Public ownership of England's water companies could cost close to zero, says thinktank
Ministers could bring water companies into public ownership for minimal cost through a process designed to safeguard vital public services when the companies running them are failing, a thinktank report has argued.
According to the report by Common Wealth, ministers could use a process known as special administration to take over a company like Thames Water and, rather than transfer it to another private company, keep it under permanent public ownership.
Writing for the thinktank, Ewan McGaughey, professor of law at King's College London, said that while a figure of £99bn was commonly cited as the cost of taking over the industry in England, this was based on an estimate from a thinktank paid for by water companies.
According to McGaughey, the estimates use a metric known as regulatory capital value, designed by the industry regulator Ofwat for calculating maximum dividends. This takes the assumed value of companies in 1990 and adds on capital investment per year and inflation but, the report said, takes no account of real market values.
The actual market value of water companies, the report argued, seems to be lower, with the US private equity company KKR offering a £4bn injection of equity to take over Thames Water, when its supposed regulatory capital value is nearer £20bn.
It goes on to say that when debt levels of water companies are taken into account, for example Thames Water is about £20bn in debt, it would be possible for the government to argue that their appropriate value in law was notably less, even close to zero.
This would be based not just on debt, but also on the amount of money needed for infrastructure repairs and the scale of dividends already paid to shareholders.
While polling shows strong public support for the general idea of nationalised water suppliers, and the idea is liked by some Labour MPs, government officials say regulatory capital value is the standard measure for the companies' value, and that nationalisation would need the state to plug the gap left by billions more pounds of private investment that would vanish.
But according to McGaughey, who specialises in corporate law and insolvency, the rules setting out special administration would allow this to be used to remove licences from any water company deemed to show serious poor performance, something he argues in the report could be justified with every English water company over the dumping of sewage into waterways alone.
Once this was done, shareholders and secured creditors such as bondholders would be given 'appropriate value' for their stakes, with McGaughey saying this would, in effect, be nothing.
Sign up to Business Today
Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning
after newsletter promotion
While special administration is usually carried out to find a new private owner, McGaughey said there was 'nothing in the law to require that the new owner is private'.
He added: 'On the contrary, the duty of the special administrator is to the public, and it's in the public interest to consider public ownership. There would be a case for judicial review if the secretary of state did not consider public ownership.'
Such a move, McGaughey added, would be likely to see bondholders take legal action. However, he said, this happened in the past when Railtrack and Northern Rock were put into special administration without any compensation for investors, and the investors lost. 'The government just needs to stop being so timid,' he said.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: 'The government has no plans to nationalise water companies. It will cost billions of pounds and take years to unpick the current ownership model, during which time underinvestment in infrastructure and sewage pollution would only get worse.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
25 minutes ago
- Sky News
Tobacco giant BAT launches quest to smoke out next chairman
The FTSE-100 cigarette-maker British American Tobacco (BAT) is preparing to kick off the search for a new chairman. Sky News has learnt that the owner of Dunhill and Lucky Strike is in the process of picking headhunters to help identify a successor to Luc Jobin. Mr Jobin, a Canadian business veteran, has only chaired BAT since 2021. He has, however, been on its board since 2017, meaning he faces being 'timed out' by the middle of next year under UK corporate governance guidelines which state that directors are no longer deemed independent if they have served for more than nine years. The search for his successor is not expected to conclude until later this year or early 2026, according to insiders. With a market capitalisation of over £77bn, BAT remains one of the largest companies listed on the London Stock Exchange. It reported half-year results last week showing that full-year revenues were on track to exceed previous guidance to the City. The company's growth is being fuelled by so-called next-generation products such as Velo, a global brand of nicotine pouches. "In the US, I am very pleased that we expect to return to both revenue and profit growth in H1 and FY," Tadeu Marroco, BAT chief executive, said last week. "While Combustibles industry volume remains under pressure, we have stabilised our total industry volume and value share. "Excluding the deep discount segment where we are not present, we are gaining share, driven by Natural American Spirit and Lucky Strike."
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
What the winter fuel payment changes mean for you
Will you miss out on winter fuel payment because your income is just above £35,000? Get in touch: money@ Rachel Reeves has U-turned on her controversial winter fuel payment plan, which saw the money removed from all but the poorest pensioners. The Chancellor had restricted the previously universal payments to just those receiving pension credit, removing the money from an estimated 10 million pensioners. From this winter, those over state pension age with an annual income of less than £35,000 will be able to benefit from the payment – the Treasury says this will include more than three quarters of pensioners in England and Wales. Those under the age of 80 can expect £200 per household, while those over the age of 80 can get an extra £100. However, those earning more than £35,000 will pay back the money to HM Revenue and Customs through their tax bills. Mrs Reeves said: 'Targeting winter fuel payments was a tough decision, but the right decision because of the inheritance we had been left by the previous government. It is also right that we continue to means-test this payment so that it is targeted and fair, rather than restoring eligibility to everyone including the wealthiest. 'But we have now acted to expand the eligibility of the winter fuel payment so no pensioner on a lower income will miss out. This will mean over three quarters of pensioners receiving the payment in England and Wales later this winter.' The Government estimates that the new iteration will still save £450m a year, compared to restoring the payment to every pensioner, since there are an estimated two million pensioners with incomes above £35,000. The clawback mechanism is similar to the high income child benefit charge, which sees families on more than £60,000 hand back some, or all, of their child benefit payments. Here, Telegraph Money explains what the new winter fuel payment rules mean for you. What has changed? Rachel Reeves announced last summer that she was removing the £200 winter fuel payment from pensioners who were not in receipt of pension credit, as she looked to fill holes in the public purse. But this proved deeply controversial, as millions of pensioners missed out, with many struggling to cover high energy prices. The change also drove a huge surge in applications for the pension credit, with 285,600 pensioners applying between July last year and the end of May, an increase of 51pc. This saw delays of as long as 87 days for those waiting to be approved for the benefit. Campaign groups said that restricting eligibility to those receiving pension credit made some of the very poorest pensioners worse off, as many were just above the threshold for the benefit. The Government has now changed its mind. According to the latest announcement, this winter will see all pensioners over state pension age paid the £200 or £300 – but those who are not eligible to keep it will pay it back to HMRC. The annual income threshold has been set at £35,000. This means that nine million pensioners will receive the payment this year, compared to approximately 1.5 million last year. It is not clear whether the threshold will be increased annually with inflation, or linked to increases in the so-called 'triple lock', which sees the state pension increased by one of three measures each year. How to claim? Pensioners will not need to actively claim the payment, as it will be made automatically – but it will be possible to opt out. There will be no need to register with HMRC to receive the payment. Pensioners will be eligible if they have reached state pension age – currently 66 – by the qualifying week, which this year will be September 15 to September 21. How will it be paid back if I earn more than £35,000? If you earn more than £35,000, the payment will be clawed back through your tax bills. The Government says this will be done through the PAYE system, or via self-assessment. Sir Steve Webb said that for those with large company pensions, which are taxed through PAYE, this should be relatively easy for the Government to administer. If you earn over the threshold, the entire payment will be claimed back through your tax bills, with no taper. Is winter fuel allowance per person or household? Confusingly, the winter fuel payment is paid per household, but the earnings clawback is calculated individually. This means that a household will receive no more than £300 (for those over the age of 80), but each person's income is used to determine whether their half of the payment is removed via tax. I live alone. What happens if I earn just over £35,000? While someone who lives alone will be paid the full £200, or £300 if they're over 80, having an income of over £35,000 would mean the full winter fuel payment is taken back via tax. For those earning just over the threshold of £35,000, it might be worth considering reducing what you're taking from a pension pot. Alice Haine, of Bestinvest, said: 'Ultimately, for pensioners earning just above the £35,000 threshold, the latest news will be disappointing. Some may even choose to reduce their income from private pensions if it means they can just skim under the threshold to receive the payment.' What happens if I earn more than £35,000 but my spouse doesn't? If one pensioner in a household earns more than the threshold and the other doesn't, then £100 will be clawed back by HMRC from the higher earner. This is because the allowance is paid on a household level, so if there are two pensioners living in the same home, then it is split equally between them. This means that households where one pensioner earns £100,000 and the other earns £34,000, would receive £100 in winter fuel payment. The other £100 would be paid back through the tax system. Can I get the winter fuel payment if I am a millionaire? You could technically be a millionaire and keep the winter fuel payment if your income is less than £35,000. Even if a pensioner is asset rich, with a large home or pension pot, if their annual income for tax purposes is below the threshold, they will still be permitted to keep the payment. Sarah Coles, of Hargreaves Lansdown, said: 'The balance of property assets and pension income for older people can leave them wealthy on paper, and yet seriously strapped for cash on a daily basis. In the short term, things like the winter fuel payment can help.' Some millionaires don't believe they should receive the payments at all. Digby Harper, 79, a retired manufacturing company owner, said that he would not have the winter fuel payment restored, having sold his business for several million pounds when he retired. He said: 'As far as I am concerned, it's perfectly ok. I can't see why they gave me that money in the first place. I just don't need it. 'My wife used to describe it as her 'wine allowance'. I think it's a trivial issue. It's a big political issue but it's a nonsense.' How much do I get if I am over 80? Those over the age of 80 receive an additional £100 in winter fuel payment. For single pensioners, or households where both people are over 80, this would mean a payment of £300. In households with one pensioner under the age of 80 and one over, payments will be made of £100 and £150 respectively, sources at the DWP confirmed. This means that a total of £250 will be paid to mixed-age households. If either pensioner is over the income threshold, then their share would be clawed back. If both pensioners earn over the threshold, all £250 would be clawed back. Can I opt out? Pensioners will be able to opt out of receiving the payment at all, if they so choose. For those earning more than £35,000, this means that no additional money will be claimed by HMRC. More details about how pensioners can opt out will be announced by the Government at a later date. This is similar to how parents can opt out of receiving child benefit payments, if they earn over the threshold and would have to repay it. Opting out of child benefit can be done using an online form on the Government website, or by phone or post. As of August last year, more than 712,000 families had opted out of receiving child benefit payments.
The Sun
26 minutes ago
- The Sun
Reeves' toxic snatching of Winter Fuel cash from millions of pensioners will haunt Labour for years to come
AS POLITICAL u-turns go, Rachel Reeves' retreat on winter fuel payments will surely go down as one of the biggest - and messiest - in history. Her first act as Chancellor to snatch the cold weather cash from 10million pensioners has today been spectacularly dumped. 1 Nine million OAPs will now get the benefit, meaning all but the richest will claw back the £200-£300 sum. With a price tag of £1.25billion, this whole palaver has only saved the Treasury £450million. It's chicken feed in the grand scheme of things, and a tenth of the annual migrant hotel bill. But the political cost has been devastating. Labour insiders trace their spanking at last month's local elections back to Ms Reeves' toxic decision in the weeks after the election. That the winter fuel policy was still coming up on doorsteps 10 months later was a sign it was destined for the shredder. Yet rather than ripping off the plaster cleanly, the past few weeks have seen an agonising u-turn mired in chaos and confusion. And the Government is still not clear how the softening will be paid for, sparking inevitable fears of more tax rises. Speculation continues to swirl around Ms Reeves' own political fate and whether she is in line for the chop. We know Sir Keir Starmer can be ruthless in wielding the knife, but it is unclear this nuclear option would actually help. Just ask Liz Truss about the perils of a PM sacking a Chancellor with whom they are ideologically joined at the hip. Four years is a long time until the next general election, and Sir Keir and Ms Reeves will be hoping voters would have since moved on. But - even with today's backing down - the winter fuel debacle is likely to live long in the memory of the electorate and haunt Labour for a very long time.
