Hold a binding national referendum on whether the water industry should be returned to public ownership. Water is a basic human necessity; we believe our privatised system has failed, so the public should decide who owns and controls it.
You may be interested in these active petitions
Private water companies have about 62 million captive customers whose bills have delivered over £85 Bn to shareholders; money that in public ownership could have been spent on fixing our infrastructure. No other country in the world has privatised water like this. We believe that proposed government reforms to regulation show that water company owners are being favoured over the public, and this is not right in a democracy. A referendum would give the public back its voice about its water.
Thursday 23rd April 2026
Nationalisation would take years and involve complex legal processes, diverting effort from cleaning up rivers, lakes and seas. We are taking action now through stronger regulation and enforcement.
The government recognises the strength of public concern about the performance of the water industry. Water is a vital public service, and people rightly expect clean rivers, reliable services and greater accountability from water companies.
Some campaigners have called for a binding referendum on returning the water industry to public ownership. However, the government has no intention of nationalising the water sector currently and does not believe that a national referendum would deliver faster improvements for customers or the environment. Any move to nationalisation would take many years to implement, involve significant legal and operational complexity, and risk prolonged uncertainty and disruption across the sector. That would divert time, energy and attention away from the urgent work needed now to tackle sewage pollution, protect public health and improve water quality.
That is why the government is delivering the most significant reform of water regulation in a generation. Through the Water White Paper, we are introducing a single, more powerful regulator for the water sector, bringing together existing bodies and giving it the authority and expertise needed to hold water companies properly to account. A Chief Engineer will sit at the heart of the new regulator, ending the days of water companies marking their own homework and ensuring that regulators can independently assess the condition of pipes, pumps and treatment works.
The new system will introduce MOT style checks on water companies’ infrastructure, with tougher consequences for those that fail, alongside no notice inspections so there will be nowhere and no chance to hide poor performance. Dedicated supervisory teams and stronger intervention powers will allow regulators to act earlier and more decisively where companies are falling short.
We are also improving transparency so both the public and regulators can see what is happening in near real time. Water companies are required to publish detailed data on sewage discharges, and reforms will go further to make performance information clearer, more accessible and easier to understand. This transparency will support better public awareness, enable communities to scrutinise performance locally, and strengthen links between environmental protection and public health, including through the Chief Medical Officer’s Public Health Taskforce.
The government has already acted to strengthen accountability and enforcement. We have banned over £4 million in bonuses for executives at polluting water companies, introduced prison sentences for executives who cover up pollution incidents, and backed the Environment Agency with a record £153 million budget for water enforcement this financial year. This has enabled a record 10,000 inspections of water company sites and more than 177 criminal investigations into suspected wrongdoing.
The government is focused on securing the fastest and most effective improvements for customers, communities and the environment. We believe this is best achieved through decisive regulatory reform and enforcement, rather than a referendum that would delay progress and distract from delivering real change on the ground.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs