As public outrage at water companies disregard for the law, abuse of our money, neglect of our water systems, pollution of our waterways, continues to mount it is an extraordinary act of arrogance to see the water companies increase rewards for CEOs and Finance Directors rising to £25M this year (Guardian 2026).

Whilst the government has fallen into the trap of believing the problem of water pollution is complex, and the fault of regulation, the People’s Commission on the Water Sector undertook a truly independent review and found that the cause was commodification of water and the lack of national strategy. The shorthand is that privatisation has led to pollution for profit, but that same shorthand is leading to proposals for ideologically driven short-term fix solutions, for instance replacing water companies with mutuals, that do not address the root causes of the water crisis.

One solution being proposed is the move the water companies into Mutuals, companies owned by members (which could be the public) rather than shareholders. They vary enormously from charitable trusts to non-profit company, consumer co-operative, multistakeholder mutuals (all of which are being used to describe alternatives to for-profit, shareholder-owned private water companies). Whilst this looks an attractive solution with the possibility of the public owning the problem, on its own it is problematic as water remains a commodity rather than a public good, financing costs can be high, and the water system as a whole remains fragmented. 

Rather than jump into another unproven and unprecedented approach (at the scale of the UKs water sector) of mutuals, we called for an evidence-based solution that embodying careful stewardship of water as a vital eco-system for life, our economy and our future. The ownership model that will secure us a sustainable and resilient water system should be designed based on lessons learnt from the 90% of the world that has already transitioned to public ownership, so that we don’t make the same mistakes as Thatcher in pursuing a wholesale ideologically driven transfer, but instead design an evidence-based modern bespoke public ownership model fit for the future drawing on the vast expertise available to us. What is clear is that international approaches that are more effective have a fundamentally different ethos of clear strategy and long terms planning, democratisation of decision-making, transparency, and lower costs. Those countries took time to prepare the public and carefully design a system that works for the public good.

Knee jerk adoption of another fragmented set of owners (be it mutuals instead of corporates) does not address the fundamental strategic problems that run alongside private ownership – for instance our lack of preparedness for climate change that affects regions of our nation differentially and requires national and collaborative responses to tackle water scarcity; the planned building boom and data centre expansion that does not address our lack of capacity to manage and store water, or use grey water effectively, to name but two.

Neither does the grasp for a quick fix solution meet the test of the international experience which is that we have to secure public ownership of the problem not just public control of the delivery mechanism, so that everyone pulls together to conserve and protect water. The mutuals solution as proposed adopts the mentality that water is a commodity that needs managing, rather than water as an asset that is vital for all aspects of our and our country’s survival and ability to thrive.

Replacing water companies with mutuals does not bring the valuable assets of water companies back into public ownership against which to borrow using low cost access to government bonds. Moreover with the range of ‘membership’ options available they do not safeguard against a re-takeover by private equity much like the privatised water companies have already experienced. Tit for Tat is not a strategy. 

This is not to write off mutuals as part of the solution. Internationally mutuals do play a part in a hybrid model of delivery within a public ownership model. This is why after 37 years of failed privatisation the public deserves a feasibility study looking at all the options in order to design a modern bespoke public ownership system that works now and for the future. We are spoilt for choice – if only we took the time to open the box and see what’s possible. 

Prof Becky Malby BEM

The People’s Commission on the Water Sector

‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email [email protected] if you are interested in contributing.

* The People’s Commission on the water sector reflects the public outrage at the state of our rivers, lakes and seas, and seeks to undertake a full root and branch review of the water system, examining what we can learn from the very best approaches internationally, and from innovations emerging in the water industry and scientific community. The People’s Commission has been established by members of The Sewage Campaign Network