MPs explain why they voted against sewage amendment
Government acts after backlash over Environment Bill
Several West Sussex MPs have explained why they voted against proposed changes to draft legislation to reduce sewage discharges into rivers and seas.
An amendment from the Lords to the Environment Bill aiming to place new legal requirements on utility companies was defeated in the Commons on Wednesday, October 20.
However after a huge backlash, six days later the government said it would make a further amendment to the bill that will see a duty enshrined in law to ensure water companies secure a progressive reduction in the adverse impacts of discharges from storm overflows.
Chichester MP Gillian Keegan, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton MP Nick Gibb, Arundel and South Downs MP Andrew Griffith and Mid Sussex MP Mims Davies were among those to oppose the Lords amendment.
However fellow Conservatives Sir Peter Bottomley, West Worthing MP and East Worthing and
Shoreham MP Tim Loughton gave it their backing.
Mr Gibb said: “Following a robust debate in the House of Commons, I welcome the Government’s plans to bring forwardanewlegalrequirement on water companies to secure a reduction in the impact of sewage discharges.
“As I have said previously, the Environment Bill will be effective in tackling the unacceptable levels of sewage released into waterways and protecting our water quality.”
Meanwhile Mr Griffith said: “The [Lords] amendment would have effectively banned sewage discharge overnight.
“This sounds fantastic on paper and is something we would all love. However, it would have required the overnight replacement of almost every drain and sewer in the country which have been neglected by successive Governments.
“This is simply not practical but even if were, it is estimated that this would cost up to £650billion.”
He went on to describe how the new bill imposes a legal requirementonthegovernment to present a strategy to eliminate sewerage discharge from storm overflows, while regulator Ofwat will be obliged to require water companies to take meaningful steps to significantly reduce storm overflows.
Ms Davies, employment minister, described how it would have been irresponsible for any government to back the Lords’ amendment due to the huge estimated cost of implementation.
But she was pleased by the government amendment, explaining: “Rejecting amendments does not necessarily mean you are rejecting the whole concept and idea around them, particularly where public health and our environment is concerned.
“It’s important we work through parliamentary procedure to deliver for each community and I am confident, once the bill has reached Royal Assent, this will mean the legislation is rounded, workable and positive.”
Ms Keegan, minister for care and mental health, added: “It’s good news that my colleagues in Defra have listened to the concerns raised by coastal communities, campaigners, and MPs, including my own, about the recent vote on the Duke of Wellington’s Environment Bill Amendment 45.
“The Government have announced they will be tabling their own amendment that will honour the sentiments and objectives of the Duke of Wellington’s amendment, whilst ensuring it is compatible with existing legislation such as the Water Industry Act 1991 and that the ambitions of the legislation are met in a manageable and realistic timeframe.
“Sometimes when passing legislation there can be ups and downs, as the Government must legislate in a way that will achieve meaningful changes, whilst avoiding unintended and unpleasant consequences. All in all, the Environment Bill will bring about transformative change for the better in a whole host of areas, including improving our water quality.”