Clause 1

HC Deb 10 June 1985 vol 80 cc697-708

POWER TO MAKE EMERGENCY ORDERS

Sir John Farr (Harborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'or may^ߦ have been'.

The amendment tightens up the Bill. The Bill is imprecise, largely because of the number of orders that will necessarily flow from the Act. There is much discretion in clause 1, which provides:

if in the opinion of a designating authority and, one line later,

there has been or may have been". That allows far too much scope for the designating authority. One of the problems is that the designating authority could make wider use of the powers than is envisaged. Therefore, in all modesty, I suggest that the amendment will improve the Bill. The words "in the opinion of in line 8 give sufficient discretion, and there is no need for a further imprecise phrase.

We appreciate that the Bill must be discretionary in many ways, but we must take every opportunity to tighten it where possible. If the amendment is not made, the designating authority may be tempted to widen the scope of its activity "just in case".

We had an interesting debate in Committee about the possible effects of a designation order, and I shall not dwell today on the possible consequences for smallholders, farmers, horticulturists and others. They could be severely hit if such an order was made at a time when crops were available for marketing. If it was made when soft fruit, such as strawberries, was ready for picking, it could bring financial disaster for the producer.

My hon. Friend the Minister suggested in Committee that risks of that kind could be covered by insurance. I have a later amendment seeking to set up a compensation system to cover cases in which an order is made when no pollution has actually occurred, so I shall deal with the insurance question when we reach that point. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend will accept this little amendment. If the amendment is made, it will encourage the designating authority to restrict its actions to the narrow area affected by a possible event. It will remove the temptation to place an embargo on movements in a much greater area "just in case."

Farmers cannot obtain insurance against such an event and the Government have not yet agreed to set up a compensation fund. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said that she was confident that the Government would make orders only when there had been a hazardous release. If that is so, why do they need power to make orders when there may or may not have been such a release?

Mr. John Carlisle

I rise briefly to support the modest little amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). The four words in question are an important element at the start of the Bill, and then-removal would tighten the Bill and its interpretation.

There is great concern in the industry about the whole question of compensation and insurance—a subject to which we shall return later — and it is felt that the powers and the rules are far too wide. The amendment is both modest and short, but it well addresses the concern expressed. If we wish to ensure that the Bill is accepted by farmers and other trades, we must be conscious of the risk of things going wrong on inspection. The realms of the possible and the impossible have been discussed in the House many times. I believe that this comes within the realm of the possible and that the words in question should be deleted.

Mrs. Fenner

As drafted, clause 1(1) enables Ministers to make an emergency order to protect the public if, in their opinion, there has been a release of hazardous substances or if there may have been such a release. The amendment would narrow the scope for action at the ▪ discretion of Ministers. They could still act if, in their opinion, there had been an escape of a dangerous substance, but they could not act if there merely might have been such an escape. It is difficult to judge the practical effect of the amendment, as any action would still depend on the opinion of Ministers and not necessarily on fact proven beyond all doubt.

I have two criticisms of the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). First, the fact that its effect is uncertain must make it undesirable as law. Secondly, the Bill, as drafted, accurately states the Government's intention. If Ministers believe that there has been or may have been an escape or release of hazardous substances, they have a duty to take steps to protect the public. It is in the nature of the case that circumstances may arise in which they cannot at first be sure—hence the words "or may have been" — but if they are unsure of the full facts but believe that the public may well be at risk they should surely take precautions at once. That is the purpose of the Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough and the House in general agree that that should be the purpose, but I believe that the amendment would weaken that purpose.

I need hardly assure the House that there is no intention of making emergency orders frivolously. The words "or may have been" are not intended to provide scope for Ministers to make orders recklessly or in the light of some remote possibility. Excessive or unreasonable action of that kind could render Ministers liable to challenge in the courts.

I hope that, in view of what I have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough will agree to leave the clause as it stands and not seek to press his amendment.

Mr. John

I think that the Minister's embarrassment about this is largely of the Government's own making because in Committee they resisted the question of insurance so fiercely that the possibility of loss to the individual has become a very large issue. I believe, however, that the two subjects are severable. Therefore, although I agree very much with the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) on the question of insurance and making good losses sustained by individuals, I believe that the Government are right to maintain the fallback position. An almost platitudinous example is the type of event that occurred at Seveso. If anything illustrates the maxim that time is of the essence, it is an occurrence of that nature. In circumstances of that kind, the Government must be able to act on the best information at their disposal rather than having to wait until formal proof is available.

I am therefore willing to support the Government with my voice on this occasion, but there is a price. The price for the Government should be acceptance of amendment No. 4 or amendment No. 7 to indemnify anyone who suffers damage as a result of over-enthusiastic Government demarcation of a possible Seveso-type incident. If the Government offered to indemnify people in those circumstances, I believe that half the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Harborough would vanish immediately.

Sir John Farr

In view of what my hon. Friend said, and in the confident expectation that she will say something entirely different very shortly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8 pm

Mrs. Fenner

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 9 leave out

'a release (whether or not accidental)' and insert 'an escape'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 3, 5, 6, 8, 45 and 53.

Mrs. Fenner

In Committee, I undertook to look again at whether we could reasonably expect the courts to interpret "a release of substances" as including instances where substances had escaped accidentally. I still believe this to be the case, but I agree that it is important that there should be no question of any doubt.

The Government have therefore tabled these amendments which build on a suggestion made in Committee. All references in clauses 1 and 4 to "release" would be replaced by the word "escape", and "escape" would be defined as including the "release or expulsion" of substances whether by human agency or by any other cause". There is a consequential amendment to the list of definitions in clause 22.

Mr. John

I spend most of my time in politics trying to live down the fact that I was a lawyer. As the House will know, lawyers are used to arguing both sides of the case. Having strongly argued that "release" was the wrong word and that "escape" was the right one, I am now tempted to reverse the process and to argue for the contrary.

I welcome the Government's acceptance of my point. This is a prime example of what the Welsh call "bwrw dy fara"—casting your bread upon the waters. I tabled a probing amendment in Committee, and the probe struck home. It revealed a drafting weakness that had to be put right. I therefore welcome the amendment very much and, despite the temptation to argue the contrary case, I must decline that brief on this occasion.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 2, line 14, at end insert—

"escape", in relation to substances, includes their release or expulsion by human agency or by any other cause;'.—[Mrs. Fenner.]

Mr. John

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—

' (4A) The Ministers may jointly by regulations provide for the payment of compensation to any person who has incurred loss or damage as a result of the making of an emergency order in circumstances where no hazard to human health has been created in the area in which that loss or damage occurred.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may discuss amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 38, at end insert—

'( ) Where any person has incurred loss or damage in consequence of the making of an emergency order, and it is subsequently shown that no release of substances likely to create a hazard to human health through human consumption of food has taken place, the designating authority shall pay full compensation for the loss or damage.'.

Mr. John

These are the two amendments tabled by myself and the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) which relate to insurance. We were placed in a difficulty in Committee, in that when we differed we did not do so by halves. On this occasion, the difference was whether insurance was payable when an order was made by a Minister, but where pollution did not occur, or where the area designated was wider than required. Compensation was not provided for, but the Government assured us that this was an insurable risk.

The hon. Member for Harborough and I had differing information at our disposal which showed that such an eventuality was not insurable. I would prefer amendment No. 4, which is not just amour propre, but goes slightly wider than amendment No. 7. It is therefore only right that I should highlight the difference between the two amendments.

Whether or not the polluter can be identified is a separate question. Both these amendments relate to cases where a person has suffered loss and damage because Ministers have made an emergency order that goes beyond what is required. There are two possible scenarios. First, there might be no escape of a harmful substance or no occurrence might be evident. That is always possible so long as the words which the hon. Member for Harborough criticised remain in the Bill. Secondly, an escape could happen, but the area covered by the order might extend further than the area affected by the escape.

As I understand amendment No. 7, it will affect only the first example — where no escape of a harmful substance took place. However, if the Minister made an order covering half a geographical county and loss occurred in the other half, it is right that the same principles should apply. That is why I prefer my amendment to that of the hon. Member for Harborough. I know, however, that he and I are at one on the sentiment behind these amendments.

The Government adopted a Maginot-line-type defence. Indeed, they had three separate lines of defence, any one of which they called on freely.

Mr. Ashdown

I seek some clarification from the hon. Gentleman. He said that his amendment was drafted with the intention of covering a designated area within which damage had not taken place or, alternatively, cases arising from the fact that the designated area was so large that some people were not affected whereas others were. If that is so, the word "area" in amendment No. 4 can be capable of being read in two different ways, and perhaps the word "place" would be better as the Bill uses the word "area" as meaning a designated area.

Mr. John

In fact, we are dealing with a designated area, because the Minister must designate it before the right to compensation can arise. An area must be set aside as having had a Seveso-type escape. A food producer may suffer a loss because of the designation of the area, even though his part of the area suffered no injury by reason of the escape.

There are two possibilities. First, there may be no escape even though the Minister has made an order. Secondly, the Minister could make an order in respect of an area, part of which is not affected by the escape. In my view, both situations are admirably covered by my amendment.

Since we debated the Bill in Committee, my research has shown that in this case the risk is uninsurable. Do the Government agree? All the evidence points to the fact that that is so. As well as being in uninsurable in principle, it is equally uninsurable because of the expense of the premiums. The NFU briefing and Farmers Weekly suggest that the Government have accepted that argument and have moved away frm their repeated assertion in Committee that this was a perfectly insurable risk.

The second defence is that the Government would not lightly make such an order—that they would never make such a mistake. One does not have to be a cynic or to be particularly partisan to know that Governments of all parties make mistakes when designating orders and regulations. If Ministers doubt that, I merely refer them to the social security regulations which were due to come into force on 19 December last but which have recently been declared illegal because the proper consultation procedure was not observed. Mistakes can be made. We cannot rely upon Government infallibility to get us through.

It is said that legal action is possible. I am doubtful about that because if the polluter were sued he would have the defence that the damage occurred because of the Government making the order rather than because of any wrongful act or attitude by him. How, and under what head, could the person affected by damage sue the Government? Would the person accuse the Government of negligence? He could certainly have the order put aside, but that would not entitle him to compensation and it would be of little use in terms of financial loss if all that he could prove was that the order was ultra vires or mistaken. How would compensation be awarded against a Minister who made such an order? The Government made commitments to liaise with industry. What are the results? It is doubtful that a legal action would succeed because such an action would be expensive and speculative. In the two specific cases under which the Government make an order alleging that an escape is taking place when no such escape takes place, or make an order in relation to an area affected by such an escape, part of which is not affected by the escape, the Government should take the consequence of that order. They should say to the people who suffer damage through no fault of theirs—they are the innocent parties whatever view is taken—that they are able and willing to provide compensation. If such a provision will never be used it will cost the Government nothing to concede the principle.

Sir John Farr

I back 100 per cent. what the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said in his usual clear way. There is much to be said for his amendment No. 4 in preference to my amendment No. 7, because his amendment covers what will happen when there has been a release and producers outside the affected area suffer a loss.

I tabled amendment No. 7 as a result of discussions in Committee, when the Minister assured me that such risks by producers when no escape had taken place would be covered by insurance. I wrote to Lloyd's. The chairman of Lloyd's underwriters' non-marine association told me in a letter: I have spoken with a number of my colleagues in the market relative the question you ask and regret to say that the consensus of opinion is that there will be little likelihood of a policy to protect the destruction of goods following an Emergency Order, which subsequently proved to be unnecessary, being available in the Market. One has to say that the market is already struggling with a number of problems as a result of possible pollution losses and the truth of the matter is that it probably has not come to terms with exactly how the cover should be provided following an action or pollution incident. As a result, the thought of providing cover for damage which may have occurred when pollution did not, I believe, is a remote possibility. That clear statement prompted me to table amendment No. 7. The statement destroys the Minister's argument in Committee when she said that such risks were insurable. They are not. I hope that she will accept either amendment No. 4 or my amendment No. 7. If she does, she will gain a good deal of confidence among many food producers throughout the country.

Mr. Ashdown

I support the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and his amendment No. 4. Like the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), I prefer amendment No. 4 to amendment No. 7 because it covers the case when no release has taken place and where a release has taken place when the area designated is wider than thought necessary at the time.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd said that the question of loss to the public was one of the key unresolved issues, and I agree. However, another key issue is involved. I hope that the Minister will agree with the hon. Member for Harborough, because in Committee insurance was a key defence in the Government's argument in favour of not accepting the need for compensation. That is no longer an argument, because such events are uninsurable.

There is a flaw in the drafting of amendment No. 4. The words cover only incidents when no release has taken place. The amendment states: no hazard to human health has been created in the area in which that loss or damage occurred. The hon. Member for Pontypridd means to use the words "at the place" where the loss or damage occurred. I hesitate to take issue with him, but I think that he means the designated area, which might be some distance away. It would be clearer if the words were not "in the area" but "in the place".

Mr. John

If the principle is accepted, it will be easy for the Government to correct the wording.

Mr. Ashdown

I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would say that, because the principle is important. I hope that the Government will accept the principle, because if they do that will reassure the public. I urge the Government to accept the principle, for the reasons advanced by the hon. Members for Pontypridd and for Harborough, because that will strengthen the Bill and make it more reassuring.

8.15 pm

Mr. John Carlisle

It will be no surprise to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to know that I sympathise with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). We are talking about an important aspect of the Bill—as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said, one of the Bill's few omissions. As the hon. Member for Pontypridd said, mistakes can happen. It would be a brave Minister who said that such mistakes could never happen.

We all agree in principle that the polluter should pay, but in many cases—let us not forget that we are talking in the realms of possibility—it will be difficult to know exactly who is the culprit, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough pointed out how such an eventuality could particularly affect soft fruit.

The inspectors may be highly qualified to do then-work, but they may face emergency situations which have never been faced before. Might not an inspector panic and then err on the side of making recommendations which might later be discovered to have been an over-reaction, with the inspector having been over-zealous in his judgment?

As the Minister said when dealing with the previous amendment, the Government wish to protect themselves in this matter, just as we wish to protect the public, but a young, inexperienced inspector faced with a panic situation might recommend the destruction of foodstuffs on a wide scale, when in more measured circumstances such a judgment would not have been necessary.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough pointed out, the possibility of being insured for such an eventuality would appear to be nil. I have little knowledge of the insurance industry. I suggest, however, that somebody somewhere might be prepared to offer insurance, but the premiums would be prohibitive. In principle, therefore, I support the Opposition amendment or the amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough.

We are dealing with a vital part of the Bill. Great concern was voiced in Committee, as it has since been expressed inside and outside the trade. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to allay some of the understandable fears that have been expressed.

Mrs. Fenner

Although they are not identical, the amendments have similar purposes. That in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) would require Ministers to pay compensation where they had made an emergency order as a precaution, though it turned out that no release of substances had taken place. The Opposition amendment would provide for compensa-tion where there may or may not have been an escape of substances but it turned out that there had been no hazard to human health.

I hope that the amendment will not be pressed. Consider, first, the case postulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough where an order is made, even though no escape of dangerous substances has taken place. The case is highly unlikely, but it is conceivable. It is conceivable that some incident — say, at a chemical plant—might lead Ministers and their scientific advisers to believe that the public was or might be at risk. They would then take precautionary measures. The House will agree that that would have been the right course, even if it was subsequently discovered that there had been no danger.

As I said, the case is highly unlikely. It is even more unlikely that the measures involved would be of long duration. It should be remembered that the Bill gives Ministers powers to vary and to make exceptions to meet circumstances. In other words, it is a highly flexible measure. As soon as the true facts were established, the emergency measures would be withdrawn.

In the case that we are considering, the cost could hardly be great. However, that cost would be for the purpose of making sure that people near the incident were safe. No reasonable person could resent the cost and inconvenience of short-lived measures to make sure that people were safe.

The same applies in the circumstances envisaged by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). In the possible case which Opposition Members have in mind, where an escape of substances has indeed occurred but is later found to be harmless, there would naturally be more likelihood that the safety measures would be kept in operation longer than in a case where nothing had escaped. Even so, it would not be long before the investigating officers studying the incident established that anxiety was needless.

In Committee, I pointed out that the Government were discussing the question of insurance with representatives of the insurance industry and that I would say more on that subject. We have not argued that it would be possible to insure against the possibility of measures being taken following an event which caused no damage or against a false alarm—the subject of the amendment—bearing in mind that the Government must still adopt the rule of safety first. But the safety first measures would not have to be of long duration and, therefore, they would not be costly.

More generally on the question of insurance, the Bill does not alter liability for loss or damage caused by an escape of dangerous substances. The responsibility remains with the potential polluter under ordinary principles of law. My officials have had a series of valuable meetings with representative organisations of the insurance industry, and one point to emerge is that, apart from the civil nuclear industry, where there are special statutory arrangements, those who may incur third party liability have already assessed their risks and made appropriate insurance arrangements.

It is true, however, that the Bill may have the effect of increasing the cost of the consequences of an escape of substances, because of measures that Ministers might take under part I, but that aspect should not be exaggerated. The Bill is intended only to make sure that the safety measures that responsible citizens would probably adopt anyway could, if necessary, be imposed by Ministers. It will also enable Ministers to give prompt leadership in an emergency, and the public would probably welcome that, too.

Mr. Ashdown

Assume that there is a fire at a chemical plant with a good deal of ash falling—as in the case of Flixborough—on the surrounding countryside. It might take some days for the analysis of the ash to be completed to discover whether it was inert. At Flixborough it was found to be inert. It might be necessary in such a case for the action to cover a much broader area than, strictly speaking, was necessary at the time. What would be the plight of those in that designated area who had suffered disadvantage or loss as a result of sensible precautions taken by the Government in those circumstances?

Mrs. Fenner

It is possible to insure against the consequences, for example, of fire, explosions, and so on. Such matters might cause an escape of dangerous substances, with the need to take measures to restore safety. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that at Flixborough the dust was found to be inert and could be washed off, so that would not have come under part I of the Bill.

Mr. Ashdown

While the ash at Flixborough proved to be inert, the results could not, I think, be covered by insurance, because no loss or damage was caused by the ash. Any loss or damage was caused by sensible action taken by the Government on a safety basis to ensure that time allowed for the ash to be analysed.

Mrs. Fenner

I am assured that it is possible to insure against the consequences of fire, explosion, and so on— the events which may cause an escape.

Mr. John Carlisle

Will my hon. Friend confirm that one cannot insure against a wrong decision being taken by a Government inspector? That is the nub of the amendment.

Mrs. Fenner

A wrong decision is unlikely, albeit conceivable. Ministers would want to give prompt leadership in an emergency, but that would not alter the measures that needed to be taken. As the Government have already stated, it would be up to business men and the insurance industry to consider, once the Bill is on the Statute book, whether they need to revise their existing insurance. The Government see no reason to alter—

8.30 pm

Mr. John

It is a return to the Committee stage on ice. Having said that the Government realise that the risk is not insurable, the Minister is saying now that it is for the insurance industry and the persons involved to make arrangements once the Bill is passed. As the risk is not insurable, is the Government's maxim to be that the polluter and the sufferer must pay?

Mrs. Fenner

We believe that it is the legal responsibility of the potential polluter. We made that clear several times in Committee. The Bill is not on the statute book. Whatever the actions of insurers would have been heretofore, they will be confronted with different circumstances once the Bill is on the statute book. The Government see no reason to alter their opinion that the courts would regard the effects of an emergency order made under the Bill as a foreseeable consequence of an escape of dangerous substances, and the legal responsibil-ity of the potential polluter.

Again, as the Government have said, the courts could hold the Government responsible for the loss or damage—

Mr. John

In what way?

Mrs. Fenner

The hon. Gentleman asks, "In what way?" For loss or damage caused by an unreasonable or excessive use of the powers in part I. The issue of insurance does not arise there.

Mr. John

The Minister said that if there is no escape, the polluter has created a foreseeable risk and therefore given rise to the order. If there is no escape, the polluter has done nothing. There is no pollution. There is no entitlement to damages that I can discover, although other actions for a declaration against the Minister for wrongful use of power could be taken. It is no consolation to a farmer who has lost £20,000 in destroyed crops to say that he can obtain an order saying that the Minister was wrong if he can obtain no damages.

Mrs. Fenner

I can only reiterate that my advice—it was outlined again in another place—is that the courts could hold the Government responsible for loss or damage caused by an unreasonable or excessive use of the powers contained in part I. There is no issue of insurance there.

Discussions held between my Department and the insurance industry have covered the position of the possible polluter and sufferer. They have shown the need to be clear about what is being asked. Pollution as such is not insurable, and the Government have never envisaged that insurance policies would be likely to give cover expressly against the cost of any measures which might be taken by Ministers at any time under the Bill.

However, as I said to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), it is possible to insure against the consequences of fire, explosion, and so on, and those are the matters which may cause an escape of dangerous substances and consequential measures to ensure or restore safety. I hope that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. John: I

am worried that the Minister should take that line. I do not think that it is a reasonable or fair response. It is merely a reiteration of what we were treated to in Committee. Nothing new has happened. In Committee, the hon. Lady said: It is for the people concerned to protect themselves by proper insurance and the legislation must not interfere." — [Official Report, Standing Committee H, 21 March 1985; c. 55.] I believe that I can speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and other hon. Members when I comment that the Government are saying that in those circumstances people can pay for the pleasure of suffering damage from the mistaken use of Government power. I do not believe that to be right. I should not quarrel with the sincerity of the Minister who made an order, but mistakes should be paid for. They cannot be insured against. I do not believe that the Government and the Minister can seriously pretend that they can be insured against.

If the Minister is suggesting that once there is an Act the insurance companies will take a radically different view, all I can say is that the quality of advice that she has received is not such as to impress me. I do not believe that the insurance companies will suddenly say, "We know that we have said all along that this risk is uninsurable, but now that it is an Act of Parliament it is insurable." It is or it is not a risk. That is the calculation of the insurance companies. It does not matter to them whether it is covered by an Act of Parliament. It may happen once in a million, once in a thousand, once in a hundred years, or never, but it is wrong just to say, "That is too bad," where the Minister makes an order and no escape is subsequently shown to have occurred and an innocent grower has suffered loss from the making of the order.

We are trying to protect people, but we cannot protect people properly by sentencing others to suffer financial consequences which may occur only once in a hundred years. However, once in a hundred years, if bankruptcy is the result, is more than the price that the House of Commons should be willing to pay for the wrongful use of ministerial power.

Mr. Ashdown

I wonder whether I can tempt the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) a little further. If we require the insurance companies to do something when the Bill becomes law, one of the factors that they will take into account will be the nature of the Minister's decisions. In other words, they will have to insure against a wrong decision taken by a Minister. We might reach the ludicrous position where insurance companies alter their premiums according to the views of the Minister taking the decision. Ultimately, they are insuring against wrong decisions taken by Ministers. Premiums might alter as Ministers changed office.

Mr. John

I can understand that with this Government there might be a principle of weighted premiums. The view of the insurance companies will not be changed because we have passed a Bill. They are under no greater or lesser responsibility to guard against the risk when the Bill is an Act than they were before. Their calculation is based upon whether the risk is insurable and, even if it is vaguely insurable, whether the premium is so excessive that it would price them out of the ordinary market. It is clear beyond peradventure that the Government are being unfair and are being seen to be unfair.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 5, in page 2, line 32, leave out 'release or suspected release' and insert 'escape or suspected escape'.

No. 6, in page 2, line 37, leave out 'release or suspected release' and insert 'escape or suspected escape'.—[Mrs. Fenner.]