Is this the next public service in line for Tory privatisation?

25th March, 2013 11:39 am

Having made it possible to privatise 49% of the NHS, this Tory/LibDem Government has now got another precious public service in its sights. This time it is the Fire and Rescue Service in England that is being lined up to be sold off to the highest bidder.

It’s softening it up with unprecedented cuts. Of course we all knew the Government would not exempt our emergency services from its austerity programme, but the unparalleled cuts are reckless and downright dangerous. They have already axed more than 4,000 firefighters, closed scores of fire stations and decommissioned dozens of fire and rescue appliances.

The Fire Minister, Brandon Lewis, set out his privatisation plans in a letter to the House of Commons Regulatory Reform Committee in January this year. He was proposing legislation to enable Fire and Rescue Authorities “to contract out their full range of services”. But the cross-party committee sensibly dismissed his scheme, not least because the letter attempted to circumvent proper parliamentary scrutiny of this fundamental policy shift. But there can be no question that the proposal remains on the table.

Mr Lewis has tried to put a different spin on it, claiming it is only about enabling Fire and Rescue Services to be run as public sector cooperatives. But this is just a charade. The fact is there are no protections in place to shield public sector cooperatives from being replaced by a future private sector operator. Furthermore, the change that Mr Lewis is proposing would allow Fire and Rescue Services to be privatised immediately without even bothering to establish a cooperative first.

In some countries around the world, people have to pay a premium to obtain protection from the Fire and Rescue Service. I discovered one such example in Tennessee USA, where a couple lost everything after their home burned to the ground – even though they had called 911 to ask for help. Firefighters responded, but didn’t put out the blaze because the couple had not paid the $75 subscription to the local fire service.

This is where privatisation of our Fire and Rescue Services could ultimately lead. In the meantime, if the private sector were to run this vital emergency service we would see a massive reduction in the contribution it makes to our community. Much of what the Fire and Rescue Service does is outside its statutory responsibilities. This includes responding to flooding incidents and working with young people. Our brave firefighters deserve better and the British public have a right to expect the fire and rescue service will always be free at the point of need.

That is why I have launched a national campaign to highlight and oppose the government’s reckless plan. We cannot allow the high priests of neoliberalism to sacrifice the fire and rescue service on the altar of austerity.

Saving lives, not making private profit must remain the priority of our Fire and Rescue Service.

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • Quiet_Sceptic

    The Tennessee example is really interesting but the issue at stake was not privatisation as suggested in this article (the local fire service was not private), it is the choice between a system of compulsory universal insurance or voluntary insurance.

    The fire service is paid for by the residents of a small town through their property taxes and provides them with fire services free at the point of use, compulsory insurance like we have in the UK through the fire service element of the council tax. The residents outside the town limits don’t pay taxes to the town, they make no contribution to the fire service and so are not covered but the town offers the fire service as an option to those who chose to subscribe.

    It seems awful to have fire-fighters standing-by while a fire burns down someones house but under a voluntary system, if fire fighters put out every fire regardless of subscription, why would anyone pay their subscriptions? To translate it to the UK, if council tax were optional and yet all of the services they provided were still available for free at the point of use, what proportion would voluntarily pay their council tax?

    Pretty soon you’d have no services because there would be no money to pay for them or as in this case, the residents of a small town would be paying for the fire service for the many more residents living outside the town, the system would break-down.

  • Quiet_Sceptic

    The Tennessee example is really interesting but the issue at stake was not privatisation as suggested in this article (the local fire service was not private), it is the choice between a system of compulsory universal insurance or voluntary insurance.

    The fire service is paid for by the residents of a small town through their property taxes and provides them with fire services free at the point of use, compulsory insurance like we have in the UK through the fire service element of the council tax. The residents outside the town limits don’t pay taxes to the town, they make no contribution to the fire service and so are not covered but the town offers the fire service as an option to those who chose to subscribe.

    It seems awful to have fire-fighters standing-by while a fire burns down someones house but under a voluntary system, if fire fighters put out every fire regardless of subscription, why would anyone pay their subscriptions? To translate it to the UK, if council tax were optional and yet all of the services they provided were still available for free at the point of use, what proportion would voluntarily pay their council tax?

    Pretty soon you’d have no services because there would be no money to pay for them or as in this case, the residents of a small town would be paying for the fire service for the many more residents living outside the town, the system would break-down.

Latest

  • Comment Featured Richard Burgon: In defence of Labour Party members

    Richard Burgon: In defence of Labour Party members

    Abusive and threatening behaviour online and misogyny are serious societal problems that urgently need tackling. The leader of the Labour Party has made it clear that abusive and threatening behaviour, misogynistic or otherwise, is completely unacceptable. Our party has formal disciplinary procedures for members found to be perpetrators of this kind of behaviour. If abusive and threatening behaviour amounts to a criminal act, then those on the receiving end can – and should be encouraged to – report the matter to the police. The leader […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Public prefer Smith to Corbyn for Prime Minister, new poll shows

    Public prefer Smith to Corbyn for Prime Minister, new poll shows

    Owen Smith would make a better choice Prime Minister than Jeremy Corbyn, according to a new poll. More than half – 57 per cent – of people prefer Smith, while only 43 per cent backed Corbyn, the survey of voters from across the general public reveals. Voters were also asked who they would prefer to see as Labour leader, which inspired exactly the same result. The Evening Standard/BMG poll is the latest in a series raising questions about Labour’s popularity with […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured High Court’s Corbyn ruling has staved off a fresh Labour crisis – but this row was a problem of the party’s own making

    High Court’s Corbyn ruling has staved off a fresh Labour crisis – but this row was a problem of the party’s own making

    The Labour Party can now release a collective sigh of relief. It’s hard to conceive how much worse Labour’s current internal warring could be, but those limits of imagination would have been robustly tested had the High Court ruled against the NEC’s decision to put Corbyn on the leadership ballot automatically. Calling it a factional dispute would not even begin to cover the scale of the prospective horror show. The party’s rules about whether or not an incumbent leader needs […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Corbyn confirmed on the ballot as judge rejects challenge

    Corbyn confirmed on the ballot as judge rejects challenge

    Jeremy Corbyn will remain on the leadership ballot, a judge has ruled today. A High Court judge concluded the NEC had been “correct in law” to allow Corbyn to appear on the leadership ballot automatically. The ruling means the incumbent will not now need to gain nominations from 51 MPs and MEPs, as his challenger Owen Smith has done, and the leadership contest will not be restarted. The case, brought by large Labour donor Michael Foster, claimed the NEC decision – made at a marathon […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured It is time to talk to the SNP about how we would make a minority Labour government work

    It is time to talk to the SNP about how we would make a minority Labour government work

    Labour’s showing in the 2016 elections was terrible, but not bad enough to precipitate a change of leadership and direction, and nothing like good enough to offer any hope of winning a general election outright. There are two hard lessons for Labour from these results: 1. To have an outside chance of forming a government to replace the present reactionary and incompetent Conservatives, Labour has no choice but to construct a loose informal alliance with other progressive parties. The only alternative is permanent opposition and indefinite […]

    Read more →
x

LabourList Daily Email

Everything Labour. Every weekday morning

Share with your friends










Submit