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.