Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Sinn Féin for the motion, which I support. Perhaps the inconsistency in the Minister’s speech and in his countermotion might capture why we have a problem here because he describes the retained firefighters as “an elite front-line service staffed by [very] dedicated, selfless people serving their communities around the clock”. That is lovely and I agree with him totally. In his amendment, the Minister then goes on to blame them for creating a risk environment by their action where he states “the current dispute has created a high-risk environment for firefighters and the public which is deeply undesirable”. I do not believe that firefighters are having a rolling stoppage with full industrial action planned without a reason.

The Retained Fire Services in Ireland: A Review of Recruitment and Retention and the Future Sustainability of Service Delivery report is worth reading. It seems like a bulky report but it is only actually 38 pages. The rest is all appendices. When you look at that and ask how we got to this point, because this is one report on top of possibly decades of reports going back certainly to 2002, we can look at the actual recommendations in this report. There are 13 of them and I would have thought the Minister would have gone through these recommendations during the debate and would have told us which ones have been complied with.

On something as basic as recommendation 8, which states, “Local Authorities should consider holding appropriate exit interviews with retained firefighters, to determine reasons for leaving the service”, can we imagine we needed a report for this, commissioned by the Minister in attendance, and fair play to him for doing that? Can the Minister tell me if that has been done by the local authorities? This is the most basic action. I would have thought the local authorities would not have needed a report to do that.

I would not have thought they would have needed a recommendation that panels would be kept because there is total inconsistency on panels. Not all local authorities keep panels, so they then have to do a recruitment campaign, and at a conservative estimate on page 16 of that report, the cost of such recruitment works out at €17,200 per recruit every time the local authority does that.

These are basic recommendations, 13 in number. Recommendation 2 states that “A new framework for service delivery is required”. I understand that needs negotiation.

Recommendation 1 states “A review of the existing guidance should be undertaken in the context of the Area Risk Categorisation of a fire station". This is something I would consider to have been fairly basic.

Recommendation 3 states “Guidance should be provided on the arrangements for retained firefighters taking the various types of leave including annual, certified and uncertified sick leave, maternity leave”. Again I would consider these to be absolutely basic. I ask the Minister if we needed a report to tell us this.

Recommendation 4 states “The current Occupational Health Medical scheme for members of the retained fire services should be reviewed”. We must remember we have just described the firefighters as an elite front-line service and that we cannot do without them. These are the basic requirements which have been identified as missing.

The panels are referred to and recommendation 5 states, “Guidance should be provided nationally on a standardised process for the recruitment of a retained firefighter.” Recommendation 6 states, “A review should be completed for any potential areas of response work that could be undertaken by the retained fire services for other agencies.” Again this is something which is completely practical.

Recommendation 11 states “Communications and public relations should be developed, to include national and local programmes” so that the role of the firefighter can be told to the public.

Recommendation 9 states, “Local Authorities should put in place initiatives and events to recognise the contribution retained firefighters and their families make to their communities.” We are told in another part of this report that the firefighters are embedded in the community and yet they feel completely unrecognised by the establishment and so on.

These are 13 recommendations which are completely basic. On the issue of diversity, almost 99% of firefighters are men with almost no women. There is no diversity whatsoever and that is a known fact for a very long time.

On employers, they have absolutely no incentive to allow retained firefighters to take time off to do their essential duties. Can you imagine that employers have no such incentive? Even worse, local authorities say retained firefighters cannot do the two jobs. The people who should be leading, who are in charge of the service and who are presiding over this say that if a person takes a job with them in a different capacity, that person cannot be a retained firefighter. Has the Minister read this report? These are the basic facts before we ever get to the retainer fee or the other conditions which have forced retained firefighters to out on strike, and we are sitting here condemning them, saying that they are creating a risky environment.

A total of 58% of the firefighters claimed they are likely to leave the service in the next three years. I have referred to diversity, or the lack of it, and the lack of inclusion, where 1.6% of retained firefighters are females. The report tells us this is significantly below other sectors but the reasons were not fully explored, so who cares. The report did not bother to ask, wonder or follow up why 1.6% of women wanted to take a job as a firefighter.

The report states, “Over 80% of fire service managers agree that higher crewing levels with more structured time off would help recruitment.” Nothing has been done about that.

On implementation, the report states “The retained fire services are considered to be providing a cost-effective and efficient service in principle [this is what the report tells us, where the report uses the word “and” instead of “but”] and there is an urgent requirement to develop and evolve the model”. Will the Minister tell me, therefore, what has happened since that report was published? Which of those basic requirements and recommendations have been implemented? Let us take the exit interview, as an example. I will not go over time and I thank the Acting Chairman.

See this speech in context