The debate surrounding Scottish Water's future and its governance structure has sparked intense discussions, with Unison leading the charge for greater trade union involvement. The issue at hand is not just about who sits on the board but about the very nature of this publicly owned utility and its direction.
The Battle for Democratic Scrutiny
Unison's call for trade union representation on the Scottish Water board is a bold move, aiming to bring democratic oversight to a company that, despite being publicly owned, operates much like its privatized English counterparts. The current governance architecture, as Unison's report highlights, systematically excludes worker voices and undermines democratic scrutiny.
"The employee interest member operates without consultation with recognized unions and without accountability to represent worker perspectives," the report states.
This absence of a parallel employee voice group, despite legislative provisions for employee representation, suggests a deliberate exclusion of worker knowledge from strategic governance. In essence, Scottish Water's governance structure insulates management from democratic accountability while imposing market disciplines on operations and employment.
Executive Pay vs. Worker Restraint
One of the most striking aspects of this debate is the stark contrast between executive remuneration and worker pay. While Scottish Water executives, including CEO Alex Plant, enjoy salaries and bonuses exceeding those of their predecessors and even the First Minister, workers face pay restraint and are "locked out" of disputes over pay and conditions.
"Over the past decade, Scottish Water executives have received over £2.5 million in bonuses, despite public sector pay rules intended to prevent such payments," Unison's report reveals.
This culture of high boss salaries and bonuses, akin to the privatized water industry in England, raises questions about the values and norms driving Scottish Water's recruitment and reward structures.
The Cabinet Secretary's Response
Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy Gillian Martin rejected Unison's plea, stating that the board already has a "non-executive member" with "specialist knowledge of employee interests." This member, Steve Dickson, a former BT Group Business Services leader and Prospect Union member, was reappointed in May 2025.
Martin emphasized that Scottish Water is a publicly owned resource, performing extremely well and matching the levels of service provided by companies in England and Wales, while ensuring that households in Scotland pay less.
"All profits go back into improving the service, never to shareholders, and that’s the way it will stay under this government," she said.
A Deeper Look
The debate extends beyond the boardroom. Scottish Water's proposed steep rises in customer bills until 2033, coupled with its £8.1 billion investment plan, has prompted calls for an inquiry into the company's creeping privatization. The company's final business plan for 2027 to 2033 proposes hiking charges by 3.3% a year over inflation, a move that has drawn criticism from Unison and others.
"Scottish Water is a public service, yet it is almost indistinguishable from its private counterparts in England. Unions would bring democratic scrutiny, asking why executives are paying themselves eye-watering salaries while customers face above-inflation bills," said Rae Montgomery-Cahill, Unison Scotland regional organizer.
Conclusion
The battle for democratic scrutiny and worker representation at Scottish Water is a microcosm of broader debates about the role of public services and the values that should underpin them. As the debate continues, it raises questions about the balance between public ownership and private sector norms, the role of trade unions in public service governance, and the future direction of Scottish Water. The outcome will have significant implications for workers, customers, and the broader public interest.
