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

  • Comment Working parents can’t rely on a government that gives with one hand and takes with the other

    Working parents can’t rely on a government that gives with one hand and takes with the other

    Ask any working parent about the challenges they face in managing work and family life and childcare is often the first thing they mention. The availability and crippling cost of childcare is a huge barrier to working families, and over the last five years the situation’s gotten worse. On David Cameron’s watch, registered childcare places have fallen by more than 40,000, and the cost of a nursery place for children over two has risen by more than a third. That’s […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Let’s get started – join me on Thursday

    Let’s get started – join me on Thursday

    Labour’s ground campaign in the lead-up to May 7th was bigger than ever before, with our activists engaging with over 5million people in the lead-up to May 7th. However, we now know that simply having those conversations wasn’t enough to deliver an overall Labour victory. While questions need to be asked about the national campaign, from the leadership down, it’s imperative that the​ voices of candidates and organisers in target seats​ ​are​ heard in our ongoing debate. The experience and knowledge of our people on […]

    Read more →
  • News “Wanting to make a profit doesn’t make you evil” – Stella Creasy, deputy leader hopeful, speaks on Labour and business

    “Wanting to make a profit doesn’t make you evil” – Stella Creasy, deputy leader hopeful, speaks on Labour and business

    Stella Creasy, deputy leadership candidate, has argued that Labour doesn’t just need to be pro-business, they need to be “of business.” She has said that to do this the party must have “more candidates and activists at all levels [of the party] with direct experience of business both big and small.” Creasy cited the likes of Labour MPs Toby Perkins, who was previously director of a social enterprise, and Victoria Groulef, who’s been described as a “self-made business woman”, as examples of the […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Who’s backing who and who did endorsers vote to be leader in 2010?

    Who’s backing who and who did endorsers vote to be leader in 2010?

    Leadership candidates need the backing of 35 MPs to make it onto the ballot paper. Andy Burham has secured more than the number needed. Yvette Cooper isn’t far behind him and Liz Kendall looks set to reach this threshold too.  Meanwhile, Mary Creagh is hovering under the 10 mark at the moment. This means we’ll definitely have three candidates in the race. But whose support have they secured so far? And if they were MPs in 2010, who did those […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour must offer popular, big-tent politics to reach out to voters in 2020

    Labour must offer popular, big-tent politics to reach out to voters in 2020

    Victory for the Labour party in 2020 is going to be more than twice as difficult to achieve as in 2015, according to new research published by the Fabian Society today. The society has looked at the likely effects of scheduled boundary changes and concluded that Labour will need to win at least 106 seats to secure a majority. Worse still, the electoral swing required in the decisive marginal seats will be over twice that which Labour needed for victory in 2015. […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit