HL Deb 03 February 2003 vol 644 cc69-82

(1) A local authority may designate any part of the following land in the area of the local authority as land to which this section applies—

  1. (a) a public off-street car park;
  2. (b) a recreation ground, garden, park or open space under the management or control of a local authority;
  3. (c) a path, pavement or highway which is open to public access, whether or not as of right;
  4. (d) an area of land beside a railway under the ownership or control of a railway undertaking, a station or a station forecourt.

(2) The local authority may, when designating any land under subsection (1), provide that the designation of the land shall have effect in relation to one or more of the following—

  1. (a) commercial waste;
  2. (b) household waste; or
  3. (c) industrial waste.

(3) Any person who, without the written consent of the local authority, or in breach of any condition subject to which the local authority's consent has been given, places, or causes or pormits any other person to place, commercial waste, household waste or industrial waste for collection on land which is subject to a designation under this section relating to that type of waste, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(4) Where the commission by any person of an offence under subsection (3) is due to the direction, act or default of some other person, that other person may be charged with and convicted of the offence by virtue of this subsection whether or not proceedings for the offence are taken against the first-mentioned person.

(5) The conditions of consent referred to in subsection (3) may include conditions as to—

  1. (a) the times during which the waste may be placed for collection or period for which the consent is valid
  2. (b) the part of the place designated under subsection (1) where the consent is to apply;
  3. (c) the use of means by which waste can be attributed to any particular occupier of premises;
  4. (d) a requirement for a person to produce on demand to an authorised officer of a local authority or to a constable documentary evidence of the consent; and
  5. (e) any other matter that the local authority has reason to believe will reduce the depositing of waste in public open spaces and on paths, pavements or highways without consent.

(6) A local authority may charge such reasonable fee for a consent under this section as they think fit, and in setting the level of such fees shall take into consideration—

  1. (a) any reasonable costs or expected costs incurred or to be incurred in connection with the administration of the provisions of this section;
  2. (b) the cost or expected cost of enforcing the provisions of this section.

(7) A consent under the section may be revoked and the conditions of consent may be altered by notice to the person to whom the consent was given.

(8) A person aggrieved by—

  1. (a) the withholding by the council of consent referred to in subsection (4);
  2. (b) the conditions subject to which the council give such consent; or
  3. (c) the revocation of such consent under subsection (7);

may appeal to a magistrates' court by way of complaint for an order and on such appeal the court may dismiss or allow the appeal or may vary any conditions imposed by the council.

(9) In this section "commercial waste", "household waste" and "industrial waste" have the same meanings as in section 75 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43).

(10) Any land so designated shall be visited daily, Monday to Friday, by an appropriate collection vehicle."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments relates to a point which was raised in Grand Committee and which, I admit, somewhat widens the scope of the Bill. I believe that it would be helpful if something similar could be put into legislation.

We are all familiar with the problem of a partially developed major site, which has become a casual dumping ground for waste. It might be all kinds of waste. This group of amendments would permit local authorities, using a licensing scheme, to designate particular areas within these sites to try to control this creeping menace. The amendments widen the scope of the Bill because they would permit any type of waste to be deposited within these areas. They provide a licensing scheme, which would be charged on the person owning the land. It is hoped that if something of this kind can be achieved, we can reduce the menace of casual fly-tipping, which in urban areas is even more offensive than it is in rural areas. I believe that it is particularly an urban problem that we are seeking to deal with in this series of amendments.

We believe that they would help. They were lifted from the London Local Authorities Bill. We have tried to change the wording slightly, but I suspect that we shall be told that we still have not got it right and that the amendments are inappropriate in this Bill. The difficulty is that it is almost impossible to find an appropriate slot for something of this kind because everything is too specifically directed in some other way. We thought it worth while raising the matter again in the hope that we might persuade the Minister to give a somewhat more sympathetic hearing and do something before the Bill completes its parliamentary passage. I beg to move.

7 p.m.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

My Lords, we support these amendments. At first viewing they may seem to be rather prescriptive, but the issue of litter is an enormous problem in the country at present. The situation with regard to illegal dumping is very bad and has deteriorated markedly over the years. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, about the creation of more disposable packaging. We believe that this new clause will assist in improving the situation. Some parts of the country are now looking extremely tawdry. I believe that this amendment will lead not only to a tidying up of litter, but of the law as well. We support this measure as it would certainly discourage the dumping of waste materials where they have no place.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, made clear, these new clauses are similar to the ones included in the London Local Authorities Bill in the last Session which were eventually withdrawn by the sponsors.

We all agree that fly-tipping is a serious problem. In fact, I challenge the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, when he said that it is not as much of a problem in rural areas. In some places it is equally serious in both. We do not believe that these particular provisions add anything extra to local authorities' powers to help them to alleviate the problem.

Under Section 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, waste disposal authorities have a duty to provide specified places for residents to deposit their household waste. There are already stringent powers in place to prevent the illegal disposal of waste. Both the local authority and the Environment Agency already have the power to prosecute offenders. In the event of conviction, a defendant can be subject to severe penalties including an unlimited fine or imprisonment for up to five years. The local authority and the agency also have the power to remove fly-tipped waste and to recover the costs incurred from those responsible.

However, we are considering further changes to legislation to tackle fly-tipping as part of the antisocial behaviour legislation and in the consultation paper Living Places—Powers, Rights and Responsibilities. We agree that it is a serious issue but, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, predicted, we do not believe that it is within the scope of this Bill or that it is appropriate to tackle this issue now. We hope that the response to the consultation paper to which I have referred will lead to further action being taken, should that be deemed necessary.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply, particularly for the additional information which she has given that perhaps something might be brought forward in the anti-social behaviour legislation which would help in this area. I always thought that this is a subject which should be tackled and it now appears that it might be, albeit in some other legislation. We await that with interest. The only problem is that inevitably we shall be too late with the new provisions to do anything about the present situation and legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]

Clause 9 [Monitoring authorities]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 45: Page 7, line 30, at end insert— ( ) monitor how much biodegradable waste is sent to landfills in pursuance of arrangements made other than by waste disposal authorities in the area;

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill lays down that a responsible allocating authority must have a strategy for reducing the amount of biodegradable waste that goes to landfill. Unless I have missed something, there is nowhere in the Bill anything which relates to monitoring or controlling non-municipal biodegradable waste. The Bill seems to assume that all such waste is municipal. I doubt very much whether that is so; and if it is not so, we need to think about it.

With differential landfill charges, with inert material charged at £2 per tonne and biodegradable waste currently at £13 per tonne and rising, very often there is a temptation for people to add a part of biodegradable waste to inert waste. That is a separate and serious problem which needs to be covered.

Another aspect, particularly with regard to small traders, is that they give employees black bin-liners filled with waste to be taken home and disposed of as domestic waste for which no charge is payable, rather than for it to be disposed of as industrial waste. There is a question of definition within this Bill which is not adequately covered. If the Minister can give an assurance that all biodegradable waste is municipal waste and that nobody other than municipal authorities has the right to dispose of it, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. I can think of non-municipal organisations which produce quite a lot of biodegradable waste. The Army is one. If they can take the waste direct to a tip, we have a problem. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has identified that there are other sources of biodegradable waste. They are not covered by the Bill, but they are by this strategy. I should like to write to the noble Lord to set out the detail of how it will apply.

This legislation deals with municipal biodegradable waste. We are aware that the Environment Agency currently does not monitor all biodegradable waste going to every landfill in England and Wales. It would be an impractical task to do so, even for solid municipal waste, for which there are more data than for any other broad waste stream. It would still be impossible and extremely costly. However, I shall write to the noble Lord on the detail of how this will be achieved within the strategy as opposed to within the Bill regarding the municipal stream. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's helpful response. We were concerned that there was a possibility for leakage. It is nice to know that that is being considered and I await her reply with interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 [Scheme regulations]:

Lord Hanningfield had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 46: Page 8, line 24, leave out subsection (3).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was related to my earlier amendments. In view of the Minister's statement on the problems of two-tier authorities I shall not pursue it today, but I may return to it.

[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]

Clause 12 [Powers in relation to landfill operators]:

[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]

Clause 13 [Disclosure of information by monitoring and allocating authorities]:

Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 48: Page 10, line 4, leave out "may" and insert "shall

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving the amendment for my noble friend Lord Greaves, who, as I explained earlier, is unwell. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 49. These Liberal Democrat amendments originate from Committee stage. They relate to the sharing of monitoring information about municipal biodegradable waste between monitoring and allocating authorities and between themselves.

The Government say that this will be allowed. We believe that that is not strong enough and that there should be mandatory provision. It is not a major issue but it needs sorting out. In Committee a debate took place between the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, about whether the word "may" sometimes means "shall". Our amendments address that question, specifying in the legislation that such sharing shall take place; that there will be no choice about it; and that it must happen. It should be compulsory.

We believe it is necessary to make such provision because the debate in Committee was unclear—in fact, it could be inferred that trading will not be allowed to take place in some areas. We believe that the use of "shall" would be better. Monitoring authorities will be monitoring just about everything in the scheme, which can be seen in Clause 9.

We would be extremely grateful in the light of what was said previously for a definitive explanation; otherwise we are likely to return to it at Third Reading. I beg to move.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, the information referred to in this part of the Bill may be disclosed between allocating authorities or between allocating authorities and monitoring authorities; that is, between the administrations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland or, for example, between them and the Environment Agency in England and Wales.

By seeking to change "may" to "shall", the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is uncharacteristically trampling over the devolution settlement. A decision will be required by each of the allocating authorities to engage in trading. The regulations governing that trading will be a matter for them. If the regulations permit cross-border trading between. say, England and Wales, it will be necessary to have an exchange of information between the monitoring authorities for each country.

However, before regulations were made permitting cross-border trading there would have to be an agreement between my department and the National Assembly for Wales. They would need to make provision for an exchange of information. In those circumstances, we would be allowed to exchange that information.

If no such agreement was reached or the Welsh authority did not go in for either a trading scheme in its entirety or a cross-border element within that trading scheme, it would be wrong for the Bill to specify that it should disclose to us its information, or vice versa.

Existing concordats between ourselves and the devolved administrations will allow us to act in conjunction as far as possible, but an additional provision making it a duty to disclose in circumstances where we do not know whether all the authorities will go for a trading scheme and what kind of scheme it would be is a step too far. It would not observe the proprieties in our relationship with the devolved administrations. I hope that noble Lord will not pursue the amendment.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. It behoves us to read the details in Hansard and to consider them. I understand his point about the devolved administrations. As a Welsh Member of the House of Lords I am obviously concerned about that relationship. I therefore beg leave withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]

Clause 15 [Registers: public access]:

Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 50: Page 10, line 35, leave out "may" and insert "shall

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 50, which relates to amendments on the Freedom of Information Bill and comes from Committee stage, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 51, which is new and seeks to cover points made by Ministers in Committee.

Clause 15 refers to registers of information kept about the operation of the scheme for biodegradable municipal waste. It states that regulations may be made to allow the public to inspect and obtain copies of the register. We believe strongly that that provision should be mandatory. I shall listen to what the Minister has to say in relation to the Government's comments on previous amendments.

In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said that the provision could not be made mandatory because the register might contain sensitive commercial information. In our view that point should already be covered by the wording in Clause 15, as is of a description specified by the regulations".

The noble Baroness said: We believe that all relevant information should be in the public domain, except for sensitive financial details, pricing and trading details".—[Official Report, 18/12/02; col. GC82.]

Amendment No. 51 uses her exact words. If that is what the Government believe—and we sincerely think they do—perhaps it should be put on the face of the Bill. If not, we wish to know why.

We feel strongly about this matter, but I shall await the explanation from the noble Baroness. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, we have discussed this matter with the devolved administrations. Their intention, as is ours with regard to England, will be to consult on being as open as possible. Neither we nor the devolved administrations would wish to change the current provisions in the Bill in case the consultation exercise identifies a legitimate reason for withholding certain types of commercial information. We would not want to see the success of the scheme undermined.

Therefore, that remains an issue for each devolved administration and one on which there will be consultation. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and the House that no information will be withheld from the public domain without good reason. I hope that, with that assurance, he feels able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

My Lords, I welcome the Minister's statement and thank the noble Baroness for the spirit in which she made it. I believe that she has just made a sincere statement. We hope that the public will have access to this information as widely as possible within the constraints she mentioned. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]

Clause 16 [Strategy for England]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 52: Page 11, line 9, at end insert— ( )The strategy must include measures to ensure that the development, alteration or advertisement of industrial or commercial products does not result in an increase of biodegradable waste.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are in the business once again of trying to improve the psychological pressure on everyone to reduce the amount of waste that they create. Unfortunately, we seem to create increasing waste difficulties, if I can put the matter that way.

A simple example is when I buy stamps. I do not buy one sheet of paper, I buy two. I buy a sheet of stamps. They are slapped on a non-sticky backing page and instead of licking a stamp and putting it on the envelope I have to tear it out with considerable care. When I have torn all the stamps out I have two things left. I have a neat trellis framework and a backing page, which both go in the bin.

Nowadays one's credit card account always comes as two pages. Even if one has only one transaction in a month, one gets one page with the transaction on and another with the tear-off bit at the bottom with which one pays. It should be possible to use one page.

A third example is that of building societies. Instead of having pass books, which worked satisfactorily for years and years—one took one's pass book along and got it written up once a month—they insist on sending every customer a computer printout. These may be small matters. Individually they are small. But the fact is that they increase the volume of waste of which we have to dispose. Some of it can be recycled. One hopes that it would all go to recycling, but the probability that it will all go for recycling is unlikely in the near future.

So we thought it important to put on to the face of the Bill that the strategy should include measures to ensure that the development, alteration or advertisement of industrial or commercial products should not result in an increase in biodegradable waste.

I sometimes think that the way that we work in this House increases the amount of biodegradable waste because we generate a huge amount of paper. But there is a serious point here. Society has gone convenience and packaging crazy. It has its good aspects and one should not deny them, but it has a problem. One has to look only at one's Sunday newspapers and the stuff that comes with them—and in particular there is the junk mail which goes straight into the wastepaper basket—to see that there should be scope for a considerable reduction. It would be greatly to our convenience if that were the case. I hope that the Government in their strategy can find some way of exerting pressure to try to persuade some people to bring this desirable end about. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

My Lords, we strongly support the amendment. We wish to see a decrease in the amount of waste. We feel that these amendments seek strongly to achieve that objective.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I, too, support these amendments. I will not go through all the arguments which I went through at Second Reading, many of which have been repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. It is absolutely essential that the Government take this matter very seriously. They must not impose penalties on householders—because that is where it will end—where the householder is not the culprit. I say once again that we should deal with the problem at source rather than at the finish.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I agree with almost every word that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has said, including his stricture on this House for producing far too much paper one way and another. The amendments are unnecessary because the strategies that the noble Lord is looking for are already a legal requirement.

For England, Section 44A of the Environmental Protection Act requires the Secretary of State to prepare a strategy on the recovery and disposal of waste. That covers the prevention or reduction of waste—minimization—and its harmfulness. There are similar duties in relation to the devolved administrations. So, although the noble Lord's objectives are desirable, they are already in law and the Government have taken significant steps, particularly in relation to the response to the Strategy Unit report, in order to see that they are strengthened and carried out. So I accept his objectives, but the measures are already there.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I am delighted and immensely reassured to hear that the measures are already there. I need say only that, in my experience, they have not yet had any effect. With that unhappy thought, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 53: Page 11, line 29, at end insert— ( ) Where subsection (1) is satisfied by policies set out in a statement tinder section 44A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) (national waste strategy), if the statement was prepared before the coming into force of that subsection it does not matter that the policies were not formulated for the purposes of that subsection.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 53, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 55 and 58. They clarify when the requirements of Clauses 16, 17 and 19 will be satisfied. That is already provided for in Wales at the request of the Welsh authorities and further advice suggests that this express provision may cast doubt on the situation in the other administrations.

Clause 16 requires the Secretary of State to have a strategy for reducing both the amount of biodegradable municipal waste from England that goes in the landfills and the amount of biodegradable waste from outside England that goes to landfills in England. Clause 16(4) requires the Secretary of State to consult prior to formulating policy. There are similar arrangements for the devolved administrations. Those are in addition to the duties under Section 44A of the Environmental Protection Act.

Amendment No. 53 would insert an additional subsection which is similar to the provision for Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland are also formulating policies in relation to their own legislative process. These amendments will ensure that time and resources are not wasted on re-consulting on documents which meet the requirements for landfill strategies under Clauses 16 to 19 and have already received significant consultation. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

7.30 p.m.

Clause 17 [Strategy for Scotland]:

[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 55: Page 12, line 28, at end insert— ( ) Where subsection (1) is satisfied by policies set out in a statement prepared before the coming into force of that subsection, it does not matter that the policies were not formulated for the purposes of that subsection. ( ) Subsection (4) may be satisfied by consultation before, as well as by consultation after, the coming into force of this sect ion.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 18 [Strategy for Wales]:

[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]

Clause 19 [Strategy for Northern Ireland]:

[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 58: Page 13, line 42, at end insert— ( ) Where subsection (1) is satisfied by policies set out in a statement prepared before the coming into force of that subsection, it does not matter that the policies were not formulated for the purposes of that subsection. ( ) Subsection (4) may be satisfied by consultation before, as well as by consultation after, the coming into force of this section.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 22 ["Scheme year" and "target year"]:

[Amendments Nos. 59 to 61 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]

Clause 24 [Activities to which Chapter 1 does not apply]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 63: Page 15, line 33, leave out "small

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have little confidence that the Government will accept my amendment to leave out the word "small" from the clause. I accept the Government's difficulties with transposition of regulations from one language to another. But, for the life of me, I cannot understand what a small waterway is. If one digs out a ditch, is it a small waterway? At the other extreme, while I was at school, the River Nene was thoroughly dredged out and all the material deposited along the banks. Is that a small waterway?

My other reason for moving the amendment is to apologise to the House, particularly the Minister. I am afraid that we had a group of amendments, one of which related to Clause 24(1), to which the Government were sympathetic. Unfortunately, for some strange reason, they did not get deposited. I regret that we shall have to table them at Third Reading. I had hoped to avoid that. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, as the noble Lord says, this is a problem of transposition of the terms of the directive into the Bill. Removing the word "small" would mean that deposited waste alongside all waterways would be excluded from references to sending waste to landfill. That would mean that the Bill would have a narrower definition than that in the directive, leaving us with the possibility of a challenge from the Commission and a potential adverse judgment. Although the possibility is remote, noble Lords will agree that that would be undesirable.

The amendment would have a negligible effect on the Bill as a whole. Non-hazardous sludge from dredgers is not municipal waste; therefore, the exclusion of "small" would make little difference. In effect, all waterways could probably benefit from its exclusion. It would be better to retain the wording of the directive and, therefore, avoid any possibility of challenge.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I hear what the Minister says with a certain amount of delight. This a departure from the purposes of the Bill, against which he has religiously fought since we first tried to introduce the issue in Grand Committee. However, I understand the background to the amendment. I think it is wrong, hut, if it has to be done, so be it. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 [Penalties under Chapter 1: general]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 64 and 65: Page 16, line 27, after "8(3)" insert "or (3A) Page 16, line 27, leave out "target" and insert "scheme

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 67: After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—

"REGULATIONS UNDER CHAPTER 1: CONSULTATION (1) This section applies to regulations under this Chapter, other than regulations under section 1, 2, 3 or 22. (2) Before making regulations to which this section applies, an allocating authority shall (subject to subsection (4))—

  1. (a) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of waste disposal authorities in its area as it considers appropriate,
  2. (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of persons concerned in the operation of landfills in its area as it considers appropriate, and
  3. (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of any other affected persons as it considers appropriate.
(3) In subsection (2)(c) "affected person" means a person appearing to the allocating authority to be a person who will or may be affected by the regulations. (4) The allocating authority need not consult as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) if it appears to the authority that the interests mentioned in that paragraph will not be affected by the regulations.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, this amendment is a fulfilment of a recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. It would give effect to the committee's recommendation about consultation by inserting after Clause 25 a new clause dealing with consultation on regulations. It would place on us a statutory obligation to consult representatives of waste disposal authorities, landfill operators and others who may be affected under Chapter 1 of the Bill before we make any regulations.

In tabling the amendment, we have complied with the recommendation of the Select Committee. We have, therefore, fulfilled the obligation that the House would expect us to meet in reflecting the committee's comments in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 67, Amendment No. 68: Line 18, leave out subsection (4).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would remove subsection (4) of Amendment No. 67, which states: The allocating authority need not consult as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) if it appears to the authority that the interests mentioned in that paragraph will not be affected by the regulations".

That does not go along with what the Minister has just said. It would be possible to exclude certain elements under subsection (4). Earlier subsections of the proposed new clause provide that an allocating authority shall, consult such bodies or persons … as it considers appropriate".

If a body's interests will not be affected by the regulations, why are they still to be considered appropriate? We wish to probe to find out why subsection (4) is included. It appears to exclude certain aspects. We wish to see consultation across the board, but the subsection appears to deny us that. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, subsection (4) would merely remove the need to consult representatives of waste disposal authorities or landfill operators whose interests are not affected. For example, the regulations might deal solely with the provision of information from the waste disposal authority to the monitoring authority. In that case, the role of landfill operators is not affected, so it would be inappropriate to engage in an additional form of consultation on such regulations. That is why the exclusion is included in the clause.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. None the less, I feel that bodies such as operators should be informed about 'what is happening, even if not through consultation. Perhaps I am being pedantic. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 68, as an amendment to Amendment No. 67, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment No. 67 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]

Clause 26 [Regulations under Chapter 1: procedural provisions]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 70: Page 16. line 30, leave out from "instrument" to second "the" in line 38 and insert— that —

  1. (a) contains regulations under this Chapter made by the Secretary of State, and
  2. (b) is not subject to any requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament,
shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. ( ) No affirmative-procedure regulations shall be made by the Secretary of State unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations (whether containing them alone or with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. ( ) A statutory instrument that—
  1. (a) contains regulations under this Chapter made by the Scottish Ministers, and
  2. (b) is not subject to any requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Scottish Parliament,
shall he subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament. ( ) No affirmative-procedure regulations shall be made by the Scottish Ministers unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them (whether containing them alone or with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Scottish Parliament. ( ) A statutory rule that—
  1. (a) contains regulations under this Chapter made by the Department of the Environment, and
    2. 82
  2. (b) is not subject to affirmative resolution within the meaning of section 41(4) of the 1954 Act,
shall be subject to negative resolution 'within the meaning of section 41(6) of that Act. ( ) A statutory rule that contains (whether alone or with other provisions) affirmative-procedure regulations made by the Department of the Environment shall be subject to affirmative resolution within the meaning of section 41(4) of the 1954 Act. ( ) In this section— affirmative-procedure regulations" means—
  1. (a) regulations under section 1 or 2, and
  2. (b) the first regulations to be made under each of sections 6, 7 and 10 by each of the Secretary of State. the Scottish Ministers and the Department of the Environment;
the 1954 Act" means

[Amendment No. 71, as an amendment to Amendment No. 70, not moved.]

On Question. amendment agreed to.