MPs have voted to reduce the amount of raw sewage dumped into England’s rivers.
MPs yesterday voted 283 to 163, majority 120, to approve a Government concession which aims to cut the dumping of raw sewage into waterways.
The amendment to the Environment Bill will legally require water firms to make a “progressive reduction” in dumping raw sewage into waterways.
Environment Minister Rebecca Pow issued a warning to water companies saying she will be “watching” their progress on sewage discharges “very closely”.
Pow said:“I am aware of some wildly inaccurate claims which have been circulating online that we are somehow legalising the dumping of sewage. We are not.”
Gedling borough MPs Tom Randall and Mark Spencer voted on imposing a legal obligation on water providers to reduce sewage discharges into our sea and rivers, but did not support an amendment by the Duke of Wellington, which called for utility firms to aim to stop the process altogether.
Martin Salter, of the Angling Trust, said the wording of the government’s amendment was weaker than the Lords’ amendment and did not go far enough.
“At a time when public trust in politicians has once again been shaken, we hope MPs will stand firm, and insist on clarity and action by ministers to create a pathway out of pollution,” he said.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has defended the amendment.
The government said: “The amount of sewage discharged by water companies into our rivers is unacceptable. We have made it crystal clear to water companies that they must significantly reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows as a priority.
“We have every confidence that the provisions in this bill will absolutely deliver progressive reductions in the harm caused by storm overflows, and any suggestion to the contrary is both disingenuous and untrue.”
Mr Randall came out and defended his decision to vote against the Lords amendment after the initial vote.
He said: “The [Lords] amendment came with no plan on how it might be delivered and there was no impact assessment. Nor do we know the cost.
“The Government took the view that it would have been irresponsible to put this into the Bill without a detailed plan, signing a blank cheque on behalf of bill payers.
“The cost of eliminating storm overflows entirely would potentially be enormous,” said Mr Randall.
