Environment Bill — After Clause 78 — Storm Overflows — Sewage — 20 Oct 2021 at 19:00
The majority of MPs voted against requiring improved sewerage systems and against requiring a reduction in the harm caused by untreated sewage discharges.
The motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was in relation to
- Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 45.
- That the amendment be made.
Lords amendment 45 sought to introduce a new chapter into the Water Industry Act 1991 titled "Storm overflows" which included the following section:
- 141A Duty on sewerage undertakers to take all reasonable steps to ensure untreated sewage is not discharged from storm overflows
- (1) A sewerage undertaker must demonstrate improvements in the sewerage systems and progressive reductions in the harm caused by untreated sewage discharges.
- (2) The Secretary of State, the Director and the Environment Agency must exercise their respective functions under this and any other Act to secure compliance with this duty.
Amendment (a) which was the subject of this vote stated:
- Leave out lines 7 to 14
The lines in question comprised the proposed new section 141A for the Water Industry Act 1991 as quoted above.
The role of section titles in interpretation of Acts of Parliament has developed over time, and was considered in the case of Regina v. Montila and others in 2004 where the committee of judges determined headings provided context which could aid with interpretation of an Act.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Environment Bill, Parliament.uk
-  Explanatory notes to the Environment Bill, 30 January 2020, Parliament.uk
-  The Environment Bill as introduced to the House of Lords on 26 May 2021, Parliament.uk
-  Lords amendments to the Environment Bill, 14 October 2021, Parliament.uk
-  Explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Environment Bill, 14 October 2021, Parliament.uk
-  Amendment paper for consideration of the Environment Bill, 20 October 2021
-  Judgment in Regina v. Montila and others (2004), Parliament.uk
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||265 (+2 tell)||22||0||79.8%|
|Lab||0||160 (+2 tell)||0||81.4%|
|Siobhan Baillie||Stroud||Con (front bench)||no|
|John Baron||Basildon and Billericay||Con||no|
|Peter Bottomley||Worthing West||Con (front bench)||no|
|Greg Clark||Tunbridge Wells||Con (front bench)||no|
|Tracey Crouch||Chatham and Aylesford||Con||no|
|Philip Davies||Shipley||Con (front bench)||no|
|David Davis||Haltemprice and Howden||Con||no|
|Philip Dunne||Ludlow||Con (front bench)||no|
|Oliver Heald||North East Hertfordshire||Con||no|
|Gordon Henderson||Sittingbourne and Sheppey||Con||no|
|Simon Hoare||North Dorset||Con (front bench)||no|
|Bernard Jenkin||Harwich and North Essex||Con (front bench)||no|
|Robert Largan||High Peak||Con (front bench)||no|
|Tim Loughton||East Worthing and Shoreham||Con (front bench)||no|
|Craig Mackinlay||South Thanet||Con (front bench)||no|
|Esther McVey||Tatton||Con (front bench)||no|
|Huw Merriman||Bexhill and Battle||Con (front bench)||no|
|Caroline Nokes||Romsey and Southampton North||Con (front bench)||no|
|Matthew Offord||Hendon||Con (front bench)||no|
|Derek Thomas||St Ives||Con (front bench)||no|
|Kelly Tolhurst||Rochester and Strood||Con||no|