I raise this matter on behalf of retained firefighters of County Louth and all the regions of Ireland, particularly those who are approaching mandatory retirement at the age of 62 and who are not in a financial position to retire. Retained firefighters make up around two thirds of Ireland’s fire services and are particularly critical in rural areas like County Louth and regional communities. For many retained firefighters, this is not an abstract policy issue. It is a very real and immediate financial one. These are people with mortgages still to pay, families to support and limited pension provision reflecting the parttime and oncall nature of retained service.
As it stands, approximately 300 retained firefighters are due to retire at 62 over the next year. When they leave the service, many fall into a gap where they are too young to access the State pension at 66 yet are no longer allowed to work in the role they are trained, willing and medically fit to perform. The outcome is deeply problematic. Experienced firefighters are effectively pushed onto social welfare for up to four years, not because they are incapable of work but because policy gives them no other option. That is difficult to justify socially, financially or ethically. These are people who have served their communities for decades, who have responded to emergencies at all hours and who continue to meet medical and fitness requirements, yet the system tells them "No". The system tells them that they must stop working at 62, with the State carrying the cost.
This discussion is not about lowering standards or overlooking safety. Firefighting is a physically demanding role and that must always be respected but we already acknowledge this reality through ongoing fitness, medical and capability assessments. Fitness and competence and not age alone are what determine safe service. I am, therefore, asking whether we should allow retained firefighters to continue working up to 65 years of age on a voluntary basis subject to strict and ongoing medical and occupational fitness criteria.
Importantly, I also want to raise the issue of timing. Even if there is agreement in principle, legislation takes time but these retirements are happening now. Without action, we stand to lose hundreds of trained, experienced retained firefighters in the coming months - people our communities depend on. Summertime is coming and, in Waterford, they will be out fighting all the wildfires. Look at times of flooding. These are the people we rely on. For that reason, I believe we should examine the possibility of an interim or shortterm measure to retain these firefighters while any permanent legislative solution is being developed. This could include a temporary administrative or regulatory mechanism allowing service beyond 62 on a yeartoyear basis, strict conditional extensions subject to enhanced medical and fitness assessments, and a clearly defined timeframe to act as a bridge to legislative reform, not a substitute for it. Such an interim approach would allow us to hold onto valuable, experienced personnel, avoid unnecessary reliance on social welfare, and ensure continuity of fire cover, particularly in areas already under pressure.
Above all, it is about fairness and dignity. It is about recognising that imposing forced retirement at 62 on retained firefighters - many of whom cannot afford to retire and remain fit to serve - creates real human and financial costs. I believe we owe it to these workers to at least examine whether a better, more proportionate approach is possible both in the short term and for the future.
