HC Deb 02 May 1990 vol 171 cc1167-8
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 118, line 7, at end insert:— `(5) Regulations under this section shall, in relation to any requirement to be imposed under subsection (e) above where there is more than one person who manufactures the substance in or imports it into the United Kingdom, make provision for allocating the responsibility for providing test data on an equitable basis.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 228, 227 and 231.

Amendment No. 318, in clause 133, in page 125, line 10, at end insert— `(2) The following provision of the Act shall come into force on the day on which it is passed, namely— section 128 (application to Crown).'. Government amendments Nos. 232, 229, 230, 296, 297 and 233.

Mr. Bennett

I want the Minister to concentrate on amendment No. 318, which deals with the commencement day for the provision on the removal of Crown immunity. I want from the Minister an assurance about how quickly he will bring hospitals under the control of the legislation. The Minister is well aware that on several occasions I have raised the problem of the disposal of clinical waste in the greater Manchester area and the problems which the greater Manchester waste disposal authority has in getting a plant suitable to deal with it.

The Minister will be aware that from 1 April the disposal authority stopped taking hospital waste and left it to the hospitals to dispose of it themselves through private contractors or by putting it into their own incinerators. He will also be aware that several hospital incinerators in greater Manchester are out of date and do not reach the standards which will be required when Crown immunity has been removed.

Many of those incinerators are old but sadly the incinerator at Manchester Royal infirmary, which is relatively new, will not meet the standards. That incinerator is used to dispose of large quantities of hospital waste and is pumping out noxious materials over the people in the surrounding area. It is ironic that a hospital, which is supposedly there to improve people's health, is causing problems by the pollution which is coming from its incinerator.

I hope the Minister will tell us that Crown immunity will be removed as soon as the legislation receives Royal Assent and that the Government will not delay the removal of Crown immunity, thus allowing plants like that at Manchester Royal infirmary to go on polluting the surrounding area. I will listen with interest to the Minister's reply.

Because of our desire to finish at a reasonable time, I did not get a chance to speak on amendment No. 317. If I send the Minister a note about it, I hope that he will try to produce an answer before the matter reaches the House of Lords. The amendment deals with the removal from footpaths of obstructions which the Ramblers Association regards as nuisances.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

The reason I cannot accept the amendment, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise, is that there is normally at least a two-month period before provisions are brought into effect. If we accepted the amendment, we would have the rather odd position of part of the Bill being brought into effect with nothing to which to apply it. I ask him to accept that two months is the minimum provision for bringing the clauses into effect. It is our aim that that should apply in this case.

Mr. Bennett

May I have an assurance that Crown immunity will be removed two months after the legislation comes into effect?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

Yes; it is our firm intention to bring that provision into effect within two months of Royal Assent.

Amendment negatived.

Forward to