From Scotland, I look at England’s water privatisation disaster. I wish you had done what we did | Devi Sridhar
Devi Sridhar, professor of global public health at the University of Edinburgh, argues that Scotland's decision to keep water in public ownership offers a model England should have followed, contrasting it with the ongoing crisis in England's privatised water industry. She highlights recent controversy over soaring executive pay at English water firms alongside rising bills, illegal sewage discharges and the near-insolvency of companies such as Thames Water, arguing this stems from privatisation prioritising shareholder returns over public interest since Margaret Thatcher privatised the sector in 1989.
She cites figures showing English water companies paid £57bn in dividends between 1991 and 2019, while chief executives and finance directors were paid a combined £25.3m last year across 14 firms. By contrast, Scottish Water, which remained publicly owned, invested 35% more per household in infrastructure between 2002 and 2019, charges 14% less, pays no dividends, and reinvests profits into infrastructure; its free public water station scheme has dispensed the equivalent of 15m plastic bottles since 2018. Sridhar also references England's chief medical officer Chris Whitty's warnings about sewage-related public health risks, framing clean water as a fundamental public health necessity rather than a political extravagance.
- Scotland kept water public; England privatised it in 1989
- English water firms paid £57bn in dividends, 1991-2019
- Scottish Water invests more, charges less, pays no dividends
New here? Start with this
England and Scotland run water services differently. England privatised its water and sewerage companies in 1989, while Scottish Water remained publicly owned and is run by the Scottish government.
Water companies supply drinking water and treat sewage, and their decisions affect household bills, rivers and public health. The debate concerns how best to fund and manage these services, including how much money should go towards infrastructure and how company income is used.
Devi Sridhar is a public health professor at the University of Edinburgh. Her comparison raises a broader question about whether water should be managed mainly as a public service or through private companies, and what each approach means for investment and accountability.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Public ownership of water ensures essential infrastructure is managed in the public interest rather than for shareholder returns. Scottish Water's superior performance (investing 35% more per household in infrastructure whilst charging 14% less than English companies) demonstrates that publicly-owned utilities can deliver better outcomes for affordability and investment. Removing profit extraction from a natural monopoly that citizens cannot opt out of allows resources to be directed toward infrastructure development and public health rather than dividends and executive remuneration.
The case against
Private water companies, subject to capital market discipline and profit incentives, can deliver efficiency gains and fund infrastructure through private finance that avoids public borrowing. The problems evident in England's water sector reflect inadequate regulation and enforcement rather than inherent flaws in privatisation; countries including France have successfully operated private water systems with strong environmental and consumer protections. Renationalisation would burden public finances whilst forfeiting the operational efficiency and innovation incentives that competition and profit discipline create.