Chief fire officers' letter to ministers expresses fear that 'patchwork quilt' of providers will not mobilise effectively
Chief fire officers have privately warned ministers about the risk to their capacity to respond to national crises, such as terrorist attacks or riots, if the government goes ahead with plans to contract out 999 services.
The government wants to allow private companies, mutuals (where profits are shared among workers) and other providers to be able to take on services for local fire authorities, including answering emergency calls. The move will controversially include giving new providers the power to enter homes to put out fires in what some fear is a step towards privatisation of the fire service – a claim strenuously denied by communities secretary Eric Pickles.
Chief fire officers are understood to hold serious concerns. In a letter seen by the Observer, the Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA) points out to ministers that the fire and rescue service is a "core civil protection service" as "evidenced in the recent responses to civil disturbance in 2011 and the terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow in 2005". They question how fragmenting the management of the service would help them to continue to contribute to "national resilience" at times of threat. They also feared private providers would prioritise profit.
Susan Johnson, chief executive at County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service, and a director of the CFOA, told the Observer: "We are part of the critical national resilience infrastructure. We are able to mobilise on a nationwide basis 10,000 firefighters. One of the questions we pose is: if you have a patchwork quilt of supply models, what impact would that have on the country's ability to mobilise all of those assets in a very short period of time? We believe that the emergency-response role of the fire and rescue service should always remain in a public provider service.
"That is not to say some of the support functions can't be provided by the private sector, but that emergency response role – that has to be immediately available and accessible to everyone – should be in the public service domain."
Johnson said that she was concerned that a move to contract out fire services, as being currently pioneered in Cleveland, could risk the reputation of the service as a whole. "We would want to ensure that the trust we have in the fire rescue service is not damaged in any way. The public do hold us in high regard: second to GPs, we are the most trusted public service in the country and we would not want anything to undermine that.
"This is why we have raised all the questions we have – to get a better understanding as to why the policy is being considered and to alert the minister to the issues as we see them."
A spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government said: "The fire and rescue national framework clearly defines national resilience and sets out the roles and responsibilities of fire and rescue authorities. The decision of individual fire authorities to adopt locally led mutuals would do absolutely nothing to change this. The number one priority of every fire and rescue authority is, and will always be, saving lives, and this government will continue to support them in their life-saving role.
"The cross-party communities and local government select committee recently called on the government to do more to help support the development of mutuals and co-operatives in local government."