Andover's MP voted against a plan to stop companies from dumping raw sewage into rivers and the sea.

North West Hampshire representative Kit Malthouse voted against an amendment which would have placed a legal duty on water companies not to pump waste into rivers.

Additionally, Devizes MP Danny Kruger, whose constituency also covers Tidworth and Ludgershall, joined fellow party members in voting against the amendment.

But he released a statement on his website which said "of course we don't want sewage in the rivers" and that he voted against the amendment because "the only alternative to a river discharge is to allow the sewage to back up into people's homes". "I'm not sure that's what everyone posting about the vote actually wanted," he added.

The backlash from the public has forced many Conservative MPs, including Winchester's Steve Brine, to post almost identical statements defending their position.

Lords Amendment 45 to the Environment Bill would have placed a legal duty on water companies in England and Wales “to make improvements to their sewerage systems and demonstrate progressive reductions in the harm caused by discharges of untreated sewage".

It was proposed in the House of Lords by the Duke of Wellington, Charles Wellesley.

But Conservative MP Caroline Nokes, whose Romsey and Southampton North constituency covers villages in the Test Valley including Barton Stacey and Longparish, voted in favour of the amendment, and previously supported a campaign from Surfers Against Sewage to stop sewage pollution.

Continuing in his statement, Mr Kruger said that the infrastructure of pipes and sewage treatments works is inadequate, "so when a storm causes a surge in water through the system, the only alternative to a river discharge is to allow the sewage to back up into people's homes".

He continued: "Of course we need better infrastructure. But this is estimated to cost around [£]10,000 per home - or if the taxpayer does it, that’s hundreds of billions of pounds in tax and borrowing, equivalent to our spending on the Covid-19 response. This investment will have to be made over a long period of time.

"But I am pleased that so many people are up in arms about the issue, because we do need serious, concerted, expensive, long-term work to clean up our rivers.

"We need a catchment-based approach that includes policy on agriculture practice; new thinking about our own patterns of water consumption; better development policy to avoid building in flood areas and reduce the run-off and waste of water that badly-design houses create; and a new set of incentives and obligations for the water companies, with regulation that allows them to make the infrastructure investment that is needed."

He added that the government is "working on all of this" and that the environment bill will "set a clear imperative... to eliminate sewage discharges".

Raw sewage was discharged into waters more than 400,000 times in 2020 for a total of more than 3.1 million hours, according to data from the Environmental Agency.

Additionally, the Rivers Trust say all of England's rivers are failing to pass cleanliness tests, with 53 per cent failing at least partly because of water companies releasing sewage into them.

Water companies are allowed to release untreated sewage into rivers and the sea after heavy rainfall and flooding, when there is a surge through the system.

Meanwhile, figures collected by charity the Rivers Trust show that all of England’s rivers are currently failing to pass cleanliness tests, with 53 per cent of them failing at least partly because of water companies releasing sewage into them.

Kit Malthouse has been contacted for comment.