Uisge

It's the Summer Solstice and a cool but dry morning. At times I count my blessings and this morning I was grateful not to be a participant in the overnight sit-in at Stonehenge. I understand it was a damp affair and my thoughts turned to the problems the water industry has with the clear liquid that falls from above.

Have you ever heard of an organisation called British Water?  I hadn't - well not until I was reading about their jamboree in the House of Lords.

Now don't be thinking your local darts club or swimming club can apply to hold an event within the hallowed halls of the Lords, because it's not allowed. Only charities are permitted to use events in the Palace of Westminster for fundraising.  Other organisations are not supposed to benefit financially, even indirectly.

From the British Water website:

British Water lobbies governments and regulators on behalf of its members and provides vital information on home and overseas water and wastewater markets - how much is being spent, by whom, where, when, how and on what.

As well as actively promoting best practice, British Water represents the interests of the UK water and wastewater industry on UK and European regulations and legislation, terms and conditions of contract and procurement practice, and in the creation of European and International Standards.

So it's a lobbying organisation posing as a [fake] charity which has access to influential politicians.

I was interested to know if Scottish Water was a member of British Water and although I didn't find an answer to my question, I found SW is a member of UK Water Industry Research.  Also discovered, courtesy of Google, was another fake water charity which operates out of plush looking offices in Buckinghamshire.  It doesn't list its members, but UK Water does and Scottish Water is a member.

Is it any wonder the water industry is expensive and inefficient when it has three (maybe more) organisations acting as taxpayer-funded researchers and lobbyists?

Tweet

Private vs Public Water

'For what we're about to receive may the Lord make us truly thankful'.  Whether you believe in God or not, I doubt if there are many who don't think, every now and then, how lucky we are to have clean drinking water throughout the UK.

Scotland is more fortunate than other parts of the UK because present and past Scottish governments have refused to consider privatising water and insist that it will stay in public hands. In the past decade there have been plenty calls from various sources, including the Tory party, to privatise the asset in order to raise a few £billion to 'prop up jobs and services in other parts of the public sector but thankfully the majority of MSPs have been far-sighted enough to understand the public want water to be in public hands. To suggest selling Scottish Water is a definite vote loser and I doubt if it will ever be considered for sale in the coming years.

In an independent Scotland it will be more important to hold onto such a valuable asset, particularly when there is evidence showing the English are being ripped off by their private water companies.

All English water companies have foreign owners, ensuring that profits go out of the UK.  Meanwhile, Scottish Water (International) hires its expertise to foreign companies, ensuring the fees involved are ploughed back into the company.

Once again this year Scottish Water has frozen its charges - for the fourth year running. The average annual household charge from this month will remain at £324 - the same level it was in 2009-10.  SW said the freeze ensured its customers continued to get 'real value for money'.

In my 20+ years back in Scotland I've never experienced a hosepipe ban, I don't have a water meter fitted and my drinking water is superior to any bottled water I can buy.  I respect water and do my best to use it wisely, but I do have sympathy with so many parts of England where it is now rationed, because customers are still required to pay for a reduced service. That doesn't seem right to me.

Scottish Water is a success in public ownership and will continue to offer Scots a quality product at a fair price for years to come. Meantime, the price of water in England will continue to rise and the service will drift between poor and excellent. That's the difference between a well-run public business and splitting a utility such as water into several private companies.

Tweet

Utility Costs and Scams

Further to the Watchdog programme on Thursday night I thought the following email, which I received some weeks ago from John Souter, would be of interest.

The other day I had a thought on the costs and scams of the utilities and it occured to me it was diffecult to isolate and properly evaluate what these costs actually are.

For instance i believe these comparison sites are part of the scam - when you go on to them they always ask who you are already with and the amount you are charged/consume. They then come up with unqualified alternatives and non specific claims that by moving you 'could' save hundred per year.

They never quote specifics such as the cost per kilowatt - hour Electric day time is 15.189 pence/ Night 4.250 and Kilowatt - hour for Gas is 3.404. As it happens that is exactly what I'm charged by my supplier Utility Warehouse,but if I ask these comparison sites how these rate against the charges of the suppliers they recommend and will supposedly save me hundreds i get a deafening silence. And if I ring the recommended supplier direct the usual response is to baffle with bullshit such as direct debit payments/ amount of consumption/ fixed contracts ad nuaseum.

Another issue is the calculation of gas is subject to a fluctuating Volume Conversion Factor and Calorific Value/ we are told they exist and are subject to temprture and pressure conditions which we're told is calculated and applied as an oncost by the National Grid, but as individuals we have no way of knowing whether their effect on Cheshire is any different to say those in Perth?

We could be paying a stealth tax in these manipulations. If we can establish these factors cover comprehensively the UK it will simplify the comparison of individual supplier charges.


John suggested it would be interesting to see if VCF (Volume Conversion Figure) and CV (Calorific Value) varies throughout the UK which will allow simple and direct comparisons on suppliers.

I can add that in this part of Scotland we are restricted to suppliers so are therefore at a disadvantage before we begin price comparisons.

As Alex Salmond said in his speech at the SNP conference today:"We live in a land rich in oil and gas and with the prospective of being the leading renewable energy country in Europe, of not the world, yet we can't afford to help those who are unable to heat their homes."  It's a disgrace and all due to the Westminster government privatising utilities.  As he mentioned, thankfully Scotland's water is still in our government's hands.

Tweet

NHS Privatisation

The video relates to the English NHS but it's important here in Scotland we keep ourselves informed of what is happening in other parts of the UK.

A similar plan could apply to Scottish Water and the Forestry Commission if certain political parties get their way.

Thanks to Dr Grumble.

Tweet

'It's Our Water'

Here in Scotland domestic water isn't privatised.  The publicly owned corporation is also responsible for sewerage services and the Scottish Government determine the national policy.  This excellent publicly owned service is known as Scottish Water and the average water and sewerage costs to Scottish users is slightly below those of the private water companies in England and Wales.

The unionist parties in Scotland, Labour, the Tories and the LibDems have all regularly called for the sale of Scottish water, insisting it would benefit the public purse.  The CBI has been exceptionally vocal too.

Yet, in spite of these pressures from the unionist parties, the SNP Government have insisted they have no plans to sell Scottish Water to the highest bidder, or any bidder.  They are resolute about our water continuing in public ownership.

Northern Ireland's water service is an 'arms-length' organisation (the modern method employed by politicians to avoid responsibility) which has a troubled past.  It also has a troubled present.  Since Christmas Eve thousands have been without water, including businesses and public services such as their health services, who are having to rely upon the fire service for water. I was disappointed to read this  statement from Owen Paterson, the Westminster based Northern Ireland secretary:

'...he warned there "may have to be changes" to the service. He said: "In the past 25 years there has been very significant investment by private water companies in other parts of the UK, and it's very noticeable that those parts appear to have fewer problems than Northern Ireland."

Scotland has sent 160,000 litres of bottled water to assist the folk of N Ireland.  Owen Paterson doesn't mention Scotland whatsoever has he appears to believe all water in the UK is privatised.

Thanks to the present Scottish Government we have an effective and efficient water supply here and all under public ownership.  Much of the credit must go to those within the Scottish Government who are responsible for investing our money wisely and ensuring we have a first class service.

Let's hear no more about the sale of Scottish Water.  Water is vital to life and we need to preserve it for future generations.  Doing what N Ireland has done, by  creating an arms-length company, shows the dangers of removing it from any form of direct government control.

'It's our water' is a great slogan here in Scotland. I hope we can say that in 50 years time.

Tweet

Hootsmon Headlines

click to enlarge

From the multi-talented Conan

Tweet

Uisgich (water)

Scottish Water was formed in 2002 after East, West and North of Scotland Water Authorities merged. They are now the only water and waste water services provider in Scotland, the 4th largest in the UK, covering a huge area of 79,000 square kilometres.

Scottish Water supplies approximately 5 million customers in 2.3 million households. 46,000 kilometres of water pipes and 39,000 kilometres of sewer pipes provide 2.3 billion litres of water and take away 1 billion litres of waste water every day. Water is treated at 1896 water treatment works including 1274 septic tanks, pumping stations, sludge treatment centres and reservoirs. Over 800 water samples are taken each day and 99.44% of water quality tests carried out in 2003 complied with regulations.

Under the Water Services Act (Scotland) 2005, Scottish Water had to split its operation into wholesale (Scottish Water) and retail (Business Stream) units. Formerly known as Scottish Water Business Stream and ostensibly remaining a part of Scottish Water, Business Stream is a new business working completely independent of its parent company in order to ensure fair and transparent retail practice under the rules of the new deregulated marketplace for business customers.

That's a brief history of Scottish Water in the past eight years. In the past few years there have been rumblings and mumblings about privatising Scottish Water. Last week an independent review on Scotland's budget recommended that ownership should be transferred to a 'public interest' board with powers to borrow money from banks rather than rely on taxpayer funding. This would free up the £140m a year currently earmarked for the utility.

Ministers would also get back more than £1bn already given in loans to Scottish Water, helping them to pay for the new infrastructure projects such as the £2bn new Forth Bridge which seems to be having problems already. Maybe they've been following the dreadful situation which has developed with the Edinburgh tram project.

The Independent Budget Review (IBR) last week warned that as many as 50,000 jobs would have to be axed in the public sector over the next four years to cope with what it described as the biggest crisis in public spending since WW2. One of the key areas under strain is Scotland's capital budget - which pays for infrastructure work.

The panel said they were aware of 'strongly held public views' that the service should not be privatised'.

John Swinney, the Finance Secretary, said he believed Scottish Water - which was performing extremely well - should remain under public ownership, yet he was careful not to rule out the not-for-profit option as he did for other of the budget review's recommendations, such as that ministers should reconsider their decision to 'ring-fence' the NHS from cuts and their commitment to free personal care for the elderly and concessionary travel. He has invited opposition parties to talks on the budget review.

The main finance problem we have in Scotland is that we don't have borrowing powers. To create an arms length company to manage Scottish Water will be a disaster for customers. Glasgow City Council tried this on a much smaller scale and it has been spectacularly unsuccessful. Our water should stay in public ownership. It is forecast there will be a world shortage of water and we must hold onto this utility for bargaining purposes. Since gas and electricity have been privatised consumers have borne excessive price rises while companies have made excessive profits.

Scottish Water should stay under government control, although with a change of management because the present management has not been efficient, but I do think it's inevitable it will be sold in the near future. Our water could be an excellent campaigning issue for the SNP. Will they realise that?

source

Tweet

Scottish Water

Some of my readers who live outside Scotland may not be aware Scottish Water is publicly owned. Over the years the Tories have repeatedly suggested it ought to be privatised although various FMs have rejected the idea. Alex Salmond has been strong in his defence of keeping our water in public ownership.

Imagine my surprise when I read Alex Salmond and John Swinney have held secret meetings about the possible sale of Scottish Water with the Australian company which owns Thames Water; the first being 2008 and the second July 2009.

A FOI inquiry disclosed that Mr Salmond and Mr Swinney held at least two meetings with the Australian banking group Macquarie dating back as far as 2008.

The Sunday Herald has reported that the Scottish Futures Trust is looking at alternative models for future ownership of Scottish Water and is considering whether it should be sold off. Although the SNP has insisted that privatisation is not an option, it is now clear that two of the country's most senior ministers were exploring a change of ownership parallel to the review.

A Scottish government spokesman said: "Mr Swinney met representatives of Macquarie bank last June, at their request, to discuss the financing of Scottish Water. There were no actions arising from the meeting."

Young Tris has brought to my attention the Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS). This quango, set up in 2005 to encourage Scottish Water to reduce prices for customers, comprises six commissioners and employs around 23 staff on a budget primarily funded by Scottish Water. That doesn't make sense to me that a publicly owned business sets up a quango in order to tell it to reduce prices - am I missing something here?

This quango spent over £100,000 on staff jollies. Isn't life good as a public sector employee? Along with the Health Scotland this is a quango which should be dissolved. (no pun intended).

source

Tweet

Edinburgh Trams Increase Scotland's Water Charges

Artist's impression

For those of you who don't know about the Edinburgh tram saga, here is a brief history. In 2004 the Scottish Parliament passed a Bill for two tram lines, one to Edinburgh airport, through Edinburgh. The SNP were always against this proposal as they felt the money could be better spent on other projects throughout Scotland and when they became the government in 2007 they offered alternatives to the Parliament and Alex Salmond also promised a full review of the scheme.

Meanwhile the building work continued and by this time the two lines had been reduced to one and £79m had already been spent on the project.

In June 2007 the SNP government declared they would continue to oppose the trams and the rail link to Edinburgh airport but at a vote in the Parliament the unionist parties united and defeated the government. The vote in favour was 81 to 47 and following the vote the Scottish government declared that they would support the scheme but they would not foot the bill for any extra cash should it be needed. The total cost was estimated to be £498m - £47m less than the £545m available (£500m from the Scottish government and £45m from Edinburgh council).

Engineering work, diverting electricity, gas and water supplies before the tram tracks were laid, began in July 2007.

Since then the price has increased, the project brief altered to omit part of line one and the centre of Edinburgh has become a building site. Lengthy delays caused Princes Street to be closed for months and extra money had to be spent re-opening it during August for the Festival visitors.

On 20 June this year the Edinburgh Evening News stated: 'If nothing can be done to catch up, the Edinburgh trams are not expected to start operating until Spring 2012 and are very unlikely to be delivered within their £545m budget'.

The latest news from the tram saga is that water bills are set to rise for customers across Scotland because of Edinburgh's tram project. There will be a hike in prices for the next five years to help pay for work being carried out by Scottish Water on Princes Street to divert underground pipes.

The Water Industry Commission for Scotland today said it was "unfair" that "unexpected" additional costs were being picked up by the public and not by the tram project. It seems Scottish Water have decided to replace pipes during their divertion works with the excuse they were in a worse condition than anticipated.

MSP for the Lothians Shirley-Anne Somerville, an outspoken tram critic, said: "This is another additional cost of the tram project that people have not been aware of in the past. What else is still out there that we don't know about?

"People in Edinburgh and across Scotland will be angry about potential rises in water bills for a project that is so unpopular in the city."

I have only met one person who is in favour of trams in Edinburgh and her reason was because she lived at the terminus and worked at a bank which was served by the line.

What a cheek to expect people, most who will never see a tram far less ride in one, to cough up towards the cost. Edinburgers who wanted this line should pay for it themselves. They are acting like Londoners who arrogantly expect the rest of Britain to pay for their fancies - one example being the Dome.

For those interested in Edinburgh trams there are a few sites around but this one was my main source. Calum Cashley has followed this project closely and also has some excellent posts.

Tweet