On 21 July 2025, the Independent Water Commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, unveiled its final 465-page report proposing sweeping reforms in England and Wales’ water regulation. The review advocates for a powerful new regulator, an “Ombudsman for Water,” tighter environmental standards, social tariffs, and stronger financial resilience. Notably missing, however, are concrete proposals for nationalisation or caps on executive pay—omissions which show the Commission was little more than an exercise in tinkering with the status quo.
Independent Water Commission: nationalisation?
Despite widespread public outrage over sewage dumping, rising bills, and private debt-laden utilities, the Independent Water Commission chose not to consider nationalisation, stating it was outside its mandate. This reticence echoes government officials who dismiss such ideas as too costly or slow.
People are underwhelmed. Left Foot Forward – like the Canary – argues nationalisation is the only credible fix, noting long-term neglect, profiteering, and systemic pollution—all left unaddressed in the report. They further challenge ministers to justify why leaving water in private hands hasn’t cost the public more than the estimated £90 billion price tag for public takeover.
Water is a public good—vital for health and life. Privatisation has created perverse incentives to privatise profits while socialising the environmental and health costs. A public utility would prioritise safe, clean supply over shareholder returns and could reinvest efficiently in infrastructure without resorting to high debt or bill hikes.
Countries like France (SEB – Eau de Paris) and municipalities in Germany manage water publicly, with better leak reduction and pollution control. In Wales, the publicly‑oriented Welsh Water has consistently reinvested surplus into infrastructure, avoiding debt and CEO largesse.
Under current privatisation, hidden debt obscures real financial health. Thames Water accumulated £16 billion in debt while still paying dividends. Public ownership would eliminate profiteering fuelled by leverage, ensure investment is tied to public benefit, and increase transparency and accountability.
CEO pay: no cap in sight
The Independent Water Commission explicitly rejects caps on executive pay, arguing such limits would deter “the best people” from industry roles. This stance is tone-deaf amid the backdrop of vast salaries and bonuses: Thames Water’s CEO Chris Weston earned up to £2.3 million in 2024. Thames, meanwhile, paid out large dividends while racking up £16 billion in debt and causing repeated pollution scandals. Severn Trent’s boss earned over £3m, just as sewage spills went up.
Campaign groups like River Action UK describe the report as “a sales pitch to international investors and overpaid CEOs” rather than a genuine overhaul. They argue that without binding limits on pay, the same profit‑first logic will continue to dominate, incentivising cost‑cutting over public safety and infrastructure investment.
Luke Hildyard, Executive Director of the High Pay Centre, said of this:
The failure to recommend a cap on pay for water industry executives is likely to undermine long term public confidence in the sector.
At a time when so many households across the country are struggling with bills and the cost of living, the review continues to indulge executives’ sense of entitlement to pay awards that go far beyond what is necessary to provide a sensible, proportionate reward for competent management.
A reasonable cap – for example, one set at 10 times the annual pay of a worker on the UK minimum wage – would have sent a firm but fair message about the culture of public service that we should expect from water and other utilities.
The Independent Water Commission: Dodging the issues
During the interim phase, MPs and environmental campaigners urged the Independent Water Commission to explore alternatives like not‑for‑profit and public ownership—pointing to Welsh Water (Dŵr Cymru), which operates under a not‑for‑profit model, as a successful example. Even the House of Commons Environment Select Committee demanded that renationalisation be put on the table, citing consumer harms, pollution, and corporate mismanagement.
Yet the final report dodges any firm stance on public ownership. It hints at not‑for‑profit transitions only “where feasible” and without public spending—a weak, noncommittal position that sidesteps the root question: who owns and profits from water.
Meanwhile, data show charity CEOs earn under £500k, while private water bosses pocket millions. Thames Water’s former CEO Weston took home a £850k salary plus bonuses topping £2 million. That’s five times what top civil servants earn. Capping pay at public sector equivalent wages would signal a shift from profiteering to service and rein in wasteful executive compensation.
So, the report’s 88 recommendations target fragmentation, poor oversight, and financial fixes. Yet critics point out that regulatory change alone cannot overcome systemic privatisation failures. Without breaking the ownership model, the same crises—pollution, underinvestment, debt, profiteering—will re-emerge.
Water regulation: what’s the point?
Environment groups like Surfers Against Sewage demand that the government “reshape the water industry to put public health and environment first”. Until public ownership is on the agenda, any reforms remain half‑measures.
Overall, the Cunliffe report is strong in highlighting regulatory complexity, environmental breakdown, and the need for unified oversight. However, it tragically fails to challenge privatisation or the rewards that flow to executives at public expense.
By refusing to examine nationalisation, the Independent Water Commission overlooks the one model that promises real alignment between public and environmental interest. And by dismissing limits on executive pay, it perpetuates the same system that rewards failure with obscene salaries.
True reform isn’t more regulation of private owners and scrapping Ofwat. It’s public ownership as a baseline, transparent management, and accountability through democratic control. Anything else risks recreating today’s mess under yet another corporate guise.
Featured image via the Canary
By Steve Topple
This post was originally published on Canary.