§ Amendments made: In page 7, line 36, leave out from "which" to "is" in line 37.
§
In line 38, at end insert:
(c) which, being such a claim as is mentioned in section 4(6) of this Act, is made after the expiration of the period of twenty years so mentioned; or.—[Mr. John Morris.]
§ Mr. John MorrisI beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 8, line 2, after "Act", to insert:
other than a claim in connection with a site used by a department of the Government of Northern Ireland".The object of the Amendment is to ensure that claims outside the limit of £million or lodged after 10 years relating to a Department of the Government of Northern Ireland as an operator would be made to the Minister of Power and not to the Northern Ireland Minister in charge of the Department. The Amendment has been agreed with the Northern Ireland authorities.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir Eric FletcherI beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 8, line 9, after "authority" to insert "to such extent and".
§ Mr. SpeakerI venture to suggest that we discuss with this Amendment Amendment No. 37, in page 8, line 10, and the Amendment to Amendment No. 37, in line 10, leave out from "heard" to end of line 11.
§ Sir Eric FletcherI am sure that will be convenient, Mr. Speaker. May I begin by explaining the purport of Amendment No. 37, to which, in a sense, Amendment No. 36 is consequential? I could then at the same time say a few words about the Amendment to Amendment No. 37.
The Amendment is tabled pursuant to an undertaking which I gave in Committee to consider whether the language of Clause 6(3) was entirely satisfactory. I was pressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who pointed out that, as the Clause stood, the Minister of Power would, in effect, be, to use the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words, a judge in his own cause, because no person to whom this subsection applied would be able to establish a claim in a court. The right hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the words
if established to the satisfaction of the appropriate authoritywhich are in opposition to the words "duly established" which appear earlier in the Clause.The scheme of these claims is that there is a liability on operators up to a certain maximum amount and then there is provision that, if claims exceed that amount, claimants should be able to pursue their claims to the Minister. It is not contemplated or intended that such claimants, if ever there be claims in excess of £5 million arising out of one nuclear incident, should be able to sue the Minister, because there would be constitutional objections to that. It is also desirable that the Minister should be able to consider all such claims because, as I pointed out in Committee, there might be cases in which it would be more advantageous to a claimant to have the merits of his claim considered by the Minister, because he might for various reasons not be able to substantiate the claim in a court of law.
9.45 p.m.
My hon. Friend and I have given considerable thought to the best way of meeting the objections raised in Committee. I recognised then that a test which is somewhat less than an objective test is not very satisfactory. Amendment No. 37 would enable either party, either the claimant or the Minister, in the event of a dispute arising, whether with regard to 676 liability or with regard to amount, to refer the matter to the High Court. It will be appreciated that, in such an event, the parties who, presumably, would be heard by the High Court would be the claimant and the Minister because at that stage the operator would no longer be an interested party. His liability of £5 million would, ex hypothesi, have been exceeded and it would, therefore, not be any concern of his to assert himself in resisting a claim of the kind we are now discussing.
I should add that the consequential Amendment No. 36 is necessary because, in the event of claims exceeding £5 million being payable by a Minister, either because he thought it appropriate or because, on a reference to the court, the court thought it just, it would be necessary for the amount due to be provided by Parliament.
As I understand it, the Amendment to Amendment No. 37 in the names of hon. Gentlemen opposite is designed to provide that any determination by a judge on a reference to the High Court should be subject to appeal, presumably to the Court of Appeal. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) will not think it necessary to press it. It might be to the advantage of a claimant or it might be to his disadvantage, because an appeal would be open to either party. We feel that, in a matter of this kind, it would be sufficient—there are precedents for it—that the reference should be determined as a final determination by a judge of the High Court.
§ Mr. PeytonI do not want to involve the House in a long discussion on the point at this hour of the evening, but the Minister without Portfolio has said that there are precedents and I should be grateful if he would tell us what they are. For my part, I feel some prejudice against acceding to a proposition which involves any person coming before the courts in the loss of a constitutional right, namely, that of appeal. This sort of provision should not lightly be written into a Statute, and, before asking my hon. Friends to agree to his suggestion, I should like the hon. Gentleman to give us a little more explanation.
§ Sir Eric FletcherThe nearest precedent is the National Insurance legislation 677 of 1946. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is not a case in which a litigant is in a position to sue a Minister of the Crown. It is not a case in which the Crown Proceedings Acts are applicable.
It is a case in which, as the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) has observed, it is desirable to remove the suggestion in the Bill that the Minister has the last word and, therefore, we sought a precedent for a similar matter. In the National Insurance Act, 1946, there is a provision whereby a dissatisfied person can ask that the matter be referred for the determination of the High Court. As hon. Members opposite will appreciate, this is a reference. It is somewhat different from an ordinary piece of litigation between two parties and therefore the normal rules about an appeal are not really applicable to it.
§ Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen)Any comparison with the National Insurance Acts, although no doubt in form apposite, is surely rather unreal. Clearly, in those cases, where relatively small sums of money are involved—although no doubt very important to the applicant, they involve sums of £50 or £100—it is obviously desirable that there should h a final determination one way or the other quickly.
Here, however, we are dealing with millions of pounds and in such a case it seems wrong to cut down the possibility of an appeal. The actual assessment of the amount, the principles on which an amount as large as that are assessed, must often be a matter of acute legal controversy—far greater difficulties of principle than the assessing of references under the National Insurance Tribunal, important though these are to the applicant. Here we are dealing with millions of pounds. Is it really necessary to cut out the right of appeal for which there is a much stronger argument in this case?
§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin (Wanstead and Woodford)I would have thought that the Government could very well accept the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and others of my hon. Friends and I propose to the Government Amendment No. 37.
Not only is the question of amount involved, as my hon. and learned Friend 678 the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has said, but one has to look at the words of the Government's own Amendment No. 37, for they refer to "any question" that could be referred to the court. It seems to me that this could include questions of law as well as questions of fact.
He would be a very rash man, in spite of the great care we hope we have taken on the drafting of the Bill, to say that there will not be any question of law that might arise as to its construction—as to whether, for instance, a claim was out of time or was made by someone who was not entitled to a claim. These are questions which inevitably the Minister would have to refer to the court and which might give rise to very difficult points of construction.
It would be wrong in these circumstances to say that a decision of the High Court or the Court of Session, whichever it may be, is final and that the claim cannot go any higher—cannot, in fact, go to the Court of Appeal. This seems to me to be a point of considerable substance and some constitutional propriety.
One might be tempted to say that, if one litigated against the Crown and then the Crown passed retrospective legislation annulling the decision, one might as well stop at the High Court and not go to the House of Lords, but I hope that consideration will not be involved in the Bill. This is an important point and I hope that the Minister without Portfolio will give very careful thought to it and perhaps accept our proposed Amendment to Amendment No. 37.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. SpeakerI would at this point ask the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) whether he desires me to call his proposed Amendment to Amendment No. 37 separately. If he desires, I will do so, but not otherwise.
§ Mr. PeytonI do not wish to make difficulties, Mr. Speaker, but I would be obliged if you would call our proposed Amendment to the Amendment separately because I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio one or two points on it.
§
Amendment proposed: In page 8, line 10, at end insert:
(4) Where in pursuance of subsection (3) of this section a claim has been made to the
679
appropriate authority, affecting the establishment of the claim or as to the amount of any compensation in satisfaction of the claim may, if the authority thinks fit, be referred for decision to the appropriate court, that is to say, to whichever of the High Court, the Court of Session and the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland would, but for the provisions of this section, have had jurisdiction in accordance with section 7(1) and (2) of this Act to determine the claim; and the claimant may appeal to that court from any decision of the authority on any such question which is not so referred; and on any such reference or appeal—
§ Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
§ Mr. PeytonI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from "heard" in paragraph (a) to the end of the proposed Amendment.
I do not want to press this matter, but I believe that the arguments which my hon. Friends have adduced are important. I have the strongest and most rooted prejudice to putting words like these into a Bill without very careful thought. I accept that there may be precedents. The Minister has produced only one, that of National Insurance, which, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has said, is important but not on a comparable scale. I do not want to disturb the House at this hour of the night and I shall be content if the hon. Gentleman will say that this matter will be further considered when the Bill goes to another place.
§ Sir Eric FletcherI want to be perfectly frank with the House about this. This is not a matter which divides the parties on any political issue. It is a matter on which the House should come to a decision in the light of all the relevant circumstances.
There are two other factors which the House should know and which induced us to put down the Amendment in this form and not to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. I observed just now that this is not an ordinary case in which a claimant can bring an action as of right against the Minister. It is a reference. It is a provision in response to the Opposition's suggestion that the Minis- 680 ter's decision itself should not be final. We now provide an independent review of the Minister's idea as to what is just.
Therefore, it is something which will have to be governed by rather special rules of court. The House should know that in the rules of court as they stand at the moment there are provisions for references of this kind to be made. The rules of court are now under review. Although no final decision has been taken, I understand, it is highly likely that in the review of the rules of court which is taking place provision will be made for references of this kind to go not to a single judge, but to the Divisional Court. That, of course, would make it less necessary that there should be an appeal.
The other consideration which has weighed with us is that it might well be to the advantage of the Minister that there should be an appeal. One cannot argue this on the footing that an appeal will necessarily be advantageous to the claimant. It may well be that the Government ought to take the view that the Minister should be protected against a possible adverse decision by either one judge or the Divisional Court and have an opportunity to appeal to the Court of Appeal. I am very sensible of that argument. If hon. Members opposite feel strongly about this, I will certainly give an assurance that I will consult my noble Friend and the other Ministers interested and reconsider the matter.
§ Mr. PeytonI am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is most helpful in these matters and I gladly accept that assurance. His suggestion that the rules of court may be being amended in a way that would make the present provision more acceptable is an argument which could be used in support of the view put forward by my hon. Friends and myself. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The position now seems to be almost analogous to the case in which the Inland Revenue might suggest that its cases should be referred to a judge of first instance and that thereafter there should be no appeal. This is something which the taxpayer might find highly unacceptable.
§ It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned.
681
§
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Nuclear Installations (Amendment) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr Sydney Irving.]
§ Mr. PeytonI do not wish to prolong my remarks, and perhaps I may end with this postcript. In the last resort, I have no overwhelming or rooted objection in principle to justice being done to Ministers.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
§ Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.