Greater public control over essential services such as water and energy has been a recurring theme in recent political discourse, with some advocates calling for clearer definitions of what such control entails. Andy Burnham, a prominent political figure, has expressed support for increased public involvement in both sectors but has yet to specify the exact nature of the changes he envisions.

Burnham’s calls come amid ongoing developments in water and energy regulation in England and Wales. Government plans are advancing a significant overhaul of water regulation through a clean water bill expected in the autumn, described by officials as a “once-in-a-generation” reset. However, it remains unclear whether Burnham intends to challenge these plans or intervene differently, such as through special administration measures for companies like Thames Water.

Thames Water faces an unsettled future after a prolonged period of financial distress. The company’s creditors have been negotiating with the water industry regulator Ofwat on a rescue package that would involve writing off billions in debt in exchange for new financing and easing of pollution penalties over up to a decade. While some view this approach as flawed, concerns arise that special administration — often referred to as temporary nationalisation — may not lead to genuine public ownership. Administrators would still be obligated to act in creditors’ interests, potentially leading to a sale to private investors, including hedge funds.

Burnham has voiced broader criticism of the water industry’s approach to profits and shareholder returns. On the campaign trail in Makerfield, he accused water companies of profiteering and called on United Utilities, which serves the North West of England, to cancel its upcoming shareholder dividend of £266 million. He suggested these funds be redirected to reduce customer bills, a position that has so far been met with relative indifference by markets but could have more significant implications if implemented by government.

In the energy sector, public control is already substantial. The formation in 2024 of the national energy system operator centralizes planning for gas and electricity networks with a long-term “strategic spatial energy plan” extending to 2050. Infrastructure projects, including nuclear and renewable energy facilities, typically rely on state-backed contracts. Additionally, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has established a “Mission Control” unit to oversee the government’s 2030 clean power objectives. Miliband recently completed a review of Ofgem’s role, the regulator responsible for setting price controls on transmission and distribution companies and capping supplier profit margins at around 2 percent. Given this existing framework, some experts question what further control mechanisms Burnham proposes beyond nationalisation.

While Burnham’s rhetoric signals dissatisfaction with current private sector practices in water and energy, the specifics of his proposals remain ambiguous. Should his ambitions extend toward comprehensive nationalisation, his position would mark a significant departure from the current regulatory and market arrangements, raising questions about feasibility and political support.