Utilities ‘have social and environmental as well as economic responsibilities that have to be met’.
Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Letters Utilities are public services – and should not be run as businesses Readers respond to an article by Will Hutton and Andy Haldane suggesting that they could be run for the public benefit Will Hutton and Andy Haldane advocate “turning [utilities] into public-benefit companies with a primary, constitutional objective of delivering high-quality services, with profitability subordinate to that broader aim” (Andy Burnham talks about ‘public control’ of the utilities but it’s a minefield.
We can lead him through it, 25 September).
So still companies, but with a public interest rather than a profit motive.
This is still the wrong approach.
Utilities should not be run as businesses but as essential public services.
They do not function in isolation, and business models are unsuited to their functioning in the public interest.
They have social and environmental as well as economic responsibilities that have to be met.
For 20 years, prior to the advent of the Scottish parliament, local government functioned well in Scotland within a framework of regions and districts.
The regions had powers and responsibilities for the wide range of functions that had to be coordinated and operated strategically at the regional level.
They included water and sewerage.
The present government appears to be edging sideways, through metro mayors and joint working, towards governance for city regions.
This should be formalised and given a full portfolio of responsibilities, powers and resources for strategic planning, economic development, education, health, transportation, infrastructure and the environment.
Infrastructure should include water and sewerage.
As an example, urban rainwater needs to be collected and recycled for cooling, which was normal practice for thousands of years in southern Europe.
Such practice should be moving north to include water reserves for wildfire control.
How could such provisions, urban cooling and wildfire control ever be met through the profit motive?
If the present water companies in England have liabilities that exceed the value of their assets, and cannot meet their legal responsibilities, then it is difficult to see why they should be rescued and maintained through public expenditure.
Roger Read Former secretary general, Metrex Will Hutton and Andy Haldane put forward a poor argument for maintaining private ownership of utilities.
Instead of comparing the present situation with how things were when the water utilities were publicly owned – surely the fairest comparison – they cite spurious examples of the alleged failings of other nationalised industries.
We are alone in the world (apart from Chile) in having a wholly privatised water industry; is everyone else out of step?Sally ThompsonCardiff Will Hutton and Andy Haldane give some interesting thoughts on the public control of utilities.
These could also apply across the complete essential services sector, from water companies to dental practices.
Few who experienced the performance of the old postwar nationalised industries would wish a return to this failed model.
However, why not just keep it simple and legislate to force all essential-services operators to list as companies on the London Stock Exchange?
For each sector, further legislation could set maximums for yields and permitted borrowing: two key indicators of company activity.
The public would then be more inclined to invest in the companies, just as they do at present with National Grid.Ian Graham Port Carlisle, Cumbria Explore more on these topicsUtilities Water industry Water Labour Scotland letters Share Reuse this content
