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.

  • 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

  • Featured News Burnham: Labour is “too frightened by its own shadow”, I’ll recapture the spirit of 1945

    Burnham: Labour is “too frightened by its own shadow”, I’ll recapture the spirit of 1945

    Andy Burnham will tomorrow pledge to recapture the spirit of Clement Attlee’s Government, and slam the modern Labour Party for being “too frightened by its own shadow” to support policies as bold as the ones that saw the creation of the NHS. Speaking in Leeds on Tuesday evening, he will mark the 70th anniversary of Attlee becoming Prime Minister with a speech entitled ‘Recapturing the spirit of ’45’. The leadership candidate and Shadow Health Secretary will use the opportunity to […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Weekly survey: entryism, Labour split and general election performance

    Weekly survey: entryism, Labour split and general election performance

    Harriet Harman has been urged to halt the leadership contest over claims that there is evidence of widespread entryism from the far left. However, Jeremy Corbyn rejected these claims, saying “The entryism that I see is lots of young people who were hitherto not very excited by politics coming in for the first time.”  What do you think? Are you concerned that people who do not share Labour’s values might vote in the leadership election? Have your say here. Some have also […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Corbyn-supporting MP calls for a halt to “personalised infighting” and proposes consultation strategy for the next leader

    Corbyn-supporting MP calls for a halt to “personalised infighting” and proposes consultation strategy for the next leader

    John McDonnell MP has written to his fellow MPs asking them to “draw a halt to the personalised infighting” and talk of “splits and breakaways if Jeremy Corbyn gets elected”. He has proposed a wide-ranging consultation process, involving all the leadership candidates, once the next leader is elected. McDonnell who is Corbyn’s campaign agent has urged his fellow MPs to ensure that they do not given the impression that the party is internally divided. This comes after senior Labour figures, including […]

    Read more →
  • News Labour First call on Progress to recommend transfer votes to stop Corbyn

    Labour First call on Progress to recommend transfer votes to stop Corbyn

    Labour First, the group that represents the non-New Labour moderate flank of the party, has written an open letter to Progress chiefs Richard Angell and John Woodcock MP, calling on them to support tactical voting to stop Jeremy Corbyn. Earlier this month, Progress endorsed Liz Kendall in the leadership race. The letter is signed by Labour First’s chair, Keith Dibble, secretary, Luke Akehurst, and MP John Spellar. It is addressed to Woodcock, as chair of Progress, and Angell, as director, […]

    Read more →
  • Comment This leadership contest needs more vision, direction and policy

    This leadership contest needs more vision, direction and policy

    If there was a box marked “none of the above” it would probably be on course to win the first round of the Labour leadership contest. There is little in terms of content (so far) to get excited about. The process seems to be too long. And the tone is becoming increasingly acrimonious. Where’s the vision? Where’s the passion? Where are the ideas? With a month or so to go before ballot papers go out, we need our leadership candidates to give a better […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit