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

March 25, 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

  • News Weekly survey: Changing policy direction, fracking and the general election

    Weekly survey: Changing policy direction, fracking and the general election

    This week, a group of 15 Labour MPs published a joint statement urging the party to change course in three key policy ares. They called for 1) an alternative to austerity 2) rail renationalisation 3) a return to collective bargaining and employment rights in the workplace. What do you think of the contents of the letter? Do you broadly agree with what this group of MPs are asking for? Or do you disagree with the policy proposals? Labour have said they’ll vote […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Syriza’s historic win: A wake up call to Europe 

    Syriza’s historic win: A wake up call to Europe 

    This article is written by  Giampi Alhadeff and Don Brind An American friend calls. He’s heard the Greeks are revolting and wonders if it’s safe to take a holiday there. Don’t worry, I say. The weather fabulous and blue, blue sea simply splendid. The people are fantastic. What’s not to like? But Yes, the Greeks are in revolt after 6 years of austerity and deep economic recession. That’s the unequivocal meaning of Syriza’s  historic election win. And it’s a message that resonates with […]

    Read more →
  • News Tristram Hunt slams Green Party policies as “total madness”

    Tristram Hunt slams Green Party policies as “total madness”

    Labour have been increasingly willing to take on the Green Party in recent weeks. Of course that’s in party because the Greens rising poll rating is having an impact on Labour’s election chances, but taking on the Greens pre-dates their surge as Sadiq Khan was appointed to lead on Green rebuttal in October. However, few senior Labour figures have hit the Green as hard as Shadow Education Secretary Tristram Hunt has today. In an interview with the Guardian, Hunt says […]

    Read more →
  • Comment The next chapter in Labour’s internationalist story

    The next chapter in Labour’s internationalist story

    Internationalism, a movement advocating greater economic and political cooperation among nations for the benefit of all, has been a strong tradition within the Labour party from the beginning. Our values and ideals have always looked beyond our shores and have contributed to influencing and shaping Britain’s role in an increasingly interdependent world. We have a record that we can be proud of. We supported the establishment of the League of Nations in the inter-war years. We backed Indian independence and […]

    Read more →
  • News Labour-run council becomes the first to offer discount rates for paying the living wage

    Labour-run council becomes the first to offer discount rates for paying the living wage

    Brent’s Labour-run council will today become the first in the country to give discounted business rate to companies that pay the living wage. Under this policy, if employers in the area pay all of their workers £9.15 (the London Living Wage) or more, they could save up to £5,000 on business rates. 30% of this will be paid by the council, while government policy means that central government will pay half and the Greater London Authority will pay the remaining […]

    Read more →