A wave of reader responses has followed the Guardian's investigation into private equity's presence in publicly funded services, after the newspaper reported that £1 in every £11 spent on UK public contractors goes to private equity-backed companies. The letters published on 1 July 2026 reflect deeply divided views, from calls for outright exclusion of private equity from essential services, to a defence of the investment model's broader economic contribution.
Struggling with private equity public services?
Get help with your situation today — confidential and no judgement.
The core complaint: "leveraged extraction"
Mal Williams, writing from Cardiff, argued that the issue goes beyond better management of the existing relationship between private equity and public services. According to Williams, the typical private equity model in this context involves buying a company using borrowed money, then loading that debt onto the acquired company itself, a process described bluntly as making "the company buy itself on credit."
The letter states that under this model, "staff, service users, suppliers and taxpayers carry the cost, while investors pursue fees, dividends, refinancing gains and resale profits." Williams contends that this dynamic is particularly harmful in sectors where service users have no genuine alternative, naming childcare, social care, health, transport, waste collection and education as examples where people are, in the letter's words, "captive users of essential infrastructure."
Williams also challenged the argument that rising costs in these sectors are simply unavoidable, pointing to debt repayments, shareholder dividends, management fees, related-party charges and executive rewards as mechanisms that redistribute public money into private capital rather than representing genuine operational pressures.
Calls for legislation and disclosure
The Cardiff letter went further than criticism, setting out a series of specific legislative proposals. Williams called for any company controlled by private equity, private credit funds or highly leveraged ownership structures to be barred from receiving public contracts for essential services. Bidders for public contracts, the letter argued, should be required to disclose their ultimate owners, debt structure, tax domicile, fees, dividend policy, related-party payments and exit arrangements.
Williams also called for the prohibition of dividend recapitalisations, sale-and-leaseback arrangements and intra-group charging in any context involving public funds, practices the letter characterised as extraction rather than efficiency.
Dentistry: a sector the original report missed
Ian Graham, writing from Port Carlisle in Cumbria, raised the dental sector as a significant omission from the Guardian's earlier reporting on areas where private equity plays a prominent role. Graham stated that the takeover of dental practices is "almost complete", with most practices now part of large groups and former owners continuing as salaried dentists within those structures.
The letter raised concerns about commercial pressures within these groups, noting that private equity backers seeking returns can create incentives to steer patients towards higher-margin treatments such as implants. Graham also highlighted what he described as a lack of financial transparency, asking rhetorically whether anyone had tried to pursue legal action against a private equity business with an offshore registered address.
His proposed remedy was for dental practices to revert to individual ownership by UK-registered dentists, or to companies listed on the London Stock Exchange with at least one registered dentist as a director.
The tax angle
Rob Harrison of Ethical Consumer magazine drew attention to a tax dimension not covered in the original investigation. The letter argued that the leveraged buyout model can reduce corporation tax receipts, because heavy post-acquisition debt repayments can reduce a company's profits, sometimes to zero. With no profit, no corporation tax is paid, diminishing the tax revenues that support the very public services being contracted out.
Company law as the underlying issue
Tony Fletcher, writing from Bryncoch in Neath, shifted the focus from ownership structures to company law itself. Fletcher pointed out that any company holding a public service contract, whether private equity-backed or not, currently has a primary legal duty under company law to maximise returns for shareholders. The letter posed the question of why parliament could not simply change that law so that any company contracted to provide a public service would have, as its primary duty, the proper provision of that service, with that duty taking precedence over profit maximisation.
A defence of private equity
Not all of the letters were critical. Michael Moore offered a contrasting perspective, arguing that the framing of the original investigation did not reflect economic reality. According to Moore's letter, the private capital industry has been part of the British economy for more than 40 years, and now supports around 2.5 million jobs across the UK while contributing approximately 9% of private sector GDP.
On this basis, Moore argued that private equity-backed companies are winning public contracts broadly in line with their share of the wider economy, and that the headline figure of £1 in every £11 should be understood in that context, rather than as evidence of disproportionate influence.
Moore also pushed back on the idea that ownership structure is a reliable indicator of outcomes, stating that public procurement should judge suppliers by capability, performance and value for money rather than by whether they are privately owned, publicly listed, family-owned, employee-owned or backed by private equity. The letter acknowledged that private equity "delivers both successes and failures", as do publicly listed markets.
What the original investigation found
The letters respond to two Guardian articles published on 28 June, one of which reported the £1-in-£11 figure for private equity's share of public contractor spending, and another that surveyed the range of sectors, including nurseries, veterinary practices and retail, where private equity has a significant presence. Green peer Natalie Bennett was quoted in the original reporting describing the situation as a "financial pandemic", a characterisation that Moore's letter explicitly disputed.
The debate reflects broader unresolved questions about how public procurement rules, corporate transparency requirements and company law interact when essential services are delivered by privately owned, highly leveraged businesses, and whether existing frameworks are adequate to protect service users who have little or no choice about where they turn.
Free, impartial debt advice is available from StepChange, MoneyHelper and Citizens Advice.