Take another look at how the water industry works

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2012/nov/18/letters-water-industry-answers-back

Version 0 of 1.

First it was the banks, then care homes and now water companies. Disquieting ethical behaviour is the common thread running through these sectors. Will Hutton ("Thames Water – a private equity plaything that takes us for fools", Comment) rightly excoriated the English water industry for its dubious tax practices, but overlooked a radically different industry model in Wales. Since 2001, Welsh Water has been owned by Glas Cymru, a not-for-profit social enterprise with no shareholders. Welsh Water is the only regulated water company that is managed solely on behalf of its customers. Its latest results showed that it is on track to provide £1bn of infrastructure investment in the three years to 2015 and the average household water bill in Wales rose below the rate of inflation for the second year running, lower than any other water company in England and Wales.

<strong>Kevin Morgan</strong>

Professor of governance and development, Cardiff University

Simon Hughes's claim ("Water companies pay billions to shareholders but little tax. Why?", News) that Thames Water "is so indebted that it does not have the financial strength to invest in large capital projects" is not true. Nor is Will Hutton's suggestion that Thames is "crippled with debt". We are carrying out a record £1bn-a-year investment programme upgrading our pipes, sewers and other facilities and our customers' bills remain the second-lowest in the industry. Of the £108bn invested across the water sector since privatisation in 1989, £17bn (in today's prices) has been by us. This work is funded largely by debt, raised with the benefit of our strong credit rating. Such improvements would not have been possible under public ownership.

The Thames Tideway Tunnel, at £4.1bn, is more than six times the size of any other water industry project since privatisation. Two years ago, Parliament passed legislation specifically designed to enable Defra and Ofwat to instruct that such projects should be the subject of competitive tender, financed and delivered by an independent "infrastructure provider". It is this company for which the government is proposing to underwrite only exceptional project risks, not Thames Water. Under these provisions, Thames Water is prohibited from participating in this company, so there is no intention for the taxpayer to "help Thames Water". The ultimate costs of the project will be met by customers, as has been the case for all water and wastewater investment since 1989

<strong>Sir Peter Mason</strong>

Chairman, Thames Water

<strong>Why Amnesty had to change</strong>

"The majority of crimes reputable human rights organisations must concentrate on are in the poor world," writes Nick Cohen ("Is Amnesty still fit to fight on anyone's behalf?", Comment). So why does he have a problem with Amnesty International expanding in the global south and east?

Already, in India, 500,000 people have supported an Amnesty campaign on justice for Sri Lanka, while in Brazil Amnesty recently launched a major campaign focused on the country's slums. Nobody wants to lose hard-working campaigners or, for that matter, any other staff, but Amnesty International will continue to be an effective and influential campaigning presence in Britain, as well as supporting the growth of Amnesty in parts of the world where it has previously been largely absent.

This is the direction Amnesty members have chosen and Nick Cohen is silent on the question of what happens if we fail to change. We have done so successfully over the last 50 years, producing ground-breaking achievements for justice and freedom. I have no doubt this is the right course.

<strong>Kate Allen</strong>

UK director

Amnesty International

<strong>Our ludicrous drugs laws </strong>

Eugene Jarecki is right ("US states legalise marijuana – is this the end of the drugs war?", Comment). The momentum in the US will cross the pond and it probably is their best idea for a long time to end this absurd war on drugs. I was smoking hash in 1967 and never thought it would still be illegal today. I had to go through the ordeal of a criminal conviction for scrapings from my pocket less than a milligram but enough to charge me after being bullied and verbally abused by the police, refused bail, stuck in prison for a week and humiliated in court. I was 17 years old. It has alienated me from the police and courts ever since. For God's sake, legalise hashish and opium. Let adults decide what to do with their leisure.

<strong>Ian Hughes</strong>

Bridgend

<strong>I'll plump for that</strong>

Thanks Lauren Laverne (Magazine) for speaking out on our behalf. Being described as "plus sized" makes me want to rip the arm off the nearest skinny, smother it in butter and gnaw it all the way to the gym. Only joking. I don't go to the gym.

Personally, I'm happy to be described as fat as long as I'm not expected to be ashamed of it. My only complaint with the article was that the token affordable piece was a revolting pair of trousers. As a "curvy" girl who has spent all her spare cash on cake I would like to see some beautiful clothes that normal people could actually buy.

<strong>Angela Snape</strong>

Devon