Clause 1.—(DUTY OF OPERATOR OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATION.) (Hansard, 11 February 1965)

§ The Minister without Portfolio (Sir Eric Fletcher)
I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "physical hurt" and to insert "injury".
When the consideration of this Bill was adjourned on 22nd January, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary had just begun to move a series of Amendments which the House had agreed to take together. I would now ask the House to consider, in addition to those which were mentioned on 22nd January, Amendment No. 50, in Clause 13, page 17, line 27, at the end to insert: 'injury' means personal injury and includes loss of life;". This could most conveniently be discussed with those which we were then discussing. The House will remember that, during the Committee stage of this Bill, as a result of a long discussion which we had with regard to the words "physical hurt" appearing in Clause 1, I undertook to consider whether, on Report, we could put down some Amendments to meet the points raised by hon. Members opposite.
The object of this series of Amendments is to implement that undertaking. The short effect of them is that we shall avoid the use of the inelegant word "hurt" in the Bill as originally drafted and substitute for it the word which is more familiar in English law, that of "injury", the definition of which is contained in Amendment 50. We also omit the word "physical" and thereby extend the benefits which are conferred by this Bill. I believe that in putting down these Amendments we have gone a long way to meet the objections raised in Committee by hon. Members opposite.

§ Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)
We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for coming so far to meet the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) urged so cogently 669 during the Committee stage. We have some reservations on this whole question, but I understand that it would be better to take those in conjunction with Amendment No. 49, which is not being discussed in this context, but we do welcome the omission of the word "hurt" and the substitution of the word "injury" and the definition of that word in Amendment 50. We think that this improves the Bill to a considerable extent.
I would only ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has anything further to tell us about the unborn child. I think that this is probably best raised on this Amendment. He said that he would be thinking about it and giving us some further clarification. My memory goes back to the ballad of Chevy Chase when we are considering this point: The child may rue that is unborn, The hunting of that day. The unborn child may well rue the nuclear accident, if it is not covered in this Bill. We know that this raises very serious and complicated points, but we should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could tell us what consideration led him to his conclusion. He might also consider the point about the unconceived child, which added to the general confusion on the whole issue.

§ Sir Eric Fletcher
I have given this matter some thought since it was raised in Committee. Two questions were raised. The first was whether, under the provisions of the Bill as it stands, an unborn child would come within the scope of the Bill and be entitled to compensation if, unfortunately, that unborn child suffered damage as a result of a nuclear incident. I am advised that it is not necessary to add anything to the Bill as it stands to enable such an unborn child to make a claim in the unhappy result of that child, when born, suffering injury as a result of a nuclear incident occurring before his birth.
The position of a child not conceived at the time of a nuclear incident but conceived subsequently raises very different problems, as hon. Members will understand. In the first place, I imagine that it would be very difficult in those circumstances to relate an injury to the incident. I express no opinion as to whether any such person could ever substantiate a claim. I would think it 670 very doubtful. But in this whole field there must inevitably be matters of detail of this kind which are far more appropriately left to be dealt with by the judiciary in circumstances which may arise. In my view it is not the province of the Legislature to provide for a whole variety of hypothetical cases which could be imagined.

§ Mr. Speaker
In view of that exchange, I will endeavour to put what I believe to be parallel Amendments, but if exceed the wishes of the House I should be grateful if that might be made known to me.

§ Mr. John Morris
I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, to leave out lines 22 and 23 and to insert: (3) In determining the liability by virtue of subsection (1) of this section in respect of any occurrence of the licensee of a licensed site, any property which at the time of the occurrence is on that … This is a drafting Amendment, and it makes no change in substance. We are dealing with the definition of property on a site for the purposes of exclusion. This Amendment changes the word "a" to "the" to ensure that we are dealing with property on the particular site in question.

§ Mr. John Morris
I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 45, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 2 on page 3.
This Amendment is tabled to make the position of the Atomic Energy Authority in respect of property not owned by the Authority but on its premises identical with that of licensees. The need for it to cover the remote contingency of an incident in connection with one of the Authority's establishments causing damage in another has come to light because of the previous drafting Amendment.