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 Cruddas asks the right questions – I heard them on the doorstep of a swing seat

    Cruddas asks the right questions – I heard them on the doorstep of a swing seat

        How did it come to this? That a Labour Party fighting an arrogant, out-of-touch Tory government who failed on their core economic targets, could go down to a crushing defeat despite carrying a healthy lead in the polls for not just a few weeks, but a few years. The answer, according to Jon Cruddas, makes for painful reading. Labour, the party of work, was deserted by socially conservative working class voters who value family, work and fairness. There […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured The message, the marginals and the media: Cruddas’ home truths explained

    The message, the marginals and the media: Cruddas’ home truths explained

    The result of Jon Cruddas’ independent inquiry into Labour’s general election defeat was published today, with a piece by the author on LabourList. Here are seven key lessons to take away from the report: 1 – Have we heard it all before? Lacking economic credibility, untrusted on welfare and immigration, unable to connect on issues like communities, and lacking a clear purpose. This is not an inquiry bursting with completely undreamt of reasons for Labour’s demise last May – and […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Jon Cruddas: What we can learn from Labour’s crushing election defeat

    Jon Cruddas: What we can learn from Labour’s crushing election defeat

    Today we publish our Independent Inquiry report Labour’s Future. It looks at why we lost the 2015 general election and what’s happened since. It has ten messages and three lessons to learn from defeat. It’s a tough read because it’s about the challenges Labour faces. But its optimistic. We can be ambitious. We have the ability to change and shape our party and build a new election winning coalition. We need the confidence to learn the lessons of defeat and […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Uncategorized Alice Perry’s NEC report: Corbyn, fighting prejudice and listening to voters online

    Alice Perry’s NEC report: Corbyn, fighting prejudice and listening to voters online

    National Executive Committee Report by local government representative Alice Perry Tuesday 17 May 2016 Leader’s Report Jeremy Corbyn spoke about the EU Referendum and the importance of securing membership of the EU to protect jobs, the economy and our rights at work. Jeremy spoke about May’s election results. He praised the various election successes, including the Mayoral election results in London and Bristol. In London hope trumped fear with voters rejecting racist, Tory smears to make history by electing Sadiq Khan. […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Tristram Hunt: Labour must dispel the myth we are anti-English

    Tristram Hunt: Labour must dispel the myth we are anti-English

    There is much to regret about the modern condition of Tory England. And in the 2015 General Election campaign, the Labour Party lamented long about it. But while I encountered little enthusiasm for the Tories on England’s doorsteps, there was even more circumspection towards the Labour Party. Naturally, some of this was about policy. Some of it too, we should be frank, was about leadership. But operating at a deeper and more insidious level was a sense that Labour did […]

    Read more →
x

LabourList Daily Email

Everything Labour. Every weekday morning

Share with your friends










Submit