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

Finding the question

Until I looked further into the matter, I had always attributed the phrase, "Two countries divided by a common language", to Winston Churchill. It seems to make sense as he seemed to be referring to his parents, father English, a mother from the United States.

But it seems I shall need to update both my database of quotations and my memory.

Mr Google has taken me to the information that in The Canterville Ghost (1887), Oscar Wilde wrote: "We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language". He also takes me to the suggestion that George Bernard Shaw said, "England and America are two countries divided by a common language".

The question as to which of Wilde or Shaw originated the phrase, if either did, seems to remain open. I do note that Wilde has a clear claim to 1887 while Shaw's writing career came somewhat later. So I plump for Wilde.

Unless Churchill started using this phrase when he was thirteen years old, he…

Non-taxing times

There aren't many substitutes for lived experience. Book learning is more than useful mainly because it fills one's head with questions as well as knowledge.

Being a member of a numerical majority can breed certain unconscious complacencies. Plural. I had no influence over being born white and male. But carry total responsibility for what I then do.

It's not often I will quote a Labour MP with commendation. But a comment article in one of today's papers by such a person caused me to realise that my reaction to recent events was an example of unconscious bias in my thinking.

The UK Prime Minister has announced his economic response to the pandemic. It can be criticised on so many fronts. And my take on it, as with many commentators, was largely economic. It's tiny compared to the need. It's not new money. It provides little or nothing for Scotland and Wales. All true.

Investing in infrastructure is suggested as a way of building a way out of the economic crisis …

Watch my back

Every family is different, and every child will be a distinct character formed by their DNA and by their experience of life. If many of the contacts I have had over the years are anything to go by, grandparents are a vital part of most families. Yesterday's announcement that young children can hug their non-shielding grandparents will be widely welcomed.

It's not something my personal experience has exposed me to. My siblings and I grew up in a family without grandparents. When my parents married at the ages of 32 and 37 all but one of their parents had already died. As the eldest in the family, I overlapped my maternal grandmother's life by a mere fourteen months and have no recollection of her. Indeed I have no photographs of my mother's parents apart from one which may be of me on my grannie's lap. There's no one left to check with.

My family seem to have bred very late in their lives. My youngest grandparent, Alexander Campbell MacGregor, a Gaelic speaker f…