Ministers defend ‘insulting’ plans to limit sewage in sea

MINISTERS have defended proposals requiring water companies to make a “progressive reduction” in the amount of raw sewage that reaches English waterways following criticism that they are too weak.

The amendment to the Environment Bill, which MPS will vote on today, came after a backbench rebellion over the Government’s move to reject a requirement for water companies to “take all reasonable steps” to stop sewage entering rivers and coastal waters.

George Eustice, the Environment Secretary, said the new condition would be “mirroring” the earlier amendment, which was introduced in the House of Lords by the Duke of Wellington.

“It does everything the Duke of Wellington’s amendment did,” Mr Eustice told Times Radio on Sunday.

“He recognised that this is a challenge that you wouldn’t solve overnight because the cost of removing all of these storm overflows could be up to £600billion.” Campaigners fear that the wording of the new regulations will mean water companies will be allowed to continue letting raw sewage into waterways, as long as they can show they are taking minimal steps against it.

The musician Feargel Sharkey, who has led the campaign for cleaner rivers, said the Government’s handling of the new amendment, which was published on Friday night, was “bordering on insulting” as there was “no comparison whatsoever” between the new amendment and the earlier proposal.

“The Government’s U-turn has got a flat tyre,” he added.

There were 400,000 incidents of sewage overflow last year, despite it only being allowed in “exceptional” circumstances.

Christine Colvin from the Rivers Trust, said she was “disappointed” that the new amendment wasn’t as strong as the earlier one but added that it was “still a step forward”.

She also said the Government’s estimate that it could cost up to £600billion to fix the problem was “unrealistic”.