The Government does not know the costs of public ownership

January 2026

The government has repeatedly said that putting water into public ownership is just too expensive. 

This is counter to the People's Commission evidence based report which states that water in public ownership could be cheaper to run than in private ownership. This is due to the absence of dividends, the lower cost of debt, and transparency creating downward pressure on costs. In July 2025, the People's Commission wrote to the Secretary of State setting out the evidence on this, and also putting together findings which indicate that the government/ DEFRA's estimate of the costs of transition to public ownership are significantly inflated (and definitely would not penalise the NHS!). 

“The People’s Commission has found that the total reduction in costs could provide more funding to address the failings of the water companies to maintain the assets they inherited. In conclusion the People’s Commission on the Water Sector finds that refinancing of the water sector in public ownership will be cheaper than the current privatised system." 

In October 2025, we wrote to Emma Hardy MP, the Minister for Water and Flooding, querying her claim on costs and on the difficulty of transitioning to a publicly owned water system. We stated:

"It would be very helpful to see any calculation of the financial and non-financial costs associated with the government’s policy of continuing with privatisation versus a public ownership model over PR24 and the next 30 years. Our evidence sets out how the water sector would be cheaper to run in public ownership, providing more funds to secure improvements that have not been evident to date."

We received no response.  

In December 2025, the Ilkley Clean River Group sent a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to DEFRA asking the same thing. The response to the FOI shows that the government does not know how much it will cost to run water under public ownership or how that compares to the costs of continuing with private ownership. The government cannot therefore say that it will cost the public more to take back water. 

This FOI by Ilkley Clean River Group asked for information held by DEFRA on the ongoing financial and non-financial costs to the public of continuing with the current privatised model versus the financial and non-financial costs of public ownership of the water industry. We asked for this information in two parts:

1. The comparative costs over the rest of PR24 (ie to 2030)
2. The comparative costs over the following 30 years.

 The response from DEFRA stated that the government does not have this information because ‘it has no intention to nationalise and therefore has not assessed the ongoing costs of continuing with the current privatised model versus public ownership of the water industry’.

This suggests that the government has not looked at any options beyond persisting with the calamitous, outdated and scandalous privatised water industry. Yet this ignores the experiences of most other countries where water is publicly owned and provided. England and Wales deserve better. We call on the government to at least carry out a feasibility study to examine global experience to devise a water system that operates in the interests of society and the environment rather than private shareholders. This would at the very least determine the actual costs.

The Ilkley Clean River Group says "This is shocking. We expect the government to be protecting the public by securing a water sector that protects our environment and provides reliable, clean water at the best possible price to the public. The government should have worked out all the options and be pursuing the most effective and efficient for the public. Clearly this is not the case. Despite shocking performance and outrageous profiteering the government is shackling the public to a broken and expensive private system."

The forthcoming 'once in a lifetime' white paper to provide radical change to the water system will therefore be cutting out the very options that are in the public's best interest.