment follows which has reference to another class. I was considering whether I could put these Amendments before your Lordships more clearly by putting them together or by taking them apart, and I think, seeing that the subject-matter is of some complexity, it will be probably more convenient if I take the first one first. And my noble Friend near me (Lord Belper), who was also on the Standing Committee, will explain to your Lordships the circumstances under which we propose to insert the second. With regard to the first Amendment of mine, the effect is to restore the Bill to the same condition as it was in when it left the Joint Committee, and I propose the Amendment chiefly for this reason, that I should like to know what are the reasons why these railways have been removed from the scale in which they were placed when it left us, and why they have been placed in another scale. I may explain to your Lordships that the schedule as it left the Committee was the schedule as originally proposed by the Board of Trade, and as confirmed by the Standing Joint Committee after careful examination. Perhaps I ought to explain to your Lordships that certain portions of the London and North Western it was necessary should have rates for conveyance and station terminals not of the same amounts as those applicable to the main portion of the line. It was only natural, of course, that there should be certain branch lines and short lines in which the circumstances were so different that it was desirable and, indeed, necessary if justice was to be done that special rates should be attached to them. The Board of Trade in this schedule inserted certain railways, and those railways were the subject of detailed examination by the Committee. I have one remark to make, which is that some of the railways which have been now removed from the schedule were placed there by the Board of Trade, approved of by the Committee, and that no objection was taken to them by any of the opponents of the Bill. They were three in number: The Mold 727 Junction, the Mold and Denbigh Junction, and the Bangor and Bethesda. No reason was shown to the Committee for making a change, and none was made. With regard to the other railways which are mentioned in the Amendment they were the subject of inquiry. Objection was made, and after considerable examination the Committee affirmed the conclusions of the Board of Trade; and I do not think I can put them more shortly to your Lordships than by reading what the representatives of the Board of Trade said before the Committee just before the conclusion of the case, after we had heard all the arguments for removing them and for placing them in the clause, Mr. Courtenay Boyle said this in answer to the Chairman—
I should like to hear what the Board of Trade have to say in this case.and Mr. Courtenay Boyle said:—We had not much difficulty about these lines The present figures are very high indeed; we cut them down to a considerable extent, and we do not see our way to go any further.In all these cases which appear in this special schedule the existing maximum rates were reduced, and in many cases they were largely reduced. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with details, but that is generally the statement of the case. So the Bill left the Committee. What I should like to know now is, what are the reasons why these changes have been made?
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, the statement of the noble Lord as to what has taken place is correct. The scale as he proposes to restore it was in the Provisional Order Bill laid by the Board of Trade upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament. The considerations which guided us were that these special lines had less powers and higher rates, as a rule, than the other portions of the line—certainly the main line. We reduced their maximum powers to some extent, and the figures which were in the Amendments of the noble Lord were proposed to the Board of Trade, and by the Board of Trade to Parliament. Having all the advantages of amalgamation, of a large company, and of an increase of traffic; and the general change of circumstances justifies some departure from the high powers 728 authorised by the Act of Parliament, the change we made in these high powers did not satisfy those interested in the district who were interested in the trade upon the line, and a strong contest was finally made before the Committee by many of the traders in regard at least to a considerable proportion of these lines. The matter, as the noble Lord says, was very fully discussed and inquired into. Of course, I have not the full knowledge that he has of what went on when the Committee were deliberating on their judgment, I only know what the effect of their decision was. Their decision was, as he-says, to confirm the action of the Board of Trade. Those who were interested in the matter were not satisfied with that decision; in fact, as far as information reaches us, very considerable dissatisfaction was caused, both by our action and by the action of the Committee, in the districts of North Wales which were chiefly concerned. That feeling culminated in several Amendments being proposed in the House of Commons on this part of the schedule of the London and North Western Company's Bill. Those Amendments were considered very carefully by the President of the Board of Trade, and in the last resort he accepted the proposal to strike out the clauses from the special scale which are now the subject of the noble Lord's Amendment. I am authorised especially to say to the House that that Amendment was only consented to by him after he had consulted the three Members of the House of Commons who were members of the Committee. He authorises me to say that he had their full assent to the changes-which are now the subject of discussion. We are now in this position. The matter is being inquired into, and when it goes back to the other House of Parliament Amendments are made there upon the representation of those locally interested. They are accepted by the President of the Board of Trade—upon that they are confirmed without any protest on the part of the Railway Companies by the other House of Parliament. I am afraid that under those circumstances, in spite of what the noble Lord has said, I cannot willingly consent to the re-insertion of the lines of railway on the higher scale exactly 729 in the form in which they have been deleted by the other House of Parliament. I do not deny that the effect of the Amendment may be to cause some decrease of charging power and some decrease of revenue to the Railway Company; but under all the circumstances, with, perhaps, the possible exception of the Mold and Denbigh Junction Railway, which is not an owned railway, but is worked by the Company on an arrangement with the Great Western, I am afraid I cannot consent to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
§ *LORD BELPERAs a Member of the Joint Committee of both Houses I should like to say one word upon this question, and before doing so I should like to repeat what has been stated by the noble Lord near me, as a member of that Committee that in anything I say in this House I am simply speaking as a Representative of this House upon that Committee, and, as far as possible, I shall give expression to the views of the Committee upon the different cases which were brought before it. I am aware that in a matter of such great difficulty and complexity as this, it is impossible that any Committee can claim infallibility upon such a subject, and, therefore, if good cause is shown for saying that the Committee came to a wrong decision, I can only say, person ally, I should be willing to accept it, as would, I am sure, any other member of the Committee also. But with regard to what fell from the noble Lord, there are one or two other points which re quire clearing up. In the first place, be stated that three members of the Committee in the other House had assented to the alteration proposed by the Board of Trade—
§ *LORD BELPERAt all events, they assented to the Amendment to which consent was given by the Board of Trade. Of course, it was quite impossible to know under what circumstances that assent was given, but I am sure I am right in saying that there was no division of opinion in the Committee when they came to their decision. With regard to the points themselves, there are certainly two which require consideration. One of them has been touched upon by the 730 noble Lord who moved this Amendment, which is that the traders themselves, who were represented by a large number of Counsel before the Committee, moved no Amendment as regards certain of these lines which have been now struck out of the special scale by the Board of Trade. That is to say, as far as assent is given by silence; and when you sit for 48 days upon an inquiry you may naturally suppose if no Amendment is moved that consent is given by silence. So far as three or four of these Railways went they did assent to being put in the special scale, and did not ask the Committee to put them in the lower scale of the North Western Bill. There is another point which I think also requires some consideration. In the original scale as proposed by the Board of Trade, and as sanctioned by the Committee, several of these Railway Companies appear at different rates. Although they are in the Scale 2, they are not in the same rate in Scale 2. Three of them have a rate given them of 1.25d.—1¼d. per mile—two of them 1.50 or 1½d. per mile, and two of them have 2d. per mile. By the action taken in the other House, the result is that all these railways with all these different rates affixed to them, after inquiry by the Board of Trade and assented to by the Committee are all put down into one scale with the same rate. Therefore, as a matter of fact, while you are reducing one part of the railway by something like 50 percent., you are reducing another by 30 percent., and another by something like 20 per cent. I think this original scale having probably been fixed on some principle it requires some explanation to show why they are not now reduced to the same scale or principle, but are all reduced to Scale 1 of the schedule. I quite understand an answer might be given to that if it was proposed to strike out the whole of Scale 2; but that is not proposed. A large number of railways are put in at different figures, and, therefore, there would be no difficulty in reducing the rates from those given to the Committee if the Board of Trade think them too high, putting them at a fair reduction, each on its own merits. I must say for myself I feel considerable sympathy with the case of those small traders who have to compete on small lines in many cases 731 with other traders who may have exceptional advantages, and I am sure neither the Committee nor the Board of Trade would wish to press hardly or to express their opinion too strongly as to the rate at which this small traffic should be carried. But I venture to think, at all events, if the noble Lord does not accept the Amendment which is proposed by my noble Friend that there is at least some room for a fair settlement of rates between what has been fixed by the Committee and what has been finally fixed by the Board of Trade after putting them into the schedule, and I hope, at all events, if that is not assented to, I shall have some reasons given in answer to the two points which I have mentioned with respect to those different classes being treated in the same way, and also to the effect that no Amendments were moved upon them.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThere is no doubt considerable force in what the noble Lord has stated as regards the railways which were not the subject of opposition before the Committee, and I think perhaps the Mold Junction to Mold and Coed Talon and the Mold and Denbigh Junction Railway might be re-inserted. I have great hesitation in going further than that, in consequence of the unanimity of the decision which was given in the House of Commons, and, my Lords, I certainly feel that both the President of the Board of Trade and myself are placed to some extent in a difficult position by the different views given by various members of the Committee in the two Houses. I have nothing to find fault with, as far as principle is concerned, in the remarks which the noble Lord upon the Front Bench uttered a few moments ago. I should say, as a rule, the principles which he uttered were sound. I have very great hesitation in accepting an Amendment in the form in which it is moved, which would have the effect absolutely of re-inserting the scale, as it was left out as a whole by the House of Commons, because I think in these matters when an amendment is accepted by the President of the Board of Trade, and it is confirmed by a unanimous decision of the Members of the House of Commons' Committee, it is unwise in this House at this stage of the proceedings to re-insert the Amendment 732 in the form in which it was deleted in the House of Commons. If there was any proposal short of that which the noble Lords could make, I should be glad to accept it subject to consideration.
*THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, I very much wish the noble Lord had been able to give us some reasons which actuated those who proposed this Amendment, because I have looked at the reports in the newspapers. I am bound to say the speeches were not reported at great length; but whatever may have been said with regard to the Amendment at the Board of Trade or in private, I did not myself observe that the members of the House of Commons Committee made any speeches in the other House. But I quite recognise the difficulty; and, as far as those small railways which are mentioned are concerned, of course it would meet my point completely as far as these railways are concerned if their names were omitted from the Bill. But the truth is that the case of all these railways with one exception, the Chester and Holy head, is peculiar. All these other railways are very peculiar. They are little, short, mostly slate lines, which carry slate down and coal up, and the coal is the rate which comes under Class A, the class which we are now discussing, and it is, of course, with regard to that particular matter that I am now addressing your Lordships. I, of course, am under the difficulty that I do not know what the reasons were which were advanced for making this change, and, as far as I remember, in the Committee we were perfectly unanimous upon the subject. I have not got the Divisions with me, but to the best of my recollection there was no division of opinion among us upon this subject. As the noble Lord was so good as to say he might possibly consider a further Amendment if suggested, I should be, of course, perfectly ready to accept what he has been so good as to give me upon this point, and I would make this further suggestion to him, with regard to the line from Carnarvon Junction to Afonwen Junction, that, instead of 2d. as it is proposed, and also with regard to the Chester and Nantlle branch, and to the Chester and Holyhead line—that is the long line—and the Bangor and Bethesdaline, as to which the 1.50d. 733 is proposed, to make the best of a bad business be should give me 1.25d.—that is 1¼d., which is not a large concession in the direction in which the Amendment is made. If he will consider that before the Report, I shall be ready to leave the matter for his consideration. But I wish to press once more upon him, and upon the House, that this matter did receive very careful and thorough consideration. These small railways have special and peculiar features, especially the Chester and Holyhead line, which, as the House knows, is a very expensive line to maintain; it was a very expensive line to make, and it has specially high rates. If we cut down that rate, which, I think, is now 2d. up to 15 miles, and, after that, 1½d.—if we cut that down to 1¼d.—and now I am only speaking of maximum rates—I think your Lordships will have made a very large change in the direction of the traders, beyond what was made by the Committee.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThere seems to be considerable complication and difficulty here. The Members of the Committee now speak with different voices to those with which apparently they spoke elsewhere. From private information—if I may refer to that—I rather think the Chairman of the Committee takes a different view from what was taken by the Members of the House of Commons. I think, on the whole, the wisest proposal is that made by the noble Lord as a compromise. If it will bring the parties together, that, I think, is the one which it is wisest to accept. I do not feel that we should be justified in simply re-inserting the clause as it was left after the decision of the Committee, but the change proposed by the noble Lord seems fair and reasonable, and I should be disposed to advise your Lordships to accept it.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThe effect of that will be that the Mold Junction to Mold and Coed Talon, the Carnarvon and Llanberis, the Carnarvon Junction to Afonwen, the Nantlle branch, the Chester and Holyhead, and the Bangor and Bethesda, which are all in one bracket, will be at 1.25d. That will go in at line 34, page 11.
§
Amendment moved,
In page 11, after line 40, to insert as an addition to Scale 11., the following railways,
734
all at a maximum rate of conveyance per ton per mile of l.25d., and the maximum terminal station rate of 3d;—
| — | Maximum Rate for Conveyance per Ton per Mile. | Maximum Station Terminal at each end. |
| d. | d. | |
| Mold Junction to Mold and Coed Talon | 1.25 | 3 |
| Carnarvon to Llanberis | ||
| The Mold and Denbigh Junction Railway worked by the Company | ||
| Carnarvon Junction to Afonwen Junction Nantlle Branch | ||
| Chester and Holyhead | ||
| Bangor and Bethesda |
§ —(The Earl of Camperdown.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ *LORD BELPERMy Lords, the next Amendment which my noble Friend has asked me to move is, not absolutely but very much, a consequential one upon the Amendment which has just been accepted. The Amendment as placed upon the Paper is, of course, to replace the rates as fixed for these short railways for Class B. as they were fixed by the Joint Committee of both Houses. But at the outset I must admit there is a difference, in one respect, with regard to the B class—that the Board of Trade did not insert any second Schedule in respect to the B rates, although they do so with regard to the A rates. With regard to that, I should like to point out the difficulty the Committee were in if high rates are given in a special class, for Class A, and then if no high or special rates are given in Class B for the same railway. The effect is that if 735 that is done, as in many cases it has happened, the actual rate in Class A for inferior articles is higher than the rate in Class B, which is for articles not in the rough, but which are slightly manufactured. For instance, to take an actual case in point on this railway: Clay in bulk is carried in Class A; and if the rate of Class A was put higher than in B, the rate for clay would be higher than the rate for bricks in B, which would be obviously an anomaly. I would just state what took place in the Committee with regard to Class B. The gentleman who gave evidence with respect to this particular class' in favour of not having any special rates was a Mr. Darbishire. Mr. Darbishire, in his evidence, asked that the high rates which the Railway Company proposed to move should not be accepted; and perhaps I ought to state that the North Western Railway's original proposal was for 2d. per mile. Mr. Darbishire objected to that; but he admitted in his evidence, which I could quote if it were necessary, that he thought the Board of Trade figures, as placed in the first scale for Class B, were "too tight," to use his own words, and that it did not even give enough latitude for the Railway Companies. Therefore, we had here a trader opposing the Amendment of the Railway Company, and admitting himself that the Board of Trade figure was not sufficient to give the Railway Company a fair remuneration for the traffic they have to carry. Mr. Darbishire gave his evidence in a very fair way, but it was the end of the sitting; and on the next occasion when the Committee met Mr. Darbishire was not present. After some discussion the London and North Western Railway Company then modified the proposal they had made. The London and North Western Railway Company originally asked for 2d. per mile. They then modified their proposal and asked for 1¾d., and then they modified it still further by saying they would accept for long distances over 20 miles 1¼d. Upon that the counsel who represented Mr. Darbishire was asked whether he accepted that. He stated he could not actually accept it, because he was not authorised, his principal having gone away, but he offered on his part to take 1½d. on the 736 short lines, and 1¼d. on the Chester and Holyhead line; and, therefore, as will be seen, he actually offered himself, for Mr. Darbishire, who also represented the other traders, a higher rate for the other Railway Companies than is now proposed by the Board of Trade. I remember the discussion which took place; and my strong impression is, if Mr. Darbishire had been able to be present, a compromise might have been arrived at which would have been satisfactory to both parties. Unfortunately he was not, and the Committee had to decide; and after full con sideration they accepted the modified proposal of the Railway Company of 1¾d., with a lower rate on the Chester and Holyhead for the longer distances. I ought also to state, and I ask the noble Lord's attention to this, that although Mr. Boyle had opposed the 2d. rate, when he was asked the question whether he any longer opposed the proposal of the London and North Western he said "We oppose the 2d. We no longer oppose the 1¾d.; but if the Committee are satisfied that it would be better to have two distances, we shall not make any strenuous opposition to that." Under those circumstances, seeing that the representative of the traders himself offered a higher rate than has now been fixed in the other House, seeing that the Railway Companies made a considerable concession, and that that concession was thought fair by the Board of Trade, I think that following the precedent now arrived at in Class A, that, as a fair arrangement, something between the two rates might be a reasonable one. My Amendment is to put back the scale as it was fixed by the Committee; and if the Board of Trade see their way to making the concession in any modified form, I would, if necessary, modify that proposal.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI do not think this stands in the same position as the last. The noble Lord has very fairly said this was put in by the Committee and not by the Board of Trade. That makes a considerable difference as far as the position of the Board of Trade in the matter is concerned. I cannot accept this Amendment, and I do not think the authority 737 of Mr. Darbishire in this matter will quite bear all the strain which the noble Lord seeks to put upon it. He will not dispute this at any rate—that the Amendment which stands in his name, or a modification of it down to 1.50d., is such as would be higher than Mr. Darbishire or his counsel assented to when the Committee was sitting.
§ *LORD BELPERMr. Darbishire offered 1.50d. for the short lines, and 1¼d. for the Chester and Holyhead.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHAs far as the Chester and Holyhead is concerned, I do not think Mr. Darbishire can be accepted as a representative of the traders upon a great line of that kind. It is quite likely, if Mr. Darbishire had made the offer for one of the small lines, it might have been accepted.
§ *LORD BELPERI am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think he will find that 1¼d. is the figure already in the Schedule.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHAnd for that I understand he claims the authority of Mr. Darbishire or his counsel.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThen I misunderstood the noble Lord. What I wanted to point out was that the Chester and Holyhead is really the main line of the North Western. It is upon that, really, that the great through traffic runs between Ireland and the North of England. All that traffic goes over it. When we considered this matter we did not think it necessary to put in a special scale for Class B as regards the Chester line; and I must say, as far as that is concerned, that remains my opinion at the present time. Upon the other matter, I know, as a matter of fact, that since the decision of the Committee was given Mr. Darbishire has taken means to pro- 738 test against it to various Members of Parliament, and I have no doubt his protest had some effect in the deletion of the scale in the other House. As I have already said, this was not a proposal made by the Board of Trade in laying the Bills upon the Table in Parliament, and I am sure the Committee considered it with every care. As I have said before, the Members of the Committee in the House of Commons seem to have taken a different view. As it was not the original proposal on behalf of the Board of Trade, I should not be acting consistently were I to hold out any hope of accepting the Amendment with regard to Scale B.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI do not understand that the noble Lord has taken sufficiently into consideration, or, at all events, I doubt whether the House thoroughly understands, how very large the effect of this Amendment is. The striking out of these lines, from Scale II. has this effect that they reduce for the future the charges which the railways are entitled to make under Class B to 1.25d. for the first 20 miles; to 1d. for the next 30 miles; to 0.80d. for the next 50 miles, and for the remainder of the distance to 0.50d. My Lords, you must give due weight to what are the existing maximum charges of the railways at the present time. I do not at all say that it is a conclusive argument, or that it is the only element to be considered in the case; but, at the same time, it is one of the elements which the House is in fairness bound to consider. Here are-the present rates for these lines: The Chester and Holyhead has up to the first 15 miles the right at the present time of charging up to 2½d., and after that 2d. You are going to give it 1.25d. for the first 20 miles, and then after that it falls to 1d. and below that figure, or, in other words, a reduction in the maximum rate of 50 per cent. or more. Exactly the same remark applies to the other lines. The Bangor and Bethesda is precisely in the position of the Chester and Holyhead. Then follow three more lines with at present the maximum charge of 2½d.; then there are two more 739 which are in the same condition. I believe there is one which has a maximum rate of 3d.; and all these are going to be cut down to figures running from 1¼d. downwards. I think the noble Lord was perfectly accurate in saying just now that the Board of Trade did not in the first instance propose any special scale for this; but Mr. Darbishire, the only witness who appeared against this proposal, distinctly stated that this proposal of the Board of Trade is "too tight "—that was his own expression—and he said he certainly thought they ought to have something more than was proposed by the Board of Trade. Then his counsel the next day said: "I think if you take 1½d. upon the short lines "—and most of these lines are small; in fact, all of them are small except the Chester and Holyhead—" and 1¼d. on the Chester and Holyhead that would be fair." It was under consideration for some time, and when finally it came under the consideration of the Board of Trade they did not oppose it. Having heard the whole discussion, either Mr. Courtenay Boyle or Lord Balfour being generally there, they said, "We oppose the 2d., but we do not oppose the 1¾d.," and these figures were put in. If the noble Lord will not go the length which my noble Friend asks; yet, at all events, I would ask him to consider whether, seeing what you have done in Class A, it does not follow almost as a necessity, and, further than that, whether it does not follow as a matter of justice, that you should give some special charges for these lines under Class B? Slate is almost entirely the article in question here, and, of course, the gradients are peculiar, and the circumstances under which these lines were made are peculiar. I was so successful last time that I am going to invite the noble Lord's attention, and even perhaps the attention of the noble Marquess, who may, perhaps, be in a benevolent frame of mind, to this reduction from 1.50d. or 1.25d. rather than leave the matter in the position in which it now stands, which, I think, is not fair to the Railway Companies. I am not in any way urging this as the advocate of the Railway Companies, for I sat 48 days trying to find fault with them, and trying to find fault with the traders; and the result of all my 740 examinations and lucubrations is that if your Lordships sanction this as it now stands in the Schedule you will be doing what is not fair towards the railways.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThe first line in regard to which the Motion is made is the Chester and Holyhead. The noble Lord quoted—we have both quoted—more than once the authority of Mr. Darbishire, and he said quite distinctly that his counsel assented to a small scale on the smaller lines, but what he assented to was l.25d. for the Chester and Holyhead. 1.25d. is the scale now in the Bill, even if this Amendment is not accepted, and, therefore, upon the noble Lord's authority, and for the reasons I have stated before, I really cannot go back from what I have said, or accept this Amendment in any form.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNBut what does the noble Lord say with regard to the other line? He has only mentioned the Chester and Holyhead. The noble Lord will also remember, of course, that the waggons are included.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThere is that difference, certainly, between Class A and Class B; but I am unable to accept the Amendment for a special scale to Class B in any form.
§ *LORD BELPERIt is extremely difficult to discuss details in this House, but I think the result is that the rate in Class A is decidedly higher than in Class B; that is to say, a trader can carry an unmanufactured article in the rough more cheaply than he can carry the same article if it is in a partly manufactured state. Take bricks, for example, which I mentioned before. There is a large traffic upon this line of that kind, and they actually have to carry the bricks cheaper than the clay that is to be made into bricks. As regards the traffic upon the Chester and Holyhead Line, Mr. Darbishire is no authority, as the noble Lord says, because he did not offer anything; bat as far as the small lines are concerned, the Board of Trade are giving less than even the traders are willing to accept.
§ Moved, in page 12, scale 2, after the words ("Cockermouth and Workington") insert as an addition to such scale:
| — | Maximum Rate for Conveyance per Ton per Mile. | Maximum Station Terminal at each end. |
| d. | ||
| Chester and Holyhead | 1.75d. for the first 20 miles, and 1.25d. for the remainder of the distance. | 6 |
| Bangor and Bethesda | d. 1.75 | 6 |
| Bettws and Festiniog | ||
| Bettws Extension | ||
| Dyffws Junction | ||
| Bangor and Carnarvon | ||
| Carnarvonshire | ||
| Carnarvon and Llanberis | ||
| Nantlle Branch |
§ —(The Earl of Camperdown.)
§ On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents 16; Not-Contents 19.
§ Schedule agreed to.
§ Bill reported, with an Amendment.
§ Standing Committee negatived.