Disappointed over MP’s sewage vote “bluster”

Dear Editor,

I was disappointed by the irrelevant bluster that Dr Mullan threw at us as justification for his voting to allow water companies to dump raw sewage onto our rivers and on to our beaches.

Under current laws many water companies have been fined for just this practice.

His astonishing idea that the financial health of the water companies is more important than the health and safety of his constituents would seem to indicate someone who has a problem with their moral compass.

Dr Mullan has promised lots of action to improve our water supply and treatment.

How he can expect us to accept any promise in the very week that the government broke a repeatedly made promise to complete HS2 and build a new high speed line from Manchester to Leeds is beyond belief.

He is just treating us like gullible fools.

Below the report one commentator, Ade, asked how many MPs had shares in water companies.

After the revelations of the Owen Paterson scandal perhaps we should be asking how many MPs are paid advocates or consultants for water companies.

The system of paid advocacy is a corrupt one. An MPs job is to be an advocate for their constituents and being paid to represent private businesses can so easily bring a conflict of interests.

During the debate last week on the Commons Standards Committee Labour put forward a motion to ban paid advocacy and consultancy.

Several Conservative MPs, ashamed of the corruption of the system, voted for this motion, but our MP together with the rest of his party voted it down.

To be fair the government then brought forth their own motion, which Dr Mullan did support.

This was similar to the Labour motion except that it only banned ‘political’ paid advocacy.

And water companies, like so many of the interests represented by MPs, aren’t political businesses.

While I do not believe that Dr Mullan himself takes advantage of these corrupt practices, his support of those who do yet again brings into question his moral probity and his concern for his constituents.

Yours,

Martin Bond
Nantwich