Gedling MP Tom Randall has dismissed claims he voted in favour of allowing sewage to be discharged into rivers, calling them ‘nonsense’.

Mr Randall was one of 268 MPs who voted not to include a proposed change to the Environment Bill which green campaigners said would have resulted in water companies being fined for dumping sewage into rivers and the sea.

The Conservative MP took to social media to defend his actions after receiving ‘unpleasant comments’ on some platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

Mr Randall wrote: “We all want to see clean rivers and seas, but I hope that it might help add a bit of clarification on why this amendment wasn’t suitable.

“The vote last week was whether or not the House of Commons should accept a particular amendment that came from the House of Lords.

“Amendment 45 concerned storm overflows. Storm overflows are used to protect properties from flooding to prevent sewage from overflowing into streets and homes.

“In a combined sewer system, the system carries both surface water (for example run-offs from highways) and foul water from homes and industry into one pipe, which is them treated at a water recycling centre. During a storm or heavy, prolonged rain, the flow into the combined sewer can cause it to be overwhelmed.

“The storm overflows release excess storm water into rivers or the sea when this happens. If this didn’t happen, the water would flow back up the system and flood homes.

“Section 141A in Amendment 45 would have placed a duty on sewerage undertakers in England and Wales to demonstrate progressive reductions in the harm caused by the discharges of untreated sewage.On the face of it, this is very attractive. But there were two problems with it: the 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.

“Much of our sewerage system is Victorian. Preliminary estimates for costs have ranged from £150,000,000,000 (the equivalent of the schools, policing and defence budgets put together) to £650,000,000,000 (on a par with the cost of the pandemic response). This is a massive cost that would ultimately be borne by bill payers. You will , I hope, understand if I baulk at writing a blank cheque on behalf of consumers when I don’t know the cost or the trade off with other water industry priorities.”

The Gedling MP went on to highlight other measures included in the Bill that would help reduce river pollution.

He said a there would be a new duty on water companies to publish information (within 1 hour) of the commencement of an overflow, its location and when it ceases.

Water companies would also produce drainage and sewage management plans which would set out how the company will manage and develop its drainage and sewerage system over a minimum 25-years and how storm overflows will be addressed through these plans.

The MP said there would also be a new duty on government to produce a report setting out the actions that would be needed to eliminate storm overflow in England and the costs and benefits of such action

He added: “A majority of MPs, including me, voted in favour of taking a range of steps to address storm overflows, together with a legal duty on government to produce detailed and costed plans for reducing and eliminating storm overflows entirely.

“I hope this is useful in helping constituents see through some of the pernicious spin that has surrounded some of the commentary on this vote.”