Westminster Hall
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Water Sector: Public Ownership
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 762640 relating to a referendum on public ownership of the water sector.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I begin by thanking Ashley Paul Smith, who is sitting in the Public Gallery, for pulling together this petition. It has now received 208,000 signatures, and counting—I am sure that that number is already out of date. As the founder and chair of Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, Ash has been investigating the sewage scandal since 2016. Members will likely be aware that his efforts were dramatised earlier this year in Channel 4’s “Dirty Business”, which exposed the long-term impact of the private model on our water sector.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
That brilliant documentary was based on an example relating to South West Water and Devon. Many people in my area would like South West Water to become a company for the public benefit and mutualised. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that would be a good model for South West Water?
Paul Davies
As I run through my speech, the hon. Gentleman will find a theme of strong support for public ownership of the water sector throughout. We absolutely must look at that option.
Ash’s petition calls for
“a binding national referendum on whether the water industry should be returned to public ownership…A referendum would give the public back its voice about its water.”
For too long, our water sector has been in the hands of shareholders rather than the public, who pay for and rely on its delivery.
Lizzi Collinge
My constituents in Morecambe and Lunesdale are really cross about the level of their water bills, and they get more cross when they see the profits being taken out of the water industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that that anger is fair and justified, and that some change needs to come?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree that there is huge frustration out there, which I will refer to later in my speech. I give way to my other hon. Friend.
Fleur Anderson
My constituents in Putney are angry about Thames Water. They can see that they are paying more but getting less because of the model that we have. Does my hon. Friend agree that Thames Water needs to go into special administration and that all our water companies need to be nationalised?
Paul Davies
I will certainly come to that subject later in my speech. My view is absolutely that there needs to be fundamental change in how we ensure that people have access to affordable, safe and secure water supplies.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paul Davies
I will make a little progress; otherwise, I am not going to get past the next few paragraphs.
In 1989, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sold off our then publicly owned water and sewerage industry for £5.2 billion, arguing that privatisation would bring desperately needed investment to the sector. She told the Commons that she believed it would be a better deal than nationalised water. She hoped it would “proceed successfully”, encouraging the Opposition at the time to
“wait and see in the light of the facts rather than pontificate.”—[Official Report, 28 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 577.]
Years later, here we are: we can see in the light of the facts that the private model for water has been far from a success. It has been an economic, environmental and public health failure. I will take an intervention now.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
My constituents in Manchester Rusholme have seen a £57 increase this year, yet it is safe to say that there has been very little to show for it. Just last week, United Utilities had to pay a further £900,000 in fines for dumping raw sewage. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must treat water reform as a strategic priority to tackle the cost of living crisis as well as the crisis in our waterways?
Paul Davies
I will make some progress, and then I will.
The current model is absolutely an economic failure. Private companies have paid out, in 2024 prices, around £83 billion—an average of £2.4 billion a year—as dividends, while loading the companies in debt. Often, those loans were taken out simply to increase the amount of cash extracted as dividends when profits alone were not enough. As we know, crucial infrastructure has been left to fail. Not a single new reservoir has been built since 1992, and water companies have overseen the waste of around 3 billion litres of water a day through leaky pipes.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Last year, Severn Trent reported profits of £850 million, which is an increase of 45% on the previous year, yet my constituents’ water bills have risen by around 10%. There have also been occasions when Severn Trent has not been as quick to carry out repairs as it could have been. Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation needs to change, so that monopoly providers do not make huge profits at the expense of hard-working families while public confidence in the sector continues to decline?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree. As my hon. Friend will hear throughout my speech, the evidence clearly shows us that the model is failing in a range of areas. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) want to get in; I will make a little progress first, then I will give way.
The model has also been an environmental disaster. In 2024, under the administration of water companies, raw sewage was discharged into rivers and seas in England for a record 3.61 million hours. In the first six months of this year alone, raw sewage was discharged into rivers and seas during dry weather a total of 7,280 times.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Paul Davies
I will make a little progress first. According to Environment Agency data, today, just one in seven of England’s waters is in good ecological condition.
Jessica Toale
I am glad that my hon. Friend raised the public health and environmental issues related to the water system. I have received representations not only about sewage at Bournemouth beach but, most recently, about exceptionally high levels of E. coli in Christchurch harbour, which flowed out of the Stour river in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that the public interest of clear accountability in such contexts should always come before shareholder interest?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree that transparency and accountability are crucial. As will be made clear in my speech, and, I am sure, the contributions of other Members, that is a major issue in the current model.
The model has also been a health disaster. According to Government advice, swimming in open water can increase the risk of gastrointestinal illness. Bathing water quality in England seriously lags behind that of its European counterparts. According to Best for Britain, the percentage of bathing waters in England that are rated poor quality is more than five times that in the European Union.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is well known for his courtesy, as he has just illustrated by giving way. Even more shockingly, around 80% of water companies are foreign owned—in other words, the majority of their shareholders live abroad, in all kinds of places, including China. Most users of water would be shocked to hear that. The Government have an obligation not to allow key utilities to fall into foreign hands.
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree, and under this Government work has been taking place to ensure that we have control over our vital services in the UK.
The Government are aware of the failures; their response so far has been to tighten regulation of the sector. In January, Ministers published a White Paper titled “A New Vision for Water”, which was broadly in line with the recommendations made by the Independent Water Commission, also known as the Cunliffe commission. The commission was tasked with establishing key changes to improve the water sector regulatory system, including the creation of a stronger integrated water regulator that is more streamlined and more closely embedded in the affairs of the water companies; regional planning systems; a new water ombudsman; a clearer national strategy through revamped strategic policy statements to regulators; and national targets.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. Does he agree that, as well as putting water companies into public hands, which I agree with, the companies should also be required to do more to support people to harvest their rainwater? That would reduce water bills and the amount of water being pushed into the sewers, which causes discharges into our rivers and seas.
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree with and support the hon. Gentleman’s point. The issue is also about how we look after our water in the future; unfortunately, it would appear from the last few years that such innovative and sustainable initiatives would not happen under private models.
Paul Davies
I will bring in the hon. Gentleman later, but first I will make a bit of progress.
While the steps I mentioned signify some progress—and they are welcome—they only tinker at the edges of reform. I am concerned that the Government have failed to address the fundamental error of the past four decades: while water remains a commodity, it will never deliver an outcome in the interests of the public or the environment. It was disappointing to learn that the Government did not even permit the Independent Water Commission to consider alternative ownership models, including whether public ownership was an option. That signifies a further issue, which is the continued lack of democratic inclusion in the decisions that affect the sector.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent argument. In 2025, our regional water company, Yorkshire Water, discharged untreated sewage into our regional waters for 285,000 hours. Does he agree that that shows the failure of the private sector?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree. As a fellow Yorkshire MP, I know only too well the issues with Yorkshire Water and their impact on citizens in our region.
Public ownership is incredibly popular among the public—Ash’s petition demonstrates that, as does opinion polling. In May this year, YouGov reported that 82% of Brits believe that the water companies should be run in the public sector, compared with just 8% who believe that that they should remain private. That is a marked increase from the 59% in favour in 2017. That support is not limited to Labour voters, of whom 84% are in favour: 66% of Conservative and Reform, 83% of Liberal Democrat and 87% of Green voters are also in favour.
The public overwhelmingly back the public ownership of water—in my view, with good reason. Public ownership would mean that the £22 billion earmarked for shareholder returns and interest over the next five years would go instead towards repairing our broken water infrastructure, paying off debts and letting water company staff do their jobs properly.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for being generous with his time; many Members want to participate. I promised that I would raise this issue for my Liverpool Riverside constituents, who are complaining about United Utilities. It increased the cost of bills by 9% and then took a profit of £779 million. We are faced with crumbling Victorian systems. Does my hon. Friend agree that as a Government we need to do what we promised in our manifesto and in-source immediately?
Paul Davies
Again, as I run through my speech, my hon. Friend will see the position that I am taking on public ownership. I absolutely agree that it beggars belief to see money being siphoned off from the water sector into private hands. As has already been mentioned, many shareholders are not even in the UK while our citizens are suffering badly.
The £22 billion earmarked for shareholder returns alone would help address water poverty, which 1.8 million households faced between 2024-25. Look across the water: Paris took water back into public hands in 2010. Once that move was made, a range of social subsidies were introduced to help safeguard access to water for all. Crucially, public ownership is essential if we want to restore public trust.
Last year, the Consumer Council for Water’s annual survey found that trust in the water sector had hit an all-time low. The high cost of bills, repeated violations of environmental standards and continued enrichment of company bosses has left the public disillusioned.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
On that breach of public trust, my Mid Sussex constituents tell me they do not trust South East Water because it does not take part in planning consultations and does not say if it can supply the water that new housing will inevitably require. Does the hon. Member agree that water companies must contribute to planning consultations for the new housing that is needed?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree. As a former councillor, I have sat on many planning committees and in many instances I was extremely frustrated by the lack of engagement or, where there was engagement, by it not being up to the standard needed. I believe the move into public ownership would help us resolve that.
Regulation alone cannot fix the crisis of confidence and, as we all know, the Government’s ban on bonuses for water companies that fail to meet high standards has been widely bypassed, with reports indicating that bosses’ total pay actually increased in the past year. Even when under an intense spotlight from academics and campaigners such as Ash, the industry is willing to blatantly outwit regulation. To rebuild trust, the public must know for certain that their bills are being used to fund services, not profits.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Cocklemoor in Langport is a popular spot for water sports on the River Parrett and it sits right at the heart of the community. I am campaigning for it to be designated as a bathing water site, but in 2025 alone, it was polluted more than 200 times as a direct result of Wessex Water prioritising profits over investment in stopping discharges. Does the hon. Member agree that tackling sewage dumping at official bathing water sites should be prioritised over paying big bonuses to water company bosses?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree. I am old enough to remember when raw sewage was pumped into the coastal waters where I was born in south Wales. We started to change that and it changed quite dramatically. We seem to have regressed badly and we have seen a complete failure by the private sector to control that problem.
People must be able to see that their concerns are being listened to and that they have a meaningful say in how the industry operates. That brings me to the purpose of Ash’s petition.
Paul Davies
I am going to make a little bit of progress. Ash calls for a referendum because, in his words,
“I think people are sick of being told they can’t have healthy rivers and seas, just because powerful financiers want to keep making money from our water bills. Our government is listening to them but not to us, so this is how we stop being victims and start fighting back.”
I appreciate where Ash is coming from—[Interruption.] I will make a little progress; I am conscious of time.
Despite its popularity and the strength of the case behind it, there has been a total failure from successive Governments to consider the merits of public ownership. I believe we have a strong opportunity to rectify that. It is no secret that our politics has undergone significant change in recent months. We now have a Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, who proudly states a commitment to delivering “stronger public control” of essential services. In his first statement delivered to the Commons as Prime Minister, he criticised the political path of the past 40 years, which had taken control away from communities, and cited the water sector
“as a leaking monument to that approach—a country run in the private rather than public interest.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 27.]
I commend the Prime Minister for those words, but words must become action. There are practical steps that this Government can take now.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he has been very generous with his time. We are being asked to believe that the solution is more complex restructuring, borrowing, negotiations and concessions. However, according to recent reporting, Thames Water will have incurred almost £2 billion in financing costs and restructuring fees over the last 18 months. Meanwhile, my constituents’ bills are going up. Does he think that is fair?
Paul Davies
I absolutely do not think that is fair. That comes to the nub of what we are talking about: the total lack of fairness in how the sector is operated and its impact on all our citizens.
Paul Davies
I will, and then I will have to make some progress—that is just a warning to other hon. Members.
Jim Dickson
For my constituents, the performance of Thames Water is a continual source of huge frustration, not least its failure to fix a long-running leak at Swanscombe station. However, a particularly egregious example of poor customer service is its failure to fit a water meter to the house of my constituent, Mr Richard Jones, despite it only requiring a small adjustment to the outside of his house to do so. As a result, he is paying an assessed household charge and therefore paying far more for his water than he should be. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an example of incredibly poor service by Thames Water?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree. Many of us are now customers of Thames Water; I have Yorkshire Water and Thames Water. I am sad to say that I have not been impressed as a customer with either, but what has happened to that gentleman is just not acceptable.
There are practical steps that the Government can take now. One option is for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to conduct a feasibility study of alternative models to ensure that public ownership has been given due, fair and full consideration. I understand that previously the Department has cited a total cost of £100 billion for full nationalisation, which it based on the regulatory capital value of the sector. However, that approach has been widely criticised as misleading for failing to represent the accurate market value of a company. For example, Thames Water’s RCV is more than £20 billion, yet the 2025 rescue bid from Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., before it walked away, valued the equity at around £4 billion because the company’s debts had all but wiped out the value of the capital base. A feasibility study would provide full transparency and accuracy.
It is also true that the Government face a more imminent crisis with the likely collapse of Thames Water. Here there are several options, including a special administration regime. Although that is technically a temporary form of nationalisation, it would allow the Government to test the waters for more far-reaching reform. Without an SAR water companies will know that, no matter how bad it gets, there is no real sanction. The credibility of the regulation will be fundamentally undermined.
In the spirit of devolution we must strive for a water sector that is decentralised, democratic and that serves the interests of our communities. There are strong precedents for that. Some hon. Members may be familiar with the example of Berlin’s water utility, which was re-municipalised following a grassroots campaign in the early 2010s. That was driven by demands for greater transparency and accountability, issues that have already been raised several times in interventions in this debate. Today, Berlin’s water provision is managed by a 16-person board with eight shareholder representatives appointed by the state of Berlin and eight employee representatives elected through workforce representation mechanisms.
International evidence shows that long-term democratic involvement in running our water sector is essential to rebuild trust and to secure stronger outcomes. It also has practical benefits. The cost of regulation will fall when information becomes open and transparent, and it will provide a lasting guarantee that water is run in the interests of the public, not those of the private sector. At its heart, this debate is about the right of the public to have their say over one of the most basic and essential services.
If we are serious about setting a new political path, as the Prime Minister has said, we must heed the call of campaigners such as Ash and deliver a water system that is innovative and sustainable to underpin the essential infrastructure of our economy and the health of our nations. We must be brave in our approach. We need to look at history and the decisions of past Governments. We do not remember small-scale reforms or tinkering with a broken system. We remember those who had the courage to rewire the state and deliver lasting change. This Government now face that moment. They must choose whether to preserve a failed model or to deliver a system that is stronger and more accountable. The choice is clear: it is time to put water back into public ownership.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members to bob if they wish to be called to speak. Given the level of interest in this important debate, I will immediately impose a time limit of two and a half minutes. It is up to speakers if they wish to take interventions, but they can see how many colleagues wish to speak.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I am delighted to speak to this petition. It is about a really important issue, particularly in my constituency of Newton Abbot where we have Dawlish Warren, which is the place where “Dirty Business”, which showed the tragic death of Heather Preen, was filmed. I met Heather’s mother Julie when she came to this House, which was truly sobering.
I have the River Exe and the River Teign in my constituency. Both of them suffer. We are not dealing with water in the right way; I think that is plain to see. Quite how much hon. Members will say anything different in this debate I am not sure, but it is clear that we need to make a change. The experiment of 1989 failed. Heather died only 10 years after that, and we can see that investment was not being made. South West Water proudly says that it invests £13 billion in the system, but it pays out more than half of that in dividends. That is just wrong.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
On the hon. Member’s point about the failure to invest, in Basingstoke South East Water’s failure to invest in the Surrey hills pipeline has resulted in over-abstraction of the Greywell fen, which is destroying our chalk streams, holding up the local plan, which means that homes cannot be built, and risking water scarcity for existing residents. Does the hon. Member agree that investment is at the heart of the failure and that whatever model we choose must deliver investment to deliver change in all those aspects?
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members to face the Chair, not other hon. Members.
Martin Wrigley
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy). There is only one place where money comes from to make those investments. The water companies cannot borrow more money. Their money does not come from the investors. The investors are sitting there; that is the original £5 billion that was made available to buy the companies in the first place. That money comes only from the customers’ bills or from Government—the customers’ tax. That is why water companies must move into public ownership and more particularly into mutual ownership so that the customers own the company. They would then be investing in their own future, not in somebody else’s profits.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Martin Wrigley
I will make progress.
I welcome the change to a single regulator, which was set out in the White Paper, but it has been clear for years that Ofwat has not had the teeth or the understanding to avoid the water companies turning into financial instruments dealing with very complex debt deals. That is where things have gone wrong, and we have to change it.
We should look differently at how we fine companies for their behaviour, prior to taking them into some form of public ownership. I strongly believe that when we find them funds, the money cannot simply come from customers’ bills. We see companies such as Thames Water putting off paying their bills for years, and that must not happen. Personally, I believe that we should look at other ways of fining the water companies, perhaps even through shares or something that hits shareholders, rather than customers. That is the only way we will have any control over these companies until we make the change.
In the meantime, we have had citizen science groups such as Friends of the River Teign and Friends of the River Exe testing water daily over the summer. It is rarely green; it is always polluted. This is a major problem. We have people swimming in the seas who rely on citizen science testing to see what is happening. I congratulate campaign groups on their efforts, but the fact that they have to do such testing is reprehensible, and it should not be happening in the 21st century. We have to take the water companies out. We have to put them under public ownership. I urge the Minister to do so quickly.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate under your illustrious chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on leading it, and I thank him for being so generous with his time. I also thank the members of the public who are in the Gallery, including Ash Smith, Julie Maughan, Rob Forrester and all the other campaigners, citizen activists and citizen scientists who have got us to the point where this is one of the hottest topics in politics at the moment.
The people who built our water system understood something that we in this place have forgotten. One of them said that
“all monopolies which are in any way sustained by the State ought to be in the hands of the representations of the peoples”.
Members and those in the Gallery may like to guess who said that. Was it Leon Trotsky? Was it Tony Benn? Well, it was actually Joseph Chamberlain, who ended his career as a Conservative Cabinet member. Many of the Victorians understood that public ownership is not ideological; it is pragmatic.
Clive Lewis
I will take one intervention, because I know that time is short.
Sir John Hayes
It is apposite that the hon. Gentleman should do so, because Joe Chamberlain is a great hero of mine; indeed, his portrait sat in my office when I was a Minister. What Joe Chamberlain understood was the balance between private interest and the public investment and public accountability that the hon. Gentleman describes. That is entirely compatible with the views of people across this Chamber and should not really be seen in Chamberlain’s terms; it should be seen as doing what is right by the people and for the people.
Clive Lewis
I agree 100% with the right hon. Member. Joseph Chamberlain is the father of municipal government and municipal socialism in many ways, and he is someone we in this place can look to.
I know that time is short, and I want to get to one key point. This debate taps into something far deeper than the yah-boo politics between those on different sides of the House: a deep public anxiety about the future of this country and this planet. People instinctively understand that something is wrong. This summer, we all watched as this country burned. We know that droughts are on their way, and we know that AI is possibly out of control. Housing, energy, water and food are things that people want under public control, not in the hands of corporations, billionaires and millionaires.
When droughts and food insecurity hit, and when we cannot get access to social care or healthcare, we understand that the public need to be able to make the decisions as to who gets what, including water. Water is vital to everything from industry, to agriculture, to people having something to drink. Given that this country may soon face a water shortfall of 5 billion litres a week, and that the national risk register suggests there is a one in four chance that parts of the country will no longer be able to have people living there, because they will have to be evacuated due to severe water shortages, there is no choice but for the Government finally to grasp the nettle and bring not just water but every critical asset this country has, from data, to health, to housing, back into public ownership where people need it—under our control, owned by us.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
My constituents want clean rivers, reliable water, functioning sewerage infrastructure and value for money. What they want is not necessarily a change in the ownership of water companies, but proper regulation, proper investment and proper accountability. Thames Water lost 136 litres per property per day in 2024-25—the worst performance in England and Wales—and South East Water, which also covers my constituency, lost almost 106 litres per customer per day. How can we ask customers to conserve water, as we have been doing over the past few months, when Thames Water and South East Water are losing so much of it?
Likewise, sewage discharges, especially those into the River Wey in my constituency, are disgraceful, although we know about them only because the previous Conservative Government started measuring them.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we could improve the regulation of water companies by ensuring we get independent audit and monitoring of the data from them? In Folkestone and Hythe, two beautiful beaches in Romney Marsh are subject to “Do not swim” warnings, partly because Southern Water comes up with the data, the Environment Agency agrees with it and nothing happens. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that important change to our system needs to happen?
Gregory Stafford
I am afraid I do not know every word in the 2024 Labour manifesto, but I believe that a lot of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is in it, and I would encourage him to ask the Minister those very questions.
I have joined the River Wey Trust for water testing, and I know that Thames Water is now undertaking phosphorus removal upgrades at the Farnham treatment works serving my constituency. However, a key question I want to ask the Minister is, will they be delivered in a timely manner?
On infrastructure, when I last met Thames Water representatives, they told me it had inaccurate records for around 30% of its infrastructure. How can a modern water company properly manage its network if it does not even know what infrastructure it has? South East Water provides drinking water for the majority of my constituency, and it has received a £22.5 million Ofwat fine, yet leaks in my constituency take weeks to be sorted.
Those are symptoms of an ageing network that requires proper investment and maintenance, and that is not cost-free. Nationalisation does not repair pipes, make treatment works cheaper or remove the need for investment; it transfers the financial risk—potentially £100 billion—to taxpayers, and it still requires regulation, which is clearly failing at the moment.
I draw the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to what has happened to South Western Railway since it was nationalised: cancellations are up, trains are shorter and delays have doubled. Why would my constituents believe that the nationalisation of water would be any more successful than this Government’s nationalisation of the railways?
Gregory Stafford
I will not, because lots of other people want to speak—I apologise.
My constituents are not asking whether the water companies are private or public; they are asking why their water company loses water through leaks, allows sewage into the River Wey and sometimes struggles even to maintain basic infrastructure. Is not the real test of this Government whether they can force these companies to perform better, as they promised in their manifesto, rather than simply changing their ownership? The choice is not between doing nothing and nationalisation. The challenge is to ensure that we have strong regulation, proper investment and real consequences for failure, without putting the bill on the taxpayer.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I am grateful to the 208,000 people who signed the petition. For many of my constituents, this debate could hardly be more timely. Last month, a burst water main on Bramley Road left thousands of households across Enfield North without water, or experiencing low pressure for many days. Around 4,500 properties were affected. Thames Water’s own planning identified almost 3,000 priority services register customers in affected areas, and 24 tankers were deployed.
However, those figures alone cannot describe the complete misery caused for my constituents. One told me:
“I’ve been a resident in Lavender Hill for 27 years and I’ve never had to endure the incident that I am currently facing. I live in flats and have had NO water for over 3 days.”
Many others described the distressing impact on the most basic aspects of everyday life, including cooking, drinking, washing and sanitation. In response, I managed to persuade the local Morrisons store to make its industrial washing machines and dryers available free of charge, and I am really grateful to it for that.
Let us be clear: this was not just an inconvenience; for many, it was a crisis. The disruption even reached Chase Farm hospital, where operating theatres lost their water supply, forcing operations to be cancelled for two days while emergency tankers were brought in.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Is the situation my hon. Friend describes—Thames Water not being there when crises happen, while at the same time hugely increasing customers’ bills and failing to invest in infrastructure—not exactly why we cannot have a sweetheart deal with its creditors and shareholders? They must be held to account; they cannot continue with their record of failure on the backs of hard-working Londoners.
Feryal Clark
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. When a failure in water infrastructure can disrupt NHS treatment, we are no longer talking simply about poor customer service; we are talking about critical national infrastructure.
What made this incident particularly unacceptable was not simply the fact that a pipe burst—we all know that infrastructure can fail—but what happened afterwards. My constituents faced conflicting information about whether their water would return, and they struggled to contact Thames Water. Bottled water stations were located in places that were extremely difficult for elderly and disabled residents to reach without a car. When I raised that issue with Thames Water, this was its extraordinary response:
“It’s not uncommon for us to set up bottled water stations in the London area without considering residents without a vehicle.”
Think about that: an essential utility provider responding to an emergency affecting thousands of people admits that it does not routinely consider whether vulnerable customers can actually reach the emergency water it provides. If an essential service fails, surely the absolute minimum people should expect is to be told what has happened, what they should do, where they can get help and when the service should be fixed.
This experience inevitably raises a much bigger question: who is our water industry ultimately being run for? I welcome the Government’s determination to strengthen regulation, but we should also ask whether regulation alone can solve the problem.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I speak today on behalf of not just my constituents but my rivers. The Avon, Alne, Arrow and Stour in my Stratford-on-Avon constituency are part of the ecosystem of the mighty Avon. They are all central to our communities, wellbeing, local environment and wildlife. However, the current privatised water system has failed the public and the environment.
First, I want to thank the many citizen science projects in my constituency and the campaign groups across the country. Without their tireless work and water testing, much of this scandal would have remained hidden. That community effort is also matched by growing public anger about sewage discharge into rivers and seas, and about executives receiving large bonuses while customer bills rise and rise.
A model of public ownership could be for the water companies to become mutually owned. That would mean greater accountability, with a focus on public benefit rather than shareholder profit; executive boards that include environmental experts and local citizens groups; and a greater investment in infrastructure, with any profits reinvested into the water system. Public ownership would make it much easier to manage water collectively, as a social good rather than a commodity. That would make solutions such as sustainable drainage systems, sponge cities and controlling pollution at source not only feasible but easier to implement.
We in Stratford-on-Avon want clean, thriving waterways, and we will not stop campaigning until this mess is sorted out.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening this petition debate so well and for representing the petitioners and campaigners here today.
My constituency of Shipley is fortunate to be home to two beautiful rivers: the Aire and the Wharfe, where people walk, exercise, enjoy nature and spend time with family and friends. The rivers should contribute enormously to residents’ quality of life, but from Bingley to Burley in Wharfedale, residents are afraid to let their children paddle or swim in the rivers because of the health risks created by the illegal dumping of human waste. Just last summer, one of my constituents in Bingley, a boy of seven, was left fighting for his life with E. coli poisoning. He suffered multiple organ failure, and he needed emergency operations and kidney dialysis to beat the infection. It is absolutely disgraceful that, so much time after the first tragic death that was vividly depicted in a Channel 4 documentary, private companies are still allowed to abuse our rivers and put profit before people and nature.
Why are we in this terrible situation? As others have said, in 1989, the Tory Government did what no other country has done—there is no international precedent for this—and put the stewardship of our most precious natural resource into the hands of private companies. We were told that private ownership would bring investment, efficiency and innovation. Instead, we have seen rising debt, rising bills and more pollution in our rivers. It is claimed that there is no evidence that public ownership leads to better outcomes, yet in Paris, where there has been remunicipalisation, there has been improved service quality and water quality, and a reduction in price. In fact, water bills in Paris are about a third lower than they are for my constituents under Yorkshire Water.
We must act now to prevent further harm being done to children like the boy in my constituency by the likes of Yorkshire Water and Thames Water. I join others in urging the Government to put Thames Water into special administration and to be bold in bringing forward a water reform Bill that goes beyond the Cunliffe commission and sets out a legal framework that will enable us to build back a publicly owned water sector.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for setting out the case so well. I also thank my constituents for signing this petition; my constituency is ranked 10th for the number of constituents who signed it, with 866 signatures.
Before I get into the usual damning of Thames Water, I want to put something on the record. However corporately dysfunctional Thames Water is, there are a lot of good people who work for it. I thank the frontline teams and their managers, who have engaged on issues such as the flooding on Ladygrove in Didcot and restoring Wallingford’s Mill brook, and who attended a flooding summit at East Hanney last year
Corporately, however, Thames Water is not working, and that lets down its customers and workers. Last year, it discharged sewage into our rivers and lakes for more than 107,000 hours—yet another example of Thames Water failing its customers and the environment, and of the regulator, Ofwat, failing the British public. Despite serving 16 million people with a vital public service, Thames Water is operating with £23 billion of assets in urgent need of repair and close to £20 billion of debt, which it has said it cannot repay—a third of customers’ bills are spent servicing that debt. In that context, it is unclear how Thames Water is the right organisation to be responsible for delivering the proposed White Horse reservoir, the estimated costs for which have already increased from £2.2 billion to £7.5 billion.
Certainly, special administration is the right thing for Thames Water, but the subject of the e-petition is public ownership. We assume that nationalising organisations automatically leads to good delivery, but the evidence on this is mixed at best. It would come as a surprise to users of train services in the north of England, delivered by Network Rail, which was nationalised nearly a quarter of a century ago, and Northern Rail, which was nationalised more than half a decade ago, to learn that nationalisation automatically leads to brilliance. That is why, instead of nationalisation, the Liberal Democrats are calling for water companies to become mutually owned public benefit corporations—owned by customers, professionally managed and not driven by shareholder profit—with effective regulation.
On the proposed delivery mechanism, a referendum, I still personally have PTSD from the 2016 one. Instead, we should add this to the Prime Minister’s list of things on which he needs to forge a cross-party consensus.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I hope I do not shock my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies), who made an excellent speech in opening this debate, when I say that I do not want a referendum to bring the water industry back into public ownership. I just want Ministers to get on and do it. The Secretary of State has the power under the Water Industry Act 1991 to petition the High Court for any water company to lose its licence for either poor performance or insolvency.
Poor performance? Discharging untreated sewage into our waterways across England and Wales 568,674 times in just one year—I call that poor performance. That is the reason that Ofwat and the Environment Agency have been imposing fines of more than £100 million a time on water companies. No river in England meets good chemical status, and only 14%—one in seven—achieve good ecological status overall.
Section 94 of the Water Industry Act sets out that companies have a principal duty to provide sewerage systems. They also have a principal duty to comply with their statutory duties under regulation 4 of and schedule 2 to the Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994. The Secretary of State can apply to put a company into a special administration regime if it has contravened, or is likely to contravene, any principal duty. They have; she should.
On insolvency, let us turn to Thames Water’s disservice of my constituency of Brent West. Under section 24 of the Act, the company can be taken into an SAR if it
“is or is likely to be unable to pay its debts”.
Thames Water’s gearing is 88%. Major pension funds have written off their £956 million stake in the company, and it has failed its licence obligation to maintain investment-grade status.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Barry Gardiner
No, I will not.
The company’s credit rating is now junk status. The only way it claims it can pay its bills is if the regulator allows it not to do its job of meeting its environmental performance obligations.
For goodness’ sake, we do not need a referendum. We need a Secretary of State who is prepared to use the legislation that was provided for the purpose of defending the public.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the many constituents who signed this petition. We have heard a range of views from across the Chamber on the best ownership model, but we can surely agree that the current model is untenable, is unsustainable and lacks democratic involvement. No one wants it except the water bosses themselves.
My constituents continue to write to me to express their dissatisfaction with the system. Our local waste water company is Wessex Water. The former chief executive, Colin Skellett, received an £170,000 bonus from parent company YTL Utilities in 2024, despite a Government ban on performance-related payments following criminal pollution convictions. Accounts covering the period to June 2025 show that the Malaysian-owned parent company paid Mr Skellett remuneration of £693,000 in total. Wessex Water was subject to a bonus ban after being criminally convicted in November 2024 over a sewage pumping station failure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) condemned this passionately, but I am sorry to say that since then things have not got any better. Our rivers are not cleaner, our infrastructure has not seen significant upgrades and our water bills have not gone down. However, Ruth Jefferson, the current chief executive of Wessex Water, has received a 14% pay increase, from £590,000 to £671,000—well above inflation. Environment Agency data shows that last year the company released 190,666 hours of raw sewage into the waterways—equivalent to about 21 years of continuous spillage. How many of our constituents got a 14% pay rise for failing to do their job so spectacularly? People recognise it for what it is.
Mutual ownership by customers would put an end to this mockery. It would allow profits to be reinvested in infrastructure rather than being paid to shareholders. It would allow legally binding priorities to be set—[Interruption.]
Peter Swallow
I will give the hon. Lady a chance to drink some water, which is, of course, what we are all here to talk about. It is important to my constituents, and I know to hers. I will let her carry on with her fantastic speech.
Claire Young
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I was trying to say that mutual ownership would allow legally binding priorities to be set so that companies would have to protect the environment, provide clean water and provide standards that we do not have at the moment.
I want to say one other thing: it is not just the default local water company that deals with waste water. On many modern estates, private companies that are separate to the default water company for the area are taking the waste, and there are no guarantees. If they fail, the responsibility for that waste reverts to Wessex Water in our case, and it may end up taking on even more inadequate infrastructure than it already has. That is something else to consider when we are discussing this issue.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker.
We have all seen the price of failure. “Dirty Business” hit us hard with the true cost—the human cost—and the scale of sewage and chemicals. Professor Alistair Boxall is drawing to our attention the pollutants that are destroying our river health and ecology and causing our rivers to die, but also the money and how it flows—the revolving doors and the completely unaccountable power within the water industry.
Of course, when we see the revolving doors between regulators and companies, we know that we cannot trust the system. Our constituents cannot trust the system as they are fleeced to pay more for the profits of these companies—of these now millionaires who are allowing sewage to run through our cities. York has the second-worst polluted river, the River Ouse. We see floods and droughts in our city, and burst pipes that are unaddressed for days. We see the cost to our constituents.
The Minister must bring water into public ownership, and must not prevaricate or look for a different route. Plain and simple—let’s just get on with it. We have heard how we can bring forward an SAR to bring those companies and contracts back into public hands. I also say to the Minister that I have looked at this issue over the summer, and it is vital that we look at how we hold public institutions to account, who makes decisions and how the public can have a say.
As politicians, all we can often do is come to this place and plead, and use our campaigning platform to speak of the challenges we see, but we do not have power and leverage over systems. Setting up public ownership is important so that we and the public have leverage over the system. The public would have the ability, through a deliberative process and a citizens assembly, to hold water companies—public companies—to account so that they can get the answers that they deserve.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker.
I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate, which could not have come at a more poignant time for my constituents. Just weeks ago, flash flooding tore through properties, and more than 60 homes suffered internal flooding. In the worst cases, water reached a metre deep. Among those affected were an elderly man with limited mobility who had to leave his home, and a mother caring for her severely disabled daughter who was at risk of losing the electricity supply needed to maintain essential medical equipment. Those are just a few examples to show the severity of the challenge we face and the human cost that comes with inaction.
Worse still, the problem is not new. Perry Beeches flooded badly 10 years ago. We have known for years that the neighbourhood is vulnerable, yet our infrastructure remains unfixed, our manhole covers remain blocked and our rivers continue to flow with sewage and waste—not to mention the subsidence across our city caused by leaking water pipes. The cost of our water companies doing nothing is paid in ruined homes, destroyed possessions and frightened families.
What are my constituents paying for? Severn Trent’s average combined household bill has risen by around 10% this year, and yet constituents find themselves paying more for less. It is clear that the industry is broken when a company can record more than 36,000 sewage spills lasting more than 200,000 hours and still achieve the Environment Agency’s top environmental rating of four stars.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
We have heard a lot about constituents getting sick; one of my Padstow constituents was hospitalised just a few weeks ago. On the hon. Member’s point about the Environment Agency’s ratings, Surfers Against Sewage says that 80% of hospitalisations come from bathing waters judged “good” or “excellent” by the Environment Agency. Does he agree that it is a nonsense to have a regulator like that?
Ayoub Khan
Absolutely. By way of example, how can an organisation receive a four-star rating when it is performing so badly?
Privatisation was sold on the promise that private capital would deliver investment and relieve pressure on the public purse, but with Thames Water amassing £20 billion in debt and due a Government bailout, that is clearly not the case anymore. Around the world, 90% of water is under public ownership, and yet 100% of ours is privately owned. It is not always wise to follow the crowd, but this is clearly something that we have gotten wrong.
My constituents are not asking Parliament to pretend that public ownership has no cost; they know it has a price. All they are asking us is to find out whether the price can really be greater than chronic underinvestment, rising bills, sewage-filled rivers, flooded homes and a system in which the public carry the risk while private investors take all the reward.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker.
Water is a basic natural resource, essential for public health and hygiene, but it is trapped in one of the largest ever private monopolies: we cannot choose water from a less polluted waterway or stop paying bills that rise faster than inflation, and we cannot even change suppliers. As others have said, under Thatcher, our water and sewerage system was sold off with a clean slate: £5 billion in debt was wiped and companies were given a cash boost to the tune of £1.5 billion. Yorkshire Water has paid shareholders £7.6 billion in dividends since 1989, and it has £6.2 billion in debt. That is unacceptable. Resident bill payers have paid the price.
Every promise of a better system has completely collapsed under the weight of this monopoly. On Addy Street in Upperthorpe in my constituency, residents are no strangers to jets of water coming out of the ground. The most recent instance was not the first, second or even third time that they had seen a burst main, but the fourth. These are no longer unique occurrences; they are endemic to a system that is at breaking point.
We have to be transparent: mounting corporate greed across England will not be wished away by making it easier to sack failing chief executives or imposing greater fines on companies. The personnel are not the problem. The problem is the system of deriving massive profit from life’s essential needs. Although I welcome the Government’s planned reforms, I urge them to go further than public control and regulation, and work to bring the system back in house.
Four hundred and thirty-four of my constituents have signed the petition that we are discussing today, and 440 more in Walkley have signed local activist Hannah Cawley’s petition calling for water to be brought into public ownership. They are calling for an end to stakeholder payouts, and for cleaner rivers, lower bills and real accountability. That is the least that they deserve. Sheffield, like the rest of the country, has paid enough for this failure. It is time to bring water back into public ownership, and it is time to put the people who depend on it first.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. After successive years of failure, we need a water sector that serves people, not profit. We in the Green party have long made a cast-iron pledge to support bringing water back into public ownership. During its passage, I attempted to expand the powers of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to enable environmental failures—not just insolvency—to trigger Government intervention, and I backed a cross-party amendment on mutual ownership. The Government rejected both, and public ownership itself was denied any place in the legislation by the Minister.
Over the last three and a half decades, we have seen companies ripping off consumers while failing to invest in our crumbling infrastructure. While investors receive billions in dividends, the system needs its biggest ever investment programme. More than £50 billion has been pocketed by shareholders since privatisation, while around £16 billion is needed in the next few years just to fix storm overflows and solve poisonous nitrate pollution. Instead of pouring money into profits and managing failures, we need to build a system that is fit for the future. It is no wonder that this privatisation experiment has failed: water is a public resource and a natural monopoly.
Fantastical figures are used to scare people off the pursuit of public ownership as a solution. The figure of £90 billion was first cooked up in a Social Market Foundation report paid for by—oh!—four prominent members of the water sector. The Government could leave the debt with the debt holders and look at alternative models, such as Common Wealth’s economic assessment reflecting years of neglected infrastructure, companies struggling with insolvency, and debt leveraging for commercial survival. While costs would be incurred in facilitating the transfer, an honest valuation would put public ownership within reach.
As we see company debt and statutory fines loaded on to bills, record sewage spills and billions in dividend payouts, I implore the Government to set out a timetable to restore our water to public ownership and end Thatcher’s failed 37-year privatisation experiment.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
It is clear today that the privatisation of water was one of the biggest cons in British history. We have seen water bills rise by 44% in real terms since privatisation, rivers polluted, infrastructure deteriorate and shareholders extract to the tune of £85 billion from our water industry. Regulation has failed to fix it; we have to be honest about that. Water companies have been fined millions of pounds, but that has demonstrably failed to change their behaviour. Chronic underfunding of the Environment Agency and failures by Ofwat have meant that even the limited regulatory powers available have too often gone unenforced.
I am pleased that the Prime Minister understands these issues, because it is time to bring water back into public ownership. There is an economic case for doing it: Professor David Hall’s research estimates that public ownership could reduce financing costs by between £3.2 billion and £5.8 billion a year. That is money that could be invested in repairing pipes, tackling leaks, improving sewerage infrastructure, protecting our rivers and keeping bills affordable.
But I must stress that public ownership has to mean much more than putting a Government sign above the door. Public control cannot mean just some sort of franchise model with the pretence of overarching Government control, or the odd token councillor sitting on a water company board. That will solve nothing. We need regional publicly owned water companies with democratic accountability and meaningful representation for workers, customers and communities.
The revenues from water bills should be used to operate and improve the service, not provide returns to shareholders; investment should be planned for the long term; and environmental protection has to be at the very heart of the industry. Of course, that has a cost—we have to be honest—but we already know from research that public ownership would pay for itself within around seven years, with savings thereafter. We do not need a referendum; we need to take water back into public ownership now.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on his eloquent speech, and I thank everyone who signed the petition and the people in the Public Gallery—it shows how much interest there is in this issue.
Since the water companies were privatised, they have paid out billions in profits, taken on billions of pounds of debt, paid out millions of pounds in bonuses and put up bills. We have had hosepipe bans and sewage is being discharged into our local streams, beaches and waterways.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Surfers Against Sewage’s submission to the independent water commission looked at five different public interest models for the water industry, each with its own strengths. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be a culture of accountability to the wider public, not just to shareholders?
Dr Chambers
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. All the issues that I just highlighted were the result of a failure of regulation over decades, and it is absolutely time that we reform the way water companies are structured, owned and run.
We have sewage pouring into the chalk streams in Winchester—we have the River Itchen and the River Meon, and next door we have the beautiful Test valley—which are unique habitats with unique biodiversity. They are sites of special scientific interest. The salmon in southern chalk streams are genetically distinct from the salmon in the Atlantic ocean. The destruction of this type of habitat by sewage and pollution is ecological vandalism.
Businesses are also affected. A farmer contacted me because sewage discharged by Southern Water was ruining his crops. He had to get me and my office involved just to enter into a conversation with the water company to get the compensation he deserved.
People’s health is affected. I heard just last week from a mother whose three-year-old baby has been hospitalised with potential liver failure because he was playing in a stream and she was unaware that sewage was being discharged into the waterway. I heard from a woman who got very sick after paddleboarding in a stream; she was unaware that sewage was discharged upstream. This is affecting businesses, health and our local environment.
Before I finish, I want to pay tribute to the dedication of the amazing citizen scientists who have worked to gather data so that we can hold water companies to account and know the situation on the ground. To name a handful, there is the Winchester Downs Cluster, the Upper Itchen Restoration group and the Environmental Farmers Group. One of our amazing local councillors, Margot Power in Alresford, has for decades been taking samples of invertebrates in the river to measure their health.
I also pay tribute to the Southern Water crew who work on the ground when there is a flood or a discharge, or a drain needs unblocking, often in terrible weather and often late at night. Those guys are doing a brilliant job. They work in companies that are not fit for purpose, in a system that needs to be reformed. We need to ensure that they have all the support they need to make sure we have fresh water and a clean environment, and that people’s bills do not go up while directors get huge bonuses.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker.
Severn Trent customers in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire have seen their bills rise by 22% this year, and they are expected to rise by a further 47% by 2029. At the same time, Severn Trent reported pre-tax profits of £320 million in the last financial year, and the company’s long-term incentive plan could raise the chief exec’s annual remuneration to a staggering £3.1 million.
In 2024, Severn Trent was responsible for more than 300 pollution incidents, and in 2023 the company was responsible for over 60,000 sewage overflows. People living on Paddock Rise in Trentham recently had to deal with the most appalling situation of having raw sewage in their street, presenting a serious public health risk. I have raised many times the challenges faced by the village of Upper Tean, including constant flooding, blown manhole covers, the children’s playground and the recreation ground being flooded with sewage water, and dead rivers with no fish.
New developments are creating additional challenges. Although water companies are consulted on planning applications, they are under no statutory obligation to ensure that they upgrade their mains infrastructure to meet increasing demand. Developers meet obligations, as they should; water companies should also do so— especially if we intend to build 1.5 million homes.
It is fundamentally wrong that my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South are facing higher water bills and poor services, while profits are siphoned off into the pockets of shareholders and chief execs. Basic necessities that we all need to survive should not be privatised and subject to profit incentives. Water is a basic human right. Our water should be under public ownership, not “control”, whatever that means—I would appreciate it if the Minister could provide clarity on the difference—and we need to listen to the 208,000 people who signed the petition. We need a water renationalisation plan now, and ownership of our water to be returned back to the people of this country and out of the hands of shareholders—owned by us and run for us.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. It is no surprise at all that my constituency has the second highest number of signatures to the petition. For at least six years now, Whitstable in my constituency has been plagued by frequent releases of sewage pouring out into our sea. Combined sewage overflows are supposed to occur only in the event of extremely heavy rainfall or storms, yet every single time a drop or two of rain falls from the sky, we get alerts, and within minutes my inbox will start to ping.
In 2021, I held my first public meeting at which residents were able to directly challenge the bosses of Southern Water. It was very similar to the public meetings shown in “Dirty Business”, Channel 4’s outstanding docudrama. The executives seemed taken aback by the frustration and anger and by the demand for answers; I suspect they really thought we might all be fobbed off by the kind of generic non-answers that I had been receiving as the local MP and as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Whitstable has been plagued by this for years, and by the smell of an unmanned treatment works. The smell was so bad that people could not hang out their washing or allow their children to play in the nearby play area. They had headaches, the visible sanitary products and human waste were revolting, and in the early hours of the morning they regularly heard alarms in the unmanned building—alarms to which nobody responded.
SOS Whitstable met at that meeting and formed an extremely active campaigning group that went on to raise a petition on water privatisation, which we delivered to No. 10 in December 2022. It has now received more than 250,000 signatures, all to make the water companies public again. I held more public meetings over the next two summers, which were essentially for all those who were being so let down. Southern Water showed us a slideshow of excuses and investments that it had been making. But fast-forward through campaigns and debates in this place and endless private meetings, and all my constituents agree: we need public ownership now.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this debate.
What should be at the centre of a discussion about public ownership of water? I think it should be public health. Imagine a family spending an afternoon beside a river. The children are playing near the bank. One asks whether they can paddle. The parent looks at the water and hesitates. Hon. Members might think it is because the river is deep or flowing quickly, and they might be right, but just as importantly, the parent does not know what has been discharged into it. That should concern every one of us.
In Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, the rivers connect our towns and surrounding villages. They should be places that communities enjoy and take pride in, not places from which parents feel they must warn their children away. Yet when we discuss the water and sewerage companies, the conversation too often begins with the company finances and ends with arguments about regulators. I think we should begin with the family beside the river.
Julie is the mother of Heather, who was just eight when she died in 1999 after contracting E. coli during a family holiday in Devon. Her family story featured in the Channel 4 drama that we have heard about. Julie continues to speak out, so that Heather is not forgotten and so that other families understand the risks, but behind that campaigning is a mother who should have been watching her daughter grow up. That is why I believe the case for public ownership of our water and sewerage companies must be made in terms of the people this essential service exists to protect.
The purpose of the water system should be straightforward: to provide clean, safe water. We need water and sewerage companies that have more actual engineers than financial engineers. Our constituents should not have to become experts in the sewage discharge maps before deciding whether to enjoy their local river. No parent should be left wondering whether an ordinary afternoon outdoors puts their child’s health at risk. We cannot promise that open water will ever be entirely risk-free, but we can insist that preventable pollution be treated with the seriousness it deserves. Water is essential to life, and the way we own and manage it must reflect that.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. Sometimes public ownership is best, and sometimes private is; I have no ideological view either way, but when it comes to the water industry, privatisation has been nothing short of disastrous. The main reason is inadequate regulation. In their blind assault on quangos and the civil service, which continues to this day, the Conservatives cut funding for the regulator so badly that it entirely lost the ability to do its job. No one noticed all the sewage going into our waterways, because there was no one left to look.
Left to their own devices, water company bosses responded by extracting billions from the industry in excess profits while allowing the fabric of the system to slowly rot. It has all been exposed now and we know the sorry truth, but however angry we feel, in most cases that money cannot be recovered because the original investors sold out long ago. In my area of Horsham in West Sussex, Southern Water was one of the worst offenders. Things were so bad that the former CEO Matthew Wright now faces criminal charges for presiding over fraudulent sewage data. Painful as it is, we are now obliged to pay for the same infrastructure investment all over again through higher bills.
Calum Miller
My constituents have strongly supported this petition because they feel ripped off by Thames Water. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s refusal to consider special administration for Thames Water sends a signal to all other water companies that investing money in paying off bondholders is more important than sorting out the mess that is their infrastructure?
John Milne
My hon. Friend makes a strong point with which I very much agree. We have to find the funds to fix decades of neglect at a time of crisis in the national budget. For that to happen, it is absolutely essential that we be able to trust the water companies to do their job honestly the second time around. I flat out do not believe that we can do that without changing the present system of private ownership.
Personally, I am not opposed to renationalisation if it really can be done free, but I would be more confident asking for a mutual ownership structure, because that is clearly achievable. Mutual ownership prevents excess bonuses and profiteering. Residents can be confident that any new public money going into the industry will be spent on genuine improvements. Alongside that, we need a stronger regulator with the power to enforce quality.
More than 200,000 people signed the petition. That is a huge number, but I do not doubt that many millions more would have signed it if they had been aware of it. We put our blind trust in the water industry once, and it was abused. Once is enough.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
May I say what a phenomenal pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker? You are a wonder. As the MP for half of England’s best island, I feel uniquely placed to speak about the state of our water sector. Quite frankly, I think my constituents would never forgive me if I did not use this opportunity to highlight just how unacceptable the situation has become.
Since the 2024 election, there have been 14,902 hours’ worth of sewage in my constituency alone. Across the island, that figure rises to 26,682 hours. It is little wonder that islanders feel utterly frustrated, deeply let down and increasingly sceptical about the idea that the system is supposedly delivering for them or that private companies can be genuinely trusted to act in their best interests.
On the island, we are immensely proud of our 57 miles of UNESCO biosphere-recognised coastline. It is part of what makes the Isle of Wight so special, but it is also why so many islanders find themselves utterly dumbfounded. The Prime Minister received a lot of flak last week for his comments about the damaging impact of the privatisation of the 1980s. The Benches opposite—not the Labour and Liberal Democrat Members sitting there now; I mean the Opposition—mocked those remarks, but not even they could argue that the state of our water industry represents a ringing endorsement of Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation project.
Private equity has become so effective at fearmongering that Governments of all colours are reluctant to challenge the status quo. We hear figures, from companies that see our basic utilities as huge pound signs, that suggest that public ownership would cost £100 billion and would put workers or pension funds at risk, yet evidence from the People’s Commission suggests that public ownership could deliver a much fairer and more sustainable system than the one we have today. That is why we need to stop placing private equity on a pedestal.
Water is not a luxury. It is an essential public service. My preference will always be public control, especially when private companies have blown their chance, measured on performance, investment and public trust, and have resorted to fear stories about the alternatives. Our promise of hope in every heart and growth in every postcode will not feel real or achievable if people cannot do something as basic as trusting the water that comes out of their tap, or safely swimming in the seas that surround them.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. The case for public ownership of our water is unanswerable. We can all see the money being swindled out of the British public by the privatised system. We can all see the sewage pollution going on, even during a summer of drought. I beg the Minister, in her response, not to repeat the bogus figures that some use to argue that public ownership of one of our most essential national resources would be too expensive. Those claims have been so comprehensively debunked that using them now is just getting embarrassing.
The truth is that the cost of the societal impacts of failing to take back control of our water resources would be far higher than that of taking action now, because— ludicrously for a country as wet as ours—we are on course for a water deficit of more than 6 billion litres of water every single day in the next 30 years. The truth is that there is currently no credible plan to avert that. All the reservoirs that currently we have planned will reduce that deficit only by a meagre 13%. There is no realistic prospect of water companies hitting the efficiency targets they have signed up for, either—and that is before the speculative proliferation of data centres claims its thirsty share of our dwindling resources.
In all likelihood, we will face further and severe water shortfalls in the future. Fire services are already warning that water pressure in many areas is dangerously low for fighting the new wildfire season that we also face. Communities in my constituency have already seen the taps running dry. In the future, we will have to choose what we do and do not use water for. We cannot have a situation in which our democracy has to mediate the fundamental question of national security through the interests of private companies that have proven beyond all doubt that their overwhelming priority will always be profit. We cannot afford to leave our water in the hands of private vested interests. It must be brought back into public ownership.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing this important debate. I also congratulate Ash Paul Smith, the petitioner, for all his hard work in creating the petition and gathering over 208,000 signatures.
The recent sewage spillages in Saltcoats in my constituency have greatly affected the bathing water quality in the coastal towns of Saltcoats, Ardrossan and Stevenston and have affected many constituents. On 29 June this year, a rising main pipeline near Saltcoats pumping station burst and a high amount of sewage was piped into our waters. That led to temporary repairs, which continued until 10 August, as there was apparently no easy or robust solution.
The advisory signage at the beach was not as clear as it could have been. That not only led to complaints, but confused many swimmers about the bathing quality of the water. Dog owners, too, were querying whether it was safe for dogs to go into the water, which of course it was not. Only two weeks after the public were told that they could swim again, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency confirmed on 25 August that the pollution was actually ongoing and further work on the pipe was required. That continued for a few days before the advice against bathing was withdrawn and safe swimming could be resumed. That is just not good enough.
For nearly the whole summer, constituents and visitors have been unable to swim at Saltcoats, Stevenston and Ardrossan. That is the height of the holiday season, and coastal communities rely on visits from day trippers, many of whom want to go outdoor swimming and enjoy our beautiful sandy beaches. It is important to highlight that the pipe is owned by Scottish Water, a public Scottish Government organisation. In 2021, Scottish Water oversaw untreated sewage being discharged 12,000 times in a single year. Water bosses are getting paid huge salaries everywhere, it seems—for delivering what, exactly?
I think it would be a good thing to take the water industry in England and Wales back into public ownership, but it is important to consider how we will successfully manage it. The sewage situation in Saltcoats serves as a reminder that public ownership does not necessarily mean good service. We need to get any future public ownership structures right, with robust accountability and governance to ensure a better service.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. The question of the water industry strikes at the heart of why so many of our constituents are angry—they are angry because they are paying more and getting less. In the case of water, it is even worse than that, because my constituents’ hard-earned money is going directly as dividends and bonuses to shareholders and chief executives. Money from my poorest constituents stuffs the pockets of the wealthy, lots of whom do not even live in the UK. It is perhaps the most backwards redistribution of wealth that we have in this country. For them, it is win-win: they continue to profit while we pay higher bills to fix the failure of their reinvestment. Our money flows into these companies, but it is less clear how that money flows out.
[Sir Jeremy Wright in the Chair]
That fundamental unfairness is why so many are calling on this place to act and why the Prime Minister was right in referring to the control that we have lost over the last 40 years under Governments of all colours. That loss of control has consequences, which are no more evident than in the pollution of our rivers and streams. The waters of Burton upon Trent made our town the brewery powerhouse of the world—those magical waters were home to a global ale empire. Fast-forward to today, and research has shown that the River Trent contains more E. coli than the average pub toilet. We see the failure to invest in blocked drains and clogged sewerage systems. My constituents in Stapenhill felt that last year when a water main burst on Stanton Road, leaving around 4,000 residents without a water service and causing significant traffic disruption. This is the fault of a system that was poorly designed decades ago and has not been reformed since.
Greater public control is not ideological; it is common sense. I am under no illusion as to the scale of the investment that is required, and I know that cancelling one set of bonuses will not deliver the scale of upgrades that we need. We should welcome the Prime Minister’s efforts to raise the idea of public control. I am happy to consider all options on the table, but I will not accept that the current system is fit for purpose. This failing system is making my constituents poorer but the rich even richer, and that is why we must act.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that, under the Prime Minister’s leadership, the conversation on public control of the water industry has fundamentally shifted. We must no longer bury our heads in the sand over the question of public control of the water sector, but we owe our constituents honest answers, not easy answers.
I am sure that there are few in this House who feel that they could credibly advocate that there is truly a cost-free form of nationalism out there—or for expropriation, as it more honestly should be called. Despite my background, I promise that I am very much not the “It’s all about the bond markets” guy in this case. I think we all know, however, that there is no free lunch at scale when it comes to the overall cost of funding the industry. At the same time, this industry should never have been privatised in the first place, and immense sums have been extracted from it over the years. Although some of the more recent investment expectations under this Government have begun to temper that, the extraction is still happening in egregious cases such as that of Thames Water.
Let me briefly take Members through the four options for taking back control of the industry. Option one is a pragmatic approach to cost-free nationalisation, which says that even more stringent regulation would bankrupt the companies so that we could acquire them for nothing. The problem is that we can get as good of a deal with these companies as we like, but the British public would still have to foot the £100 billion-plus investment in upgrades over the next five years or so.
Option two is that we pay the full whack. I think we all know that RCV is not a fair market valuation, but when the debt, which needs to be paid down or taken on, is factored in, the figure is up to the better part of £100 billion. Even then, there is the investment on top of that.
Option three is to wait for the water companies to go bankrupt and then acquire them for next to nothing. Ofwat sees 10 of those companies with high financial risk, but the Government would still have to foot the infrastructure bill on a company-by-company basis—that would be cheaper, but slower.
Option four is to start with what the British public actually want to see from its water system and have a democratic conversation about what they are willing to invest to solve the problem. We then work out the impact that that has on the value of the industry. The reality is that we have already had that conversation—we know what the British public want because they have been shouting it from the rooftops, often in wetsuits with surfboards in hand.
I commend the work of the Good Growth Foundation, which has gotten to grips with some of the challenges and opportunities presented by the special administration scheme to take back control of the water industry for the public good, and enable us to take those profits and reinvest them into fixing our water system.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. Like some other Members, I am not keen on a referendum because I know the anger of my constituents. It is incumbent on us to just get on, have the conversation and come up with a solution.
Across my constituency, we currently have a wave of roadworks because of a lack of investment over years and the asset stripping of Thames Water. We have now realised that those Victorian pipes, which were not replaced because the company was asset-stripped, finally need to be replaced. That causes huge disruption for my residents, and the cost of it has been placed on my Bexleyheath and Crayford constituents, who have seen increases of 30% to 40% on their bills over the last two years. They say to me there is no better example of having no control or of people in this place being powerless than the actions of Thames Water. I just shrug my shoulders—I continually bring the matter here, but I am not able to resolve the issue.
For the last five summers in Crayford town centre, we have had major leaks; the town centre has been closed for five successive summers. Let me give hon. Members an example of Thames Water’s incompetency. Last year, I wrote to them and asked them to show me a map of all the leaks and flooding in the town centre. They sent that to me and it showed the scale of the problem, yet this summer, when a constituent raised concerns about the ongoing problems and I wrote to Thames Water, they said that they had no record of any flooding in Crayford town centre over the last five summers. That shows us that we are dealing with a company that is very difficult to meet—although I am actually meeting its representatives tomorrow—and very difficult to have any control over. It is no wonder that my constituents think it is incumbent on us to resolve that.
In principle, I want the company to be nationalised, but I just want a system—I hope to hear about this from the Minister later—that gives my constituents and me some accountability over bills and resolves the issues that cripple town centres and continually cause leaks, delays and roadworks.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. Thirty-seven years after privatisation, those companies are laden with debt, our rivers and coastlines are polluted and shareholders expect good returns while investment lags. That proof can be seen in North Somerset. One young man training for an Ironman in 2023 swam in Clevedon Marine lake, which was unfortunately polluted. Within a day, he had collapsed. It took four months of tests to confirm what had happened; a virus caught in that water had lowered his blood pressure and triggered a minor heart episode. That is what “acceptable” water quality is costing real people in my constituency.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I want to reiterate my hon. Friend’s point because I have been contacted by users of Holme Pierrepont—the home of the National Water Sports Centre—which is in my constituency. It is meant to be a national standard venue, but because of pollution and sewage spills in the River Trent, there are cases of nausea, fever and vomiting. Does he agree that we need to do more about the public ownership of water companies so that we can deal with the environmental health impacts on users?
Sadik Al-Hassan
I agree. In my constituency, the Land Yeo river, which once ran clear and was a genuine source of local pride, is no longer the beautiful river that residents grew up with. Agricultural and urban runoff, as well as underfunding and a lack of investment, have left it choked with invasive plant species and thick algae.
In 2025, a storm overflow at Portbury Wharf nature reserve discharged sewage into the Severn estuary for a total of 721 hours—the equivalent of 30 full days of waste pumped from North Somerset’s shores. That is why I strongly welcome the swift introduction of the Water (Special Measures) Act, but it treats the symptom, not the disease. We are past the point of regulating out a structural failure. If a company’s incentive is shareholder return rather than public service, no amount of fines will help.
Water is an essential utility, but as we saw this summer, the failure of these companies is already compounding the impact of climate change and drought. We had one of the wettest springs on record, yet the companies have failed to invest in reservoirs, such as in Barrow Gurney in my constituency, that are needed to capture one of the most valuable resources. Reservoirs in the south-west, which should be central to how we store and manage water, have suffered from years of under-investment, neglected by companies that are more focused on returns than resilience.
Nobody chooses their water company. Nobody can switch. But our constituents are paying the price through their health, their pride in local areas and their bills. The public deserve the chance to say whether that should continue.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing the debate.
My constituents are fed up of mismanagement, debt, and simultaneous price hikes and shareholder bonuses. They are also fed up of hosepipe bans, while water runs down our streets. Since April 2025, our bills have risen by 31%, and this year by an additional 3.4%. What do we get for that? Sewage dumps, burst pipes and drinking water that I advise all Members—if they do not know this—not to drink without boiling or filtering first. Thames Water is one of the worst polluters in England and, last year, got one star from the Environment Agency—I think that is only because it has not figured out how to colour in half a star or a quarter of it.
Unfortunately, Thames Water is not just crap; it is also full of crap—9,189 sewage spills last year alone, and nearly 592 million litres of water lost to leaks every single day. The company then has the cheek to call a hosepipe ban. The Thames cannot be seen from my constituency, but anyone who wants a riverside experience can just walk down Brixton Hill, where water is usually gushing from some leak, causing havoc and gridlocked traffic on the main road or some of the residential roads—a reality TV version of “The Hunger Games”, with residents scrambling for bottles of water that have been left there during an outage. Keeping the company under private ownership just delays the inevitable Government bailout—essentially, us paying twice.
I believe that the great privatisation experiment has failed in nearly every public service industry in which it has been tried. Some may call me ideological for this, but I point them to Thames Water as a case in point. We do not need a crystal ball, or even a referendum, to tell us that there would be overwhelming support for public ownership, so I ask the Minister: why has it not happened yet? Why has Thames Water not been put in special measures? Why will it not simply be brought under public ownership?
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. The current model for our water service is not working for customers and has not been working for quite some time. My constituents have watched their bills rise again and again while Thames Water falls further into debt and water bosses are rewarded with huge bonuses, despite failing to invest in critical infrastructure and allowing more sewage pollution into our rivers, lakes and streams.
These failures in investment, infrastructure and environmental performance have undermined public confidence, and customers have been unable to take their business elsewhere, because the water companies operate through regional monopolies. I commend the Government for trying to tackle some of those issues, but tougher regulation is not enough to deal with a model that is fundamentally broken. Thames Water is in approximately £19 billion of debt, but the rescue deal on the table is a market-led recapitalisation by its creditors that will keep the failing private ownership model intact in exchange for environmental leniency.
Water is an essential service and a natural monopoly, so it is reasonable to ask whether the interests of taxpayers are best served when the ownership of our water is determined by private investors. Bringing Thames Water into public ownership, either permanently or initially through a special administration regime, would allow the Government to write down debt on fairer terms than any creditor-led deal and to direct further revenue toward infrastructure and customers, rather than debt servicing and returns to shareholders.
We must restore public confidence and end the era of profiting from pollution and prioritising shareholder returns over taxpayers. Our water services are too essential to be treated simply as another commercial asset. The water privatisation of the 1980s is a failed ideological experiment that has seen profits plundered into the pockets of hedge funds and offshore investors, while the sector has been starved of investment. Not a single reservoir has been built since 1992, and there has been under-investment in our antiquated pipes and overflowing sewerage system.
Bambos Charalambous
I support my hon. Friend 100%. We urgently need the infrastructure, because we have seen the impact of drought and the need for hosepipe bans as a result of not having the infrastructure in place.
As I was saying, not a single reservoir has been built since 1992, and the underinvestment in our antiquated pipes and overflowing sewerage system is plain to see. This is not good enough. That is why public ownership is the only way forward, and why I urge the Government to put Thames Water back into public ownership as soon as possible.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for leading this debate, and the gentleman who started the petition in the first place.
I am sure that, like me, my constituents are absolutely staggered that we are having a conversation about children getting ill from paddling in our streams and drinking our water. The Victorians built a load of sewers because they recognised that this was completely and utterly unacceptable, yet we do not seem to have managed to maintain them to the point that we can actually drink our water. That is crackers. The fact that we have to have a conversation about whether our water is fit to drink should raise alarm bells.
In the 30-odd years since privatisation, £85 billion has been paid out in dividends. I am genuinely astonished that so much money has been taken from the good people of this country and given to private interests without more outcry. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary gardening and horticulture group. It is really important to note that the current arrangement does not just have implications for individuals —although they are horrific and I do not wish to understate them. It also has implications for horticulture businesses.
Our general access to water is appalling and is decimating businesses, which are paying very high utility costs across the board without being able to regularly access what they need. It is damaging our economy, and it is damaging our experience of the great outdoors. The amount that we are paying in bills is ridiculous, and 20% of treated drinking water in the UK is lost to leakage. I know that the Government have already taken some steps to improve the regulation of the water industry, but frankly we need to go further and faster.
I am so proud to represent a very beautiful area of the world. Many of my constituents have grown up playing in local rivers and streams, and people still allow their pets to go into the water, but most parents will not let their kids paddle in the same places where they used to paddle, because they know it is not safe. How have we got here? It is completely unacceptable. I know there are arguments about how much nationalisation would cost, and of course we have to consider that, but if the law prevents us from renationalising things that clearly should be renationalised, then—I speak as a lawyer—perhaps we should revisit the law. It is clear to our constituents that we need to move forward.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy.
The Cleddau river flows through my constituency of Mid and South Pembrokeshire. It tells a proud history of Pembrokeshire, but more recently it has told a sadder story of the failures of our water sector. At Picton pumping station in Haverfordwest, the local campaigning organisation The Cleddau Project found that the equivalent of 17 tankers of sewage were being dumped into the Cleddau every day between July 2022 and February 2024. Between January and October 2025, there were nearly 4,000 hours of untreated sewage pollution at seven different sites in and around the Cleddau.
Given the history of Welsh Water, I caution Members advocating for a not-for-profit model of water ownership. As a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I have spent many hours questioning water bosses, and it is clear to me that regulatory enforcement alone will not address the crisis that the sector is facing. The problems are symptoms of a structure and a culture within these companies. There is too much focus on financialisation, rather than prioritising environmental stewardship and customers, and executives have too often been insulated from the consequences of their poor performance.
As has been eloquently described by Members today, the water sector is fundamental to public health, environmental protection and, crucially, our national security. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on introducing this debate and on giving such an eloquent and passionate speech. It is vital that we seriously consider different forms of ownership; indeed, it is somewhat sad to me that this conversation has been so stifled in recent years. Nationalisation must form part of the conversation, and it must flow as a consequence of the continued failure of water companies. Does the Minister agree that if water companies cannot deliver for customers, the state must be prepared to step in and ensure that an essential service is run in the public interest?
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I start by thanking the more than 200,000 petitioners across the country, as well as the hundreds of my Leeds East constituents, who have signed the petition. When discussing the arguments for public ownership, we need to start by staring the facts in the face. England and Wales are the only countries in the world to have fully privatised their water and sewerage systems. We are the odd ones out, and something needs to be done about it.
The privatisation of our water system has been a catastrophic failure—not for shareholders, or for the chief executive of Yorkshire Water, but for the public, the environment and, as we have heard, even children. With climate change leading to further droughts and water shortages, the iniquitous role of the leaderships of private water companies, and the system they represent, will only get worse.
We hear a lot about Thames Water, but we also need to talk about Yorkshire Water. Under Yorkshire Water, bills have gone up by over a third in two years, and every year it dumps hundreds of thousands of hours of sewage into our rivers and seas. It is performing so badly that it has been downgraded to a one-star rating by the Environment Agency. Yorkshire Water was recently hit by an £89 million performance penalty for under-delivering, yet its chief executive’s total salary is running at over £1 million a year, so privatisation has worked for some. That is rewarding failure—as long as the profits keep flowing.
Enough of all this: full public ownership is what is needed. Let us get into step with the rest of the world, focusing on cleaner water, lower bills and a system that actually works and is fit for the climate challenges of the future. People out there in the country know this is a disgrace, and they know it needs sorting out now. We need public ownership of our water system now.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Banbury is heavily affected by the failings of Thames Water; we have had thousands of sewage spills, leading to hundreds of thousands of hours of sewage being discharged into local rivers and streams, which is probably why so many of my constituents signed the petition. I had prepared a longer speech for the debate, but given the number of speakers and time available, I will keep my remarks much briefer.
In March, I wrote for LabourList that the water scandal had become a test of whether a Government elected on a promise of change were prepared to confront vested interests. Across England and Wales, water bills rose by 26% last year, but for Thames Water customers, including my constituents, they rose by 31%—and this year the bills have risen again.
During the Makerfield campaign, the Prime Minister said that Britain’s water industry had become a system where
“the shareholders always win and the billpayers always lose”.
He was right. On Thames Water specifically, the Prime Minister argued that public ownership was ultimately something that should happen. Although I welcome the steps that this Government have taken to address the water industry, the fact that so many people have signed the petition would suggest—as would a glance at my mailbox, and probably that of every other Member of Parliament—that most people feel that, despite what those measures are intended to do, none of them quite goes far enough. My simple question to the Minister is this. What more are the Government prepared to do to demonstrate that they understand the scale of public anger, that they hear the public’s frustration and that they are prepared to act with greater urgency in response?
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy.
Since being elected, I have heard repeatedly from constituents about flooding, sewage discharges and failures of basic water infrastructure. My constituency is served by Severn Trent Water and South Staffordshire Water—double the problem, some might say. Recently, I met South Staffs Water after concerns about the installation of meters without what many customers felt was adequate notice. The crux is that customers feel that they have zero influence over the decisions affecting them, and that companies do not seem to explain clearly why decisions are taken.
I heard from constituents in Chadsmoor, for example, who have had to put up with water leaking out at incredible rates all around their properties and dangerously high water pressure for 11 months following the installation of meters. Whatever the ultimate cause, however, the refusal of the water companies to take responsibility for finding fixes is just another example of why their customers have lost trust.
On the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) said, we grilled the chief executives of nine water companies and looked at many issues. Crucially, however, the corporate culture that has taken hold in the sector is so divorced from the lives of customers that it is really to blame for a lot of what we are discussing. Despite already knowing that public confidence was in tatters and that the sector was up sewage creek without a paddle, we were shocked by what we heard.
For me, questions of governance are as important as ownership. Who has control? Who carries risk? How is investment financed? What voice do customers have? The Government have recognised that the broken status quo cannot continue. Powers have been strengthened and Ofwat is to be replaced with a new unified regulator, but given the mammoth issues in the sector, we should ask, as so many have today, whether that is enough.
We cannot assume that public ownership would resolve all the issues. We should remember that some pre-privatisation water boards were failing their customers too. That is why, as a member of the Co-operative party, I hope that the Minister will look further at empowering customers and introducing mutual structures and co-operative principles. Our constituents rightly demand greater control over something so fundamental to their lives. Water is different from almost any other service, because we cannot take our money elsewhere. The test of the Government reforms should be simple: when people turn on their tap, look at their bill or walk by their local river, do they feel that the system is working in their interests? If the answer is no, we should have the courage to change it.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I call Becky Gittins. [Interruption.] Sorry, I have the wrong name on my list. I call Sarah Hall.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Sir Jeremy; it happens. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I support public ownership of our water industry. Water is an essential public service, and it should be run in the public interest. People in my constituency cannot suddenly decide that they have had enough of United Utilities and switch to another water company. They pay their bills because they need the service, and they should be able to expect it to work for them. In reality, however, across the country, that is not what is happening. After years of neglect, failure to upgrade infrastructure, sewage dumping in our waterways and skyrocketing bills, people have frankly had enough. We have spent decades trying to regulate these monopolies, so that they behave somewhat like a public service, but it is clear that that simply has not worked.
Across the wider water system, responsibility is divided between organisations, Departments, agencies and authorities, leaving people struggling to find out who will put a problem right. On new year’s day last year, families in Warrington had water coming into their homes, and when water is coming through the front door, they do not want an organisational chart; they just want to know what happened and what someone is going to do about it. The system that we have, which has been bolted together over the years, does not reflect how closely all those things connect. That is where we need to change the way we think.
I want to see a publicly owned water company that works holistically across the whole system. A long-term public programme would give businesses certainty about the work coming in. A steady programme of work would give British firms the confidence to invest, take on apprentices, and develop skills and technology. We must use any change in the ownership model to change the way that the whole water system works, so that it is transparent, puts profits back into the crumbling system and ends the dumping of sewage in our waterways.
The Prime Minister has spoken about stronger public control of essential services, and I welcome that, but in water, public control has to mean more than regulating private companies more closely. We have been doing that since privatisation. Regulation alone cannot decide what the company is ultimately there to do or whose interests should come first. Every one of us depends on water. I believe it should belong to the public and be run for the public good.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I apologise again to the hon. Lady. I call Darren Paffey, I think.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
As far as I am aware, Sir Jeremy, you do. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.
I thank the hundreds of Southampton Itchen constituents who signed the petition because they know that the current model is an abject failure. Trust is completely gone, and they are fed up with being ripped off. My constituents’ bills doubled last year. Southern Water has racked up £7 million-worth of fines just this year. It won a record—not a record it wanted—£90 million fine five years ago after sewage poured into the River Test, one of Hampshire’s chalk streams. The other chalk stream is the Itchen, from which my constituency takes its name. Rare Atlantic salmon come to spawn in the Itchen, but E. coli is rife for people trying to swim there and the stench of sewage is so vile that schools near the river and the treatment works often do not let the kids out on to the playground.
The public agree that the model has failed, not just Labour voters—those of us with a history of being pro-nationalisation—but people across the political spectrum. Some 68% back nationalising water, and support keeps growing. More than three quarters of Conservative voters—though possibly not as many Conservative MPs—want water back in public hands. That is as close to a national consensus as we get, so I understand why so many have signed the petition.
I part company from the petitioners on one point, which has been reflected by several hon. Members: although I agree with the destination, I am traumatised by previous referenda. People are making their voices heard and telling us what they want. We are a Government with a majority; instead of a referendum, we need a plan of the kind that this Government have already shown they can produce.
We did it for rail: a phased, legally underpinned route back to public ownership, transferring operators as contracts expire under a single new body and with no compensation from the taxpayer. I welcome the Prime Minister’s vision for greater public control of essential services but reforming a broken model is not the same as ending it. The public see that, so I ask the Minister: please, let us just crack on with it and get water back into public hands.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy.
I pay tribute to the campaigners and citizen scientists—some of whom are in the Public Gallery—who have exposed the scale of the sewage scandal. It is only because of them and their campaigning that we are having this debate.
Our water industry is fundamentally broken. I sat with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) on the Select Committee and questioned the water bosses, and all we heard was excuse after excuse. We need a fundamental change to protect our failing water infrastructure. That is a top priority for our Labour Government and I welcome the steps that have been made so far to ramp up regulation and get tough on the water companies, but as I will outline, we need to go further.
Nothing enrages the people I represent in Hastings and Rye more than bills going up every year to prop up failing companies, while executives and shareholders try to find ways to evade bonus bans as their companies edge towards bankruptcy. We have already taken important steps, but we must go further to protect vital national infrastructure. In Hastings and Rye, we already see the impacts of the regulation that we introduced: more Environment Agency staff focused full time on monitoring Southern Water, more inspections taking place, and more enforcement notices issued. We are starting to see the results of that work, but there is still more to do. Those of us in the Chamber who favour a co-operative model believe it is the solution that would put people before profit in fixing our broken water industry.
I will talk briefly about the impact of our failing water industry on the people I represent. We have had two major water outages in the past couple of years, one lasting nine days and one five days; there was major flooding in Hastings town centre that ruined people’s livelihoods; and 300 million plastic beads washed up on our coastline—we found out that they came from a Southern Water treatment plant only because we got down on our hands and knees and exposed that scandal. Public health has been compromised and sewage is dumped in our sea regularly. Right now a digger sits on the beach in Hastings, an eyesore, because of Southern Water’s failings. I believe that the solution is to move to a co-operative model, which would be the radical shake-up that this industry needs.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair this afternoon, Sir Jeremy.
I want to speak this afternoon about the River Stort, one of the globally significant chalk streams that runs right through my constituency. It is a place where families walk, where anglers spend their weekends, and where countless residents connect with nature. It delivers enormous social, recreational and environmental benefits for our community, but at the start of the month, raw sewage was again discharged into the Stort navigation in a spill that lasted more than eight hours, leaving dead fish and visible pollution in its wake.
I have been requesting a meeting with Thames Water to discuss protecting the Stort since the start of the year, following hundreds of hours of sewage discharges. It has repeatedly failed to engage with that process, only agreeing to meet with me this week after I said that I would effectively turn up at one of its sewage treatment sites to demand an explanation. That is not good enough.
We know that, whatever Thames Water says when I meet it later this week, the truth is that the privatised water industry is failing in its duty of care to our environment, and that privatisation has been a failure. There is simply no other way to put it. We were told that private ownership would drive investment, efficiency and better outcomes, but too often, we have seen the opposite.
As others have said, water is not a luxury; it is an essential public service. We therefore need a system that puts the public interest before shareholder returns, investment before extraction, and environmental protection before corporate profit. To my mind, the only credible path forward is to call time on a failed system and move to a model of public ownership of our water industry. We should start by bringing Thames Water into special administration now. The pollution of our rivers and waterways cannot continue. For the sake of the River Stort, for communities across the country and for future generations, we must take this opportunity to choose a different path.
I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to meet me earlier this year regarding Thames Water and the River Stort. As I said, I will be meeting Thames Water later this week, so I would be very grateful if she set out in her response what message she would deliver to Thames Water were she in my position, and whether she would consider meeting me again to discuss these repeated failures.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
With gratitude for his patience, I call Lloyd Hatton.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. As we have heard from many Members today, the privatised model in the water sector has, to put it mildly, completely and utterly broken. For so many of my constituents, this really does feel like the biggest scandal of the 21st century, with water companies continuing to profit while water users and bill payers are left footing the bill for crumbling infrastructure, water shortages and disgusting sewage spills.
It is safe to say that this issue really matters to my constituents in South Dorset. With Chesil beach, Ringstead bay, Lulworth cove, Durdle Door, Old Harry Rocks and Studland, wherever people look across South Dorset, they will find a world-renowned coastline. Of course, South Dorset has been a popular holiday destination for some two centuries now: sailors and windsurfers gravitate to Portland, young families flock to Weymouth and Swanage, and walkers and nature lovers alike regularly make their way across the Isle of Purbeck. Our coastline is central to our lives, and central to our local economy as well.
I suppose my constituents have a simple message for the Minister, and also for the new Prime Minister. First, overhaul the toxic and self-serving corporate culture that has been allowed to permeate the water sector. Secondly, make it clear that this Government believe that polluting comes with a price. Thirdly, begin that urgent work of reviewing the model of ownership for the water industry.
We must now look at alternative ownership models. Whether that be municipal control, mutuals, not-for-profits, full nationalisation or a Government bond-backed public utility, there are so many options on the table. What my constituents and the tens of thousands of people who have signed this petition have made clear is that they want to see action; they want to see that move to public ownership without further delay.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister in her winding-up remarks, but please can we consider those options? My constituents are clear: they want better value for money, they want a system that protects the environment and public health, and they want to have greater and much more meaningful public control of our water industry. That must be at the core of this Government’s work. Then, finally, we can stop the spills.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Gentleman and all Back-Bench speakers for managing a very restrictive time limit.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening this debate and for his patient and gracious fielding of so many interventions. I express my thanks to Ash Smith and the phenomenal team at Windrush Against Sewage Pollution for bringing this petition before Parliament and for their dedication and commitment to protecting our rivers. I also thank the other campaigners who are in the Gallery; they are passionate and perseverant in their pursuit of cleaner water across our country.
More than 208,000 people signed the petition, including over 600 of my South Cotswolds constituents, which is the ninth most sewage-polluted constituency in the country. Last Saturday, I stood beside the River Coln at Fairford in my constituency with residents who are sick and tired of seeing their river used as a sewer. I spoke with Debbie Campbell, who is in the Gallery and who was most charmingly dressed as a poo emoji. Debbie became a campaigner after swallowing polluted water while open water swimming and ending up doubled over in pain. Her experience is shocking, but sadly the pollution that caused it is no longer exceptional; it has become the norm.
Behind the sewage scandal lies another scandal—what has happened to customers’ money? The promise of privatisation was that private capital would bring investments and efficiency, but research from the University of Greenwich estimates that between 1991 and 2023, shareholders extracted around £85 billion more from English water and sewerage companies than they actually contributed in new equity.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The sewage literally flows outside the King of Prussia in Kingsbridge, and customers have to be really careful when they step outside it every time we have heavy rain. Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the more than 800 people who signed the petition from my constituency that we have to look again at the water ownership model? It is just not working: bills are going up and up, while shareholders are still extracting money from the water companies rather than it going into upgrading infrastructure.
Dr Savage
I absolutely agree that we need to get upstream of the problem, and I assure her that I always try to step out of pubs carefully.
The supposed justification for private ownership was that investors would bring money into our water system. Instead, over those three decades, vastly more money has flowed out to shareholders than shareholders put in. Money went out, infrastructure deteriorated and debt piled up, and now customers are being told that they must pay to put it right. That is what makes the British public and me so furious. The water companies need to come clean and so does the Government.
Helena Dollimore
Does the hon. Member agree that some of our water companies operate in extremely murky arrangements? Often, there is a complicated network of different companies that sub-contract from each other, meaning that the customer who pays the bill has no idea what value for money, if any, they are getting.
Dr Savage
I absolutely agree—much like our water supply, these arrangements need to be more transparent and stink less.
Ministers have been talking about the forthcoming £104 billion investment programme as though the private sector has suddenly reached into its pockets and found that £104 billion to rescue our crumbling water infrastructure, but it has not. Ofwat has confirmed that that money will come through a mixture of customer bills and yet more borrowing and shareholder equity.
Barry Gardiner
I fully agree with all that the hon. Lady is saying. Does she find it strange that, although we talk about taking tough action against these companies —we talk about Thames Water’s £80 million rebate and the more than £100 million fine—it is not the investor who ends up paying that, but we the billpayers? Even then, it is not the companies’ investors who suffer; it is us.
Dr Savage
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point that I totally agree with.
This is not private enterprise riding to the rescue; it is customers being made to pay yet again for the consequences of corporate failure, and we cannot take our business elsewhere. If I do not like my supermarket, bank or mobile phone provider, I can take my custom elsewhere, but I cannot change from one water company to another unless I physically move house. We are captive customers of a monopoly, which gives water companies an extraordinary responsibility, but they are not living up to it. Too often, we see risks pushed onto customers while the rewards go to investors.
Going back to Fairford, we can see exactly how that plays out in the real world. Fairford sewage treatment works was among the approximately 120 deferred Thames Water investment schemes. Thames Water’s former chair told the EFRA Committee that more than £1 billion was removed from its capital programme to preserve liquidity. In other words, the investment that was needed to protect communities, rivers and nature was postponed because the company needed to shore up its financial position. Now my constituents are living with the consequences.
The analysis of Professor Peter Hammond at WASP records that, at Fairford alone, more than 8,100 hours of sewage spills have flowed into the River Coln since the beginning of 2024. Under the Environment Agency’s “heavy rainfall” methodology, only 347 of those hours—just 4.3%—were assessed as compliant. That means that more than 95% of that outflow was not compliant. This is not an occasional emergency measure; it is sustained pollution on an industrial scale.
It is not only an assault on people: rivers are living ecosystems that sustain fish, birds, insects and plants. Pollution strips oxygen from the water and destroys habitats, but nature has no seat in the boardroom and no voice with the regulator. Nature depends on us to speak for it today, and I am doing what I can, as many colleagues have, to speak up on behalf of our waterways. I feel like I have spoken time and time again in this House about sewage, failing infrastructure and Thames Water, yet the sewage keeps flowing, the debts keep mounting and customers keep being asked to pay more. Frankly, they have had enough, and so have I.
I share the petitioners’ diagnosis that the present model has failed, but the Lib Dems differ from others on what we believe should happen next. We do not believe, as a number of colleagues have mentioned, that we need to spend a long time waiting for a national referendum to tell us something we already know. The Liberal Democrat answer is mutually owned public benefit water companies that are professionally managed but owned by and accountable to the customers who depend on them, with profits reinvested into the water system rather than extracted for shareholders. For Thames Water in particular, that journey should begin with special administration now. Take on the creditors, restructure the company and bring it out the other side under a fundamentally different ownership model.
Ownership change alone is not enough. The new Clean Water Authority must have the teeth that Ofwat so conspicuously lacked. It must inspect assets, publish open data and require companies to measure what they actually put into our rivers—not just the duration, but the volume and toxicity. I want to see citizen scientists and environmental experts formally represented in water company governance so that somebody is at the table to speak for the river itself.
I would like to ask the Minister for three further commitments: ban bonuses until spills end and leaks are fixed; introduce a three-year cooling-off period before the new regulator can employ people from the industry it regulates; and create a single social tariff so that nobody is priced out of the precious water that they cannot do without. The River Coln flows into the Thames, and the Thames flows past this Parliament. The evidence of the failure of privatisation is literally on our doorstep. The petitioners are right to demand fundamental change: the question at the heart of the debate is not simply whether ownership should be public or private, but who is the water system here to serve?
For too long, customers have paid the bills, carried the risk and lived with the pollution while money flowed elsewhere. Our water system should serve customers, communities and the environment, not shareholders, creditors and bottom lines. I do not want to have to come back to this Chamber to again state the obvious: we have to get upstream of the sewage crisis and change the ownership of the water companies, and change it now.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I start by offering our sincere condolences to the Prime Minister on the very sad passing of his father. He and his family are in our thoughts and prayers.
I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate and congratulate him on his powerful contribution. We heard many powerful contributions from across the House. Normally at this point, as the shadow Minister responding, I would put my lifejacket on, get in a canoe and start paddling round everyone’s constituencies. However, so many Members have spoken today that I would use up my entire time allocation by name-checking every one, so I will just thank everyone for their powerful contributions and for speaking on behalf of their constituents to raise issues about the unacceptable behaviour and performance of many of the water companies.
Every family, household or business uses water. We all need it. It is a life-giving, essential resource. We all have an intrinsic interest in water: how much we pay for it, what services we receive, the performance of our local water company, and the sustainability and future of our water supply. The petition we are debating today reached over 208,000 signatures. I thank all those petitioners and the more than 300 people in my Epping Forest constituency who signed it and expressed their clear dissatisfaction with the current state of our water sector.
For too long, customers have seen water companies in the news for the wrong reasons: from awful environmental pollution spills to unacceptable water outages affecting tens of thousands of consumers. In fact, during this summer’s extreme heat in August, many thousands of people and properties in my constituency of Epping Forest, including in Loughton, Chigwell, Buckhurst Hill, and Epping, were left completely without water for up to a week, let down by Thames Water because of burst pipes and failing infrastructure.
Vulnerable constituents were left in distress; homes were without water, with people unable to flush their toilets or bathe; parents were left without water to make up bottles for their babies; and livestock owners were panicking over getting water to their animals. Communication and logistics from Thames Water were very poor. Priority service customers were openly saying that they had been told they would not receive any bottled water, despite being priority customers to whom companies have specific duties. As we have heard across the House today, the response by Thames Water in many situations has been wholly unacceptable.
Bottled water was provided in too few locations that were not convenient to get to outside Epping Forest, and those who could get there faced agonisingly long queues in the scorching summer heat. It happened in the hottest week of the year. Other locations that did become available in my constituency either ran out of bottled water or were closed early. To add insult to injury, that all took place in the context of the news of Thames Water’s new chief financial officer receiving a £1 million welcome package. My constituents and constituents across the country rightly ask how that can be justified when Thames Water failed to provide basic services while bills continue to rise. A staggering hike of a 36% has already been greenlit by the water regulator for 2025 to 2030, and there is more to come following the announcement over the summer.
I know that my constituents and those who have faced water outages across the country would be grateful if the Minister could explain what steps she is taking to ensure that water companies step up to the plate and properly prepare for such crises, so that our constituents are not left in such distressing circumstances again. It is a pleasure to serve opposite the Minister, as I have in a number of debates and Bill Committees, and I know that she is genuinely engaged in this matter. I raised those issues with her over the summer, and I hope she can take it forward and listen to the voices of our constituents in these important matters.
In rural and semi-rural areas, we must not forget that water is also vital for livestock such as farm animals, horses and ponies, and I declare an interest here as a veterinary surgeon. As an illustration, a 500 kg horse needs around 25 litres of water a day—that is not on a hot day—and a lactating dairy cow needs upwards of 100 litres. I assure hon. Members that that is no small amount; that is a lot of bottled water. In these situations, water companies do not step up. It is local communities, livery yard owners and farmers who roll their sleeves up and help each other to get valuable water to these animals. I have raised the issue with the Minister before and I hope that she can take it forward and put pressure on the water companies.
When we get these outages, which are sadly now predictable and will occur, animals as well as people need to be looked out for. We have heard today about the people, and I have highlighted the situation of vulnerable people in my constituency who have not been able to live their lives with their basic needs met, but there are other situations to consider. I urge the Minister to put pressure on water companies when we get outages, as we have seen this summer in my constituency and in many constituencies across the country.
We have frequently debated at the Dispatch Box in this Chamber and the main Chamber the question of people in Kent and Sussex who have had unacceptable water outages from South East Water. I press the Minister once again to explain to the House what steps she and the Government are taking to ensure that a market-based solution can be found for the Thames Water situation.
Dr Hudson
I will not give way at this point.
His Majesty’s official Opposition have been clear: we are not cheerleaders for this water company, but we do not want to see Thames Water fold. Although the water supply would continue, that would carry the serious risk of higher bills for customers and would not solve all the issues facing the company. Bizarrely, a few months ago the third party led legal action that could have sunk the company. With them, Reform—strangely their allies on this issue—appear to be happy for the company to go under, exposing taxpayers to billions and pushing consumer water bills sky-high. That is billions of pounds that we as a country simply just cannot afford, as the Government have admitted.
Outages such as the one I described in Epping Forest also highlight the real and present impacts of climate change and increased demand. We have outdated water infrastructure designed to cope with significantly less demand than it is now required to. Changing weather risks more leaks, bursts and breakages. The water outages that tend to follow have knock-on implications for people, schools, businesses and healthcare. It is important to know the economic and social costs of the outages that have occurred over the last few months and years. Will the Minister take this opportunity to provide some reassurance that existing infrastructure is being assessed to prevent leakages or bursts in the first instances and hold water companies to account for that?
The work of the previous Conservative Government in this area means that we now understand the severity of the situation surrounding the performance of water companies in the first place—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh but I remind them that, when Labour left office in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored. The previous Government worked proactively to increase that percentage: by the end of 2023, it had increased to 100%. It went from 7% to 100%.
This is basic science: it is only when something is measured and vital data is collected that the extent of the problem can be seen. It was the Conservative Government that started that, and that started to put in place measures to address the situation—something they, and indeed the new Labour Government, have found to be complex and not easy to solve.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly clear he is not giving way. All points of view in this debate must be heard, and heard respectfully. If the shadow Minister is not giving way, there is little point in continuing to bob unless he changes his mind.
Dr Hudson
Furthermore, the previous Conservative Government’s landmark Environment Act 2021 introduced significant changes to how water quality is managed and monitored in England and Wales. The Act mandates enhanced reporting, monitoring and treatment compliance measures from businesses. It also establishes long-term goals to limit pollution and protect natural water resources from wider range of potential pollutants.
I am sure that, in considering what action the current Government have taken, the Minister will cite the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025—I was on the Bill Committee shadowing her, and I really appreciated her constructive work. It is encouraging to see the current Government adopt some of the measures the previous Government had already introduced, such as banning water company bonuses for bosses if the company had committed serious criminal breaches that damaged the environment. However, it was disappointing that they failed to support the constructive amendments the Opposition tabled, including to ringfence funding from enforcement fines for bespoke water restoration funds; to guarantee that companies fix the environmental damage they cause locally; to require Ofwat to create rules on financial reporting in its renumeration and governance rules; to reduce consumer bills if companies were hit with enforcement fines; and to ensure that companies do not leverage too much debt. Those were sensible, constructive amendments that the Government voted down.
Indeed, there is a recurring pattern of the current Government attempting to claim credit for measures introduced by the previous Government. The current Government have repeatedly claimed to have secured £104 billion of investment in the water system, but £93 billion of that had already been submitted by water companies in October 2023—under the previous Government.
The Independent Water Commission published its final report in July 2025. It was a comprehensive document containing 88 recommendations. Since then, the Government published their water White Paper in January 2026. In May 2026, the King’s Speech included the promise of a clean water Bill. Given that there has been a change in Prime Minister since then, I would appreciate clarity from the Minister about whether the Government plan to proceed with special administration orders for water companies such as Thames Water, as was first suggested. Furthermore, are they going to do that as bespoke individual actions or as part of a nationalisation programme? Will that form part of a clean water Bill? Can she confirm when we will see that clean water Bill come before Parliament?
A well-functioning, properly regulated water system is achievable if there is the political will to make it happen. The public want change, as has been proved by the petition today. His Majesty’s official Opposition are ready to work constructively with the Government on ensuring that that is done for the benefit of people right across the country.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I offer my sympathy to the Prime Minister on the loss of his father. Losing a parent hurts, whatever age you are. I thank my hon. Friends and other hon. Members for being so kind when I lost my own dad earlier in the year. Thanks, everybody.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this important debate. He cares deeply about this issue, as do so many members of the public—many more, I imagine, than the 208,000 people who signed the petition.
I pay tribute to all the citizen scientists, environmental groups, campaigners and Members of Parliament from across the House. I particularly mention Julie and Reuben; I hope I am not giving too much away when I say to Julie how deeply moved both I and the previous Secretary of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds)—were after we met her, and how touched and privileged we felt to be presented with one of Heather’s shells as a reminder of the need to campaign on this. I promised her that we would focus much more on public health. We have generally lost that focus, and one of the key things in all the reforms we are trying to make is putting public health back at the heart of water. That is why we created the water system to begin with—for public health—and it should be focusing on that right now.
All the failures that hon. Members mentioned—all the people who have become sick and the impact on places that people love—are outrageous. They talked about the places where they used to paddle but cannot now, and places they used to visit. It is horrific that we have ended up in this situation.
I have always wanted to introduce a water Bill that meets the political moment and the public appetite for change. I am delighted that it feels that we are closer to that. The change in Prime Minister has opened up options that were previously not available; as I will mention, more things are suddenly on the table. I apologise in advance for being an irritating politician—we can quote that one—who is not going to give specific answers, but that is honestly because we are working through things right now. We are working through things across Government, and are looking to introduce a Bill that meets that appetite for change.
Hon. Members have had many key messages. As the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), mentioned, I would normally respond to everyone. I apologise that I am not going to do that, because too many spoke. However, I hope hon. Members recognise that I have been a very open Member of Parliament. We received a parliamentary question from an Opposition Member asking how many meetings Ministers have had with Back-Bench MPs. I have done 141.
Barry Gardiner
First, I reassure my hon. Friend that she is not an irritating Minister at all; I think she is generally held to be a very good Minister. Can I tempt her to enlarge slightly on what she said? When we talk about an SAR, people say, “Let’s start with Thames Water—it is the obvious one to start with.” Might the reason for the Minister’s hesitation to elaborate be that the Government are now looking much more holistically at what could be done with the whole water sector?
Emma Hardy
We are looking at all of the sector and what can be done right across it. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear, in all the comments he has made, that, in his words, the current water sector is “a leaking monument” to a system that prioritises private over public. He has used similar words on a number of occasions.
I completely understand why people are asking fundamental questions about ownership. For too long, pollution, poor performance and financial instability in the water industry have left customers and communities to pay the price. Infrastructure is crumbling, as we see with water outages. Lots of hon. Members mentioned national security, water and resilience. How can we meet the changing climate when we have a system that is so ineffective? I want to move towards a better system, in which we are thinking about the management of water in a catchment—about water, flooding, wetlands and nature, and how we can do all that together.
To do that, we need significant reform to give people and places greater control and to make the industry work for them again. Believe it or not—I know that nobody here would question it—there are some who question whether climate change is real. It is real, everyone. Just remember what it was like in summer. Our water industry must be fit for climate change of the future, delivering clean waterways, reliable services and fair and predictable bills.
Whatever the ownership model, we face a challenge around ageing infrastructure. We need major investment. The provision of basic services and the prevention of sewage spills is a fundamental requirement of the sector. Some 30 years of privatisation has not left the system in a good state, and that is probably an understatement. I want to create a system that protects customers, improves the environment and secures reliable water services for the future.
There is no single easy fix, but the Prime Minister has been very clear that the failures of the past cannot continue. We will look at all possible solutions for the water industry and bring forward reforms to make the sector work for people and places again. As the Prime Minister has said, later in the year our 10-year plan for Britain will set out plans for stronger public control over essentials such as water.
I will not pretend that there is one simple answer to the problems facing the sector, but what is not in question is the need for significant reform. That means tougher regulation, which we have started to see through the increased inspections by the Environment Agency, the court cases coming through and the fines it is starting to issue. We have that tougher regulation, but we still need greater enforcement, greater financial resilience and absolutely a stronger voice for customers and communities. Many hon. Members talked about democratic voice, which I agree is missing from the water sector. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and I had a quick conversation about how we need to bring people’s voices and that accountability back into place. I know that the Prime Minister is completely committed to looking at devolution and at how organisations can be responsive and answerable to place.
Bathing water sites are prioritised for upgrades. The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) is no longer in her place, but I know that she and I share a love of pre-pipe solutions, which is looking at nature, wetlands and how we can create spaces for water to go to prevent it from entering the system. On looking at assets, we have introduced MOT tests, which has uncovered more problems. When people first go in to inspect, they will identify different problems, and we are seeing that.
I want to pick up on a point made by one hon. Member—I apologise; I did not write down their name—about the trade unions and the workers. We can never forget that the workers on the frontline are not responsible for the failures of the water companies. I have absolute respect for them. I meet with the trade unions on a regular basis, and one thing they mention is the abuse that workers get when they are out working. They are not responsible—in fact, I would say that the workers out there on the frontline are the ones holding these companies together. I pay wholehearted tribute to the trade unionists and workers in all those water companies, who are doing a great job in incredibly difficult situations.
I completely agree that the system is not fair at the moment. We need to look at rain water management. England’s drinking water is world-leading. There are many things where we can say there is failure, but our drinking water quality is incredibly high. On referendums, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) mentioned that he was scarred by a previous referendum, the result of which I still feel deeply myself. But I think we know what the public think about this sector.
The Prime Minister has been clear that the Government’s priorities must be the public’s priorities. People want more ownership and control over the things that matter most to them. Public trust in the sector has been damaged by pollution, financial difficulties at some companies and a failure to invest sufficiently in infrastructure. Channel 4’s “Dirty Business” further highlighted the public concern about sewage pollution, shining a light on issues that matter to communities.
Public interest should be at the heart of how our critical services operate. For decades, the essential services that underpin daily life, including water, have suffered from over-privatisation, leading to high costs to the public. The Government are clear that the public have a right to expect those services to be affordable and accountable. We have established a public control taskforce that will rewire the state, examining how public control across sectors, including water, can be utilised to return them to public service and bring down costs for families. That ambition is reflected in the reforms we are already taking forward: strengthening accountability, improving performance, giving customers and communities a stronger voice, and ensuring that the water sector works in the public interest. We know that bold action is needed, and that is why we are fundamentally reforming the water sector.
I conclude by thanking the campaigners, the 208,000 people and everyone involved in working together on this issue. I hope we can all unite and push forward together to build the water system that we need for our communities, for our environment and for our public health.
Paul Davies
I start by thanking not just Ash for the petition, but the many campaigners who have worked so hard and tirelessly on this issue. You have made sure that there is no hiding place for the water companies, and that is the most important thing; this is out in the open and it is clearly understood by the public. We know that the public view the model as completely broken and are demanding significant change. I know that you will keep the work going, and you need to keep it going because you need to keep all of us on our toes and pin us down to make sure that we deliver as well.
I thank all hon. Members. There has been a clear consensus across the House that the model is broken. There are some nuances in terms of views on the solutions, but the starting point is clearly that the privatised model does not work. If we go back to 1989, the architect of the model, Margaret Thatcher, told Members not to pontificate and to look in the “light of the facts”. Well, I think we have all looked in the light of the facts. We know where we are. We know that we need to make that change.
I said in my speech that the Government have to be brave, and I say it again. We have to be brave. There are clearly many issues on the road to public ownership, but that does not mean that we give up at the first hurdle. We have a direction that many of us have talked about, and we have to find solutions and ways to overcome those obstacles and make this a reality. Again, I give many thanks to Ash and everybody else, and to all the Members who contributed to the discussion.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to everyone who has spoken. I also thank those in the Public Gallery for attending this evening. I know some of you had to be patient to wait for a seat, so thank you for that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 762640 relating to a referendum on public ownership of the water sector.