Chamber
Plenary, 01 Feb 2007
01 Feb 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Scottish Water
Today we have heard members speak in support of keeping Scottish Water public, and against privatisation or mutualisation. I would like to introduce a further theme: democratisation. Scottish Water is compared with and benchmarked against the privatised companies south of the border, but there is no need for us to measure our vital water industry solely against water companies that were established by arbitrary acts of privatisation nearly 20 years ago.
The purpose of keeping Scottish Water public is to manage a public good in the public interest. In that respect, we could learn a lot from the Swedish approach. Stockholm water—Stockholm Vatten, or SV—has as its mission statement
"to meet the needs of consumers for water services; and to contribute effectively to … sustainable development".
Among its goals are satisfied customers, resource efficiency and a healthy environment; returning a profit to shareholders does not feature. Stockholm Vatten is owned directly by the city of Stockholm and, although not national in scale, it serves a million people. The composition of the board and consultative groups assures active participation by service users in the decisions that the organisation takes. Despite its explicitly social and environmental remit, in 2004 SV was delivering drinking water at less than half the price at which it is delivered in most European cities.
All too often the public sector is criticised as an inefficient, unproductive behemoth, as compared with a lean, efficient, responsive private sector. There has been enormous pressure at global level to create a global water industry. One third of all World Bank loans are dependent on privatisation; huge amounts of United Kingdom and other international aid have gone into developing private water supplies around the world. A frequent claim is that, under the general agreement on trade in services, Governments can be prosecuted by the World Trade Organisation for disallowing private sector attempts to take over essential public services. Critically, however, privatisation of water has proved such a political hot potato that the European Commission has announced that it will exempt water from the new GATS. Sweden is subject to the same EU regulations and directives as Scotland. The same is true of the Netherlands, where in 2004 a law was passed banning private provision of drinking water.
Another reason that we should be wary of benchmarking Scottish Water too much with English water companies is that often they are not English water companies. Thames Water was owned by the German utilities giant RWE until last October, when it was sold to Kemble Water Ltd, which is a consortium led by an investment fund that is run by the Australian Macquarie Bank. Likewise, Wessex Water is owned by YTL Power International of Malaysia. Prior to that, it was the property of Enron. Are those the models that we wish to emulate?
I say to Murdo Fraser, do we want to compare ourselves with Enron, a byword for failure and corruption, or with the best in Europe? The choice is ours. I, for one, choose to support keeping Scottish Water public and keeping control of our water in Scotland, rather than abandoning it to a boardroom in Sydney or Kuala Lumpur or to faceless shareholders. With the advent of the Scottish Parliament, we have an unprecedented extension of democracy in Scotland. Let us use our powers to retain democratic control of our water supply, to protect the environment and to protect the interests of the customer.
The purpose of keeping Scottish Water public is to manage a public good in the public interest. In that respect, we could learn a lot from the Swedish approach. Stockholm water—Stockholm Vatten, or SV—has as its mission statement
"to meet the needs of consumers for water services; and to contribute effectively to … sustainable development".
Among its goals are satisfied customers, resource efficiency and a healthy environment; returning a profit to shareholders does not feature. Stockholm Vatten is owned directly by the city of Stockholm and, although not national in scale, it serves a million people. The composition of the board and consultative groups assures active participation by service users in the decisions that the organisation takes. Despite its explicitly social and environmental remit, in 2004 SV was delivering drinking water at less than half the price at which it is delivered in most European cities.
All too often the public sector is criticised as an inefficient, unproductive behemoth, as compared with a lean, efficient, responsive private sector. There has been enormous pressure at global level to create a global water industry. One third of all World Bank loans are dependent on privatisation; huge amounts of United Kingdom and other international aid have gone into developing private water supplies around the world. A frequent claim is that, under the general agreement on trade in services, Governments can be prosecuted by the World Trade Organisation for disallowing private sector attempts to take over essential public services. Critically, however, privatisation of water has proved such a political hot potato that the European Commission has announced that it will exempt water from the new GATS. Sweden is subject to the same EU regulations and directives as Scotland. The same is true of the Netherlands, where in 2004 a law was passed banning private provision of drinking water.
Another reason that we should be wary of benchmarking Scottish Water too much with English water companies is that often they are not English water companies. Thames Water was owned by the German utilities giant RWE until last October, when it was sold to Kemble Water Ltd, which is a consortium led by an investment fund that is run by the Australian Macquarie Bank. Likewise, Wessex Water is owned by YTL Power International of Malaysia. Prior to that, it was the property of Enron. Are those the models that we wish to emulate?
I say to Murdo Fraser, do we want to compare ourselves with Enron, a byword for failure and corruption, or with the best in Europe? The choice is ours. I, for one, choose to support keeping Scottish Water public and keeping control of our water in Scotland, rather than abandoning it to a boardroom in Sydney or Kuala Lumpur or to faceless shareholders. With the advent of the Scottish Parliament, we have an unprecedented extension of democracy in Scotland. Let us use our powers to retain democratic control of our water supply, to protect the environment and to protect the interests of the customer.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh):
Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5510, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on Scottish Water.
Mr Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green):
Green
This debate is an opportunity for all of us in the chamber—apart from the Tories—to restate our commitment to public ownership and control of Scottish Water ...
Dave Petrie (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
Does the member agree with the water industry commissioner's report that, for every million gallons of expensively treated water that is produced, half a mil...
Mr Ruskell:
Green
I argue that the regulatory system is at fault. We can trade figures throughout the debate, but South West Water's charges for the coming year will be 40 per...
Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
Hear, hear.
Mr Ruskell:
Green
A blow for democracy over there.The view was also reported that Scottish Water should be freed from state ownership, but that was apparently a misrepresentat...
The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Sarah Boyack):
Lab
I very much welcome the debate. We have systems of managing our water networks in Scotland that are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. T...
Mark Ballard (Lothians) (Green):
Green
Will the minister take an intervention.
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
No thanks. I want to get started.We have a unique model: it is a third way that provides a public sector company that is directed by ministerial policy, that...
Dave Petrie:
Con
Does the minister accept that in all Scottish Water's new works it is in partnership with private companies such as Miller Group, Babtie Group and so on and ...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
No. Scottish Water is using private companies to deliver our investment programme, which is set by Scottish ministers. It is using the best system of deliver...
Jim Mather (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
Will the minister take an intervention?
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
No, thank you. I want to get on.That means that Scottish Water is delivering more for less. Our constituents are benefiting from lower charges, Scotland is b...
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
We started this morning with a consensual debate on procurement from the Greens. I am disappointed that this debate will not produce the same cross-party con...
Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
SNP
Is the member aware that Banff and Buchan College's Peterhead centre, which is in my constituency, has just received a bill for £39,000, which represents use...
Murdo Fraser:
Con
I am sure that the private sector will make errors in many cases.I was going to talk about the Welsh Water model, which of course has support from Mr Stevens...
Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
If we are to believe Murdo Fraser, privatisation is built into the model that has been delivered by the Scottish Executive. He also wants us to believe that ...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
Would Rob Gibson like to explain specifically what model the SNP supports and how it would deliver that?
Rob Gibson:
SNP
Certainly.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
You have one minute.
Rob Gibson:
SNP
We need a Government that is prepared to direct the process to the WIC and Scottish Water and which sets priorities that can be achieved by the accountancy m...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
Your time is up.
Rob Gibson:
SNP
There is a large sewage plant at Seafield that affects 30,000 people because of the unbearable smells that come from it in the summer.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
Mr Gibson, you must wind up.
Rob Gibson:
SNP
I am winding up.The Green party motion suggests that it is possible to have the current model and, with direction, ensure that it works.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
I am sorry, Mr Gibson, but you must stop now. You are way over time.
Mr Andrew Arbuckle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD):
LD
On the way to Parliament today, I was, for a short time, critical of Scottish Water. There was a hold-up in the traffic, and it was only when I read the expl...
Mr Ruskell:
Green
Will the member give way?
Mr Arbuckle:
LD
No. I have only four minutes; otherwise, I would.Twenty years ago, the total proposed capital spend on water services and sewage works in Fife was some £5 mi...
Stewart Stevenson:
SNP
Will the member take a 10-word intervention?