If the fire service is funded by taxpayers, is it right to charge users?

Unlike most such documents, Sir George Bain's 160-page report into the working practices and pay of the fire service is full of interesting ideas. The immediate issue is, of course, the question of brass tacks: how much money does he recommend that the firefighters should be paid – and why?

Yesterday's report fleshes out his existing 11 per cent recommendation with far more details of the modernisation of working practices which will, he says, fund such an award. The Fire Brigades' Union has made a strategic blunder in boycotting Sir George's inquiry; the facts and figures are now plain for all to see, destroying the FBU's case that modernisation is merely a euphemism for cuts. Sir George's temperate, thoughtful report lays bare the details of the restrictive practices which the FBU have long protected. The upshot is that the union's 40 per cent claim now seems even more preposterous than it did before, with Sir George outlining the extent of the need for genuine reform of the fire service.

But in the longer term, the most interesting parts of Sir George's report are his proposals that insurance companies should contribute towards the cost of dealing with traffic accidents and that people who raise false alarms should pay for their time wasting.

After an initial burst of hoax callers on the first day of the first firefighters' strike, the number of false alarms soon fell off to a level far below the norm. People took heed of the pleas, it seems, not to waste precious resources. Quite what motivates people, in normal circumstances, to make these hoax calls, is a matter more for the psychiatrists than for an industrial relations expert like Sir George. But it does seem sensible, and just, that those who indulge in such reckless stupidity should pay a price. That actions have consequences is a principle which can usefully be applied in many areas.

Sir George's other idea, that insurance firms should make a contribution to the cost of dealing with traffic accidents, is less straightforward. On one level, it makes perfect sense. Why should the rest of society be forced to pay for the costs of an individual's mistake? On the same principle – that actions have consequences – it makes perfect sense to "charge" the individual, via his or her insurer, for the consequences of his or her actions.

But there is a powerful counter-argument: where do we draw the line? There is already a lobby demanding that smokers be denied treatment on the NHS, or be forced to pay for treatment. Should those of us who choose not to take any exercise be penalised if we have a heart attack? If we ostentatiously display our Rolex watch, should we be held responsible when it is ripped from our wrist?

The idea that society as a whole deals with the consequences of individual actions goes to the heart of the way we choose to structure our society and our public services. Deciding that the NHS will only treat us if we comply with certain rules is a perfectly legitimate course of action; but it means an end to the fundamental idea of the NHS – a healthcare service available to everyone on the basis of need. The same holds with the fire service. As a society, we have chosen to fund our fire service out of tax, for precisely the reason why we do not make extra, specific charges to those who make use of the service: because it is a public service, made available to everyone when they need it.

There are sensible arguments in favour of breaching that principle, but we need to be clear that, if we adopt Sir George's recommendation, this is what we are doing.