The LibDems might explore the possibility of a policy of putting the fire service into the independent sector. There are various models which could be considered. One is that of the LifeBoats (RNLI), a charity which works under a Royal Charter and is run by volunteers on the front line but with paid headquarters staff. Another is that of mutualisation, the John Lewis model. The need for reform is highlighted by the practice of firemen taking second jobs, which is not a trope of the right-wing media but a fact about a self-serving, over-politicised and reactionary labour force.
In November 2015 the Fire Brigades Union re-affiliated with the UK Labour Party due to the union’s backing of the party’s new leader Jeremy Corbyn and his commitment to so-called anti-austerity politics. John McDonnell, Corbyn’s far-left shadow chancellor, lends the FBU support in Parliament. The fire service staff have a right to strike which they do not scruple to exercise.
The FBU routinely campaigns not only against financial austerity but Government measures in the field of fire safety. It may claim to have expertise in such matters but, like the transport unions’ disruptive action purporting to be on grounds of safety, there will always be questions about the credibility of the FBU’s stance. For example, the FBU has denounced the apparently dangerous policy of not requiring the installing of sprinklers in new schools, but the Government’s own policy on fire safety in schools puts a different complexion on the matter.
There is a conflict of interest at the heart of the FBU, because though its members are charged with advancing fire prevention, their interest as a labour force rests in there being fires to extinguish. The FBU contrasts with the Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA). This is the professional voice of the UK fire and rescue service, supporting members to fulfil their leadership role in protecting local communities and making life safer through improved service delivery.
While Home Secretary, Theresa May drew attention to the poor culture in the fire service. She said the diversity of the 96% white, 95% male workforce should be transformed. In at least one fire service there is an intimidatory culture.
The public financing of the service means there is a hidden subsidy to the private sector. In historic days, the service was paid for by the insurance companies. Perhaps there is a case for reviving this model in a modern form with, for example, a levy on insurance policies. In addition to adopting the RNLI and John Lewis models, other possible measures could include separating fire prevention from extinguishment, and de-unionisation, turning the union into a professional body to monitor and raise standards like the CFOA. Re-modelling the fire service could also be a step towards integrating the fire with the ambulance service so that paramedics and fire service staff were one and the same. This is how things works in some overseas countries and would be an efficiency gain.
* Mark Frankel joined the LibDems in the wake of the Brexit vote and was able to cast a vote in the Richmond Park by-election. He has a degree in philosophy and retired in 2014 from a career in public finance.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Calum Miller makes the case for a much closer relationship with the European Union
Aging, Development, and Living at High Altitudes (Oxygen Levels)
The Charge of the Light Brigade - A perfect analogy for the United Kingdom today
Lib Dems miss out by 4 votes in council by-election
New lunchtime concerts for 2025
A looming trade war?
Only 3 historical inaccuracies
Peter Davies
Romer WH
Tristan Ward
expats
47 Comments
“The LibDems might explore the possibility of a policy of putting the fire service into the independent sector”.
No thanks. Sounds like it’s straight from Tory Central Office.
And I want my hosepipes publicly owned without any profits being creamed off viua the Virgin Islands tax haven to that little squirt Branson.
This reads a bit too much like an anti-union anti-fireman rant, anti-blue collar rant. Firemen are less self serving than MPs,.
No way! In most parts of the country out-side London Firefighters are ‘retained’ ergo volunteers who have day jobs.
If, God forbid, I ever need rescuing from a burning building I want a public, professional Fire and Rescue Service and, by and large, we are lucky to have the one we’ve got. It is easy to lambast the unions, but they have been instrumental in keeping the numbers where they are and on issues like pension age I entirely agree with them.
Not every firefighter can be fit enough to carry out the role as they approach 60. Like the armed forces an earlier retirement and movement to a second career should be considered the norm.
I would also take issue with the contention “though its members are charged with advancing fire prevention, their interest as a labour force rests in there being fires to extinguish”. It’s not how many fires they are called to, but how quickly they get to a house when there is a fire that should dictate their numbers and location. Not to mention the fantastic work they do when floods and other natural disasters occur.
In short I couldn’t disagree more with the entire piece.
I wish people would stop holding the “John Lewis model” up as an example of how to do things. A model which excludes cleaners from sharing in the profits enjoyed by all the other staff is not something to be admired.
“There is a conflict of interest at the heart of the FBU, because though its members are charged with advancing fire prevention, their interest as a labour force rests in there being fires to extinguish.”
Now I don’t personally know any firemen, but I do know plenty of medical professionals and it would never cross any of their minds that they have a financial interest in more people getting ill. I’d be astonished if firemen thought anything remotely like that.
What a barmy idea. I agree this sounds like a right wing union bashing idea
I’m no fan of the FBU, as anyone who’s heard me rant on about the number of strikes would know. But I find the arguments made in this piece rather odd.
Do we really believe that fireman might undermine fire prevention because it will reduce the number of fires?
If the rank and file fireman are to blame for the state of the fire service, why would you put ownership in their hands through a John Lewis model?
The report on intimidatory culture linked to in the post is actually more critical of Essex Fire Brigade’s leadership rather than the fireman, but the post’s author places fire officers on a pedestal.
Why would we want to pay for fire services through an insurance levy rather than through taxation when such a levy would be an unfair and regressive form of taxation? And how would that positively change the industrial relations culture of the fire brigades anyway? Unless separate private fire brigades are envisaged? And how would that work given that actual fire device coverage was minimal back when that model was used compared with now?
Sorry, don’t ‘get’ this post at all!
Nice try but no one’s biting, we want professional firefighters not someone who has a bit of spare time. As to the firebrigades union, if Liberals want the union to change its policies stand for office, don’t try to break the union because you don’t like the office holders. Unions are in the main a force for good and the sooner the Lib Dems appreciate that the better, thats not to say we should accept the office holders, we shouldn’t we should aim to be the office holders.
Is this meant to be a satirical piece? This would be far too right wing for most Conservatives let alone Liberals. I don’t agree with any of it.
I’d just got pleasantly used to Mark Littlewood no longer being referred to as a Liberal Democrat, but this idea is one I’m sure he would be delighted to embrace. There is a discussion to be had about producer versus consumer interests, and certainly the greater the impact of the producer on the welfare of the consumer the greater the imbalance of power between the two is likely to be, but even expressing the dichotomy in these terms is buying into neo-liberal ideas about the marketisation of services. As Liberal Democrats we should instead be emphasising the value of public service and community based mutual respect.
As a long time member of Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Authority I am appalled at the idea of “privatising” Fire and Rescue Services.
I have been a District Councillor for 44 years, I have been a County Cllr and Member of HWFRA since 2001 and I have never seen such a load of ill informed right wing hogwash in my life.
OK the FBU is a left wing Union, its members have a right to elect the Union executive of their choice, that is what free trades unions are about,
Across the country, thousands of firefighters are Retained and not necessarily in the FBU
Our firefighters provide a wonderful service and to suggest they somehow have an interest in there still being building fires is disgraceful!
For the information of the ill informed poster of the original piece, successful fire prevention work across the country has been a huge decrease in primary building fires!
We do need closer cooperation between Blue Light Services but not this nonsense!
Surely there is an opportunity here for the “free market, free trade pro-business party” to propose a system in which competing fire engines race to the scene of the fire and tender for the job of extinguishing it, or perhaps a return to the fire insurance marks of old.
No Thanks we are unpopular enough with some people for having gone into a coalition with the Tories without espousing policies to the right of the Tories.
Please tell me what is wrong with firefighters taking a second job. So long as it doesn’t interfere with them doing their firefighting and rescue work when that’s required, what’s the issue?
I welcome Mark as a new member , as I always want new views and a variety of them to add to the spice …! But I do not agree with this at all !
The service has no scope for the private sector, as it has no market at all, is a monopoly and must be so , with no benefit to making profit , and if not for profit , no reason to be contracted out , and because , it works as it is !
I do believe all fire, military , police and medical , frontline staff , the ones who do the actual life saving, or protecting, should have no right to strike, not as a law brought in to make it illegal, but as an important part of a contract signed. It is in my view an outrage that professions that hold life and death in their hands should play politics with peoples lives, which alas is what some are doing.
I believe we should avoid the union bashing in other areas , so as to make it clear we , many of us , who have ever been in a union, or others who have not , are not in any way anti union , but pro health and safety.
Criticise them when they deserve it . Condemn them when they strike and they are causing the danger they are meant to avoid or stop.
But do not privatise the service !
It’s good to see tough-minded thinking about public service reform but I respectfully disagree with Mark’s analysis of fire services.
Insurance-based fire services don’t work because of the non-payer problem: do you just let their house burn down? Nor can fire services be meaningfully competitive or privatised. The fixed cost makes it a natural monopoly in whatever area a service covers. For the same reason, fire services are always likely to be highly unionised, and I hope liberals will never oppose the right to join a union.
That means any benefit from a different structure comes down solely to governance. It isn’t obvious that making fire services a trust or anything else will inherently make governance better: the unions will still be there. I don’t think firefighters particularly want fires either – they’ll always be needed just in case, so demand for their services isn’t linked to the number of fires (except maybe in big cities).
The culture of fire brigades can be ugly, clearly, and I’m sure governance could be better. Perhaps, rather than politically toxic structural reforms, what’s needed is a more subtle set of ideas for liberals to apply in local government?
No! No! No! The Fire Service is a public service and should stay one. The old insurance based system ended for a reason. It didn’t work! Why bash decent hard working people? Why ape the ideas of the Tory right?
For the avoidance of doubt, my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I suggested free market competition with haggling at the scene of a fire or a return to fire insurance marks.
Perhaps there is scope for some reform of the fire service to improve its performance or efficiency, but this article comes across as a straightforward attack on firefighters and their union. In particular the paragraph that includes the shocking statement that “their interest as a labour force rests in there being fires to extinguish” seems to imply that while their saintly managers want fewer fires, the firefighters who risk their lives for us every day could happily be arsonists in their spare time.
Why hello there Daily Mail (un)think(in) piece. How did you manage to make your way over to LibDemVoice.
Also, in the event of a fire I’d rather not be reliant on charitably funded volunteers to come rescue me or my house from the blaze.
At first I thought I wandered onto the Daily Mail Opinion Page, then I checked my calendar to see if it was April already…
Still, why be surprised; it seems obvious that in the same way that soldiers need more wars, train guards need more accidents, firemen need more fires and policemen need more crime, retired philosophers need to think more clearly……
What next – G4S armed police? The Serco Marines?
There seems to be an obsession with mutals but as far as I am aware, no public service which has been privatised or outsourced has been owned / run by mutals. Instead the bulk appear to be owned / run by hated outsourcing companies, foreign governments, hedge funds or multinationals.
Welcome to the Lib Dems -and ignore some of the churlish comments above.
I dont think we should privatise the Fire Service but it is certainly true that the FBU are a particularly luddite union opposed to any and all change and to changes resulting from the substantial drop in the number of fires.
Worth looking at the recent report on the reduction of fire stations in London – strongly opposed by the FBU – which found that despite the dire warnings service has not been affected
https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/overall-the-service-has-coped-well-with-cuts
All I will say is NO, NO, NO.
@ Simon McGrath….. Just a small friendly historical footnote sent with best wishes from someone who, way back, had a Luddite ancestor in the Spen Valley in West Yorkshire.
I don’t suppose it matters overmuch now about using ‘Luddite’ as a perjorative term, and yes, some of them were violent and very angry two hundred years ago.
But what they did has to be put in the context of poverty, starvation and fear imposed by a system that used the force of the military and the gallows to break and oppress them for the benefit of the few. Stretch the elastic and there are modern parallels.
I, for one, have always had great sympathy for them and a respect for their radical rebellious courage in trying to feed their families. Their immediate descendants, through radical methodism and the Band of Hope, formed part of the bedrock of the old Liberal Party which, as Charlie K. used to say, is part of our DNA. Sympathy for the underdog ought to be a pre-requisite for any Liberal.
I suggest, if you get time, try reading E.P. Thompson’s ‘The making of the English working class’. There’s a free PDF on line.
As to the FBU – they have every right to defend their livelihood and I have often admired their courage doing a ghastly dangerous job. Don’t underestimate public support for them.
There maybe a case for merging much of the what the police, ambulance and fire service do. There seems to be reason for this in adminstration, management, quite of lot of training programmes etc. Think the time of a stand alone service has had its day.
@David Raw
“As to the FBU – they have every right to defend their livelihood and I have often admired their courage doing a ghastly dangerous job.”
Do you really think the FBU do a “ghastly dangerous job”? I suspect you mean firefighters rather than the FBU, which is a trade union.
Although being a firefighter is sometimes fairly dangerous, and it is certainly skilled, I’m not sure I would describe the job as “ghastly”.
Sorry, but this seems an odd article. Ostensibly about reforming the Fire (& Rescue) Service but largely devoted to criticising the FBU! Which is NOT the Service.
And the Service is not just about Fire – I think it now attends more RTAs than fires.
Goodness me Mark, you’ve certainly caused a fiery reaction on LDV! Whilst I disagree with most of what you say, it does seem from the figures you quote that the fire service needs to become more diverse but I think that needs to be addressed alongside the unions rather than by opposing them. I look forward to more provoking articles from you and am hoping for great things on public finance where your expertise would be invaluable. Thank you for joining the Lib Dems and welcome!
@ Councillor Shaw. You weren’t helping to pick up the body parts at Lockerbie, the Bradford City fire, or the Clutha Vaults in Glasgow, then ?
No, didn’t suppose so.
End of.
I agree with David not Simon on the job , but with anyone other than David who is at least on some occasions able to say a strike in an emergency service is not courage it is disgrace ! Don’t tell me that when they correctly asked for twenty five thousand some years ago, not getting it was an immediate reason to withdraw labour. They lost my support then and I was once and for many years in the party they now have re-affiliated to !
Sometimes, as with our excellent Sue Sutherland , it is necessary in a Liberal party to hear views we do not agree with which are not typical and predictable !
But David is right on thr bravery of the service, not the union , which is often terrible !
@David Raw
“You weren’t helping to pick up the body parts at Lockerbie, the Bradford City fire, or the Clutha Vaults in Glasgow, then ?”
No, didn’t suppose so.”
No and neither were you I suppose. So how do you know whether firefighters regard their job as “ghastly”?
Simon Shaw 17th Jan ’17 – 1:38pm…………..No and neither were you I suppose. So how do you know whether firefighters regard their job as “ghastly”?…
Some years ago my job necessitated my attending several intensive fire fighting courses…
If you listened, as I did, to their experiences you’d not make such ill informed remarks..Bodies, especially children, burned beyond identification are ‘Ghastly’….
“The public financing of the service means there is a hidden subsidy to the private sector. In historic days, the service was paid for by the insurance companies. Perhaps there is a case for reviving this model in a modern form with, for example, a levy on insurance policies.”
So is this another tax/duty on insurance policies or simply suggesting that the existing taxes on insurance policies should effectively be ring-fenced and used to fund the fire service; but not any of the other emergency services? Alternatively, is there also a variable component so that when the emergency services (and other agencies) attend an incident they can submit a bill to the relevant insurance companies.
“adopting the RNLI and John Lewis models”
The RNLI model is a charity, which gains significant amounts of funding from the public via fund raising activities. It also operates with voluntary crews that have “second” jobs. So am I to take it that this style of funding is what Mark is proposing in exampling this operational model.
The John Lewis model has nothing to do with funding and is all about ownership and is a model predicated on the assumption that only those who work in the organisation have an interest in the organisation. With the emergency services, we all have a vested interest in their operation and availability. Thus I don’t see any benefits arising from this organisational model.
Given Mark claims to have had “a career in public finance”, I find the total lack of thought as to where the funding is coming from and the absence of numbers in the article concerning; perhaps by retiring Mark did the public a favour…
” I’m not sure I would describe the job as “ghastly”.”
It’s fire crews who have to use metal-cutting equipment to free dead and mangled bodies at the scene of RTAs. Would you not find that a “ghastly” experience Mr Shaw?
Other posters are right – a number of the comments here would not be out of place btl in the Daily Mail.
Re: ” I’m not sure I would describe the job as “ghastly”.”
I think some are confusing the nature of the job, which is long periods of idleness interspersed with short periods of frantic activity, that may involve the grisly task of clearing up some events. Certainly my fireman friends don’t regard the job itself as “ghastly”, but are well aware that some call outs are much more upsetting than others.
To take one example, a friend and his team now spend time around certain estates in his patch, doing community work because of the large number of car fires they are called out to, the fires being set by the local youths who just want something to do and watch that’s a little different to watching the traffic go by. Thus there is nothing grisly or ghastly about these incidents, just sadness and irritation. The biggest psychological impact seems to have been their inability to attend an incident and save life, because they were entertaining the local youth and dealing with a car fire…
@Roland
“Re: ” I’m not sure I would describe the job as “ghastly”.”
I think some are confusing the nature of the job, which is long periods of idleness interspersed with short periods of frantic activity, that may involve the grisly task of clearing up some events. Certainly my fireman friends don’t regard the job itself as “ghastly”, but are well aware that some call outs are much more upsetting than others.”
I think that’s exactly correct, Roland.
The problem was that David Raw (who, as a former teacher, I would have hoped would be more accurate with language) asserted that the FBU (I assume he meant firefighters) do a “ghastly” job.
The fact that occasionally aspects of any job are unpleasant or even ghastly, doesn’t mean that the job itself is “ghastly”.
I think this idea deserves kudos for being the least sensible policy proposed today. Considering the day’s events that is impressive.
Roland 17th Jan ’17 – 4:17pm…………..I think some are confusing the nature of the job, which is long periods of idleness interspersed with short periods of frantic activity, that may involve the grisly task of clearing up some events. Certainly my fireman friends don’t regard the job itself as “ghastly”, but are well aware that some call outs are much more upsetting than others……….
I’m afraid Simon Shaw, and you, are suffering a ‘Titanic’ misapprehension…After all, lifeboats sit around ‘idly’ for most of their existence…
@expats
“I’m afraid Simon Shaw, and you, are suffering a ‘Titanic’ misapprehension…After all, lifeboats sit around ‘idly’ for most of their existence…”
But, taking your analogy, the fact that in 1 voyage in 100,000, lifeboats have to perform a “ghastly” role doesn’t mean that their role is, by definition, fundamentally ghastly.
Reflecting on this a bit, the idea of *financing* fire services via something like a levy on home insurance has a fair amount going for it.
At present funding mainly comes from the council tax precept. That means it has all the flaws of council tax: rich people in big houses don’t pay as much as they should. If the precept was via home insurance then you could link it to the value people are insuring. That’d take some of the strain off council tax. You might also vary the charge to promote fire safety. E.g. those with working smoke detectors could pay less.
It’s a pity to conflate debates about governance, structure, labour relations and financing of public services because it inevitably turns into a row about privatisation.
Simon Shaw 17th Jan ’17 – 9:10pm….@expats..“But, taking your analogy, the fact that in 1 voyage in 100,000, lifeboats have to perform a “ghastly” role doesn’t mean that their role is, by definition, fundamentally ghastly.”…
Simon, you have an uncanny knack of misunderstanding arguments; let me try for a last time..
You are a fireman, yesterday you spent 7 hours polishing a fire engine and 1 hour cutting the remains of a family of four from an horrific car crash…Describe your day?
@expats – do get a sense of perspective, talk to firemen, yes unsettling incidents do happen, however, it might surprise just how infrequent such events are.
The issue surely isn’t whether or not the job is “ghastly”, but whether we recognise the task we are expecting firemen to perform, just like servicemen, policemen, A&E medic’s etc. and include such consideration in their employment.
The biggest issues my friends talk about is their health and pension. There are valid reasons why firemen are retired at 50 or are retired early due to ‘health’, which have nothing to do with the tear-jerking horrors you imagine.
<i"You are a fireman, yesterday you spent 7 hours polishing a fire engine and 1 hour cutting the remains of a family of four from an horrific car crash…Describe your day?"
We attended a road traffic incident, worked out in the gym, watched some telly, checked out kit, just a normal day! You might be surprised just little people will talk about when they know the subject matter is potentially upsetting.
Roland 18th Jan ’17 – 1:06pm….@expats – do get a sense of perspective, talk to firemen, yes unsettling incidents do happen, however, it might surprise just how infrequent such events are….
Perhaps it is you who needs a sense of perspective..As I said, I WAS involved with firemen in a professional capacity and ‘talked’ with them; detailed descriptions of actions and consequences were used…In addition, I have employed ex firemen who have taken early retirement, mostly on health issues, and their work as firemen can be ‘ghastly’…Because such occurrences are rare does not make them any less horrific…
An article which promotes privatising such a service on the grounds that firemen are, quote, “a self-serving, over-politicised and reactionary labour force” will get NO support from me…
Expats – “An article which promotes privatising such a service on the grounds that firemen are, quote, “a self-serving, over-politicised and reactionary labour force” will get NO support from me…”
Don’t disagree and as you may have noted in my substantive response to the article I questioned the depth of the writer’s thinking on the matter because none of his proposals seemed to address the issues he raised.
However, I do think we should be careful in not sensationalising some of the more emotive aspects the work, when more rational arguments can be deployed. I noted that in the recent disputes, the firemen’s trade union leader (apologies for not remembering his name) was very clear and precise about what the issues being disputed were about and didn’t resort to emotive language or ‘fighting talk’ to make his points.
@expats
“Simon, you have an uncanny knack of misunderstanding arguments; let me try for a last time..
You are a fireman, yesterday you spent 7 hours polishing a fire engine and 1 hour cutting the remains of a family of four from an horrific car crash…Describe your day?”
Firstly, the idea that firefighters spend 7 hours a shift doing not a lot is seriously misinformed.
Secondly, you seem to think that the fact that once in a while a firefighter faces ghastly experiences means that their job is a “ghastly” one. I think most firefighters regard it as a great job that, like many jobs, can occasionally have ghastly aspects.
Do you know any Firefighters Mark? Have you ever had any contact with the FBU?
It doesn’t sound like it from your article. As a Lib Dem Councillor I was a member of Avon Fire Authority for 5 years and a member of the negotiating body in local government for 6 years.
I always found the workers to be highly professional and diligent, and their Trade Union, whilst undeniably being left wing in its politics championed equality, in the face of some opposition from its more traditional members. They also promoted fire safety, use of sprinklers etc, even though it would mean less fires to put out!
The cost of the prior precept in Bristol was less than a couple of bars of chocolate a week, and the response time in an emergency was under 15 minutes. Imagine your a driver of passenger in a car involved in a serious collision on a motorway, you’d be glad of that level of service.