← Back to Westminster Hall Debates

Water Sector: Public Ownership

14 September 2026

Lead MP

Paul Davies

Responding Minister

Emma Hardy

Tags

EconomyClimateAgriculture & Rural AffairsLocal GovernmentNHSEnvironment
Word Count: 27404
Other Contributors: 57

At a Glance

Paul Davies raised concerns about water sector: public ownership in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.

Key Requests to Government:

Davies calls for a feasibility study to consider alternative models, including public ownership, and for the government to intervene in the case of Thames Water's potential collapse to test the waters for more far-reaching reform. Clark called for a broader conversation about whether regulation alone can solve the problems faced by the water sector, suggesting the need to consider public ownership models. Young urged the government to consider mutual ownership of water companies to reinvest profits into infrastructure and set legally binding priorities to protect the environment and provide clean water. Khan asks the Government to investigate whether the cost of public ownership can be less than the chronic underinvestment, rising bills, sewage-filled rivers, and a system where the public carries the risk while private investors take all the rewards. It is time to bring water back into public ownership, with regional publicly owned water companies with democratic accountability and meaningful representation for workers, customers, and communities. Public control should not mean a franchise model with token councillor representation. Investment should be planned for the long term, and environmental protection must be at the heart of the industry. Milne asks for a mutual ownership structure to prevent excess bonuses and profiteering, ensuring public money is spent on improvements. He also calls for a stronger regulator with enforcement powers. Hinchliff urges the government to bring the water sector back into public ownership to avoid further water shortfalls and to prevent private companies from prioritising profit over public interest. The public deserves the chance to decide whether private ownership of water companies should continue. There is a need for public ownership of water companies to ensure better management and investment. Sean Woodcock asked the Minister to demonstrate a greater understanding of public anger and frustration and to act with greater urgency, beyond the steps already taken, to address the water industry's issues. Dean called for Thames Water to be brought into special administration and for the government to consider public ownership of the water industry as the only credible path forward. Savage asks the Government to ban bonuses for water company executives until spills end and leaks are fixed, introduce a three-year cooling-off period for regulators to employ people from the industry they regulate, and create a single social tariff to ensure no one is priced out of essential water services.

How the Debate Unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:

Lead Contributor

Opened the debate
Paul Davies is concerned about the economic, environmental, and public health failures of the private water sector model in the UK. He cited statistics such as the £83 billion paid out in dividends since privatisation in 1989, and the 3.61 million hours of raw sewage discharge into rivers and seas in 2024. Davies also highlighted the lack of new reservoir construction since 1992 and the decline in bathing water quality compared to European standards. He pointed out that public support for public ownership of water companies has increased, with 82% of Brits in favour, according to YouGov polling in May 2026. Feryal Clark highlighted a recent burst water main in Enfield North that left 4,500 properties without water for days. She noted the severe impact on daily life, including cooking, drinking, washing, and sanitation, and the disruption to Chase Farm hospital. Clark criticised Thames Water's inadequate response, citing conflicting information and difficulties in reaching bottled water stations for vulnerable residents. She argued that the current system is not meeting the needs of the public and the environment, raising questions about who the water industry is being run for. Claire Young expressed significant dissatisfaction with the current water sector ownership model, citing the bonus payments to the chief executive of Wessex Water despite a Government ban, and the ongoing issues with sewage releases. She highlighted that Wessex Water was criminally convicted in 2024 for sewage pumping station failure, yet the chief executive received a 14% pay increase to £671,000 in 2025. Young mentioned that 190,666 hours of raw sewage were released into waterways in 2024, equivalent to about 21 years of continuous spillage. She also noted that the company's former chief executive received £170,000 in bonuses from the parent company despite criminal convictions. Ayoub Khan is concerned about the severe impact of flooding on his constituents, highlighting instances of homes being flooded up to a metre deep, elderly residents being displaced, and families at risk due to the failure of infrastructure. He notes that the neighbourhood of Perry Beeches has been vulnerable for over a decade, yet the infrastructure remains unfixed, leading to blocked manhole covers, sewage-filled rivers, and subsidence. Khan cites the example of Severn Trent, which recorded over 36,000 sewage spills lasting more than 200,000 hours while still achieving the Environment Agency's top environmental rating of four stars, questioning the validity of such ratings. The privatisation of water has led to a 44% rise in water bills in real terms since privatisation, polluted rivers, deteriorated infrastructure, and shareholders extracting £85 billion from the water industry. Regulatory fines have failed to change the behaviour of water companies, and the underfunding of the Environment Agency and failures by Ofwat have meant that regulatory powers are often not enforced. John Milne is concerned about the inadequate regulation of the water industry following privatisation, leading to sewage pollution and system neglect. He cites Southern Water as an example, where the former CEO faces criminal charges for fraudulent sewage data. The issue has resulted in higher water bills for residents to fund infrastructure repairs. Chris Hinchliff is concerned about the financial exploitation and environmental damage caused by the privatised water sector. He cited sewage pollution during a drought and a projected water deficit of more than 6 billion litres per day within 30 years. He noted that planned reservoirs will only reduce the deficit by 13%, and efficiency targets are unlikely to be met. Additionally, fire services are warning about low water pressure for fighting wildfires, and communities have already experienced taps running dry. Thirty-seven years after privatisation, water companies are heavily in debt, rivers and coastlines are polluted, and investment is lagging. In North Somerset, a young man was hospitalised after swimming in polluted Clevedon Marine lake. The Land Yeo river in the constituency has been choked with invasive species and thick algae due to underfunding and poor investment. In 2025, a storm overflow at Portbury Wharf nature reserve discharged sewage into the Severn estuary for 721 hours, the equivalent of 30 full days. The failure of these companies is compounding the impact of climate change and drought, as seen in the underinvestment in reservoirs like the one in Barrow Gurney. Sean Woodcock highlighted the significant impact of Thames Water's failings on his constituency, mentioning thousands of sewage spills leading to hundreds of thousands of hours of sewage discharge into local rivers and streams. He noted that Thames Water customers experienced a 31% increase in water bills last year, higher than the national average of 26%. The Prime Minister's comments on the water industry's current system, where shareholders win and billpayers lose, were acknowledged as accurate. Josh Dean expressed concern about the repeated sewage discharges into the River Stort, which runs through his constituency. He mentioned that Thames Water failed to engage with him for months before agreeing to a meeting this week. Dean highlighted that the privatised water industry has failed to deliver on its promises of investment, efficiency, and better outcomes, leading to environmental degradation and public health concerns. He cited an eight-hour sewage discharge that left dead fish and visible pollution. Roz Savage is concerned about the environmental impact of sewage pollution on rivers and the financial exploitation of water customers. She mentions that over 208,000 people signed a petition, including over 600 constituents of hers, highlighting that her constituency is the ninth most sewage-polluted in the country. She cites research from the University of Greenwich estimating that between 1991 and 2023, shareholders extracted around £85 billion more from English water and sewerage companies than they contributed in new equity. Savage also notes that Thames Water deferred approximately £1 billion in investment to protect its financial position, resulting in sustained pollution on an industrial scale, with over 8,100 hours of sewage spills recorded in Fairford since 2024.

Government Response

Emma Hardy
Government Response
Expressed sympathy for the Prime Minister and acknowledged the importance of the debate. Highlighted the need for significant reform, tougher regulation, and financial resilience in the water industry. Mentioned the Prime Minister's commitment to a 10-year plan for stronger public control over essentials such as water. Acknowledged the need for public control and accountability in the water sector. Noted the need for rainwater management and the high quality of England's drinking water. Acknowledged the public concern about sewage pollution and the need for public trust in the sector. Emphasised the Government's commitment to returning critical services to public service and bringing down costs for families through reforms.
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy

About Westminster Hall Debates

Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.