Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 22 January 1987 vol 483 cc1035-46

3.26 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Amendment of 1981 Act]:

Baroness Birk moved the amendment: Page 1, leave out lines 9 to 18.

The noble Baroness said: This is in the nature of a probing amendment. Having reread the Second Reading debate several times, I am even more concerned about the motivations and contents of this Bill, modest as it may seem, than I was before. At first glance, the proposal to extend the period of the franchise awarded by the IBA from December 1989 to December 1992 would appear to make sense. Everyone is for considered judgment as a basis for policy-making, rather in the way in which everyone is against sin.

However, it would seem that here there are other motivations behind the Government's proposal. Between the Second Reading debate and today we have had an opportunity to debate in this House the Peacock Committee report. In introducing the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister said (at cols. 954 and 955 of Hansard): broadcasting is on the threshold of a major period of change and that: time is needed to assess the case for change and to put in hand any preparatory work". He pointed in particular, and in fact almost only, to the major proposals of the Peacock Committee. I think we must remind ourselves that the Peacock Committee's brief was to examine the financing of the BBC. It then rather spread its wings in some areas in an extremely ad hoc way. Many distinguished people with long and valuable experience in television and radio brought this up in the debate on the report in this House.

Some of the most controversial proposals were that there should be competitive tendering for the ITV franchises; that Channel 4 should be given the option of selling its own advertising rather than being financed by subscription from the ITV companies; and the implicit suggestion that in the longer term the licence fee should be replaced by a system of subscription. They were all matters drawn upon by the Minister in order to justify this Bill. Nothing he said, apart from the points on DBS, went outside this sphere. We were told of the importance of assessing the implications of technological developments, such as satellite and cable television, for existing broadcasting services.

The reason many of us believe that we are not so much on a threshold of change as on a precipice is solely due to the desire of the Government to introduce greater and greater market forces into the life of broadcasting in this country, and in practice to squeeze out public service values, with all the consequences for programme standards. Everyone knows that this will be the result.

This Government have made no secret of their belief in and reliance on market forces across great areas of our national life. We have seen and we are seeing now what has been happening in the City and also in the area of takeovers, where market forces are proving to be a very great detriment to a great many of the other values which are of paramount importance. To bring this factor into the very important field of communications which concerns television and radio could be catastrophic. Nevertheless, we accept the fact that the issues raised by the Peacock Committee are important for the future of broadcasting in this country and need some very careful thought—but not only by the Government.

The Government ask for this time to think; three years in which to hold our brow and ponder the mysteries of television, to weigh judicially the evidence, to balance the facts and slowly reconstruct the British broadcasting system so that it is relevant to the next century. I say the British broadcasting system rather than the IBA or ITV structure because there is no doubt that any changes in the character of the independent television system, any diminution in the role of the IBA as a public service regulatory authority, would in the first place debase the generally excellent standards within ITV and then slowly drag the BBC into destructive competitiveness. Unfortunately, this is something which must follow.

The Government are using Peacock only as a basis. It might have been more sensible had they thrown their net wider and were discussing this matter in the context of a very much wider spectrum of view. Some of us would then have more confidence in what is going on than we have at the moment.

If the decision were made to auction off franchises, thereby treating that part of the radio spectrum occupied by ITV companies as so much electronic estate, does anyone seriously believe that the new owners, backed by global wealth and many of them coming from outside Britain—largely Australia and America—would want or even could be made to produce programmes with anything more than the profit line in mind? Does anyone seriously accept that such a new system for commercial TV would see the excellence and range of a company such as Granada? These are questions of basic principle for which we do not need another three years in order to arrive at a reasoned argument.

The same can be said of Channel 4 selling its own air time. Parliament discussed the organisation and character of Channel 4. We knew what we were creating. The debate outside Parliament went on for years. That debate threshed out every line of thought on what the new channel should do, how it should be funded and the importance of relationships between its form of funding and its created success, a success now recognised around the world. We do not need to wait three years to see that for Channel 4 to raise its own revenue would at best compromise and at worst destroy the vital and marvellous creation of our fourth channel. If it works, let us leave it alone—and it has worked magnificently for four years. The same argument applies to the subscription for the BBC.

I am well aware that this particular Bill ostensibly relates only to ITV. But we believe—and I feel very strongly—that, given the organic nature of British television, the BBC and ITV operate within a framework which while it does not generate excessive competition, ensures a certain creative tension. This means that given the way in which Parliament created this dual structure of British broadcasting, it is not possible to change ITV without affecting the BBC. It would be quite wrong for this Bill to be passed without us all being clearly aware of this fact.

To wait is to pretend that we do not know what the arguments are. We do know. It is a matter of whether or not the people of this country would be better served by a television service committed to public service, or a service dominated by market forces. Are we seriously to believe that the Government have not yet largely made up their mind on this matter? If they have not done so it would be very strange and completely out of character with what they are doing in other fields. Their reasons for extending the franchise by three years certainly have a whiff of humbug about them. The Government should have the courage to tell us now in public what they are thinking in private about the future of the IBA and ITV.

I suggest that the Government know well what they have in mind. In asking for three more years for the ITV franchises, they are postponing until after an election decisions which will be enormously controversial and unacceptable to a vast range of opinion in this country. This fact was demonstrated time and again by Members of this Committee during the debate on the Peacock Report. In the unhappy and unlikely event of the Government being returned, they will introduce these measures which will result in a catastrophic effect on television broadcasting in this country.

There has been one important development, direct broadcasting by satellite (DBS). The Government are right in suggesting that we cannot yet know the full implications of such broadcasting. The plan is that the direct broadcasting satellite will be launched in 1989, with the new programme service starting in 1990. It is nice to know that the new consortium is run by optimists. I notice that the press now tend to refer to the early 1990s. One has to accept that probably there will be that amount of delay. Even if the official timetable were met and the marketing of the new service were brilliant, does anyone seriously believe that within one or two years of the service starting the numbers of homes subscribing to the service would be anything other than relatively marginal? Therefore this would provide no real means of judging properly the implication of satellite TV for the terrestial system.

What then of the Government's extension of three years for the ITV franchises when the single most important piece of new information, the implications of DBS, will be missing? The Government and the IBA will still have to make up their minds what to do with the next round of franchises from 1993, well before that date. In fact, if one translates the existing timetable a decision would have to be made by early 1990.

At Second Reading the Minister told us, at col. 956 of Hansard: If the Government decide in due course to make changes to the ITV contract system, these can therefore be introduced for contracts which will run from 1st January 1993". Yet the fundamental decision—the status quo as against auctioning in that particular and important area—would have to be decided well before that date in order to let the applicants know what they are getting into and what they are bidding for. It is difficult to see what we will know then that we do not know now.

I should like to ask the Minister to tell the Committee what are the criteria that will be employed to judge whether or not change in the ITV system is necessary. If there is anything that the Minister has tucked into his brief that goes somewhat outside the Peacock Committee, we should be very interested to hear it. How can the franchise period be extended without undermining the authority of the IBA, whose ultimate power has been its right to remove franchises? Will delay not extend the uncertainty for the future of the ITV companies, without in any way providing some blinding new insight that we have not had to date?

In what ways will three more years change the really fundamental questions raised by the Peacock Committee: that is to say, public regulation as against something called "consumer sovereignty"? If, as I hope they did, the Government took note of what was said in this House on that important debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, they ought to have a good idea of the feelings here. Views were expressed which went far and wide and which are shared by the other companies, by other people, the BBC, and many of the public outside.

Why are the Government so sure that by the time any decision needs to be made—well before 1993—we shall know anything at all about DBS? If by some freak DBS is up and running and commercially successful, we would not have to accept that the use of technology has been allowed to determine public policy rather than the other way round. We would not have allowed three years in which to manufacture a Frankenstein's monster hell-bent on destroying the terrestrial television system as it gained an even greater presence in the homes of this country. "Waiting and seeing" is no way to run public policy.

If we must have this three years' extension when the implications of the Peacock Report appear to be in the Government's mind, and when the Peacock Report seems to have become the new bible of broadcasting, would it not make more sense to recognise that many of the recommendations of Peacock were half-baked, ill thought out, and not backed up by serious evidence? I would repeat, to be fair to Peacock, they were not in their original terms of reference.

The Government are attempting to deal with the future of television and radio on a piecemeal basis: an inquiry here into BBC finance; a Green Paper there on radio; a piece of research on subscription television; a bit of legislation on ITV franchises; and a glancing blow on Channel 4. When is there to be a discussion in which the various points of what is now known about audio-visual culture (as it is now being called), which covers TV, radio, satellite, cable and video, will be treated as a whole within a much wider economic and social context? What is needed is a far-flung inquiry, which would not only take in Peacock but look at a much wider area.

May I also ask the Minister whether, even before that takes place, there is going to be a Green Paper on the television side of the Government's thinking? As we are all aware, there is a joint committee working at the moment under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, I think it is absolutely essential that not only both Houses of Parliament but everybody generally—people concerned in the profession, and the most important people of all, the viewers who are the consumers—should have a chance to consider this matter.I hope that, if we can get somewhere here we can at least alleviate to some extent the unhappy situation arising on this Bill. I beg to move.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I must declare an interest in the question I am about to ask my noble friend because I am concerned in a company which wishes to operate a community radio service. Since this all relates to the general policy of the Government in respect of broadcasting both by television and sound radio, I should like to ask a question of my noble friend in this connection, having duly declared my interest.

Your Lordships will recall that the Home Office, in the late summer of 1985, called for applications by people who wished to operate community radio services. The company with which I was concerned duly put in an application. We were told month by month that we would get an answer some time. It would be next month, and then it would be early in 1986, and in fact we heard nothing until the spring of 1986, when we were told that the whole thing was off, with no explanation and indeed no offer of any compensation to those who had gone to some trouble and expense in preparing their applications.

There have been indications in the press that the Home Office may be coming back to this question of community radio, and there was a suggestion that a statement might be made this month. I do not know whether this matter directly relates to the present Bill, although it undoubtedly directly relates to the Government's whole policy in this matter, and in particular to the handling of it by the Home Office and by my noble friend.

My question to my noble friend is just this: does this Bill have any connection whatever with the Government's thinking now on the future of community radio; and, even if it does not, has my noble friend anything he can tell us about this? On the whole, those of us who have been interested in this project have shown commendable, perhaps even excessive, patience, but I take this opportunity of asking my noble friend, when the Government's general policies on these matters are under dicussion, whether he can help me at all in this matter.

Lord Aylestone

If this amendment is accepted by the Government we should realise that we return to the status quo. That is to say that immediately the Independent Broadcasting Authority—and I say "immediately" because it is going to be quite a long job—have to advertise for 15 programme contracts, find the consortia who are applying for them, and make a decision within a period slightly less than three years.

It could be done, but what would then have been done—if in fact it is done—is that they would have given an additional eight years to the 15 existing companies. If the amendment is accepted, we are thinking in terms of the existing 15 television companies having 11 years in which to function. Here I agree with the noble Baroness who moved the amendment, that there is so much to be thought about, so much to be done, much of it arising from the Peacock Committee, that that sort of period of 11 years is quite unnecessary. Therefore we on these Benches support the Bill.

We feel that a three-year period from 1989, taking us to 1992, in addition to the remaining three years, would be more than sufficient for this Government—and possibly another Government; an election is bound to take place in that time—to come forward with a completely new idea on broadcasting, partly based on Peacock and partly the result of the technological changes that are likely to take place. I do not want to exaggerate, but it is fairly certain that by 1992 there will be two direct broadcasting stations on the air, and maybe three. All I am suggesting in opposing the amendment—and hoping that the Government will not accept it—is that the terrific amount that has to be done should be done in 11 years, not six.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for providing the opportunity—which was seized upon immediately by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as he is entitled to do—to raise matters about which we are concerned. One of the precise problems is exactly what is within the ambit of the Bill. He reminds me, too, that in the context in which applications have been made for community radio, I must declare an interest in being associated with a company based upon the community in Enfield.

My noble friend Lady Birk quite rightly draws upon the opportunity that has been taken between Second Reading and today to examine a little more closely exactly what could be meant by the Bill. At Second Reading the Minister was fair to the House. At col. 955 of the Official Report for 4th December last, he said: The second purpose of the Bill is to leave open the options"— that is a massive invitation for those who are interested in broadcasting and television— for change which could affect the ITV contract system. The most obvious issue here concerns the procedure for awarding the contracts". Later he says: These are … large issues, and I hasten to stress that the Government have reached no firm conclusions on them". The Minister then said: Therefore, time is needed to assess the case for change and to put in hand any necessary preparatory work". My noble friend Lady Birk has, in an excellent manner, trailed a number of thoughts and concerns without necessarily opposing the principles of the Bill. I know she does not oppose the Bill, but she wants assurances on the part she seeks to delete. In the context of our terminology, as she says, this is a probing amendment.

I declare an interest and I am briefed in this matter by the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians—the employees who undoubtedly have a fine employment record, but are also entitled to have an interest in what happens to their jobs and the future of the industry in which they work. They tell me that they are very concerned about some of the things that have been said in relation to changes that might be proposed in awarding the ITV contracts. My noble friend Lady Birk alluded to the competitive tendering or auctioneering of the ITV franchises. This is one of the options to which the Minister did not directly allude, but it clearly is there. I think that the Committee, Parliament and everyone outside in the Community will need to consider carefully some of the detrimental effects that will flow, if that seemed to be where we were going.

My noble friend Lady Birk said that one might substitute a great deal of good that has been part of the package in deciding the award by substituting a purely financial free market criteria. Of course we want an opportunity to look at the balance sheet and money, but we are also concerned for the range and quality of the programmes. I take this opportunity of asserting that bidders for franchises might be less concerned with providing programmes with adequate range and quality. In my view there would inevitably be a deterioration of broadcasting standards. Whoever might be the gainers, whoever might get the contracts, whoever might feel satisfied, I take the view that the losers would be the viewers in this country.

I go further and say that the only gainers, the only winners, would be the media multinationals, Rupert Murdoch et al, who have the financial resources large enough, wide enough and vast enough to buy into the ITV system. My noble friend Lady Birk, in what will be read as a very perceptive speech, draws to our attention that at this moment everyone in this country must be concerned with what is happening and what the Government are encouraging—that is, takeover mania, bigger and better and therefore right. We need at every opportunity—this afternoon at four o'clock on a Thursday is our opportunity—to urge the Government not to think again but to be very careful in what they do in this very important matter.

If we are talking in terms of an ITV franchise necessitating committing large sums of money to an auction, this could be to the detriment of the money that could be spent on programming. I want the Government to look very carefully at the manner of consulting those who are affected. There are all sorts of stages at which confidentiality needs to be respected, but I hope that the Government will do this in as open a manner as possible and include those who are earning their living in, and who have given their lives to, the industry. They are entitled to as much consideration as ever. I hope the Government will not see, encourage or stand aside and watch a casualisation of those who work in the media. We do not want individuals, whether they are members of one union or another—I simply mentioned one union—to feel that they are being casualised. The Minister and his advisers are well aware of what we are talking about.

References have been made to access for independents to ITV. I am not opposed to the principle, but reference has been made in some of the documents to access for independents to television. A whole range of specific and solid guarantees is required in advance to protect the interests of permanently employed staff and to prevent casualisation. We think that the Government should use these next three years seriously to discuss with many individuals what is to happen.

Those who are far more well briefed than the noble Lords, Lord Aylestone and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, are, with great respect, from their deep, long and committed association, well aware that no change of the size we are contemplating has ever previously taken place without long, open and public debate. My noble friend Lady Birk, I think quite rightly, poured scorn upon the totality of the wisdom contained in the Peacock Report. That report was an essay which was brought forward. The Government were frightened at the time about what it meant and kicked it into court. I think the Government should reflect seriously before we rush too far into a great many of these matters.

I believe that the Government should reveal as early as possible what they intend to seek in these matters. My noble friend Lady Birk has provided the Government, the Minister and his advisers with a good opportunity to be frank with Members in all parts of the Committee, who are not, as I see it, in a mood to deny passage to the Bill, but who want to be satisfied that the interests that need to be protected and reserved are given every opportunity. Make no mistake about it, at the end of the day in many people's minds, it will be the weight of money, pressure and influence.

There are others in this Committee, among whom I count myself, who are deeply concerned at the quality, the good name, the reputation which British television on all channels has enjoyed so far. The Government and the Minister have an opportunity at least to assure us that they are listening very carefully to what we are saying.

The Earl of Selkirk

May I ask my noble friend whether he thinks it wise to use an abbreviation in an Act of Parliament which is not absolutely understood by everybody? It certainly was not understood by me, though naturally that shows my ignorance of these matters; but I think it is an undesirable practice which perhaps the noble Lord will look at very carefully.

4 p.m.

Lord Beaverbrook

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken so far in this Committee. Before talking about the detail of the noble Baroness's amendment, perhaps I should respond to some of the broader points that she has made and try to reassure her of the Government's intentions in this matter.

In moving her amendment, the noble Baroness suggests that the Government propose to take decisions on Peacock issues in isolation and perhaps on a piecemeal basis without taking proper account of other views. That is not the Government's intention, and it is not the purpose of this Bill. The Peacock Committee raised a number of issues which go to the very heart of the present arrangements for British broadcasting and how they might develop in the light of far-reaching technological change. Technological change is happening every day. It affects all our lives, and we have to try to make the necessary arrangements to take account of these changing circumstances. Despite the noble Baroness's suspicions, the Government have not made up their mind in any way on those issues, and have made it clear how much they welcome public debate.

The IBA agrees that a three-year period for the issues to be clarified and settled is a sensible length of time. If the noble Baroness's amendment is accepted, it will not be possible to reflect any changes in the wider world of broadcasting before 1998. That would clearly not be a sensible way of proceeding.

If I can now turn to the details of the noble Baroness's amendment, the effect of her amendment is to omit Clause 1(3) of the Bill. This clause limits new ITV contracts from 1st January 1990 to three years. Taken together with the Government's intention, if Parliament agrees to the provisions of the Bill to implement Section 46 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 (which will relieve the IBA of the obligation to advertise the shortened round of contracts), Clause 1(3) will in effect provide a three-year extension of the existing contracts of those ITV companies who wish to apply for them.

As the Committee well knows, the Peacock Committee thought that the contracts procedure should include an element of competitive tendering, with the possibility of a longer contract period. But other issues arising from the Peacock Report are also relevant. The Committee proposed that Channel 4 should be given the option of selling its own advertising time, and there is a possibility that some or all IBA services might be encoded alongside BBC services if—and I emphasize "if"—subscription was introduced in place of the licence fee. If substantive changes on these lines were to be made, the sensible time for them to be implemented would be at the beginning of an ITV contract round.

The IBA have also put forward proposals for change in the system of awarding contracts. These include the possibility of a longer contract period, with provision for a formal review of a company's performance at specified intervals.

I want to emphasise as powerfully as I can that the Government have reached no conclusions on these matters. These are important issues which could have substantial implications for our independent television services. It is surely right that decisions on the case for and nature of change should be taken with care, with a proper opportunity for relevant interests to make known their views and for detailed consideration of the implications. Of course, there will be contrary points of view, but the Government have not yet reached a conclusion on the balance of any advantage. There is a serious issue here which must not be dismissed. The closing off of all options for substantial change before 1998 would clearly not facilitate consideration of these important matters.

The present contract arrangements are set out in the Broadcasting Act 1981, and any significant changes, whether on the lines proposed by the Peacock Committee or the IBA or otherwise, would require legislation. Bearing in mind that the current ITV contracts expire on 31st December 1989, it would scarcely be practicable to come to sensible decisions and undertake the necessary preparatory work within this timescale. This is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, has emphasised. The fact is that the IBA would need to advertise during this year for new contracts for a maximum eight-year period until the end of 1997. Moreover, activation of these procedures, on what would be tantamount to a contingency basis, while decisions were being taken on a different method of awarding contracts and associated matters, would clearly not be in interests of either the parties directly involved or, I suggest, of independent broadcasting generally. The lead times needed for the production of a high quality television service should not be underestimated. Prospective contractors need to prepare their applications. The IBA has then to consider them. Time must be allowed for a successful new contractor to make the necessary investment and recruitment of staff Account has to be taken of the enhanced role for the independent producers which the Government have explained they would like to see. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, brought up the subject of independent producers. That matter needs to be explored very carefully, as he said very clearly to the Committee.

Conversely, if no provison was made to limit the maximum length of new contracts from 1st January 1990 to a period less than the current eight years, there would be no opportunity for changes to the contracts system—or other changes which might have implications for the contracts system—until the end of 1997. In other words, we should be locked into the existing framework for a further eight years, with no early opportunity of putting into effect such changes as Parliament may in due course judge necessary.

It is perhaps worth emphasising that neither Clause 1(3) nor the Bill as a whole make any substantive changes in the existing contracts arrangements. As I have said, new contracts procedures will require legislation. This Committee will therefore have an opportunity of considering at that time such proposals for change as may come forward. But the Bill also provides that if no substantive legislation changing the award of contracts is enacted by 1993, the IBA would be able to proceed on the existing basis with contracts to take effect from 1st January 1993. The Bill does not therefore commit us to changes in the present arrangements: it does no more than keep options open in a neutral way.

The noble Baroness asked about the DBS service that is due to come on the air at the end of this decade. DBS is an entirely new concept and no services are yet operational. We hope that the service might be beginning in 1989 or 1990, but much will depend upon the time-scale of the contractors in raising the necessary finance and the date by which the satellite can be successfully launched. We should not underestimate the difficulty of this project, and I think we should again bear in mind that technological progress can work two ways. It can hold us back if it is not very successful and it can, indeed, force us to move forward on other matters.

The noble Baroness asked whether the Government would be bringing forward a Green Paper on television. This is an interesting idea which merits deep consideration and we shall bear that approach in mind. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter raised the question of community radio. That is outside the scope of this Bill but I can assure him that it will be a fundamental part of the Green Paper on radio policy which the Government aim to publish shortly. The Green Paper will look at the scope for new radio services at both national and local level, including community radio, which the Government concluded last year could not sensibly be introduced on an experimental basis under existing legislation.

If the noble Baroness's amendment were accepted, the timetable would not permit sensible decisions or offer a real opportunity for fresh legislation. The IBA would need to advertise new eight-year contracts during this year, to run from 1st January 1990. The Government do not think it sensible to let that happen and their view is shared by the IBA, which has also proposed changes in contract procedures. I must therefore ask the Committee to reject this amendment.

Baroness Birk

At the very beginning when I introduced the amendment I thought I had made it clear that it was a probing amendment. I can put at rest the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, because I shall not be pressing it to a Division. I was quite rightly using the amendment as a means of raising the concern that I felt about the Bill.

The Minister stressed several times that the Government have not yet made up their minds, but it still does not alter the fact that on Second Reading—and he has not gone very much further now—it all seemed to be centred on the recommendations in Peacock. The Minister said how much the Government want public debate in order to be helped in making up their minds. If the Government want public debate and really mean it, they must have something to put to people so that comments can be put forward. We cannot just say that we want a big public debate on a subject when people do not even know what is being proposed. One cannot have a public debate on a long report like that from the Peacock Committee. It has to be something more concrete and very much more specific.

I hope the Minister will pass on to his right honourable friend my suggestion of an inquiry, but the only ray of light that I think I got from his answer was his reception of the idea of a Green Paper. I very much hope that he will pass the suggestion on to his right honourable friend because it is absolutely essential. It would also give the Government the opportunity—and the noble Lord keeps repeating that they have not yet made up their minds and are keeping their options open in a neutral way—to extend that beyond what Peacock said.

I do not take the view that everything in Peacock is bad—there is a lot of good stuff in it. However, some of the most specific and important proposals are, quite frankly, not well enough thought out. That is apart from the intrinsic content of them, with which so many of us disagree. That was expressed brilliantly by so many people during the debate on the Peacock Report. I do not think this matter can be taken any further at this stage, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.