Skip to main content

A public debate about privatisation

Yesterday I tweeted from the Financial Times. I subscribe to the FT, so perhaps that's not too surprising.

Martin Wolf is their Chief Economics Commentator and has seen sufficient economic shocks during his life as a journalist to deserve to be listened to when he writes as he did;

"We almost certainly [...] need to take the provision of at least some essential public services out of the hands of privatised businesses."

He has also commented, a week ago, on some of the effects of the pandemic on countries already struggling, saying;

"in emerging and developing countries, the crisis threatens severe underfunding of important health and welfare programmes"

I am not here to heap peons of praise upon his already "be-jewelled" shoulders. Others can do that. But he does alert us to the need for radical public policy and practice shifts.

I have not seen him commenting on the merger of the UK's Foreign Office with the Government's international aid efforts. But I would be surprised if he did not regret the proposed moving of moral action, the provision of aid, into the sphere of international power plays.

Will the UK Prime Minister receive a Christmas card from Martin Wolf this year? Probably not.

My own exposure to the workings of some state-owned companies as a Government Minister has left me with views on the matter of their successes and limitations. As the saying goes; experience is the greatest teacher.

Scottish Water is an exemplar in its industry. I saw it innovating in the detail of how is discharged its duty to deliver potable water across our country. And how, through its commercial arm, it competed with some success in providing water services in the English market.

But for state and consumer, the easiest success to measure is that it costs less to buy your water from them than from privatised companies south of the border.

Like other companies, it has to look to its shareholder, the Government on behalf of the citizens, for much of its funding. But in turn, it delivers dividends and repays its debts.

Is it perfect in every detail of its operation? No - but it sits firmly near the top ranking by any measure of ethical standards and business efficiency. Occasionally, its dialogue with local communities has seemed to focus too much on speaking rather than listening. Its communications have perhaps been lacking in the "plain English" which would aid understanding of its actions. But on this, it seems to be on an upwards curve of achievement.

Like any other company, it has to pay a fair salary to those who work there. In an age of grossly excessive, yep - that's my judgement call, pay for too many public company chief executives, the reward that comes with being the companies boss might seem modest.

Like many companies, there is a plan to link senior rewards to performance. Not the crude link that many PLCs apply of a constantly rising share price. There is an "Annual Out-performance Incentive Plan" which measures under four headings:
  • 40% - Regulated Profit before tax ex. depreciation
  • 25% - Customer service OPA performance
  • 25% - Customer experience measure
  • 10% - Customer Benefit – Overall Measure of Delivery
Its priority to customers over shareholders is a key differentiation from the private sector.

The three top executives earn in the range in the range £274,000 to £366,000 (source: page 55

The size of the company can crudely be seen in its net assets which are £5.377 billion.

For Thames Water, a privatised commercial company, the comparable figure (source: page 14 is £2.377 billion. Some care required here as Thames Water employs no one. The directors are paid by Kemble Water Holdings (whose net assets are a minus figure of £1.372 billion) who own Thames.

The highest-paid director at Kemble gets £325,000 (source: page 62

So a private water company about half the size of Scottish Water pays its boss about the same.

Now it's as well for me to state that I am not an accountant. But I have read many annual reports over the years. Let's just let the numbers speak for themselves. We are paying well at Scottish Water but not excessively.

The difference lies in the outcomes which are incomparably better. One has as its central purpose the delivery of a public good. The other exists to make money and delivers a public good only as a means to make a profit.

Does that mean that a company owned by a government on behalf of the people will always do better than one in the private sector? Hardly.

Those of us old enough to remember British Rail would shudder to think about a return to their lack of achievement. But probably be quite prepared to un-botch the hotch-potch disarray of companies that can equally make a mess of things today. Londoners on commuter routes could well-informed comment.

But I think when the FT starts to question the effects of privatisation, maybe the rest of us should join the conversation.

I suppose that brings us back to the stars of the public sector that are the four National Health Services in the UK. They have gone through some tough years in England where constant fragmentation, re-merging, changes in oversight, have demoralised staff, cost money and lowered performance from what could have been achieved.

But when one looks at bills of over a million dollars for a fortnight's stay in the US system should one catch COVID-19, one realises two things. Our systems work; theirs doesn't. Ours are cost-effective; theirs taxes the ill beyond the point of despair.

Are they perfect? No system developed by, and dependent on, people can be.

The pandemic has forced many overdue changes in working practices which should become permanent. For rural areas, in particular, remote consultations should become the norm for most first contact with primary care. That helps deploy medical practitioners far beyond the boundaries of a traditional medical practice.

My mother, my GP father's secretary, receptionist, first-line triager, albeit a trained teacher, not a nurse, was used to phone around country locations to find the doctor. That's how emergencies were once handled.

The pandemic emergency has taken us further down the improvement road.

And will inform discussions about who should provide public services.


Popular posts from this blog

Reflections - An interview with SPVR


The Eric Liddell Centre Burns Supper

Welcome to the world of Robert Burns. 558 pieces of writing over a couple of decades, around 400,000 words in total. Not all of it in Scots. Some of it, as his “Grace Before Dinner” illustrates, in English; O thou who kindly dost provide For every creature's want! We bless Thee, God of Nature wide, For all Thy goodness lent: And if it please Thee, Heavenly Guide, May never worse be sent; But, whether granted, or denied, Lord, bless us with content. Amen! Thank you indeed to those who tonight did provide. Some of Burns’ writings, recorded for us long-standing folk songs. An educated man who studied French, Latin and mathematics. Not a rich man, not a poor man; when he died he left the equivalent in today’s money about £40,000. And a man known to this day as a father whose children had many mothers. Every woman in Edinburgh and many beyond seemed to want to explore what he kept in his trousers. Indeed on the very day of his funeral, his last child was born. Burns

A good accident of legislation .. in 1865

Found by accident in the Nairnshire Telegraph and General Advertiser for the Northern Counties - Wednesday, 25 January 1865 WOMEN'S RIGHTS FOREVER! The last mail from Australia has brought us the astounding intelligence that the Legislature of Victoria, having conferred the franchise upon women one of the provisions of their latest reform Bill, the fair voters, in proportionate number exercised their right at the General Election, the result of which is the rare phenomenon of giving an existing Government working majority. One is disposed at first sight to grudge the colony her high distinction. But on examination of all the facts, she has not, after all, so far surpassed in courage, faith, and virtue the other nations mankind might first sight appear. It is true the Victorian Legislature has given the right to women to vote in the election of its members—but, although the name of the colony might suggest that gallantry was its motive, strict truth obliges us to say that n