As Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham pushes for stronger public control of water and energy companies, analysis from the Guardian's Nils Pratley points to Welsh Water as a cautionary case study, one that suggests changing ownership alone may not resolve the deep-rooted problems in the utilities sector.
Struggling with water nationalisation debate?
Get help with your situation today — confidential and no judgement.
Welsh Water: A Quarter-Century Without Shareholders
Welsh Water is notable for being the only one of the original ten water companies privatised under the Thatcher government to have since moved away from shareholder ownership. Following what the Guardian describes as "a complicated turn-of-the-century corporate saga", the company converted to not-for-profit status in 2001. It serves 3 million people and has no shareholders, with financial surpluses directed back into bills and infrastructure rather than dividends.
With more than 25 years now elapsed since that transition, Welsh Water represents something of a natural experiment in whether alternative ownership structures deliver better outcomes for customers and the environment. According to the Guardian's reporting, the results are mixed at best.
Struggling with debt?
UK Debt Team can connect you with a regulated debt help partner who can talk through your options. No obligation, no charge to talk.
Middle of the Pack on Performance and Bills
The Guardian notes that while Welsh Water tends to score well on customer trust metrics, its performance on bills and pollution spills "tends to be middle of the pack". On bills, Welsh Water charges households £683 a year, above the industry average. By comparison, Severn Trent-owned Hafren Dyfrdwy, which holds the licence in parts of north-east and mid-Wales, charges its customers £48 less per year.
More significantly, Welsh Water recently received what the Guardian describes as a £44.7m "enforcement package", effectively a fine, from water regulator Ofwat. The regulator found "serious and unacceptable breaches" in how the company operated its sewage plants, breaches that "resulted in excessive spills to the environment". While many water companies have faced penalties under Ofwat's industry-wide investigation, Welsh Water's fine represented 7.5% of its turnover, which the Guardian notes was "at the high end" of the regulatory yardstick used to measure seriousness.
The Guardian's analysis concludes that Welsh Water "is a reminder that it is too simplistic to think all the sector's woes can be cured simply by changing the ownership", pointing instead to factors such as access to capital, operational efficiency, technical skill, management accountability and regulatory rigour.
What Burnham Has Actually Said
The Guardian reports that despite generating significant attention with his calls for "stronger public control" over water and energy, Burnham has remained deliberately vague on the specifics. His only concrete commitment, according to the piece, has been to say nationalisation is "what should be done" at Thames Water, though even this statement carries ambiguity. The Guardian raises the question of whether Burnham means full permanent nationalisation or special administration, the latter being a different legal process that could ultimately return Thames Water to private ownership once creditors have absorbed losses on their debt. Thames Water's shareholders have already been wiped out.
For the wider water industry, Burnham is reported to be taking a longer-term view. He has been quoted as saying: "It is about a 10-year plan of more public control, more public ownership. I don't think you nationalise the whole thing necessarily straight off, because that's complicated and probably expensive but you look at the different situations in different parts of the country."
The Cost and Complexity of Nationalising Solvent Companies
The Guardian's analysis draws a sharp distinction between the situation at Thames Water and that of the rest of the sector. Thames, the piece suggests, could potentially be nationalised at relatively low cost because creditors' negotiating power, like the market value of their bonds, has weakened under political pressure. Nationalising financially stable, solvent companies is a significantly different proposition.
According to the Guardian, the two FTSE 100 water companies, United Utilities, which holds the licence in the north-west of England, and Severn Trent, are each valued by the stock market at almost £10bn, to which their borrowings must be added. While the state would receive assets to match its outlay, potentially making such transactions appear neutral under one form of Treasury accounting, the additional gilt issuance required would still be substantial.
The sums would grow considerably larger if, as some thinktanks have argued, energy transmission networks were also brought into public ownership. The Guardian reports that National Grid is valued at £62bn, though a portion of that reflects its US assets, while SSE is valued at £29bn.
Operational Disruption: The Grid and Sewage Upgrades
Beyond cost, the Guardian identifies a series of practical complications. High-voltage transmission operators are described as being in "the early stage of a £70bn five-year upgrade of the grid". Changing ownership mid-programme could take around 18 months, the Guardian reports, and the disruption could jeopardise Energy Secretary Ed Miliband's 2030 deadline for clean power.
Similarly, water companies are described as being in "vital catchup mode on overhauling tired sewage and water treatment works", one reason, the piece notes, why Keir Starmer's government did not pursue nationalisation when it came to power.
The Guardian also raises the experience of HS2 as a warning. Like water companies, HS2 relied heavily on third-party contractors to build new infrastructure, and the Guardian notes that "those contractors enjoyed a picnic at the expense of taxpayers" under state management.
Why Comparisons to Buses and Rail Do Not Apply
Some advocates of public ownership have pointed to the Bee Network, Burnham's reorganisation of bus services in Greater Manchester, and the return of rail operators to public hands as relevant precedents. The Guardian dismisses both analogies. The Bee Network is described as "capital-lite", while utilities are "capital-heavy". The rail comparison also fails, the piece argues, because train operators were brought in-house at zero cost by simply waiting for fixed-term franchises, typically seven years, to expire. Water companies, by contrast, own their assets outright and operate under 25-year rolling licences.
The Guardian's conclusion is not that public ownership is impossible, but that "complicated and expensive", Burnham's own words, is an accurate description of what it would entail in practice.
Free, impartial debt advice is available from StepChange, MoneyHelper and Citizens Advice for anyone concerned about household bills or financial pressures.