Those who did not pay would have to rely on a volunteer
service. This would probably be
very good. The Royal National
Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) would make an excellent model. The only large
British charity, which on principle takes no government money, is highly
professional and efficient. Being a
volunteer fireman might be surprisingly popular.
They are widely used in Europe already.
In Austria no less than five percent of the adult population is one.
Even if the state continued to pay for the fire service, it
should at least contract out the provision.
Denmark does this. According
to the Economist (Nov 28th 2002) local authorities run one third of its
fire service, which unsurprisingly is “cosy and old fashioned just like
here”, according to one recent observer.
The other two thirds were contracted out to a private company “Falk”
in 1926. “The Falk stations are
like a modern office – no comparison” says
the same observer. The Falk firemen also run the ambulance
and road breakdown services, make much more efficient use of their time, and not
surprisingly earn much more than the municipal firemen.
As a percentage of GDP, the Danish service costs less than half the
British one and gets just as good results.
Finally a volunteer fire service is good for the
volunteers. Being a volunteer fireman, running flag days, and keeping the
local fire station up to the standard of the neighbouring town's station, builds
a strong community better than any number of New Labour's embarrassing
"citizenship" classes.
Let's toss that suggestion into the debate.
Andy Gilchrist and his socialist friends
won’t like it one bit, but the voters will.
Chile has had
an exclusively volunteer fire service for 150 years, apparently very
successfully.
Sir, - Who wrote that
ridiculous article on wanting to privatise the fire service? It's been tried
and found out not to work. Hadn't the person who wrote the article heard about
the great fire of London?
Keith Higson,
iGreen reply
Good to hear from you.
But what is your point? Surely the fire of London was caused by
over-crowded wooden houses. No feasible fire service at that time would
have made any difference.
The issue is whether
modern fire services are better run by local authorities or private companies.
You can't seriously believe that local authorities run them better.
Or perhaps you are a
fireman. If so, your opinion may be coloured by the fact that
inefficient local authority over-manning, and permitting old fashioned
"Spanish practices" because the taxpayer is paying, might allow you
to lead a comfortable life. I'm only speculating. :)
Thanks for writing.
Keep in touch.
Dear iGreens, - Thank you
for your reply. I have to ask, do you honestly think that privatising the fire
service will result in a better service.
If so how will it improve things. Private companies are in the business
of making a profit. Whilst there is nothing intrinsically wrong with
this, it is my belief that corners will be cut to make even greater profits.
In the past I believe
plates were attached to the sides of buildings to indicate the had paid
certain rates and if they had a fire they were thus insured and the fire
service of that time would attempt to put out that fire. If a plate wasn't
displayed the building would be allowed to burn down.
Would the privatised fire
service that you propose operate on a similar basis? I am at a loss as
to how it would operate . I can assure you I am not a fireman and have not any
financial interest in a continued publicly financed fire service, which on the
whole I believe to be doing an excellent job. You say you believe the fire
service is over manned . If you believe this to be the case could you be more
specific? Could you supply figures say for the county of Lancashire, where I
live? Could you also say how much you think would be a more appropriate number
of fire fighters in the said county. Lastly could you say how such a reduction
in staffing levels would result in a safer and more efficient service to the
public of Lancashire .
Keith Higson
Hi Keith,
Our
apologies for impugning your motives as a self-interested fireman!
Forgive us. We have had a few emails from such people. :)
We guess the real way a
private fire service would run would be for the government to go on paying,
but to invite private companies to bid to run the service. They might
offer the franchise for say five years or so. The contract would
stipulate standards, which would have to be met including fire prevention
standards etc. It could even offer bonuses if important standards were
exceeded e.g. maximum response times, numbers of fires, fatalities etc.
We don't think anyone is
suggesting that a private fire company would only respond to premises that had
paid a premium. We're certainly not.
If the contract was
properly drawn up the company would have an incentive to save money on things
which are wasteful and spend money on what really works.
Despite all the bad
publicity from people who are hostile to any privatisation it worked on the
railways where long term decline was reversed, click here,
the water companies click here,
British Airways, electricity, gas,
telephones etc. No serious
commentator believes any of those services would be run better if
nationalised.
One example might be the
numbers of tenders that attend every minor toast-burning episode in hospital.
We seem to get two or three tenders almost every week in the hospital I work
in. I'm sure a more efficient response could be devised.
I'm afraid I don't have
any specific data from the North East. For real examples of fire service
waste the independent Bain report is the best source.
