Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - Claire (24th Oct 2021 - 06:57:20) I can’t find any information on how Damien Hinds voted on the matter of stopping the practice of raw sewage being pumped into rivers. Can anyone point me in the right direction please?

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - D (24th Oct 2021 - 07:41:32) You could write to him at the House of Commons, you will find his contact details on his website. He was of great help to me over a health issue a few years back. Thoroughly decent chap as is his predecessor (have I spelt that correctly?) James Arbuthnot.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - Claire Findlay (24th Oct 2021 - 07:57:30) Looking at the government votes in Parliament results Mr Hinds did not vote on this amendment votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons/Division/1116…

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - Ian (24th Oct 2021 - 08:58:20) Thoroughly decent man, one of the few in parliament and the Tory party

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - David A (24th Oct 2021 - 09:10:22) I believe he abstained. I am a little curious to see the wording of the bill to know what truly is happening. It's rarely as simple as the media make out. As a far fetched example of the nonsense that goes on - a private members bill might be proposed to make eating babies illegal, opposition parties will then table amendments so that the bill also includes giving everyone in the country £25m, or something similarly unfeasible. The bill obviously gets voted down and then said opposition can go to the media and say their opponents are all for eating babies and evil because they voted against banning the practice of eating them. Not saying the above is exactly what has happened here, but it is worth being aware of, as it is very easy to characterise someone from their surface voting record when the truth may or may not actually reflect that, and that you need to look beyond the headline and form your own opinion as to what really happened. If I had to guess, and it is purely that, the case here is likely that currently there is no infrastructure to deal with the excess sewage elsewhere. So what happens is you either make it illegal and then have to deal with the issue of sewerage literally piling up somewhere, or you let the sewerage be dumped in the sea, and get accused of allowing companies to break the law. Lose/lose for both outcomes and for whichever way you vote.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - Penny Williamson (24th Oct 2021 - 09:53:37) A very good constituency MP. I would definitely write to him.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - Steve Miller (24th Oct 2021 - 20:02:20) Claire I guess from your question that you would have wanted Damien Hinds to support the idea of making the water companies legally liable for discharge of untreated sewage into rivers and sea. If my supposition is correct, can I ask what changes you believe would happen if such an obligation was actually passed into law?

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - Claire (25th Oct 2021 - 04:53:07) Claire Findlay, thank you for your help

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - James (25th Oct 2021 - 09:49:27) Steve, I'm surprised that you are asking that question. 1) Water companies held liable 2) Healthier waterways - The UK has some of the worst in Europe. Look at the River Wey's record.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - er (25th Oct 2021 - 10:46:55) Thanks for bringing this to our attention, still was completely unaware. Just wondering, presumably sewage only pumps into rivers in times of excessive rain when the main sewers are overwhelmed, so where would it go otherwise, out of the drains, into the streets or back up into people's houses? Like most people, I'm against the idea of polluting our rivers with filth, but is it just a matter of investment in bigger local sewage plants or would it involve, like in some countries, banning the putting of things like loo roll into the system (you have to collect it, bag it and bin it), where I suppose it just goes to landfill anyway! The only sewage system I know anything about is Bazalgette's world famous London sewage system, with it's huge cathedrals to waste downstream, but even then the Thames has been a continual part of the system in times of heavy fouling. In London I struggle to see how they could retrospectively engineer their way out of that without further huge expense and disruption, Bazalgette built huge embankments that narrowed the Thames and created many of the main roads London is now famous for above his sewers. Could we do that again? I guess a start would be with new builds, putting smaller waste pipes in like in many countries, so you simply cannot flush anything but human waste, without blocking your system, that would soon teach them!

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - Mark (25th Oct 2021 - 11:15:27) @ Steve Miller Water companies have previously been held accountable for unlawful discharge,get your research right. Southern Water were fined £90 million only this year for dumping raw sewage into sea & rivers. They are lazy & corner cutting outfits using old kit! They should continue to be fined,as they are hugely profitable concerns. Let’s face it,you can’t switch can you,if you believe you could get a better deal elsewhere. Hinds abstention is just poor,but as expected.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - steve miller (25th Oct 2021 - 11:24:37) James My point is that just changing the law won't by itself make rivers or the sea any cleaner. Neither would fining or locking up the water company bosses. We have a pretty antiquated network of sewerage and storm water pipework in the uk. I know from my personal experience working for contractor to the water industry, that a lot of work has already been done to improve the system since privatisation in 1989 and much more is underway in the current regulatory period but sadly at the current rate of investment it will take many decades to get anywhere approaching the level of performance that many would like to see. Accelerating the required work is obviously possible but the costs would be enormous as would the disruption as large parts of the existing network would need to be dug up and replaced in order to better separate storm water from the foul sewer system. It would be naive to think that the money for this would come from anywhere other than customers bills. The current regulatory model for the water industry means that if the regulators (offwat and the environment agency) required the water plc's to to dramatically increase the level of investment going into the network, those companies would be entitled to earn a return (profit) on that investment by increasing water charges to the customer. Maybe the paying customers would be prepared to accept dramatic increases in their bills? What do you think?

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - steve miller (25th Oct 2021 - 11:31:25) er As it happens London is the one area where work is underway to improve the issue of discharges into the thames at times of heavy rainfall through the construction of a super sewer intercepting the storm overflows running under the river down to the treatment works down stream. www.tideway.london/the-tunnel

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - Joe (25th Oct 2021 - 11:32:57) Steve with the huge profits the water companies make they should pay, not us, or developers put in pumping systems when they build huge new estates. The basic product is free, after all it is only in the last few years have we had to pay for the convenience of piped water. The least they can do is maintain the system properly. They are quick enough to send the bills.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - steve miller (25th Oct 2021 - 11:59:38) Mark Southern Water were quite rightly heavily fined for discharging raw sewage into the sea in contravention of their discharge consents but even worse for covering up these illegal discharges! There are already legal penalties available for such behaviours and I wouldn't have a problem with stricter enforcement. The much bigger issue here is stopping (or at least significantly reducing) those combined sewer overflow discharges that are currently legal. Changing the law to make them illegal overnight would achieve nothing.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - steve miller (25th Oct 2021 - 12:08:55) Joe There are already rules in place to ensure that rainwater runoff from new estates such as the one at Lowsley Farm are kept separate from the foul sewer system. The problem that we have is the vast majority of built up areas in the uk including large parts of Liphook where the two systems use the same pipes. There is no way that local pumping stations and treatment plants will ever be able to cope with the flows caused by periods of heavy rainfall as seen locally in the last couple of weeks. Water company profits are a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of money needed to fundamentally change the way our sewerage system works.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - Mark (25th Oct 2021 - 12:13:44) @ Steve Miller FYI; Australian bank Macquarie are the largest shareholder in Southern Water,and too far away to care. They say they will invest using shareholders dividends & not customers,so wait n see! Whilst water companies are privately owned and the regulator Ofwat is weak,not to mention the EA being in bed with them very little will change. Technology has moved on,but failure to invest has caused the issues they were fined for.The sentencing should have included a custodial sentence perhaps that way they may just take a different approach. Old out of date practices at wastewater sites is still ongoing,but with a weak regulator who does not have / use teeth will just carry on with the same old same old. They were fined for negligence ie old out of date practice,& turning a blind eye from an Aussie investor far away is easy to comprehend,that little will change.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - Pete (25th Oct 2021 - 12:26:52) I can tell you how Mr hinds will vote. Either with his party or by abstaining never with his conscience. Regarding writing to him, I have several times and without exception have always received a generic reply full of platitudes but with no substance.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - Mark (25th Oct 2021 - 13:41:25) Pete In total agreement with you on Hinds.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - er (25th Oct 2021 - 14:34:53) Mark, I think a little harsh blaming the Aussies on this one, yes Maquarie bank seems to have bought a majority share this August from its previous Hedge Fund owners, but they've also agreed to pump into the sewage system (no pun intended) £2 billion of new money in addition to the purchase price of their shares, to put right some of these very issues. So maybe we should give them a chance! Incidentally, being a shareholder per se in a UK corporation doesn't carry any legal responsibility to fund infrastructure or investment beyond voluntary contributions. Investment and upkeep is the job of the legal entity ((in this instance Southern Water not Macquarie Bank) via its directors and executives), if you Google Southern Water you will see a long list of just a few of the top staff, maybe address your concerns to them? This is definitely a British, not Aussie problem, I don't see why the customer here in the UK shouldn't be willing to put their hands in their pockets to improve our own waterways and sewage systems, these are endemic, long standing problems and will hugely benefit our natural environment, it is naive to think that just putting the cost onto a company means it will stay there and not be passed on anyway! But I suspect the investment needed to make a dent in this will, as Steve said, be huge. I read somewhere that the new London SuperSewer underway will be obsolete soon after it opens due to continued population growth and building surge! It will be nice to save our rivers, but I suspect the answers, like with recycling, the environment etc, will have to come mainly from us, the consumer, (or in this case the supplier😁) anyone need a plastic bag to collect their loo waste in for incineration?

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - passfield resident (25th Oct 2021 - 15:41:53) I have also written to Mr Hinds a couple of times, and didn't receive very informative replies. I remember his response when questioned about closing the Passfield post office. It was pathetic.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - steve miller (25th Oct 2021 - 18:28:00) By coincidence from todays news- The government's view on the cost of eliminating storm overflows: - To eliminate storm overflows means transforming the entire Victorian sewage system to a whole new sewage system. It would be irresponsible for any government to spend an estimated preliminary cost of anywhere between £150bn to £650bn to transform the entire sewage system. In my opinion, any MP that voted for a change in the law which would lead to expenditure at this level would indeed be grossly irresponsible!

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - Joe (25th Oct 2021 - 18:56:43) Bournemouth water had to recently pay 123 million to customers and the shareholders had to bear a fine of 3 million. So maybe that makes them more accountable? After all they pay nothing for their basic product.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - James (26th Oct 2021 - 04:14:30) Trident costs around 205 billion but when it comes to the environment the money tree suddenly disappears...!

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - Mark (26th Oct 2021 - 05:31:28) @er The comments made by me about who owns Southern are entirely based on fact,and investors the other side of the world who are only looking at their yield! Anyone investing obviously is not responsible for the company they invest in,but often more and more people invest ethically. I for one do not need to be lectured on that by you. I won’t waste my time on your other comments,as they are just nonsense. But an Aussie bank,will manage their business the Aussie way,which is not necessarily going to be in our interests. As I said previously out of date practice,with out of date technology,poor regulation equals disasters. When water companies were sold off,investment in the industry stopped. We now have MPs with little or no industrial knowledge making decisions that will impact on us all. More and more water companies will continue dumping and take the hit,as they have done for years,as the profit is still big for them!

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - steve miller (26th Oct 2021 - 09:59:29) Mark You suggestion that investment in the water industry came to a halt when the companies were sold off is far from the truth. The link below takes you to a report issued in 2019 by the chartered institution of water engineers and managers setting out what had been achieved in the first 30 years since privatisation:- ciwem.org/the-environment/how-should-water-and-environmental-management-firms-tap,-retain-and-promote-female-talent In the 1980's before privatisation the UK was in serious trouble due to its non compliance with various European Union directives obliging us to make major investments in both Sewage Treatment and higher quality drinking water. The UK Water Authorities running the industry at that time had nothing like sufficient government funding to make the necessary investments and the government decided on privatisation to bring in private funding. Whilst the privatisation model had many faults this 'sell off' did succeed in dramatically increasing capital investment (Scotland and Wales went down a different routes) and the new English water companies have generally now achieved compliance with the Bathing Water Directive, The Urban waste Water Directive and the Drinking Water Directive. We clearly have many outstanding problems with cleaning up the rivers and coastal waters but standards are much improved from pre-privatisation days.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - D (26th Oct 2021 - 10:31:57) I seem to remember a huge water main being completed which encircled London not long ago. Under investment? I don't think so.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - Mark (28th Oct 2021 - 22:29:44) @ Steve Miller Private companies have benefited whilst filling our rivers and estuaries with sewage,for years,assuming you watched ‘South today ‘on yesterday,if not look it up on iPlayer. The general public should not be expected to finance the clean up,or future investment. The owners of the rogue water companies have not invested for years,do get your facts right. You only have to look at the technology at the waste water sites.Or maybe that’s also something you haven’t done either. It’s old ,out of date and not even maintained regularly,guess you know that too. Your bolshy attitude doesn’t wash well with me,it’s all bluster,excuse the pun,I’ve been around too long in this industry! And know my way around the technology ,the costs vs benefit and the alternatives! Good evening.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - D (29th Oct 2021 - 08:21:36) The London "super sewer" is also well underway, due to be completed in 2025.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - steve miller (29th Oct 2021 - 10:15:27) Hmm. Well Mark I shall leave it to others on this forum to judge whether I am guilty of a bolshy attitude or blustering but I am very confident in the facts on investment set out in my previous posts on this thread. I retired in 2014 but for the last 25 years of my working life I was involved in delivering significant chunks of that investment for several of the english water plcs as well as Scottish Water' I should stress that, as a result, I am no great fan of the English privatised companies and in particular of the 'financial engineering' that they indulged in for a large part of the 30+ years since privatisation. For much of this time they have been running rings around the regulator (ofwat) and I certainly accept Mark's point that maintenance expenditure has been cut too far. It is also fair to say that the amount of profit taken out of the industry since privatisation is out of kilter with the relatively low financial risks taken by their businesses. Having said all of that, it has be be recognised that that money has gone and that, in many cases, the various hedge funds responsible for driving the industry in the direction that it went have taken their profits and gone off to other things. Trying to penalise the current shareholders is pretty pointless. The return of Macquarie as the majority owner of Southern Water is interesting as they were one of the worst culprits in their previous life as owners of Thames Water. Time will tell if they have changed! From what I have heard the regulator now has a better grip on the financial engineering aspect of the industry which is probably why most of the hedge funds have departed as they can see that the goose is no longer quite as fat! Returning to the original subject of this thread I can only repeat that any real impact on the number of (currently legal) storm overflow events can only be achieved by throwing frighteningly large amounts of money at the problem. If Mark has his way and the cost burden of stopping such overflows were to fall on the current shareholders through a change in the law, I would imagine that the water plcs would rapidly become insolvent which wouldn't really help anyone. Reading the press reports over the last few days it seems likely that some kind of fudge will emerge with the water companies being a legal responsibility to mitigate the impact of storm overflows and the regulator recognising that additional duty by providing for additional expenditure which will ultimately be funded by customers. It will be interesting to look back in 10 years and see how much progress has actually been made.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - Peter R (2nd Nov 2021 - 08:33:22) Between 02.15 on October the 20th, and 03.15 October 22nd, 49 hours, raw untreated sewage was pumped, allegedly by mistake from the Budds Farm Treatment Plant directly into Langstone Harbour, with obvious consequences for both human and marine life. The drone camera footage is horrific Verifiable on The News ( Portsmouth ) Website That Mr Hinds did not cast a vote is a disgrace

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - steve miller (2nd Nov 2021 - 16:09:31) Peter R The discharge of sewage into Langston Harbour from the treatment works at Budds Farm is clearly in breach of Southern Water's discharge consent and therefore already illegal and potentially subject to sanctions including prosecution depending on the circumstances. This event has no bearing on the vote in parliament which was concerned with discharges of storm overflows which are currently allowed by the regulator.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - Peter R (2nd Nov 2021 - 16:35:02) Mr Miller Try looking at the bigger picture ???????

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - Steve miller (2nd Nov 2021 - 18:08:57) Well Peter The big picture that I see is a system for collection and treatment of domestic sewage that has developed over the 200 or so years since Bazalgette based upon the principal that treatment before discharge to rivers or sea is only provided to flows not that much greater than come down the sewer network in periods of dry weather. it is worth bearing in mind that it is only over the last 30 years that even these flows have been subject to much more than basic treatment as a consequence of the UK having to comply with various European directives. You may not be aware that as recently as the late 90s all raw sewage from Portsmouth was discharged into the sea at Easney on the ebb tide.without any treatment other than screening. these days it is pumped under Langstone Harbour to the substantially enlarged treatment works at Budds Farm that is currently in the news because of the unplanned discharge that you highlighted. I won't repeat my thoughts on the scale of the changes necessary to substantially reduce or eliminate storm overflows but just in case you think that the problem can be laid completely at the door of the English Water plc's I would point out that the situation is no different in Scotland where the industry remains in public ownership.

Re: Hinds vote on raw sewage practices - steve miller (4th Nov 2021 - 21:31:41) Not related to sewage this time but perhaps still connected with the original post in this thread. I was very disappointed to see that Damien Hinds allowed himself to be associated with the debacle that has unfolded over the last couple of days by voting in support of the Leadson amendment aimed at reprieving Owen Paterson. Although I didn't vote for him I have generally considered him to be a good MP and his deep involvement in dementia charity work does him credit. Sadly I now have reason to reconsider my previous view.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home