Environmental red tape challenge must not be a "smokescreen" for getting rid of vital laws warn MPs

In a report, the Environmental Audit Committee said that although they were supportive of removing unnecessary bureaucracy, they were concerned that the Government tended to see environmental regulations as "a block to economic development".

"The Treasury seems to see environmental regulations as nothing more than costly red-tape, but what we are talking about here are vital laws to give us clean air, safe food and a thriving countryside," said committee chair Joan Walley. "If this process reduces bureaucracy and improves outcomes, as the Government claims, then we will support it. But it would be irresponsible to get rid of sensible regulations in a desperate dash for growth and we will be watching Ministers very carefully on this."

In addition too much of the Government's long-term environmental strategy relied on voluntary action, with not enough incentives or sanctions to encourage businesses to behave appropriately, she said.

The Government announced in March that of the 255 regulations considered during the environmental 'theme' of its Red Tape Challenge review of over 21,000 active regulations, 132 would be "improved" in most cases by simplification or merger, 70 would be kept as they were and 53 "obsolete" regulations repealed. It estimated that these changes would save businesses £200 million a year, and Government intends to report on its progress in September.

Last year's Autumn Statement also considered simplification of the European Habitats and Wild Birds Directives to ensure that "gold plated" rules were not imposing unnecessary costs on businesses. A streamlined version of guidance for businesses by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is due to be published next year.

However environmental law expert Simon Colvin of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, doubted that many significant changes were on the way.

"In my experience less legislation does not necessarily mean less regulation – often it can mean the opposite as regulators can be more focussed in their approach," he said. "That said, in addition to the current red tape review process the Law Commission is considering the appropriateness of criminalising the majority of environmental offences, so less legislation really could mean less regulation. But my suspicion is that there will be very few significant changes, mainly because a lot of environmental obligations are derived from Europe meaning there is relatively little flexibility in terms of what can be done by way of simplification."

He added that there could be more interesting changes beyond these initiatives proposed over the next year or so, "especially with the imposition of civil sanctions for environmental permitting offences waiting in the wings". The Government announced that its plans to introduce these sanctions would be delayed in March, pending further work on "whether and when" these could be introduced.

The Government published a paper last year outlining the "transition to a green economy", which set out its plans for areas such as climate change, resource efficiency, waste prevention, carbon capture and storage and offshore wind generation. However, the Committee said that this report listed existing policies rather than set out a new approach, complete with targets to assess progress. In particular, it called on the Government to make good on its previous promises to introduce mandatory emissions reporting for big businesses.

"Rising global demand for commodities and fossil fuels mean that prices will continue to rise in future, so it is incredibly short-sighted of the Treasury not to give businesses clear incentives to use resources in a smarter way," Walley said. "Making businesses report their carbon emissions is one of the first steps we need to take on the road to a green economy, so it will be a key test of this Government's green credentials."

The report urges the Government to fully incorporate its 'Enabling the Transition' document into future revisions of the Plan for Growth. It also needs to work with stakeholders and businesses to develop minimum sustainable standards and develop targets, complete with transparent reporting against those targets, for improving the state of the environment.