Members of the House of Lords are warning that failure to incorporate protection contained in EU Directives into UK law, including The Marine Strategy Framework, Air Quality, Habitats and Water Framework Directives could see current environmental protections weakened post-Brexit.

The issue was raised during a debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill on Wednesday as peers discussed issues to go back to the Commons to consider. The Bill has started report stage, a further opportunity to examine the bill and make changes. The debate included a discussion about an amendment moved by Conservative peer Lord Debento protect rights in EU retained law after Brexit.

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) told the Chamber that the current environmental reporting obligations—such as the requirement to review and report on the implementation of the marine strategy framework directive, the air quality directive and the habitats directive—will no longer be required by law when the UK leaves the EU.

In addition, Article 5 of the energy efficiency directive has not been fully transposed into domestic legislation, with the result that public bodies do not have to ensure that their buildings adhere to energy performance requirements. There are other obligations not yet transposed into UK law, she said, such as the water framework directive’s requirement that water pricing policies provide adequate incentives to use water efficiently.

Speaking for the Government Baroness Goldie explained that one part of EU law that the Bill does not convert into domestic law is EU directives. As EU directives as such are not a part of domestic law now, the Government take the view that they should likewise not be part of domestic law post-Brexit.

Instead, the Bill, under Clause 2, is saving the domestic measures that implement the directives, “so it is not necessary to convert the directives themselves.”

“This is not only a pragmatic approach but one that reflects the reality of our departure from the EU. As an EU member state, we were obligated to implement those directives. When we leave the EU, those obligations will cease.” Baroness Goldie added.

Clarity and certainty within the statute book about what will be retained in UK law at the point of exit would be undermined by the amendment and could also create practical difficulties for the courts following exit, she said.

Furthermore, she explained, the amendment specifically implies that the Government would have to undertake a thorough investigation, as soon as possible, of all the EU directives that have been domestically implemented over the course of this country’s 40-plus years of EU membership to ensure that they have correctly and completely implemented them all.

This suggestion provoked a sharp response from Lord Deben, who commented:

“ I say to my noble friend that there was a time when I would have taken her arguments rather more seriously. Then I got the message that some of the promises that the Government made about taking care of what they do on the environment once independent and outside the EU do not seem to be forthcoming.”

“All those things we were told about something parallel to the Committee on Climate Change do not seem to be coming forward as we were told they would be. “

Lord Deben concluded by saying that although he would not press the amendment,” I say to the Government that there is a political issue here.”

The peer also expressed a veiled warning to the Baroness about future progress of the EU Withdrawal Bill:

“My noble friend said that there were a number of things here that, for one reason or another, are not quite what she would like even if she were prepared to help us. She has said that she is not going to help us, so I might have to be more unhelpful myself in the future.”

“ I want to say one thing about this that is not about Parliament but about the world outside. Increasingly, people are becoming very cynical about what the Government have in mind for the protections of our human rights, our environment and the other things that we hold dearest.”