The vote by MPs last week in the House of Commons against amending the Environment Bill to stop water companies dumping raw sewage into Britain’s rivers is the target of ongoing and widespread criticism in the press and on social media.

The original amendment was introduced in September by the Duke of Wellington in the House of Lords.

The House of Lords voted 184 votes to 147 to support an amendment to the Environment Bill imposing a new legal duty on water companies to "take all reasonable steps" to ensure untreated sewage is not discharged from storm overflows into inland waters.

However, following the Government’s decision to reject the amendment to place a legal duty on water companies to reduce raw sewage discharges into rivers, 265 Conservative MPs voted with the Government and only 22 Conservatives voted against last week in favour of the amendment.

Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme yesterday, former singer Fergal Sharkey, who is now an active campaigner to clean up the UK’s rivers said:

"We're lecturing the rest of the planet on climate change yet the reality is there is not a single river in England that makes good overall environmental health."

"The truth is what we are looking at is the result of a massive under-investment in infrastructure for the last 30 years and a complete failure of oversight and regulation of the industry by Ofwat, the environment agency and the government itself."

Robert Courts, MP for Witney and West Oxfordshire, is among a number of MPs who have defended their decision to reject the amendment. Commenting on his website, the MP said:

“Concerns have been raised that section 141A, tabled by the Duke of Wellington in the House of Lords, was removed from Amendment 45. Section 141A sought to place a new duty on sewerage undertakers in England and Wales to demonstrate progressive reductions in the harm caused by discharges of untreated sewage.

“This all sounds admirable, and indeed is something I support in principle. But the trouble is that the Duke’s amendment came with no plan as to how this can be delivered and no impact assessment whatsoever.

“… But in eliminating storm overflows, we are talking about transforming a system which has operated since the Victorian Era, the preliminary cost of which is estimated to be anywhere between £150 billion and £650 billion.

“…The Government’s view was that it would have been irresponsible to have inserted this section in the Bill given that it was not backed by a detailed plan and thorough impact assessment. It would have been the equivalent of signing a blank check on behalf of billpayers.”

According to Environment Agency data, raw sewage was discharged into rivers and coastal waters more than 400,000 times in England last year. 

The Environment Bill will return to the House of Lords today - it is expected that the measures will be re-inserted prior to returning to the House of Commons later this week.

Water UK -water companies support the amendment

A spokesperson for Water UK said:

“We support the Duke of Wellington's amendment to the Environment Bill, and call on Government to back it. The water industry agrees that we should be ending harm from sources like storm overflows, and we have set out the framework for a comprehensive national plan to do that. This calls for Government and regulators to authorise new investment, and for a much stronger effort on tackling the causes of sewers overloading, like blockages from wet wipes and poorly-designed housing developments.

“However, we think the Duke’s amendment on its own is not enough, as it only tackles the 4% of river quality failures caused by overflows. In our recent report ‘21st Century Rivers’ we set out the 10 actions needed to genuinely transform our rivers and waterways and the actions needed from the water industry, farmers, government, regulators and others to secure the healthy, thriving rivers that everyone wants.”