Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Feb 2001

Vol. 165 No. 3

Fire Service: Motion.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann, due to the shortage of applicants for positions in the fire service, calls on the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to review the retirement age for fire service employees.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Teach seo. This is an important motion. Due to the shortage of applicants for positions in the fire service, we are calling on the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to consider increasing the retirement age for fire service employees with a view to ensuring a fair and equitable system.

The publicity surrounding the anniversary of the Stardust tragedy highlights the dangers posed by fire and the fact that, in many instances, the public is dependent on the quality of the fire service. It brings home to us the courage and commitment of the many people who have given tremendous service over many decades to fire prevention and alleviating the difficulties caused by fire. It is appropriate that we take this opportunity to pay tribute to those who have dedicated themselves to the fire service over many years.

The labour shortage presents the biggest challenge to the economy. It is significant that in one decade we have witnessed a transformation from a situation where there was an oversupply of labour, with serious unemployment, to one where many sectors of industry are encountering difficulties in recruitment. Various efforts have been made to address these difficulties, some of which have successful. Others have not been as effective. The need to fill vacant positions in the public and private sectors will continue to present a significant challenge to the economy in the next decade.

During the years there were changes in the fire service, which may have reflected the labour shortage, to lower the age of retirement. In many ways ageism became a factor during an era of high unemployment when efforts were made to encourage employees in the public and private sectors to retire early in order to create opportunities for younger persons who found themselves without work. While there was some logic to this, there has been no adjustment in thinking to take account of changing economic circumstances. There is a need to do this in many areas.

There is evidence from the medical profession to suggest that people will live longer because of improvements in health care. It may be difficult for us to appreciate, but the suggestion is that in the next 100 years people may live to the age of 150 years. This highlights the need for a radical look at the age of retirement. Where a person is in a position to continue working and remain productive, it is difficult to see how one can sustain, economically, a situation where those who will retire at the age of 65 years will live to the age of 100 years or more. That is a challenge which will have to be looked at by future generations.

At a time when there are considerable opportunities to work full time and of unprecedented mobility in the workforce, with companies competing for staff by offering higher salaries and full-time jobs, it behoves us to look at the areas in the public sector in which this is having an adverse effect. Because of its nature, the fire service is one such area. While there are full-time firemen, there are also part-time services, which form the backbone of the service in rural areas. It does not seem logical, therefore, that firemen with many years' experience and who are fit, medically, to continue should be forced out of their positions at the age of 55 years. While the motion calls on the Minister to review the age of retirement, it does not seek to set an age limit, but it seems reasonable and logical that firemen should be in a position to continue working up to the age of 60 years at least. Persons of that age are normally of good health and would be well able to perform the duties of firemen effectively.

It is worth looking at the situation in other European fire services. In Holland, for example, the fire service has increased the retirement age from 55 to 60 years. Other countries, including Britain, are considering doing likewise. It is, therefore, a matter we should address. We are calling on the Minister to look seriously at it in a review of the fire service.

The amendment raises an issue regarding the remuneration of firemen. I am not convinced that this is an issue upon which rates of pay will have great influence. In Wexford, there is a low ratio of firemen to population because of the structure of the service, which is both good and effective. As a result, firemen are reasonably well paid. Retained firemen earn about £12,000 a year, slightly below the average industrial wage. We have found that advertising in the current climate has not been productive in getting new recruits.

Other issues have an influence. Those involved in the fire service and in county councils are well aware that many are not prepared to offer the commitment needed from a fireman, who must be available seven hours a day, 365 days a year. It is one of the areas, such as politics, where one must be available around the clock. A quality of life issue is involved which should be examined. Provision has not been made for normal scheduled holidays for those involved in many of the retained fire services because of the nature of their work. This is an issue which needs to be examined.

On rates of pay, it may involve moving from a retained to a full-time service. I am not sure that would be necessary and it would definitely be more expensive compared with the current system. Given the nature of the job and the fact that, in the main, the service is satisfactory, it be should examined to ascertain how adjustments can be made and it can be trimmed to suit the needs of the new economy. Perhaps the way forward is to continue with retained fire services, but to build into the system sufficient time off and curtailment of the necessity for firemen to be available at all times, including Christmas Day, St. Stephen's Day, St. Patrick's Day and Easter. There is great emphasis on quality of life issues and such curtailment would have a great impact on the quality of life of those involved.

Another issue may be important. While there is scope for promotion within the fire service, perhaps it is not as open as it should be in what is a vibrant and competitive area of the economy. In the early 1970s, the McKinsey report stated that there should be access to promotion in all areas up to and including the position of chief fire officer. Qualifications were added subsequently. In order to qualify as a chief fire officer one must have a degree in engineering. Most chief fire officers are engineers or architects. On examining the requirements of the job, however, it appears that being an engineer or architect does not give one a greater feel for the job, greater experience or capacity to do it better than someone with ten, 20 or 25 years' service, who has come up through the ranks, the attaching additional responsibilities, who manages staff and tackles problems within the service. That is an area which should be examined because opening up career opportunities within the retained fire service will be an attraction when it comes to recruitment to the service.

There is greater emphasis on training within the service, for which certain moneys have been set aside. That should continue. Focusing on training and improving the skills of staff while drawing on their commitment to the service are the key to avoiding a dearth of staff within the service. I have been informed by the Leader of the House that Moate fire station had to close because of the failure to attract recruits to the service. This could happen in other places. The motivation behind the motion is to focus attention on the issue. While it is being examined by the Minister and his Department, the motion allows us to have an input in ensuring the quality of the fire service, which has been a tremendous success and of tremendous value during the years. I commend the motion to the House.

I never thought I would see the day when there would be a shortage of staff in any service, but, to my amazement, there is such a shortage in the fire service. It was the case of Moate fire station which brought the issue to light and it will be one of many. We must try to rectify the matter immediately before it gets seriously out of hand. For as long as I have been a local authority member I have fought continuously to have the fire service upgraded and have a service provided in every town and village in my county. I am sure the same is true of other councils. It is a sad day if recruits cannot be found for this service, which is vital to the viability of communities. It has proved to be effective and done tremendous work for which I compliment all firemen.

It is nonsensical to state that firemen must retire at the age of 55 years. That is taking matters too far. Those who have spent 20 to 25 years in the fire service and who have gained vast experience must retire at the age of 55 years even if they are fit and healthy. Perhaps they could undergo an annual medical screening. There would be nothing wrong with that. It might be better, therefore, if the retirement age was raised to 60 years.

The fire service has provided a service on a 24 hour basis for the public since the early 1940s. It is voluntary in many places. This impacts on the social life of those involved because they can be called out at any time. In my village in County Kerry the fire brigade was called out recently at 4 a.m. If we did not have a local fire brigade, the consequences could have been serious. The house was burned down and the family concerned was assisted to escape by the back route. Those involved in the fire service can be called out at any time, including Christmas Day, New Year's Day or on the day an All-Ireland is being played. They must be available constantly.

When an experienced fireman leaves the service and efforts are made to replace him, a young person may join and be trained at a cost of £5,000 or £6,000. However, this person may leave after two or three years having been trained with taxpayer's money. That is unsatisfactory and akin to a revolving door system.

The lowering of the retirement age was requested by the trade unions. A letter from the Department of the Environment and Local Government, dated 20 December 1985, which concerned retirement gratuities for part-time fire services stated:

I am directed by the Minister for the Environment to refer to Labour Court Recommendation No. 9605 of 12 March, 1985, which recommended acceptance of a revised scheme of retirement gratuities which are already being offered to part-time fire service personnel.

The recommendation has been accepted by the Local Government Staff Negotiations Board on behalf of each county and city manager but not by the group of unions representing the personnel concerned. In discussions and correspondence subsequent to the Labour Court recommendation, the Board indicated the intention of each manager to introduce a retirement age of 55 years and a compulsory annual medical examination.

That may have been acceptable in 1985 but now, in 2001, we cannot get recruits anywhere in the country. The situation is out of hand and quite serious. The retirement age for senior officers such as chief fire officer etc. is set at 65 years of age while those performing the donkey work must retire on reaching 55 years of age. That is wrong. We need to take another look at that situation. In 1971 the Government commissioned McKinsey to compile a report identifying the problems being experienced in the fire services. That report was published in 1975.

Fire service officers are frustrated by the lack of opportunities available to those at ground level. A person working in the Garda can work his way to the top of the force and become Garda Commissioner, yet fire officers can only attain the level of station officer having spent years working at ground level. The position of chief fire officer is held by those holding a degree in architecture or engineering even though such people may have no experience of fire fighting. In the UK, which has a population of millions of people, the chief fire officer is usually a person who has worked his way up from ground level. We need to re-examine the structure of the fire services and introduce incentives to attract young people back into it. We could do so by making it possible for a person having worked at ground level for many years to attain the position of chief fire officer. It is logical to do so.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this motion. We must put out this fire and change the current retirement age for people in the fire services from 55 years of age to at least 60 years of age.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to examine the remuneration scales of both full time and voluntary fire service employees with a view to making employments in the service attractive to possible applicants."

The first thing that strikes me is that we are debating this motion on the 20th anniversary of the Stardust disaster yet the recommendations made the following year have not been implemented. That is a sad reflection on all of us. It is worthwhile remembering that sad tragic occasion as we open this debate.

To avoid confusion, the amendment was not intended to subjugate the Leader's recommendation, it was intended to run parallel with it. The idea behind it is two-fold. One of the difficulties being experienced by the fire services is in the area of recruitment, even to the voluntary sector. I asked the chief fire officer in Galway how many unemployed people there might be suitable for the position of fire officer and he came up with only one. The reason he gave was very straightforward; it is not worth their while financially. Any benefits they might accrue from the income would lose them money in social welfare benefits, etc. The position holds no attraction for such people. It was from that perspective I decided to look at this issue further.

Having worked as a fireman in the voluntary sector for some years, while salary scales have increased they remain too low. I know of the dangers in which people can find themselves. One may be called out to deal with a small chimney fire, but you do not know how serious the fire will be, nor do you know if you will come home. If you are asking people to put their lives on the line to save others, you must be willing to pay them well.

The Minister could do two things. He could ensure that retention money paid to voluntary firemen is exempt from taxation. That would make employment in the fire services much more attractive. He could also look again at the age at which such people must retire, which is the main thrust of the Government motion. I discussed this issue with the chief fire officer who, obviously, had to reflect the view of the establishment. He pointed out that if one is fighting a fire and using breathing apparatus equipment while operating a buddy-buddy system, that person must be able to perform his function, and a person of 65 years of age may not be able to do so as obviously he will not be as strong as he was in his thirties. The point seemed valid until I started thinking about it. Obviously opportunities exist in the fire services for people over 55 years of age which do not necessarily require them to use such equipment or to climb 100 foot ladders.

A number of people representing fire fighters raised the issue of including a requirement that people undergo an annual medical examination. If the person is found to be fit and capable, he should be allowed to continue his job. That is very reasonable.

During my time serving in the voluntary fire service in Galway I recall a number of people reaching senior levels. That is no longer possible because of the current structures. Let us talk about this issue. It may be the most important issue we deal with tonight. It is true that people can work their way to the top in many jobs – the position in the Garda was referred to earlier. The directors of institutes of technology are not necessarily people who had to qualify in areas of administration, etc. They can also rise to the top having attained a degree. Why can that not be the case in the fire services? I was thinking of a structure which would enable this to happen.

The institutes of technology are ideally suited for this purpose. They give certification, diplomas and degrees. It is possible, if somebody in the fire services wishes to advance his career, for him to attend such an institute and gain a degree – there is great flexibility in creating such courses. There are courses in engineering, construction and civil engineering, administration, communication and leadership skills and personnel skills. There are courses covering all the skills required to become a senior officer in the fire services. The institutes could put together a package that would suit these people. They could start with a two year course, leading to a national certificate, and if the person wanted to advance he or she could study for a diploma or degree which would qualify them for employment at senior level. It is not difficult and it is practical and possible. The limit on the retirement age means the experience acquired throughout the years can be wasted. It is only through working on the ground that one learns how these matters operate.

Regarding the Stardust tribunal report, we have all failed when it comes to that report's recommendations. The report stated that the Irish system was unique among those studied by the tribunal in that it combined the worst of both the single tier, graded advancement system and the two tier system. It made recommendations to the national training centre which it should be possible to implement.

The increased costs of fire services is such a burden on local authorities that it is becoming almost impossible to run them. The cost in Dublin increased from £48 million to £53 million in one year and although it receives some subvention from the Department of the Environment and Local Government it cannot sustain those costs. Other large cities also face this problem. The Minister will have to review both the revenue and capital costs of fire stations with a view to paying the sums involved. Otherwise, local authorities will not be able to continue to give the level of service they have given in the past.

I second the amendment. We welcome the Government motion both for the specific issue it raises and because it allows us to discuss other matters. It is fitting to recall the Stardust disaster in which so many people lost their lives. The old footage was shown on television over the past few years and one could see the great work done by fire-fighters and the ambulance crews which backed them up. The loss of life would have been even greater were it not for the brave actions of those fire-fighters.

It is important to remember that any time a fire engine is called out, be it for a hoax call, chimney fire, bonfire or a major fire, there is the potential that some fire-fighters may not come back. I have witnessed that in the Dún Laoghaire fire service from time to time and it behoves all of us, particularly those of us who are members of local authorities, to remember the great work and commitment of fire-fighters down the years. We hope we do not meet fire-fighters too often, apart from on social occasions, because meeting them usually means a problem of some sort, be it flooding, fire or accident. There is always a problem when the fire-fighters are called out and they have to solve it. We should give them whatever support we can.

Experience has been mentioned by previous speakers and no matter what training fire-fighters get or manuals they are given, they are dealing with the unknown . There are certain drills but there may also be unexpected problems. One of their colleagues may get into trouble and when this happens the experience factor should not be underestimated. It is often said that one has to be in politics for several years, through ups and downs, to learn about it and one should bear the same lesson in mind regarding the fire service.

Fire-fighters' hours can be unsocial and they spend their time waiting for something they hope will not happen. They may wait days and then a disaster may occur, whereupon they must be capable of peak performance. Recently we in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown council saw statistics about understaffed departments and although we are all aware there are planning departments and so on around the country which are short of administrative staff, there should be no cost-cutting or cutbacks in fire-fighting. If there is a delay in filling a pothole, with luck someone will not die as a result, but fire-fighters should not be short-staffed or feel that their role is not taken seriously. I appeal to the Minister of State to give us an assurance on this matter.

I heard a fire officer say recently in an interview that accidents are waiting to happen in Dublin, as some places are not inspected and practices are not reviewed regularly enough. If fire officers in some areas were totally vigilant they would cut room sizes in certain buildings by a quarter or a half as there is much overcrowding. There were reports and recommendations after the Stardust disaster but this issue has probably not been taken seriously enough by the Department and successive Ministers. There have been other fires since, such as the Whiddy disaster and a recent tragedy in Bray, but unfortunately our attitude seems to be the same as that which applies to road accidents, that a certain number is inevitable. However, a lot of fires could be prevented and if posts are demanded in certain areas, money should be found in the Department for them. We all have our pet projects but there should be no equivocation or tightening of the purse strings in this regard.

I support the holding of this debate. I am delighted Members on this side will not press a vote on it, as I am sure the terms of our amendment are supported by the Members opposite, in the same way as we support the thrust of the motion. A debate on a subject such as this, which at times probably does not get the airing it deserves, is very useful. I hope the Minister will respond positively to the debate.

Before dealing with the issues raised in the motion and the amendment before the Seanad, I am conscious of the fact that today is the 20th anniversary of the Stardust fire tragedy and it is particularly fitting on this day to remember in a special way the 48 young people who died in that disaster.

I thank Senators for tabling the motion and affording me the opportunity to contribute to the debate and to express my appreciation and that of the Minister for the great job our fire-fighters do and the service they provide to the people of Ireland.

When I spoke at a presentation of long service awards to members of the fire service last November, I pointed out that over the past two decades, the role of the fire service has had to change and evolve to meet the changing needs of modern society. Fire-fighters have adapted to those changes and they are now capable of responding effectively to all manner of calls. Fire brigades are now dealing routinely with a diverse range of non-fire emergencies such as road traffic accidents, incidents involving hazardous materials, flooding and rescues. Given this changing role and that the fire authorities respond to almost 120,000 calls a year, including more than 70,000 ambulance calls, a modern, well-equipped fire service is essential to the community.

Since 1980 more than £110 million has been invested by the State in the fire service capital programme. That has enabled about 115 fire stations to be built or refurbished, more than 400 fire appliances as well as other emergency and rescue equipment to be purchased and the nationwide computer-aided mobilisation project to be implemented. This year, another £15 million, the highest on record, is being allocated to the fire service capital programme.

There has also been a very significant investment in training. Since it was established in 1983, the Fire Services Council has provided more than 200 courses for more than 4,000 fire service personnel. Those courses are continually being reviewed and updated to take account of the developing needs of the fire service.

The Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, announced a strategic review of the fire service just over two weeks ago. In making that announcement, he said that notwithstanding the many positive developments in the fire service over the past 20 to 25 years – to many of which I adverted – many factors pointed to the need for a strategic review at this time. Those included the changing role of the service, the changing economic and social circumstances in which the service operates, resulting in recruitment and retention difficulties, particularly in the retained service, and other factors such as the changing agenda in the public service.

The overriding objective of this review, which will be carried out by independent consultants, will be to examine and report on the arrangement to ensure that people, property and the environment are protected from fire and other emergencies, by the provision of quality fire safety and emergency services. The consultants' report will help inform the development of policy for the future direction of the service. Proposals for the carrying out of the review will be sought shortly. All those who have an interest in this area are urged to make their views known when the consultants commence their task. This review, which will clearly include the issue of recruitment and retention difficulties, is a correct way to inform the development of policy for the future direction of the fire service.

There are two issues raised in this debate, pay and retirement age. The pay of the full-time and retained fire service has been determined in general by successive national agreements. The retained service has a pay relationship with local authority craftworkers while the full-time service has a pay relationship with the Garda Síochána. Arising from the revisions in the pay of the Garda Síochána, the pay of full-time fire fighters in Dublin has recently been adjusted and negotiations are ongoing with representatives of the other full-time brigades.

As recently as 1999, the remuneration structure of the retained fire service has been the subject of an independent review by a rights commissioner, Janet Hughes. Arising from that review, which was accepted by local authority management and the unions, the annual retainer and the hourly attendance rates have been significantly increased. Those increases should result in an increase in applications for positions in the retained fire service.

The public service pay agreement associated with the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness provided for the establishment of the public service benchmarking body which is now up and running. That body will deal with full-time fire-fighters.

The benchmarking of the retained fire service will be carried out separately in a parallel exercise to the work of the public service benchmarking body. This exercise will be carried out by a joint working group representing employers and unions under an independent chairperson nominated by the Labour Relations Commission. This working group will examine the existing grading and pay-reward structure, including roles, duties, responsibilities, conditions of employment, etc., and will present its report to an independent expert appointed by the benchmarking body. The independent expert will analyse the results of the study and submit a report to the working group. The report will then be discussed by the working group with a view to agreeing appropriate changes in the existing grading structure, pay-reward structure, work practices etc. In the event of the joint working group failing to reach agreement at any stage in the process, the issues involved will be referred to the Labour Court for resolution. The first meeting of the joint working group has recently taken place.

It was accepted in the context of the agreement between the parties on the establishment of the public service benchmarking body that any outstanding claims or commitments in relation to pay, analogue or other reviews, in whatever form, by or in respect of any grade, group or category, would be subsumed within the benchmarking exercise and would be dealt with solely in that context. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate to embark now on a separate exercise such as is envisaged in the amendment before the Seanad.

As regards retirement age, the 55 year age limit was introduced because of health and safety considerations related to the job. It is important, too, to realise that since the enactment of the Health, Safety and Welfare at Work Act, 1989, each fire authority, as an employer, has a statutory duty to avoid placing employees at risk.

It is important to understand that the fire service is a front line emergency service. Of its nature, fire-fighters' work is dangerous. It is also physically demanding and it is essential that fire-fighters are capable of safely and efficiently undertaking the tasks they are required to perform. This is in the interest of the fire-fighters, their colleagues, the authorities who employ them and the public whom they serve.

International research indicates that the retirement age of 55 is the optimum age to ensure that fire-fighters are capable of satisfactorily performing the tasks expected of them. The compulsory age of retirement has been reviewed in light of the strenuous nature of fire fighters' duties, the possibilities of persons of a particular age achieving the physical capabilities required and the risks involved in undertaking such work. In light of the foregoing it would be very difficult to justify a change in the current arrangements.

Prior to 1985, various fire authorities operated different retirement ages, with some applying age 55 since the 1960s. In 1985, compulsory retirement at 55 years of age for retained fire service personnel was introduced at national level as a result of a lengthy negotiation process engaged in by the local government staff negotiations board representing local authority managers and the trade unions representing the retained fire fighters. This national measure came about following Labour Court Recommendation 9605 of 12 March 1985, which recommended the phasing in, over a two year period, of compulsory retirement at age 55 and a scheme of retirement gratuities.

It is important to record that in the arguments put before the Labour Court the unions did not object to the introduction of compulsory retire ment at 55 years of age for part-time firemen – the issue which brought the matter to the Labour Court was dissatisfaction with the retirement gratuity scheme. In their submission to the court, the unions recognised that the demands of fire-fighting, even then, had changed dramatically over the previous two decades as the physical demands were greater than up to then and they acknowledged that it was in the interests of the community that the retirement age be lowered. It is also significant that, since 1985, there have been no demands from the unions for any change in the retirement age of 55. In this context, too, the final report of the Commission on Public Service Pensions, which was published recently, recommended that new entrant fire-fighters should continue to be subject to a retirement age of 44.

I thank all the Senators who contributed to this debate. It is clear there is widespread understanding of the important role the fire service plays in the lives of our communities and concern for the well-being of the service.

I am glad mention was made of the Stardust tragedy – Senator Coogan referred to it first. The debate should be seen in that context. First, I call on the Minister of State to fully implement the Stardust report. That has not been done yet and the Minister of State talked about another report in his contribution. I propose to put on record the number of reports that have been created over the past 30 years whose full implementation is still awaited by the fire service and the public.

Second, I express my sympathy to the victims of the Stardust tragedy, particularly those who survived because they have been traumatised and many of them feel guilty. I pay tribute to the wonderful work of the fire service and acknowledge the presence in the public gallery of distinguished members of the service. Every major city has fires. This week there was a major fire in Lillie's Bordello and thankfully nobody was injured.

In the 18th century householders invested in private commercial fire brigade services. If there was a fire, the firemen came out and checked whether there was a little lead spud on the wall. If one had not paid, they would let the house burn down. Thankfully, we now have a decent, courageous and fully professional fire service equipped to deal with the complications of modern life such as chemical spills, chemical explosions and appalling tragedies on the roads in which sometimes cars burst into flames.

It is appropriate that we pay tribute to the fire service. I am extremely glad that Fine Gael has accepted that the motion will not be put to a vote. It would not be the right way to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Stardust tragedy or to pay tribute to the fire people. The recommendations of both sides of the House should be taken on board. I see no huge difficulty with that.

I have a university degree. My cousin, Horace Reginald Harold Sharpe, who was chief fire officer of County Wicklow until his death, had a degree in engineering. I do not think that is necessary and, in a situation where one must think on one's feet as one is ultimately dealing with an absolutely practical situation, nothing replaces experience. Experience should be rewarded and we should not have this apartheid – every report since 1970 has referred to this. Let us have action instead of pious platitudes.

To retire at 55 is a joke. The Minister of State did not retire at 55. I am 55 this year and I have no intention of retiring. Earlier Joe Duffy was discussing ageism. We have sexism, racism and ageism. If people are not capable of doing the job let them have a medical check up. In France the Department responsible tried to make fire-fighters continue until they were 65 whereas they were required to retire at 60. The firemen protested because they wanted to enjoy themselves and not be stuck in that situation.

The most frustrating scenario for firemen in Ireland is the lack of opportunity for people at ground level to advance. This is completely different from the situation in Britain. For example, it is possible in the London fire brigade service, which covers ten million people if greater London is included, twice the population of this island, to advance to the position of chief fire officer without a university degree.

The second principal recommendation of the McKinsey report in 1971 was that opportunities should be created for promotions to chief fire officer from within the service. It stated that current staff shortages can be attributed in part to poor career prospects, and a programme should therefore be established to enable firemen with suitable ability to develop the necessary administrative and technical skills. Does the Minister of State still think another report is needed to confirm this conclusion?

A working party was established in 1972 on foot of the report. It reported in 1975 and its summary recommendations were:

A new technological qualification should be devised for senior grades. The F.S.C. should advise on the appropriate qualification, and how best it might be provided for within the third level educational system.

Appointees to the Senior Grades should have a Fire Service Background.

Appropriate technical qualifications should be devised for middle grades of S.O., Sub O., and related ranks.

Entry to the Fire Service should be on the basis of a single tier entry system at Firemen level.

No progress was made on foot of this report, so what is the point of a report?

We then walked straight into the Stardust tragedy and the report of the tribunal in 1982. Its recommendations were:

The Staff of the Fire Prevention Department should be increased immediately to the number which, in the opinion of the Chief Fire Officer, is the minimum necessary to deal with its responsibilities.

(2) Structure.

The morale and efficiency of the Dublin Fire Brigade has been at a disturbingly low level for a number of years. The Tribunal considers that, with a view to raising the morale and efficiency of the Brigade generally, certain major changes in its staff structures should be made.

That leads to the point ably made by Senator Coogan regarding the two tier system and its application in Ireland. The tribunal report stated:

The system of recruitment to fire brigades differs from country to country: in some cases, there is what is called a "two-tier" structure, in other cases a "one-tier" structure. Where a two-tier structure is employed, posts above a certain level are filled either by promotion from the ranks of firemen and inwards or by the appointment to the posts of persons with university degrees or equivalent qualifications. Where a one-tier structure is employed, all posts up to the highest ranks are filled by promotion from the lower ranks; and this normally means that the posts at the highest levels are not filled by persons with university degrees or equivalent qualifications. The advantage of the two-tier structure is that it ensures that members of the fire brigades at the appropriate levels have the necessary specialised knowledge of fire safety engineering which can only be derived from attendance at university courses or their equivalent. The advantage of the one structure is that it ensures that all posts in the fire service up to the highest level are filled by persons who have a wide practical experience of all aspects of fire fighting. The Irish system is unique. in combining the worst features of both systems.

For this reason it needs to be examined. We have been promised the establishment and maintenance of a national training centre and we should hear more about that. In 1982 the engineer's working party report was published, which stated there should be further discussion on education. In 1998 the Report on Findings and Recommendations of the Review Team was published. It stated:

We recommend that access to career opportunities should be explored. In particular, we recommend that ways of equipping fire brigade staff to meet the qualification requirements of Chief Fire Officer and Assistant Chief Fire Officer be examined. We also recommend that the scholarship scheme already agreed be communicated and encouraged to the brigade. Furthermore, with the expansion in the range of third level qualifications now available we recommend that the recognition of "Equivalent Qualifications" to those currently specified for those levels should be explored.

The current degree qualifications recognised by the Minister for the post of chief fire officer, bachelor of engineering or bachelor of architecture, are not the only appropriate qualifications. Areas such as personnel management, command and control, health, safety and welfare at work, knowledge of appliances, budgets and the myriad details needed to manage a full-time emergency service which sometimes only comes from experience are not covered.

While it is agreed that a degree qualification is a requirement for the post of chief fire officer, it does not follow that that same level of education should also be required for the rank immediately beneath the chief or the ranks below that. I thank the Minister of State for his attendance. I believe he will take on board the unusual degree of co-operation between the different groupings in the House. If we must have a report, let us know when it will be published and let its recommendations be implemented immediately.

In a short time I put together a list of reports covering the past 30 years which have still not been implemented. If we really feel as we should about the situation and the tragedy of Stardust, the best memorial we can give to those people is to implement in full the recommendations of these reports and in particular those of the Stardust inquiry.

I thank the Minister for coming in to take this debate and also Mr. O'Connor and his colleagues from the fire-fighting service. His father served as a distinguished Member of the Oireachtas for 21 years and also in the European Parliament.

I support the call for retained firemen to be left in their positions until at least 60 years of age. I am concerned at the Minister's reply that the local government staff negotiations board, representing local authority managers, and the trade unions representing the retained fire-fighters, made this decision on 12 March 1985. We know what was happening at that time. We had massive emigration aptly described as the "flight of the earls" by Liam Reilly. There are totally changed circumstances now. We are told the full complement of the retained fire-fighting service is 2,220. At present the numbers are 1,860. That leaves 360 vacancies. I do not say there is a crisis in the service but there is an alarming problem emerging.

The Irish Times of 18 January shows that Moate, in County Westmeath, is to lose its fire-fighting service. Moate, like Castlepollard, Mullingar, Kilbeggan and Athlone, has had a fire service since around 1946. I come from a family very much associated with the fire service. Since 1946 there has been a continuous link to my family. The fireman going to bed each night has to organise things so that in the event of a call he can be at the station within three minutes. I do not need to mention the unsocial hours. If he wants to attend church or a sporting event his wife must be beside the phone or the bleeper must be on. Such people provided Ireland with a spectacular service. There was very little monetary reward for what they were doing. They were an emergency service putting their lives on the line every time there was a call-out. I have personal experience of occasions when horrific accidents or house fires occurred. People have lost their lives and it is the firemen who have had to face this. The remuneration for the service that these men and women provide, above and beyond the call of duty, is inadequate.

The retained fire service has a station officer, the most experienced person the fire service has. What is being proposed, in a time of crisis when men and women cannot be recruited to join these services, is that senior people retire at 55. Senior personnel do not have to go out on emergencies but they have to make decisions on what has to be done. We should recognise their experience. If the Minister is to bring in another report he should at least keep those senior people in place until the report is published. We intend to go further with this matter.

Last year I said that waste management would be the single biggest issue facing local authorities. I can see now that this emergency service will be another major problem for all local authorities. The population of Moate is 3,000 and we cannot get eight people to serve in the local fire brigade. Unemployment is down to 4% overall and down to 1.2% of those able to work. It is plain that there is a crisis. I also understand that SIPTU representatives and managers have no objection to the age limit being extended.

I agree with Senator Coogan that the retention money these fire people get for attending their parades should be tax free, as it was in the past. They are an emergency service on call 24 hours a day. Every Member of the House is in full agreement that the men and women in the retained fire service should be listened to. They have never before come in highlighting their problems and risks but now come to us as Oireachtas representatives and as local authority members. At the general council of county councils' conference in Castlebar and at the local conference of urban councils and town commissions this was a topic they wanted addressed by us as Members of the Oireachtas. We are the direct elected representatives of the county councillors and their voice in the Oireachtas.

If 60 years of age cannot be accepted, surely the age limit should be extended to at least 57 if it is going to take a year for this report to be looked into by the consultants. The age limits for station officers should be extended to 60 immediately because there is no difficult manual work expected of those in such positions. The circumstances of 1985 have changed over the last 15 years.

I come from the second biggest city in the Republic. The Minister is very aware of how we feel about our fire service. There are particular problems from a costing point of view. In 1999 it cost us £6.6 million in the city of Cork. The county contributes £400,000 of that. In 2001 it will cost £8.3 million, an increase of over £2 million. It is the biggest expenditure in the city apart from capital expenditure on housing and roads.

I do not know how towns are holding on to people to do this work. In 1985, jobs were needed for younger people and older people were let go. Now we are getting rid of experienced people. An amendment is needed to give employees the option of retirement at 55 or not later than 57 years, if they so wish.

The bigger urban areas have full-time employees in the fire service. I am worried about smaller towns where people are no longer prepared to work in the fire service. The small remuneration they receive is taxed, which is most unfair. What will happen in the future?

The city of Cork is paying over £8.3 million a year for the fire service and the county is paying only £440,000. The city is the smallest part of the whole county but the city takes the responsibility. Heavy industry is situated in the Cork Harbour area and there have been serious fires in Irish Steel and in a pharmaceutical factory. It is the city which provides the fire services, even though the harbour is in the county area. The Department of the Environment and Local Government makes contributions to the Dublin region for fire services but not to the Cork region. I wish that to be noted. If a certain group of people are asked to pay all the costs and others pay nothing, it could be detrimental to the fire services and this cannot be allowed.

The Stardust fire tragedy happened 20 years ago and it is still upsetting to think of the loss of young life. The fire regulations are better than they were then. The relevant authorities have made great improvements and they are to be congratulated for that. Anyone in business today knows that the fire regulations must be implemented. At least today there is protection in the form of fire doors in corridors, higher standards in house building, and the fire officers strictly enforce the regulations. We are proud of our fire service in Cork.

I am worried that people will not be interested in working in the fire service on a voluntary and part-time basis. The proposal that the earnings of part-time fire service workers should be taxed is most unfair. These workers are on call at all times.

I refer to Senator Cassidy's point about using older experienced personnel. They can train the younger people and they should not be put aside at the age of 55, 57 or even 65 years. Senator Norris mentioned the practice in France where older workers are used to train their juniors.

I support the motion. I am pleased to welcome members of the Retained Fire-Fighters' Association who are in the House. They came at their own expense and this shows the interest they have in this important topic. Local authorities have very important responsibilities and this one is about life and death. This House should give it serious attention this evening. I note that both sides of the House are in agreement.

The playing pitch must be levelled. Junior officers are obliged to retire at 55 years of age and senior officers do not retire until 65 years of age. This can be very demoralising. A career in fire fighting is a vocation. Even in poor working conditions with poor remuneration, fire-fighters stick at the job. They do not wish to retire at 55 years of age because they are totally dedicated to providing a much-needed service, for which they are to be commended. This House should ask the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to ensure these workers have an opportunity to remain in employment until at least 57 and have an option to continue until 65 years of age. I agree that a medical examination would be necessary but there is a role for older employees in the fire service.

I refer to the lack of incentive for retained fire-fighters to compete for promotion within the fire service. I would like to see opportunities for those coming up through the ranks to compete for the position of chief fire officer against those who have professional qualifications. Some of the best and most famous people in this country have come up through the ranks – the Garda has been mentioned and I could mention many other people in the public sector and the private sector. They may not be highly educated or have numerous degrees, but they are outstanding leaders. They are experienced and know what it takes on the ground, which means that they can control and run a good service. This applies to the fire service.

Senator Cassidy mentioned that we do not have the full complement of 2,200 retained fire-fighters. Some 340 extra people are needed, which is quite a lot when one considers that seven or eight people can make up a fire service in an area. It is also a number which will increase. I understand the Minister of State's point that the figure was reached in consultation with the trade unions in the 1980s when there was an employment problem, which we no longer have. It was sensible at that time to create more jobs and to get more people into the workforce. Thankfully, we have reached full employment. Young people will not take up positions such as fire-fighters because they do not consider it worthwhile for the remuneration involved. They are not prepared to sacrifice their social life, as is their entitlement. Those who are prepared to make such a sacrifice should not be neglected.

The Minister recently informed local authorities of his intention to refurbish and develop stations and replace vehicles. Although welcome, I wonder if we will have the people to work with this new equipment. It is important that those over the age of 55 are retained. They want to stay because they are dedicated people with a vocation. Many years ago, the fire service was only used in the event of a fire, but fire-fighters are now involved on a daily basis in dealing with carnage on our roads, as we discussed this morning. It is an appalling problem which is getting worse. It results in severe trauma for fire-fighters, who have to come back to their station to be debriefed. Their colleagues in the past did not have to deal with chemicals and so on but mainly with chimney fires and house fires. They are to be complimented for the diligent manner in which they carry out their duties.

Mention has been made of the Stardust tragedy, which should not have happened. There was a fire in Drumcollogher in 1926 when 48 people died, as in the Stardust. Lessons had not been learnt, but we must learn them now if we wish to avoid another tragedy. Today's Irish Independent reports the fear of overcrowding expressed by many fire officers. Many nightclubs are overcrowded because as many people as possible are packed in. Rural areas do not have a lot of venues, so everybody wants to get in. A fire officer is entitled to close down a nightclub and count the people as they exit. A subsequent prosecution will take many months, which causes problems. We encourage people to be aware of fire prevention.

I support this wise motion, which comes at an opportune time. It is getting the support of all Members of the House. Senator Norris has quoted many reports which recommended new systems of recruitment into, and promotion within, the fire services. Reports are a dead loss, we need action. People over the age of 55 should be allowed to continue to serve.

When I was 17 years of age, I joined the local part-time fire service in Dingle. On Sunday afternoons, I went from Dingle back to An Fheothanach with Pat Brosnan, Tadhg Lynch and others who gave their time week after week, month after month, year after year to provide emergency cover at the far end of the Dingle peninsula. I did not spend any great time in or make any great commitment to the area. A few months later, I went to college which brought an end to my brief period in the fire service. I know the reality of what these people have done and the commitment they have given.

Society does not invest in what Maureen Gaffney calls "social capital". Senator Cregan spoke of people having other lives and not having much spare time anymore. Society needs to recognise the contribution made by people in their communities, above and beyond what is demanded of them. We should celebrate and welcome voluntary services, which provide the social fabric of Irish life. We should increase rather than cut back on the fire service.

As well as being a part-time member of the fire service, I was and still am a member of the Public Services Pensions Commission, which produced the report that the Minister of State quoted in his last two paragraphs. Although I do not believe that he misled the House, I believe that part of the speech was drafted incorrectly. For example, it stated that the public services commission final report which was published recently recommended that the new entrant fire-fighters should continue to be required to retire at the age of 55. Although well written and correct, the speech gave the wrong impression of why such a recommendation was made. It was made because there had been a proposal to increase the age to 60 years of age. It was the view of the Public Services Pensions Commission that that was not necessary and it should not happen. The retirement age was retained at 55 even though there was a proposal to increase it to 60. A wrong impression was given. I took part in discussions with SIPTU on the permanent fire service, which is a different issue. Those who came to the decision did not intend it to apply to the part-time fire service. I want to make that clear for the record. I should also say that the Minister made that statement in good faith.

Today's edition of The Guardian said “The Government [the British Government – maybe we should not have let it go] will today announce a working group to iron out the details of the law which will ban compulsory retirement at any age”. The reason it is doing so is that employment, in Ireland as well as Britain, is so low. Society is plagued by ageism. There is a view that people should have to retire. I have argued within my own teachers' union that there should not be a retirement age. People should be allowed work as long as they are ready, able and willing. In 1981, I similarly argued that one could not say whether a four year old child was or was not ready for school because of their age. There must be a readiness.

Similarly, a teacher should not have to retire at 55 years of age. The pensions commission, of which I am a member, has recommended a compulsory retirement age for teachers of 65 years of age. Anyone who thinks that the parents of Ireland are going to imprison teachers in the classroom until 65 years of age should realise that it will not happen. When asked my view, I said that it was utterly irrelevant as teachers are a strong enough group to ensure that the recommendation will not be put in place. The same applies to the fire service. The only way in which we can meet additional employment needs is by taking on immigrants and people who have retired.

I have spoken about this subject many times in this Chamber. The idea that people reach a certain age and then they are cut off is nonsense and does not recognise increased life expectancy, better health or better living conditions. You are able or you are not able. What do you do at particular ages, not just at 55 but at any age? That people are fit and able, medically, physically, and whatever other way is required by the job, should be the one and only demand of them. It is utter nonsense to decide that we should implement across the board, in an ageist fashion, a measure that is completely wrong.

It was this House which brought forward the change to the employment equality legislation of 1997 to prevent ageism on job specifications and we are now moving in the wrong direction. Even the right-wing economists of Europe tell us we should not be allowing people to go out of the workplace at 55 years of age. The hypocrisy of this decision is striking. If the Government had to pay a pension to people at age 55 they would not allow them to retire – they would want them to stay on until 70.

There is no justice or basis to this decision. It is wrong, it should be fought as being wrong, and that is where we need to go. We need to encourage people who provide the social capital, people who give of themselves to their communities. Those in churches, in political parties, in trade unions, anywhere we try to get people together, recognise how difficult it is to get people to do things voluntarily, or for a pittance or whatever. Lives are dependent on these people.

There is also the question of quality of life and community protection, which is important for those living alone. We had politicians thumping their hearts with concern for elderly people living on their own and in danger. This change has the same impact. We are reducing the number of people who can make a contribution. This legislation and regulation is a nonsense. It should be reversed and we should make it clear to Government that we want a change and will not put up with it any longer. The people deserve to be given a voice and I would support them in ensuring that the proposed maximum age of 55 is thrown out.

I too support the motion but I differentiate between full-time fire-fighters in cities and those who look after communities. A community is made up of particular people. The town of Dingle, for example, is made up of different voluntary groups who protect it in different ways. We do not have a life boat to protect our fishermen. Instead we have voluntary people in cliff and sea rescue who are there at any time, a tradition started by the British. The fire-fighters and the fire station in Dingle make up an important part of our community, as they do in every small town and village.

We are not talking about fire-fighters in the cities or their pay. We are not talking about the pay of part-time fire-fighters either. All they want is to be allowed work. Look at the experience we will lose. These are community people, those that Senator O'Toole and all of us have grown up with in our parishes. I do not think education comes into it. If there is a fire you want a good, strong lump of a man to go out there to do his job.

The rules and regulations being brought in mean you would nearly need a university education to become a temporary fire-fighter and that is wrong. The rule that you have to be an engineer to become the chief or the assistant chief is wrong also. All we want is those with common sense who are properly trained by the right people. Concerning training, I am reliably informed that ten people who have trained all the fire-fighters around Ireland over recent years will shortly reach 55 and their skill and experience will be lost because they will have to retire. In Dingle two weeks ago, we celebrated the retirement of two fire-fighters against their will and we praised them for their work down the years.

We have come a long way. I remember the fire service in Dingle when I was a child of ten or 12. The fire-fighters would come in an old banger of a car with the word "fire" painted on the side, a ladder on the roof, and about ten buckets painted red. That was what we had, and back then people stuck with it. The service went from that to getting a pump that was towed by the car, and eventually to getting the fire engines that were hived off when Tralee or Killarney were finished with them.

I do not want to cite examples from Dingle only – every town and village is the same. We now have good buildings and equipment and what are we trying to do? We are trying to sideline the people with experience, those who attended fires all their lives. It is not just the fighting of fires anymore. Fire-fighters are called out to everything that happens in the community, including car crashes. If a doctor aged 75 goes out to help somebody after a car crash he is not told to go home. He is still qualified.

I am on the governing body of UCD. When a teacher or professor reaches the age of 65 in UCD, he or she is supposed to retire. That is fine. There is an option, however, in that the governing body can decide whether that person is fit to continue. In the same way I suggest that fire-fighters, when they reach the age of 55, look for an extension of their service. They should go through whatever is necessary to make sure they are fit people. There are people like myself who had a bad heart 40 years ago and would never qualify for fire-fighting, but there are others who are 60 and 65 years of age and have nothing wrong with their heart. They are physically strong and healthy. They have experience and ability from the last 30 or 40 years.

When I was a county councillor in 1974, one of the councillors was a fire-fighter. He still is, and he is here listening to this debate. It is sad that he and his colleagues will have to retire in one or two years' time. There is 30 years of experience going down the drain. Somebody has to pass on the skills that these people have and these experienced fire-fighters are the ones to do it.

Shortage of fire-fighters has nothing to do with pay. It is a particular type of person we need and we are running short of them. The service is based on community spirit and a basically voluntary effort. These people have their own job to do in life but whenever their beeper goes off, they are gone. No matter where they are – they could be out at a social or a dance, but whatever they are doing, they have to go. They are of vital importance.

The problem is that we focus on the cities and forget that rural Ireland needs a service. I urge the Minister to heed the views of both sides of the House. I ask him to reconsider and to set up a meeting with the appropriate members of the temporary fire-fighting service. They could make their case to the Minister. By the time the forthcoming review is completed, quite a number of people will have retired. We need something done now.

From the number of people speaking here tonight, it is clear that they know what is happening in their community. There are a few things that we all look for in our community. We want to make sure we have doctors, policemen, fire-fighters and so on. These are part and parcel of our parishes and towns. I would hope that in the next couple of weeks either the Minister for State or the Minister for the Environment and Local Government might think it appropriate to meet a group of these people to thrash it out. If they went through a fitness test quite a number of them would be there for another couple of years.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this motion. Anybody listening would recognise this as a very valuable debate on an issue which would not come before us too often but is a very important matter. I commend Senator Cassidy on bringing it forward.

I do not think that anybody in this House disagrees with what Senator Fitzgerald has just set out so well and indeed others have also stated, which is that enforced retirement at 55 is ridiculous. We all know lots of people who are fit, able and working away well into their 60s, 70s and in some cases into their 80s. People who chose to stay working should be allowed to do so. I support the comments made on that. The idea of enforced retirement should simply be done away with. I have heard some comments recently on the radio about ageism and am aware of the views of the Equality Authority and certain advertisements in the newspapers. I have no doubt that there exists a level of ageism which we will have to combat, not simply because it is right to do so but also because, as other speakers have said, times have changed.

The era of a large-scale availability of people for the workforce is over. We are in the happy position of having full employment but economic change has created challenges in other areas. As others have mentioned, one effect of the economic change is that the availability of people for voluntary activity in the community is diminishing. That does not mean that the spirit is not there, but people simply do not have the time to give to community activity that they did in the past. This may be a result of both parents being at work from Monday to Friday, often away from home, and that the rest of the time available must go to family. The number of people who are engaged in self-employment such as agriculture has also dropped. People who are engaged in full-time tied-down work are not going to be available for, for instance, the retained fire service. Senator Fitzgerald has set that out very well and I do not intend to repeat the point.

Times have changed and we must change with them. In the Minister's review that must be taken into account. We need to retain that voluntary spirit, that sense of contribution to the community which has been at the heart of the retained fire service since it was established. People are prepared to give when they are asked and when they can, but we should not stand idly by and accept an injustice such as this issue of enforced early retirement.

We know that the role of the fire service has changed and certainly, as Senator Cassidy said, the fact that there are 360 vacancies nationally in the retained service is an issue of concern which must be addressed. It could quite easily be addressed in the short term and a potential crisis averted by the Minister acting immediately to abolish this compulsory retirement age of 55. That would ensure that a large body of experienced people are not lost to the communities in which they serve. I know that away from the cities, in many of our major towns, the fire service would be under pressure because of the reducing numbers in the retained fire service. In the review the Minister must look at a number of options and this would be one that he could easily address very quickly.

Another option which he should look at as a potential change is to generate, at least in some areas, particularly in the major towns, a number of full-time jobs. I am suggesting the possibility of someone having the choice of going into the fire service on a full-time basis against the background of its being a well-paid job and not being treated as a lower grade worker without promotion opportunities. People who are gaining experience and have training should be allowed to work their way up through the ranks.

The role of anybody in the fire service is a far more responsible one than it was. There are large factories all over the country. We have major utilities that we did not have before. We have building regulations that we did not have before. We have higher standards of fire regulations and that is as it should be. As a result of the larger body of legislation that has come forward, we have generated far greater responsibility and a higher level of work for the whole fire service. That should be reflected in the Minister's review and I ask him to consider creating a greater number of full-time posts, both to keep people in the service and also to attract more people into it, while at the same time not diluting the community spirit and the sense of voluntary service which is so central to and valuable in the retained fire service.

The media have recently revisited the Stardust incident which left a huge mark on the country. All of us remember where we were when we heard about the tragedy. I was a university student at the time and many of those who died would have been about my own age. It is very poignant to revisit the whole issue. We did learn lessons from it and we know that we have to be so much more careful. The community that I come from immediately moved to make community facilities safe and to ensure that there would be no such tragedy again. There are very few of us who, when we go into a cinema or other public facility, do not look for the fire exits. Lessons have been learnt but there is a long way to go yet. I urge the Minister to take on board the views expressed here tonight and to act on them.

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Wallace. I support this timely and important motion. I agree with the review of the retirement age. As one who is nearing that age I can understand that a fireman does not like being told to retire at 55. The fire services give excellent service. Those being asked to retire have been there a long time, before the modern call-out system. They stayed at home all weekend and at other times to be available to tackle a fire or other tragedy. We have to respect people who reach this age. It is unnecessary to retire at 55. The people in question are prepared to undergo medical tests to ascertain whether they can fulfil their duties.

I live near Moate and I have seen advertisements seeking fire-fighters. Recruitment is difficult everywhere because people have other jobs. There are 300 unfilled vacancies in the country. This must be addressed. A strategic review of the fire service has been announced. A stay should be put on the retirement age until after that review. The union representatives should be allowed to put their case to the Minister. Then a decision can be made.

Fire-fighters have many skills, such as life saving. They cope with accidents, flooding and chemical spills. We cannot afford to lose them because of age. This would be a major mistake. This issue should have been addressed before. A fit member of the fire service should be allowed to remain after 55. The Minister, Deputy Wallace, should impress upon the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, the points made here tonight by speakers on both sides.

I compliment the members of the fire service. There are some here tonight who are recipients of long service awards. It shows their commitment that they are here to listen to the debate and fight on behalf of those wishing to serve as fire-fighters. It is poignant that this is the 20th anniversary of the Stardust tragedy. On that Valentine's night many young people died.

Voluntary service is declining because people find it hard to make the commitment. As Senator O'Meara said, people have little free time because they commute to work. It may seem appropriate that people retire at 55 after long service to the community, but shortages are so severe that we cannot afford to lose men and women, the few who are there, of this calibre. They are willing to remain on. They accept the point raised that a two year medical review is necessary.

In Cappamore, one person who retired has not been replaced. This is why it is necessary to retain people beyond 55 years of age. They are an extraordinary breed. They often know the people they attend to at accidents, and they need counselling to cope with this. I appeal to the Minister to listen to the points raised, particularly that rates may have to be increased to retain people.

I congratulate the Leader on tabling the motion. I have been approached by firemen in Donegal. None mentioned pay as an issue but they were concerned about retirement. The Stardust tragedy was mentioned. That would have been worse but for the firemen present. I pay tribute to our firemen who work unsociable hours in a dangerous job. When the age clause was introduced in 1985 society was different. There was high unemployment which meant people were available. We have become health conscious in the past ten or 15 years. Firemen are fit and able and age is no obstacle to performing their duties. As Senator Fitzgerald said, I would prefer an experienced fireman to a young one. Fire strikes so quickly that it does not give one many options. I support the case made by other Senators. As they said, there is no need for the Minister to wait for a report. He can put a stay on this.

There are other issues regarding deficiencies in the service which I would like to see addressed in reports, such as the services available to the islands, for example. The Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy Ó Cuív, is pushing for this following the disaster in Galway. In particular, the service available to Arranmore, County Donegal, needs to be upgraded.

Traffic accidents were mentioned by Senator Cassidy. In a large town like Dungloe, it took an accident to highlight the lack of cutting equipment available to the fire service. Thankfully, when I made an approach to the Department, the cutting equipment was made available quickly.

There are other issues which are particularly relevant to rural areas. When we approached the environment engineer in our area about the lack of fire hydrants and inadequate water pressure he informed us that while a survey would be conducted, unfortunately, there was no money available to address the problem. Funding should be provided to install sufficient hydrants, etc.

I praise the Minister and the Department for the capital programme which has been undertaken to provide equipment, such as fire engines, and upgrade fire stations. I am glad that in the past week the Department has allocated funding to County Donegal to upgrade two fire stations and provide two or three new fire engines.

There is an insufficient number of ambulances in rural areas. I am glad that the report drawn up for Donegal County Council recommends a minimum of two bays in all upgraded stations. An ambulance service should be provided in each fire station. Such a service could be provided on a part-time basis or operated by firemen.

There has been a significant meeting of minds during the debate. I have attended many debates on Private Members' motions where there have been divisions, but there has been much common ground tonight.

It is, as the Minister of State and others reminded us, the 20th anniversary of the Stardust fire and we extend our sympathy to all those who were bereaved on that night. In the past week others have lost their lives in fires. It is only at such times that we fully appreciate contribution made by the fire service in the preservation of life. It establishes firmly the contribution of local government in improving quality of life and safety standards. Firemen deserve to be commended for their contribution in that regard.

The Minister of State astutely indicated the two issues involved in the motion and the amendment. He has been a strong proponent of the fire service in his city and county. The recent remuneration review took full account of the Opposition amendment which seeks to address the issue of proper pay and conditions for firemen.

I fully accept that increasing the age limit would involve consideration of the health and safety issue, but there are certain responsibilities and duties within the fire service in respect of which the sensitivity attached to the age limit would not be as pronounced. We all agree that people's ability and what they can do at different ages vary considerably. I recommend that the arbitrary age limit of 55 years be looked at in the overall review.

This debate is timely. The age limit should be increased in certain circumstances, with due consideration for particular medical qualifications. There should also be a review of various duties within the service to ascertain how persons who have made the fire service their career can continue in the service given that the opportunities for employment are far greater than heretofore.

I thank Members on all sides for what was a wide-ranging and interesting debate in which I outlined that the strategic review of the service is timely. Members have outlined certain issues which I will convey to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, to ensure he is fully aware of the interest and the concerns of Members of the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.

Top
Share