Why is the States doing jobs that other organisations do?
Tuesday 16th March 2010, 3:00PM GMT.
From John Dix.
ONCE again, Craig Channing of the Fire Service Association has penned a fine defence of his service and attempted to rubbish any criticism as being based on a lack of knowledge of the services his employer provides.
The Fire Service is a splendid example of all of the States departments which provide valuable services that those departments currently decide that we, the taxpayers, need. Using the Fire Service as an example, why do they:
• Provide certification of buildings, when we have a Planning department who control building bye-laws?
• Man inshore rescue craft in competition with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution?
• Spend time and effort pumping out flooded houses when the flooding poses no risk to life or limb, and there are many commercial companies who can do this work?
• Deliver fire safety education when we have a huge Education Service?
• Rescue animals when the JSPCA looks after animal welfare?
All of these services, while no doubt much appreciated by the recipients and delivered free to the end user at the public expense, can equally well be provided by other organisations.
The Fire Service has expanded over the years to deliver these services because they can and money was available to do so, but that is no reason why they should continue to do so in these straitened times.
We need to have a genuine public debate, led by our elected representatives and not the employees of the States, to decide which services we want the States to provide and how much we are prepared to pay for them. It is unacceptable in a modern democracy for public service employees to control the services they supply and demand that we, the taxpayers, fund them because they are the experts and thus know best what is good for us all.
I have used the Fire Service as an example, but the same analysis can be applied across all of the ministries. Our ministers need to discover all the services their ministries provide, analyse the cost and manpower required and then question why they are provided and whether they should be provided by the States at all.
Without this rigorous analysis, the chance of eliminating the structural deficit in States spending is approximately zero.
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee
JEP Jubilee Editions
Saturday 2 June: Guide to Celebrations
Wednesday 6 June: Souvenir of Events
View The Queen in Jersey supplement
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
“Competition” with the RNLI? Perhaps you meant “cooperation”.
The Islands emergency services work together towards the same objective – a safer community.
The Fire and Rescue Service’s boats are the quickest option for an inshore sea rescue on the west/north west coasts. They are also available to be despatched in the event of an aircraft ditching in St Ouen’s Bay.
The Fire and Rescue Service has the training and equipment to perform rescues from precarious positions.
If that training and equipment can be used to render humanitarian assistance in the form of animal rescues, why not?
There are plenty of Islanders who have benefited from the Service’s commitment to animal rescue over the years and I’m sure that they would rather have had the Service attend than be forced to watch their pet/livestock die.
I concur with Mr Channing – you have a distinct lack of knowledge of the service provided by his employer.
Report abuse
Mr Dix,
In reference to you letter. I concur with the above response. The fire service have worked very closely with the other emergency services in facilitating rescues in past years and I am sure will continue to do so. The RNLI are very well equipped with fast boats for offshore and local incidents with skilled and dedicated volunteers, but they do not have the luxury of having these shallow bottomed boats which enables the fire service to effectively rock hop and pick up members of public stranded on rocks. Jersey probably has the highest tidal movement in Europe and people will get caught out. JUst look at Mondays paper. The fire service also has the ability with this boat to rescue people and animals from inland reservoirs and have the ability to respond at a moments notice.
please take some time to take heed of Mr Channings reply- before putting to paper.
Report abuse
A good letter.
Makes me think these non emergency services (pumping out flooded houses, Provide certification of buildings, etc) should be paid for by the recipient.
Perhaps if the emergency services were more cost effective better rates of pay could be looked at
Report abuse
While some of the detail leaves a little to be desired, I agree with the broad notion of non-emergency services being paid for, whether provided by the Fire Service or a private company.
The same after a car crash: presently the highly paid Fire Service or Police can be seen clearing the road of debris, then often there’re bits of glass etc. left at the side of the road for a few days before a road sweeper finishes the job.
Why can’t the towing services that are called out by the Police be tasked with offering a full service to return the road to the state prior to the accident, they can then claim this from the driver’s insurance. Freeing up the emergency services to attend emergencies again, and raising the standard of this element of the process no doubt.
The RNLI isn’t in ‘competition’ with the in-shore rescue, as I understand it they receive only charitable funding; but surely boat owners are required to have insurance (I really don’t know, are they?) why can’t it be made a requirement that should they receive assistance they should pay a sum towards it’s cost?
Report abuse
Good old Jersey!
Soon we will have cash machines in A&E
No money, tough stick them in a corner and leave them to die quietly
Report abuse
Pip Clement#5
“Soon we will have cash machines in A&E”
Are you one of those with their head in the sand who thinks emergency services come free of charge ? (as far as I know only the Honorary police officers do that)
Get real,no one is suggesting the refusal of treatment for non payers, just that if someone has insured them self against the costs of putting right what they have caused,and especialy if it was non life threatening, why the hell should the taxpayer cough up.
Report abuse