What will a Burnham premiership mean for water?

Contact

Joseph Lewis

Recap: What’s the status quo for water policy?

There’s already lots of energy around water reforms. Legislation is due this year to implement England’s Water White Paper, A new vision for water, which responds to the work of the Independent Water Commission that was put together after Keir Starmer entered government in 2024.

Key points in the Water White Paper included:

A long-term vision for water: One of the priorities in the paper is embedding a 25-year perspective on water systems, supporting a strategic approach to decisions.
A new combined regulator: The paper proposed to abolish Ofwat and replace it with a new regulator taking some water functions from Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the Environment Agency, and Natural England.
Supervisory regulation: Following the Corry Review, the White Paper proposed to adopt the ‘supervisory’ approach with discretion to act within certain constraints.
A shift towards consumers and public health: The proposals included commitments to partnerships on public health, particularly across government.
Innovation and investment: Securing confidence for investment was another priority in the proposals, backed by a 5/10/25 year planning approach to investment.
Shift towards pre-pipe: On water quality, the White Paper proposed a shift towards pre-pipe solutions, albeit providing minimal details with more expected in the Transition Plan.
Water in the planning system: Another feature of the White Paper was a stronger connection between water and development planning processes across a range of actions and a new plan-making system, as well as support for a dedicated regional water planning function.
Emphasis on resilient infrastructure: There were significant commitments in the White Paper to better maintenance of infrastructure and assets.
Monitoring, mapping, and enforcement: While the White Paper did not fully address the data landscape, it recognised the importance of monitoring and committed to end ‘operator self-monitoring’ and move towards open monitoring.

For more information on the latest proposals, catch up with our coverage on the Water White Paper and the final report of the Independent Water Commission. Further details on policy around water are available in our briefing on water policy.

As the White Paper was published, a parallel process was beginning in Wales through an equivalent Green Paper and consultation. In both instances, there are two next steps still to come: a joint Transition Plan to fill in the details and align approaches, and legislation, confirmed in the King’s Speech, to implement the proposals.

It is unlikely that Burnham’s ascent will interfere with either, though the substance of the proposals might change considerably. As the Transition Plan and forthcoming Water Bill emerge, we will begin to see the first signs of whether the new Prime Minister intends to make his mark on the future trajectory of reforms.

Early indications: What changes should we expect?

The last few weeks have moved very quickly, even for politics. The days leading up to the Makerfield By-Election feel as though they were a thousand years ago.

Back in that forgotten era, Andy Burnham put out a pitch for leadership which included some commentary on the future of water. Before returning to Parliament, Burnham outlined a vision of a future with “the essentials of life being run primarily for the public interest, not for private interests”. The details are expected to come in a new 10-year plan for the country, due later in the year, and both energy and water have been viewed as potential targets.

That statement comes amid a longstanding debate about the future of water in the UK and how industry should function. There are two parts to that discussion: how should we regulate industry to secure outcomes, and what model of ownership should water companies operate under?

From the Prime Minister’s perspective, it seems as though the answer to the latter question is more open than it has been under past governments. The remit of the Independent Water Commission excluded it from looking at public ownership models, but its final report did offer recommendations for enhancing the governance, financing, and regulation of privatised water companies without nationalisation. Even now that different models might be back on the table, there’s a lot of nuances in the differences between public ownership, nationalisation, and public service.

Questions like who owns the company, how it is funded (both operationally and how any transfer of ownership might be funded), and what role any shareholders play can all have a significant impact on outcomes in practice, and there are many models available.

More recently, The Guardian reported that sources close to Burnham believed “he is likely to pursue a model such as those in Paris and Berlin, where water services are run by independent organisations but with most of the shares held by the municipal government”. By shifting the incentive of shareholders to better represent public interest, the goal of those reforms is to remove the financial incentives that some commenters believe can get in the way of outcomes.

Meanwhile, the regulatory side of the conversation is also very open. It’s unlikely that Burnham would overturn the proposals set out in the White Paper or significantly disagree with the insights of the Independent Commission (in ways that the Government has not already disagreed).

What might be more likely is to see Burnham flavour the existing proposals with some of his preferred approaches to delivering policies. Given his significant interest in devolution and localism, we might expect to see greater attention paid to the regional aspects of the Independent Commission’s recommendations. That might mean more regional water planning in practice, and it could open the door longer-term to more powers at a community level and more trust in regions to know how to deliver the outcomes that people want locally.

Other regulatory shifts might see more focus placed on strict rules for water companies, regardless of the ownership or management models they operate under. Policies like operating debt limits have been subject to discussion since the White Paper was published, and they might still feature in a Burnham administration that puts public service first.

What does it mean for environmental professionals?

Ultimately, there are still many unknowns as we look to the future of water policy in England. With a new Environment Secretary who may have her own perspective on how water companies should operate and be regulated, there’s still a big opportunity in the coming months to shape the discussion.

Environmental professionals working with water should take the next few months to reflect carefully on the changes we need to see. There are likely to be plenty of opportunities to bring evidence into the process and shift back towards outcomes that serve the public interest and support the environment.

As the new Prime Minister’s approach to reforms becomes clearer by the end of 2026, professionals need to be ready to adapt to any change in approach. For the most part, the core work of the sector won’t change, but the way we manage outcomes might need to adapt to changing priorities, hopefully for the better.

Denise Okpala, Member of IES Council and the Marine & Coastal Science Community Steering Group, gave her perspective on future water reforms and the need for a holistic approach that treats water as a foundational ecosystem service:

“It is important that the conversations around UK water reforms are not just centred on administrative restructuring or corporate financial accountability. From a planetary health perspective, any incoming leadership must transition the UK toward a holistic policy which prioritises land-sea connectivity as well as a source-to-sea management approach.

Right now, terrestrial water management, coastal marine protection, and public health operate more or less on their own in silos. True reform means recognising that water quality is a foundational ecosystem service; aligning upstream wastewater targets directly with downstream marine and human health is non-negotiable if we want to build climate resilience.”

How should we approach reforming policy on water?

Even as we reflect on the part that politics plays in these reforms, we should acknowledge the ongoing work that is shaping the future of water.

Earlier in July, the Foundation for Water Research (FWR) published a new report that outlined how the Government could deliver its new vision for water. The report set out eight recommendations:

Define a vision for our water system and embed an outcomes-based approach that delivers for people and the environment
Regional water planners must work closely with existing catchment partnerships, with clearly defined responsibilities
Regional water planners must be equipped to support the delivery of multiple benefits
Resourcing must reflect ambition
Monitoring plans need to be solutions-focused
Build a data ecosystem conducive to a systems approach
Decision making should be risk-based, data-informed and transparent
Reform must be done in parallel with action

Ethny Childs, author of the report and Head of Communities and Partnerships at the IES, said: “Building a resilient and sustainable future for water is an essential matter of public service. The coming decades could be characterised by water stress, pollution, and further deteoriation of our rivers and lakes. If we want to give the public the outcomes they deserve, we need to embed a systems approach. Only then will we be able to secure a positive water future and effectively deliver on other essential areas like housing, the energy transition, and sustainable food systems. While reforms are ongoing, we cannot miss the crucial chance we have to put water back on the right course.”

Find out more about the future of water in FWR’s report: ‘Delivering a new vision for water’.

Get involved

Regardless of what the future holds for the water sector, the IES and the Foundation for Water Research will continue to work with experts to support the development of science-based solutions to water challenges. Working together, we can still secure the future of water and work towards a country with thriving people, a health economy, and a flourishing environment.

If you want to support the work of the IES to stand up for science and nature, become an affiliate, or if you’re an environmental professional, join the IES.

Read more about how we can take a systems approach to reforming water in the latest FWR report: ‘Delivering a new vision for water’.
Join the Foundation for Water Research or sign up to the FWR newsletter to become part of an independent community of professionals championing interdisciplinary solutions to water challenges.
Sign up for our training course on ‘Understanding environmental policy’ and our new course on 'Influencing and engaging with environmental policy'.
Learn more about recent policy developments in our briefings on clean air, water policy and land and nature policy.
Catch up with the last two years of updates on water reforms by reading our coverage in Essential Environment, including insights on the Water White Paper and the Independent Water Commission’s final report, as well as our analysis on what the new Cabinet means for environmental experts.

If you want to learn more about environmental policy or the training we offer for members, please contact Joseph Lewis, Head of Policy (joseph@the-ies.org).