Singing From the Same Hymn Sheet?

UK Water Companies are allowed to discharge untreated sewage into rivers (and, from there, to the sea), when it rains heavily. An amendment was proposed to the current Environmental Bill. This would have stopped Water Companies pumping waste into the already heavily polluted rivers. The government voted the amendment down. A number of Members of Parliament (MPs) who voted for the amendment's removal, have been heavily critisized by their constituents. Several, subsequently posted almost identical defences on social media (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/25/sewage-vote-outcry-prompts-tory-mps-to-defend-decision-on-social-media). The wording for the MP's postings came from the top. It basically claimed that the amendment lacked an impact assessment and that the costs of immediately banning sewage 'spills' would be too great. Figures on the costs of entirely replacing the Victorian sewage system were cited in support. Just a few points. It has been known for decades that sewage is destroying the biodiversity in UK rivers. The Water Companies could have done something about this. It must be possible, in many locations, for Water Companies to increase their capacity for temporarily holding rainwater/sewage for longer periods. Contrary to one MP's claim, constituents are not accusing them of voting to discharge sewage into rivers. The people who live in the constituencies are complaining that the MPs appear to be doing nothing to reduce this activity by the privately-owned Water Companies. Some Water Companies appear to be fixated on profits for their shareholders.