Unpaid taxes threaten London's fire engines
The company that runs London's fleet of fire engines faces a financial crisis over unpaid taxes after the Inland Revenue applied for a court order to wind it up.
The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) last night claimed that the problems at AssetCo Fire and Rescue could result in the 113 fire engines based in 169 fire stations in the capital being sold off to raise funds.
AssetCo, which has launched a drive to raise £8m to pay off its debts, has won permission to delay its court hearing until mid-April.
The company has a £30m-a-year contract under the Public Finance Initiative to maintain and manage the brigade's front-line vehicles and equipment.
It also provides emergency cover if regular firefighters are not available, as happened during last year's fire dispute.
It was the first deal of its kind in the country, replacing previous plans for soldiers to be on standby in Green Goddesses to fight fires.
The firm also operates Lincolnshire's fire engines.
AssetCo, originally a subsidiary of British Gas, recently announced a share-sale to tackle its cash-flow problems.
It insists its difficulties are only short term and it is in no danger.
From Matt Wrack, FBU general secretary:
"The safety of Londoners is in the hands of a company which could be wound up in six weeks... It could mean that London forfeits its fire engines."
i 02 Mar 2011Civilians to fill in for firefighters
AssetCo Group
'Payment for Success'
The reason why schools and hospitals were/are paid for out of taxation was - in theory - that the service was supposed to be the same whether you were the Duke of Westminster or the local street cleaner.
Indeed, if the local street cleaner's clinical needs were to be greater than the Duke of Westminster's, then s/he went to the front of the queue.
OK, so it doesn't always work in practice, but where's the evidence that 'the market' would rectify a lack of fairness?
The attempts by Blair/Cameron to try and get the benefits of a market - choice and competition - but to maintain the ethic of the greatest need getting priority, inevitably involves the creation of rules and regulations to ensure fairness.Too Often Payment is Disconnected from Results
Back to KPMG's paper.
The report's perceived disconnect between payment and result makes it hard to see the 'reform' proposals being implemented unless the, er, 'customer' pays up-front for the services offered. The authors seem to agree:There will have to be an aggressive programme of liberalization to give public service providers the incentives and freedom to respond.
This should include a new set of rules to accelerate progress, including:
• A right to bid – where any public service provider (from any sector) can make a proposal to take on a service from another organisation
• A right to own – where staff and managers are able to propose a staff and / or management buy-out or mutualisation of their service, with or without external investors and joint venture partners
• A right to merge and acquire – where successful public service providers (from whichever sector) can propose mergers, demergers, acquisitions or disposals
• A right to manage – where public sector organisations are free to decide on resources issues (e.g. capital spending, workforce issues, IT, multiyear surpluses and deficits, etc).If, as Cameron suggests in the Telegraph, a Whitehall 'fairness' quango stands between the customer and the provider with a set of rules, then it's hard to see any of this working.
No doubt we shall learn more in due course, but the bottom line is the fact that the coalition is looking for savings, and the only route to 'savings' - according to neoliberal dogma - is to introduce competition and profit.
The baleful influence of head-banger John Forbes Nash is the backcloth to 'reform'.Payment for Success
Cameron urged ... to widen services shakeup
PM paves way for privatisation of public services
What Wandsworth reveals about the Big Society
How we will release the grip of state control