A cross-party group of MPs have claimed the majority of concerns raised by businesses over EU environmental legislation are related to a lack of clarity in the Directives, rather than policies themselves.
In a report outlining the findings into an inquiry on the environmental benefits of EU membership, the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) found that most issues regarding environmental policy were related to their implementation by Member States. Campaign groups told the MPs that implementation was not always robust enough to deliver environmental benefits, whereas businesses expressed concerns about burdens arising from legislation that they believed were being applied too stringently.
The EAC concluded that "the tension between these two interests is common to UK policy. However, we agree with the widespread view among witnesses that greater clarity in the drafting of Directives and a better use of evidence at both European and UK levels would help address these issues."
It has been suggested that regulatory inconsistencies arise not only because of ambiguity in the underlying legislation, but also because of national and local regulators who are given flexibility to interpret EU Directives when they are enforcing them. Trade body Energy UK commented that they felt the Environment Agency relied too heavily on lawyers when attempting to understand Directives and formulating guidance, and too little on the intent of the policymakers. This resulted in decisions that did not always benefit the environment, while increasing costs and burdens on businesses.
The Renewable Energy Association also commented that legislation should be short and comprehensible because small businesses do not have the resources to deal with lengthy documentation that may also need expert interpretation.
The EAC did stress that overall, membership of the EU had been good for the UK’s environment, providing a platform to pursue its environmental objectives internationally and influence the strategic, long-term direction of policy.
However, Peter Lilley, Conservative MP, who is a member of the committee, disagreed with the conclusions of the report, arguing the findings were inconsistent and that some of the evidence received had been ignored. He claimed that many of the witnesses were biased in favour of EU membership since up to 60% of their funding comes from Europe. "Our inquiry failed to examine systematically the scope for devolving powers back to the UK if we remain within the EU or the merits of handling cross-border issues inter-governmentally if we leave", Lilley stated in an alternative report.
