Water Sector: Public Ownership

Paul Davies Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[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 It has now received 208,000 signatures, and counting—I am sure that that number is already out of date.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 (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

rose—

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

rose—

[Paul Davies]

Go on.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

The short answer is yes—I absolutely agree.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[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.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

rose—

[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.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[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.

[Jim Dickson]

Will my hon. Friend give way on the subject of Thames Water?

--- Later in debate ---

[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—]

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Davies Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

The hon. Member is absolutely right, but in the last five years under the previous Government, incidents rose by 20%. We are encouraging councils to seize and crush the vehicles of fly-tippers, and we will be consulting on a conditional caution so that people who do fly-tip will pick up and pay up.

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

T6. The recent real-life drama “Dirty Business” highlighted the scale of the issues within the water industry. In my constituency, Yorkshire Water has had serious issues with sewage outflows and poor standards of infrastructure. I welcome the Government’s water reforms, which will protect customers. However, does the Secretary of State agree that we now need to consider public ownership of the water industry in order to resolve the fundamental problems it faces?

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. Like the viewers of “Dirty Business” and my hon. Friend, I share the public’s anger about the decades of failure and neglect in our water system. The programme was very distressing and upsetting. I have extended an invitation to Heather Preen’s mum, Julie, to meet with me. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are determined to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas. We have already banned unfair bonuses for water bosses. We are scrapping Ofwat, and we are ending self-monitoring of water companies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Davies Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The causes of food price inflation include rising global energy prices, extreme weather events that have been affecting harvests, as we have already heard, and global supply chain problems, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Those things are affecting food prices right across the country. As part of the road map, we are working with farmers to ensure more supply chain fairness, so that the producer of origin gets a fairer share of the money that is made through the system for the food that they grow. That is the best way in which we can support farms to get their fair share of the revenue that comes in for the food they produce.

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

T2. In my constituency, producers such as Longley farm exemplify British quality. Its dairy products are globally renowned. What specific steps is the Department taking to prioritise the purchase and promotion of British produce, ensuring support for domestic farmers, reducing food miles and strengthening the UK’s food security and rural economy?

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we should all be proud of high-quality British producers like Longley farm. That is why, back in July, I announced our food strategy, which will build pride in British food by ensuring we have a food system that backs British food, grows the economy, feeds the nation, nourishes individuals and protects the planet—now and in the future.