It's not like you to conflate two issues as a means of deflection, is it? And your acolytes will happily jump to agreement. The original amendment was badly written but, as one of your references shows, has been amended in a form in a way that hardly changes the substantive point of the Lords' concerns.
The point of this thread is of local representation. Even the government is unable to disguise a performance that is unacceptably woeful.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/water-and-sewerage-companies-in-england-environmental-performance-report-2020/southern-water-epa-data-report-2020
We could argue the rights and wrongs of water privatisation until we are blue in the teeth. The sad fact is that far less has been done to make good the sewerage infrastucture than could have been under a different model based upon public well being. Even conservative estimates are that £57bn have gone into the hands of shareholders.
As for the lamentable Southen Water - don't you think it's a little like flytipping? If you pay for an outside company to dispose of your crap only to find they had dumped it somewhere which the public has an expectation to be left unsullied, you'd have a right to feel aggrieved, wouldn't you?
Natalie is mere lobby fodder.