Environmental Noise (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2009

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply and all noble Lords who have taken part in this brief but important debate. It has raised serious questions about the level of parliamentary scrutiny—or, frankly, the lack of it—which can result when ambulatory references appear of the breadth and significance of that within the Environmental Noise (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2009. As has been said, that is the issue. It is not about ambulatory references being used simply in relation to technical matters; it is about when they are used to cover much greater breadths and issues of much greater significance. The further information from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs states: ""The agreed position is that care should be taken before the power to make ambulatory references is used. This is highlighted because of the effect that an ambulatory reference may have and that it will catch all future amendments to the Community instruments, and not just technical ones"." It then goes on to state—these are the department’s words in the letter it sent to the Merits Committee— ""Such future amendments may be significant, and may not necessarily be foreseen at the time of making the ambulatory reference"." So the issue is the way in which they are used and the breadth and significance of them, which has been highlighted in the regulations that we are discussing today. Reference is made in the further information from the department to the fact that some of the consequences may not necessarily be foreseen. There are also references to unintended results. By definition, if you are talking about unintended results and something might not necessarily be foreseen, it is difficult to say that you have looked at it and decided that the impact in that regard is minimal. How can you decide it is minimal in relation to something described as an unintended result or something that might not necessarily be foreseen? I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. He went into considerable depth although, as he said, he was not able to give the full assurances that were being sought that we would not see further ambulatory references of the breadth and significance that we have been discussing in this debate, and on which the department concerned has had welcome second thoughts. The issue is parliamentary scrutiny and the recognition of it being more important than administrative convenience or—another word that has been used this evening—expediency. I hope that your Lordships’ House, particularly the Merits Committee, will continue to keep a close watch on the way that ambulatory references are used and will not hesitate to raise concerns with the Ministers and departments involved if further ambulatory references of such breadth and significance appear again. Motion agreed. Sitting suspended.