Water services: investing in and paying from 2027 - Analysis of Consultation Responses

1. Introduction

Background

Scottish Water supplies water to 97% of households and businesses in Scotland and provides wastewater services to 93%. Scottish Water is a public corporation accountable to the Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament. It is regulated to ensure services are efficient, meet mandatory standards and operate in an environmentally sustainable way.

Customers pay for water and wastewater services and ongoing investment through charges, which are collected from households alongside council tax, and from businesses by Licensed Providers, which are companies operating in the competitive retail market. Ministers set out their policy for the sector – the Ministerial Objectives and the Principles of Charging - for water and wastewater services over six-year periods (known as regulatory cycles). Scottish Water develops a plan to deliver those policies and the costs involved, and the Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS) then determines the cost effective charge cap. Scotland’s publicly owned water model (with the exception of retail services for non-household customers) enables close collaboration between the Scottish Government, Scottish Water, regulators and Consumer Scotland to ensure value for money and to adapt plans to meet emerging needs.

A public consultation on investing in and paying for water services from 2027 was open from 6 January to 30 March 2026. This consultation concerns planning for the next regulatory cycle, which will run from April 2027 to 2033.

The consultation included eight questions. Four questions on Ministerial Objectives sought views on what matters most for spending in the next cycle, recognising a need to balance several priorities - high-quality water, a safe and reliable water supply and wastewater treatment, and reducing environmental impact – all while keeping services affordable. Responses to four questions on the Principles of Charging will also help Ministers understand how customers and stakeholders would prefer that the costs for those priorities are distributed across customers. The full list of questions can be found in the consultation paper and in the Respondent Information Form.

This report presents a high-level analysis of responses to the consultation. These findings will inform the finalisation of the Ministerial Objectives and Principles of Charging for the next regulatory period. A partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) has been published to support this process

Respondent profile

In total, 58 consultation responses were received. Almost all were submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, for example, an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately by the research team.

Individuals provided 21 responses to the consultation; the remaining 37 responses were from organisations. To aid analysis, organisations were grouped according to the nature of their work. Table 1 shows the number of each type of respondent.

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The main purpose of consultation analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed, and, where possible, using closed questions, to quantify how many respondents hold particular views. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

Reflecting the knowledge of respondents, it is impossible to detail every response in this report; some, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions reflecting their specific subject matter expertise. These responses are referenced where possible. Full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government's consultation website.

Similarly, the technical nature of some of the proposals outlined in the consultation means it is impractical to fully repeat or explain these within this report. Further information on the proposals can be found in the consultation paper.

Quantitative analysis

The consultation included five closed questions. Not all respondents answered every question. To compare across sub-groups, this report presents the closed question results based on those who answered each question. For clarity, each results table shows:

• The percentage of respondents from the total sample of 58 respondents who selected each response (first row).
• The percentage response among those who answered each question, broken down by individual and organisation responses (rows including and under “All answering”).

Please note that the row percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. During the full manual coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged.

When reviewing the qualitative analysis in this report, we would ask the reader to consider the following:

• Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population.
• In a small number of instances where a response received via email or in a PDF document contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.
• Where appropriate, quotes from a range of the 58 consultation responses are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information.

Weight of opinion

This report collates and presents a synthesis of the themes identified in consultation responses from most to least commonly mentioned. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; a view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority.

Similarly, for analysis purposes, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• Several respondents: 10 or more respondents, a recurring theme.
• Some respondents: between 5 and 9 respondents, another theme.
• A few / a small number; fewer than 5 respondents, a less common theme.
• Two/one respondents; a singular comment or a view identified in two responses.

This framework is used solely to present the prevalence of themes within consultation responses. This does not necessarily represent the importance of a theme, given the subjective nature of attributing importance and the self-selection of consultation respondents.