← Back to House of Commons Debates
Environment Bill - Amendments to address sewage discharge issues and the role of the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP)
08 November 2021
Lead MP
Rebecca Pow
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
ClimateAgriculture & Rural Affairs
Other Contributors: 16
At a Glance
Rebecca Pow raised concerns about environment bill - amendments to address sewage discharge issues and the role of the office for environmental protection (oep) in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
Ms Pow moved that the House insists on its amendments 31A and 75A/B, and disagrees with Lords amendment 31C. She highlighted several other amendments related to sewage discharge management and oversight of the OEP.
Eleanor Laing
Con
Brentwood and Ongar
Moved to discuss multiple government and lords amendments dealing with sewage discharge management and the Office for Environmental Protection, indicating a proposal to address these issues through detailed legislative changes.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Asked the Minister to give way on the point of discussion, implying support or concern for the amendments being debated but without detailing specific arguments in this excerpt.
Luke Pollard
Lab Co-op
Plymouth Sutton and Devonport
Criticised the Government’s response to sewage discharge issues as insufficient and lacking urgency. Highlighted the need for a stronger watchdog, higher penalties, clear timetables, progressive reduction commitments, and parliamentary scrutiny to address environmental concerns effectively.
Layla Moran
Lib Dem
Oxford West and Abingdon
Supported the argument that current amendments do not adequately address the dire state of rivers, emphasising the need for stronger action to improve water quality.
Matt Rodda
Lab
Reading Central
Echoed concerns about the inadequacy of the Government's concessions and highlighted the importance of trust in addressing sewage discharge issues affecting communities downstream.
Philip Dunne
Con
Worcestershire South
Mr Philip Dunne supported Lords amendment 45, highlighting its benefits for public health and swimming activities. He also emphasised the need for robust enforcement measures within the existing Water Industry Act framework and praised the interlinkage of his proposed new clause with other requirements in the Bill.
Deidre Brock
SNP
Glasgow North West
Ms Deidre Brock expressed concern over the UK Government's reluctance to accept independent oversight, citing Scotland’s successful environmental protection measures and the importance of maintaining public ownership in water services. She also warned against any attempt by UK Ministers to open up Scottish water supply to market access.
Neil Parish
Con
Tiverton and Honiton
Mr Neil Parish welcomed the Government's progress on the Office for Environmental Protection and echoed Mr Philip Dunne’s support for the amendment. He emphasised the need to capture storm water and rainwater, apply pressure to water companies, and ensure that regulatory bodies like Ofwat use their powers effectively.
Fleur Anderson
Lab
Putney
The amendment does not go far enough to protect the environment, it lacks clarity and independence for the Office for Environmental Protection. The Bill does not place a duty on the Secretary of State to tackle sewage and water pollution as proposed by Lords amendment 45B.
The Minister has worked hard to accommodate concerns, including the Duke of Wellington’s amendment. The new duty combined with other measures will be a step towards ending sewage discharge from storm overflows and improving water quality.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Supports the Office for Environmental Protection’s enforcement policy and the duty to secure a progressive reduction in adverse impacts of discharges from storm overflows, seeks clarity from the Minister on enforcement policy.
Supports the amendment due to its strength and leadership by Philip Dunne. Asks the Minister to use power to push water firms for further action and prioritise ecologically sensitive sites.
Ruth Cadbury
Lab
Brentford and Isleworth
Opposes the Government motion, arguing it does not go far enough. Requires higher fines for polluters and annual parliamentary scrutiny of sewage discharges.
St Ives
Thanked colleagues for their support and expressed regret over false accusations of voting to pump raw sewage into oceans. Acknowledged Surfers Against Sewage's impact and welcomed the measures in the Bill aimed at reducing storm overflow discharges.
Tim Farron
Lib Dem
Westmorland and Lonsdale
Critiqued the lack of specific targets or timescales for water companies to reduce sewage discharge, arguing that it allows companies to continue current practices without real accountability. Highlighted raw sewage discharges into Lake Windermere and questioned the effectiveness of proposed measures in addressing pollution levels.
Rebecca Pow
Con
Taunton Deane
Expressed gratitude to colleagues for their input and outlined reasons supporting the amendments, including a focus on ecological sites and bathing waters. Emphasised ongoing efforts to address storm overflow issues.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.