We will now commence our discussion with officials from the Departments of Social and Family Affairs and Foreign Affairs on improving access to contributory pensions for missionaries and volunteer development workers. The delegates are welcome. We thank them for the work they have done on this measure. While Members of the House enjoy absolute privilege in respect of utterances made at committees, witnesses do not enjoy absolute privilege. Accordingly, caution should be exercised, particularly with regard to references of a personal nature. I welcome Ms Anne Vaughan, Ms Siobhán Lawlor and Mr. Paul Cunningham from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I also welcome Mr. Frank Flood and Ms Kate Boylan from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Fr. O'Mahony of the Irish Missionary Union and staff from Comhlámh are present in the Visitors Gallery.
Pension Provisions: Presentation.
Has the working group circulated a set of recommendations?
There are conclusions and options.
I know there are lots of options, but we had reached that point last time.
Our purpose today is to hear a presentation and have discussion. There will then be a final report.
I see.
I thank the officials for submitting this much awaited draft report which provides a good basis for our discussion of the pension arrangements for missionaries and development workers, an important issue. The committee has long taken an active interest in the case made by the Irish Missionary Union. That is why we established a working group just over a year ago to examine the issue and make recommendations.
I now call on Miss Anne Vaughan from the Department of Social and Family Affairs to make her presentation on the draft report which has been circulated to members.
Ms Anne Vaughan
The committee has the report and the two-page document to which I will speak. A working group was set up, chaired by Deputy Woods. It met a few times and this report was produced by us and our colleagues in Irish Aid at the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is a draft document for comment and suggestions by members of the committee.
I will briefly set out what is in the document. It reviews the overall context and potential approaches we might take in this area. There is no problem where a missionary returns to Ireland to live. He or she will be entitled, subject to a means test, to a non-contributory pension. What the committee asked us to examine was the case where people do not return to Ireland but remains living where they have worked all their lives. We were guided by the views of the committee and the working group and the views of the Irish Missionary Union, particularly in its letter of 19 May 2006.
We also examined international approaches. We looked at the scope within the existing social welfare system and Irish Aid framework to build entitlements to a pension. We looked at nine different approaches which included: payment of a pension or an allowance abroad; retrospective payment of PRSI contributions; some sorts of special allowances; the possibility of amending the habitual residence condition; and ways of improving the existing arrangements for volunteer development workers within our PRSI system. The report examines all of these options, sets out the issues and comes to a conclusion. We disregarded certain options we felt were not feasible by reason of EU legislation, equity or cost.
Before I speak about our proposal I should put it in a principled context. We felt we could not treat missionaries differently to other persons or workers within the social welfare system. We thought it would be useful to look at the volunteer development workers as a group of which missionaries are a part to see whether we could do something in that context. When I attended this committee on a previous occasion I explained that there is no issue in regard to paying a social insurance pension outside Ireland but there is an issue regarding the payment of a means-tested pension outside Ireland and suggested that we look within the social insurance system to find a solution. We also had regard to the IMU letter of May 2006 which signalled a possible change in the approach of the IMU. We were trying to tie it into setting up a system for the future. We propose for the committee's consideration a new PRSI class which would be compulsory for development workers with five years' credits under the existing system. That would pick up missionaries engaged in development work. In the new social insurance class, if, after five years, a missionary moved from development to pastoral work which is not covered by a social insurance system, there would be a way of covering him through the voluntary contribution system. The proposal involves a new class. Those included would be covered for both short-term benefits and pensions. There would be an employer contribution of 8.5%. There would also be, in principle, an employee contribution but because development workers are paid at local rates, it would be lower than our PRSI threshold. In practice, therefore, there would not be an employee contribution.
We have tried to improve and extend the existing social insurance system as it affects volunteer development workers to include the missionary group to ensure volunteer development workers will have cover. This is in line with the letter from the Irish Missionary Union and would do a good deal to protect those workers' social insurance rights but it would not do anything for existing missionaries of pension age who remain outside Ireland. The report takes the view that nothing can be done in the social welfare system. I understand Irish Aid takes the same view but reading the IMU letter I got the impression that if a better arrangement was put in place, it would be regarded as a step forward. That is the proposal.
While it is a matter for members, the possible next steps would be consultation with the various NGOs and religious representative groups. While we have gone into some detail, if members believe this is something worth pursuing, we will go into the detail of the legal, administrative and financial implications, as we would have to do in bringing forward legislation. If the way we were proceeding became clear, the Departments believe it would be useful to conduct an information campaign among volunteer workers to make them aware of their social insurance position.
I compliment the Department and everybody involved in the production of the report which is comprehensive and focuses on an issue that has caused and will continue to cause problems if we do not tackle it. The report covers all the areas likely to be addressed in the resolution of the problem.
I was of the view that there was a tie-in to the compulsory pension concept in the budget speech, an issue which is being debated, although I may have picked it up the wrong way. We heard a submission by all the missionary groups and listened carefully to what they had to say. As a committee, we believed there was a valid case to be argued and examined. It is not impossible to deal with the problem that currently exists. We can deal with the problem that presents for the future. That is easy to do and the manner in which it can be done is set out in the report, although I do not necessarily agree with the methodology outlined. However, what has happened in the past also needs to be dealt with.
I wish to suggest a way around the domiciliary requirement. A case can be made for paying a pension to Irish missionaries who have lived all or most of their lives abroad, who return here occasionally for a holiday and then return to the country in which they have worked. The provision of such benefit for them need not necessarily have a knock-on effect in respect of everybody else, as there are no other similar circumstances. However, a requirement could be made that missionaries must return home in a certain period or report every two, three or five years. Given the nature of their work, the provision of such pension benefit will not have a knock-on effect in respect of everybody else. However, to determine what is involved, a head count should be made to carry out a cost assessment. If that was done, we might be in a better position to do something about it.
All countries must honour the social insurance pensions which are payable across all boundaries. No country has the right to interfere with those because they involve an insurance-based pension contribution from which participants are entitled to benefit. A case could and should be made to include within the circle, albeit on foot of a means test, Irish missionaries who have given of their best abroad and who feel they need to live among the members of the community with whom they worked at their end of their mission. It is ironic that if they return home, stay here and pass the means test, they will automatically qualify for a pension in the normal way. Therefore, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to address that issue by a variety of means.
We might have to enter a bilateral arrangement with some countries, which may be another possibility. This issue needs to be dealt with. We have correctly attempted to provide for Irish workers in the UK who have fallen on hard times and we continue to do so. The position of the missionaries is somewhat similar. We need to be careful not to forget about them, particularly when an abundance of resources is available here. If that were not the case, this position might be different, but because it is, we have a moral responsibility to do something about it and to explore the various angles through which the problem might be resolved. If there is a will in this respect, there is a way.
Progress has been made on one aspect, namely, in respect of missionaries who return home. The letter from the Irish Missionary Union in May acknowledged there is a no difficulty in a missionary returning home and receiving a pension, but we need to make further progress. Deputy Durkan made the point that missionaries return home regularly and there might be a way of getting around the habitual residence condition which appears to pose a problem. The idea of paying a contribution is a good and practical one. I am not sure why a distinction is made between pastoral and development work in the report presented by Ms Vaughan. Many missionaries, whether lay or religious, do both types of work. Page 25 of that report states that missionaries who are exclusively involved in pastoral work would not be able to access the scheme. I do not see the point in introducing a new scheme that would not provide for people involved in pastoral work.
As the Chairman is aware, I have raised on a number of occasions the issue of missionaries who may return to Ireland for medical treatment to recover from an illness and the question of whether a disability payment could be made to them. I have also raised the issue of missionaries who return to Ireland in a caring role, for example, if they are looking after a relative. Again, the habitual residence condition will be quoted. I cannot understand why payments such as disability or carer's allowance cannot be paid to them. We should consider those issues as well as the pensions issue. It would not be outside the remit of the committee. Today's meeting is about contributory pensions but I had hoped other social welfare payments could be also dealt with.
One gets the impression from the letter from the Irish Missionary Union that it has given up on this. It acknowledges that people will get a pension if they come home to retire but that nothing else can be done. I regret that is the case. I would have liked to have seen more progress. There should not be a distinction between pastoral work and development work; both are the work of a missionary. Perhaps the officials could re-examine that issue and reply with regard to schemes other than the contributory pensions we are discussing today.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss this and I welcome the Department's officials. At the end of the discussion document three requirements are suggested for anything that might be done. Paragraph 102 states, "Financial issues relating to costs and numbers would have to be considered. Administrative issues to address the procedures to enable the registration of eligible missionaries would have to be teased out ..... legal advice would be required to ensure compliance with EU regulations and changes to primary and secondary social welfare legislation...". Any one of those three is capable of finishing us all off, not to mind taking all three together. While I accept they must be done, we should deal with the issues urgently. In a way the three comments in that paragraph are driving the case back to the beginning. This is where we began rather than where we should be finishing.
I agree with Ms Vaughan that the appropriate way to deal with this is to see the missionaries as part of development workers as a category. However, the letter from the Irish Missionary Union is instructive because it explains what is at stake. There were 826 people abroad who could have taken up the pension in August 2005 at a cost of €7.1 million, with another 516 likely to reach pension age in the following five years. These are hard figures. An issue of principle arises as to whether these people are entitled to a State pension as Irish citizens, irrespective of where they live.
I believe this should be approached from a rights perspective and from the point of view of their being Irish citizens. They are enhancing their citizenship, and the name of Ireland, by their absences from the territory of Ireland. It is disastrous to construe residence as a requirement. Habitual residence is a nonsense with regard to the general category of development work.
Second, with regard to the options that are envisaged for the future scheme, more grief is likely to be created by discontinuities within development work. Development workers might work for an NGO or an agency in Ireland, go abroad, return home and work again for an agency and then go abroad again. The movement between being at home in advocacy and working abroad in the field is a regular feature of the development worker's experience. That issue must be catered for but, speaking plainly, it is unrealistic to say this can be dealt with in future through voluntary contributions. I know development workers who have been involved in advocacy, went abroad and came back, but not many of them are in a position to pay voluntary contributions. We should endeavour to enhance their efforts rather than make it difficult for them. I am not suggesting anyone is being malevolent about this matter but there is a mire of bureaucratic compliance.
Appendix F contains an opinion by the then President of the Council, Mr. Michaelis, on a Common Position by the European Union. The reference is 85/308/EC of 27 March 1985 and appears in the appendix on pages 36 to 38. It would be useful if the working group could tell the committee how far we have gone as regards that conclusion on a common European response. Where do we stand on that?
It would be terrible for the committee to conclude that nothing could be done about those who have decided to spend their declining years in the communities where they worked. I have met many of them and it may well be that they do not wish to live at home. I am speaking with some experience because my brother-in-law spent all his life working in Kenya, while my sister-in-law is in Ethiopia.
In some cases, religious orders have taken responsibility for the welfare of people who have been in institutional settings. That is one option but it is the only way one could satisfy the residence option. Why can the term "habitual residence" not be interpreted to cater for people who come and go like that? They remain Irish citizens, yet are living and working abroad. Is it not more important for them to be in a village in Kenya than submitting themselves to regulations at home? One would think so.
Young workers going to Africa and Asia often make contact with older colleagues. The latter may not be the most active or energetic but they have the most local knowledge on solving problems, such as boring a well or respecting cultural nuances. While not wishing to take from the work before us, I do not see it being enormously advanced. We have all the problems but few solutions. There are three suggestions, namely, that we need financial and administrative clearance and need to re-examine the EU compliance aspects. There are ways out of this, one of which is to abolish the nonsensical habitual residence regulation and not just for missionaries or development workers but for everyone. It flies in the face of all equalising jurisprudence on social welfare law. That is one global suggestion, but I could make others.
I do not see why we cannot use a credits system. Why not tie entitlement to citizenship? The people concerned have never revoked their Irish citizenship and are doing work that brings credit to Ireland and themselves.
The other aspect of this issue is our increasing contribution towards overseas development aid or whatever it is called now — the name keeps changing as if it was bothering somebody, but it never bothered me. There is no reference to the Swedish or Norwegian systems. Under the Norwegian system a figure of over 1% of GDP is involved. I am not saying it has all the answers, but simply that it would be useful if it was included in order that we could look at various models. The Chairman should set a timescale. He is knowledgeable on the issue of social welfare. He should state we hope there will be a resolution of some of these problems in our lifetime.
I thank Deputy Higgins.
I am not sure whether the matter to which I will refer falls within the remit of the report. I was lucky enough to receive an education from the Irish Christian Brothers. If they had not been around, I would not have received one because my family would not have been able to afford to send me to a boarding school.
There is a category of Christian brother who relied on the order to pay contributions for him. The brothers concerned went to Africa and returned after about 30 years of voluntary service educating kids who would not otherwise have been able to afford an education. Those who subsequently left the order do not seem to have any pension entitlements. It is mentioned in section 19 of the report that where they are remunerated by stipend salary or similar payment, only the Church of Ireland availed of this provision which was open to all churches. This suggests the order was the body which decided whether contributions would be paid, in full or in part. I know of at least one man with whom I played under age hurling who is approximately 59 years of age, no longer teaches, left the order and does not seem to have any entitlements. If the matter has not been addressed, I certainly recommend that it be examined. I am sure there are other religious orders such as the De La Salle Brothers which are in the same position, but I am closest to the Irish Christian Brothers. It is a matter I have mentioned here previously and will continue to mention.
I pay tribute to the Chairman, Deputy Durkan and Senator Kitt, as well as two departmental officials, who have worked on this important issue. On the last occasion we all agreed that we were dealing with three categories of person: Irish missionaries in their 60s, 70s or 80s who are currently living in Africa, mainly, and will never return; persons who will be missionaries in the future; and development workers. I do not have any difficulty with the proposals made in so far as they could assist the two latter categories.
My purpose, the basis of my contribution at the last meeting, is to focus attention on the first group to which I refer, that is, members of religious orders principally who went to the Third World in the 1950s, 1960s or 1970s and who have no intention of returning. The stark question is: will we assist them financially in their final years? That is a political question, although there may be rules and regulations involved. It is our job in the Oireachtas to make rules.
I have a copy of Ms Vaughan's contribution at the meeting held on 22 November 2005 and I agree with her. She stated:
We cannot discriminate on grounds of nationality. Accordingly, any move to pay the old age non-contributory pension to Irish missionaries could expose us to similar claims from other EU nationals.
That is probably correct. It is important advice which we cannot ignore.
I disagree with Deputy Higgins's suggestion that if an Irish person who travelled to Australia or America to do good works retired and did not intend to return, he or she should receive a payment because those societies provide sufficient benefits to make a social security payment to him or her. This issue concerns a unique pool of people associated with all religions. When I met Mr. Cantwell of the Irish Missionary Union, we had a long discussion about this. If it is impossible to pay a pension to those affected under current legislation, other means should be examined.
I refer to page 29 of the Chairman's report, appendix B, which contains a letter from the IMU dated 19 May 2006 in which it canvassed a second option of the union — investigation of the possibility of a loan. I gave this idea to the union and would like to discuss it. The Government should grant a loan or other form of payment to all religious organisations which have missionaries abroad, given that their numbers are dwindling, not increasing. This would allow the organisations concerned to establish a hardship fund, whereby payment could be made to missionaries who retire and do not return to Ireland. The resources are available. The only issue is that of discrimination against other groups, which I accept is difficult to overcome and should not be underestimated.
I am adamant — the committee is ad idem on this — that a payment should be made to this category. I do not know how it would manifest itself but all members want a payment to be made. At the end of the day, this is a political issue for both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, with whom the Chairman has had contact. They should appear before the committee to discover the strength of feeling among members and say whether they are prepared to make moneys available in a Supplementary Estimate to support such a payment. Many of the people concerned are dying and if the issue is not tackled quickly, we should forget about it.
I understand why the IMU decided not to investigate this matter further because it is a difficult financial exercise for the organisation to undertake, given that it would have to ascertain the number of missionaries involved, their circumstances and age, and produce a socio-economic report in this regard. It would also have to address the issue of administering a fund or a loan or a grant. Its officials were daunted by these difficulties. I accept this is a tough issue but the political will is clear. We should move forward with a payment as quickly as possible.
Like others, I welcome the report and thank the members and officials who worked on it. As long as members and Parliament continue to consider solutions to this issue within the parameters of social welfare legislation, we will get nowhere. A number of years ago, the issue of pre-1953 pensions was being kicked around from pillar to post. The Chairman will remember better than anybody else that it required a political decision. The officials at the time advised correctly that it would cost an arm and a leg and it certainly cost a good deal more than some of us thought it would.
The group of people in question are a diminishing number as they are old and will not be around for that long more. It is regrettable that there are very few following in their footsteps. A political solution which is rights-based and along the lines suggested by Deputy Higgins, must be found. We can all praise the good and great missionaries and their superb work abroad but if we wish to give recognition to the value of that work, we should take a political decision that will remunerate them for their work. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility but it will involve breaching the parameters of existing social welfare law to find a solution. No amount of reports will help find a solution so long as the solution is to be found within existing social welfare legislation. The phrase, "thinking outside the box" is a cliché but in this case, it may be the only way that a solution can be found. If the will is there, a solution can be found.
Would Mr. Frank Flood care to make any comment on behalf of Irish Aid?
Mr. Frank Flood
I will preface my remarks by saying that Irish Aid fully appreciates the work of the missionaries in the field over many years and two years ago it set up the Irish missionary resource service to facilitate and support the missionaries in their current and future work. Funding last year amounted to €12 million for the IMRS and it will be €14 million for this year.
The Irish Aid budget for overseas development assistance aims to provide assistance for the poorest of the poor. Like our colleagues in the Department of Social and Family Affairs, we have our own regulations. Development assistance is governed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and must be used specifically for development purposes and activities. It is therefore not possible for the Irish Aid programme to fund pensions for anybody, whether they be missionaries or non-missionaries.
Irish Aid would wish to see equity for all individuals who have been involved in development work through the years, irrespective of any religious element. A substantial amount of funding would be required. Many of the missionaries were involved in development work on an intermittent basis and some were never involved in development work. Irish Aid would have a difficulty in making a case to provide pensions for people who were never involved in development work even though they may have done some valuable work overseas for many years. While Irish Aid is sympathetic to the plight of the missionaries, it is the case that the budget must be used for development activities and it would not be possible to use this budget for such a purpose.
I invite Ms Vaughan to reply to some of the questions.
Ms Vaughan
I thank the members for their comments. As the committee has only had the document for a short period this was the first opportunity to discuss it. If the committee wishes, we can reflect the points raised on the document. When Deputies Carey and Higgins talk about thinking outside the box, I do not know whether they mean outside the social welfare box or whether they feel there should be a social welfare solution to the issue. For the particular group outside Ireland already of pension age on whom we are focusing it seems to be extremely difficult. However, we will take on board what the Deputies have said and try to find some way of addressing their concerns. I would be misleading the committee to say that I could see how this would work. I do not know whether that is because I cannot think outside boxes.
I am loathe to get into the HRC issue because as the Deputy is more aware than I am, it is a very big issue for Ireland. If the committee wishes to discuss it further we could do so at a later date and I would ask colleagues with more expertise in the area to attend a committee meeting. I do not know whether the Deputy raised it with the Minister recently during the passage of the Bill. However, there will be other opportunities with the Bill next year to talk directly to the Minister about it. I am very conscious of Senator Kitt's point, which we reflect in the report. The Department has considerable sympathy for and unease with how the HRC is biting in certain areas and in the care areas. The report states that we are keeping the matter under review. The point is there because members raised it.
Mr. Flood explained the difference between pastoral work and development work. On the social welfare side we very much take our lead from how our colleagues view that. Mr. Flood might want to say some more about it.
I am fairly familiar with the OECD guidelines on development and I am not aware of any provision that precludes Irish Aid from assisting in the welfare or pensions of development workers. For example, the top five economies in the European Union are using voted development funds for debt relief, including paying off the Iraqi and Nigerian debt, paying for the teaching of immigrants etc. The country spending most of its funds on non-direct development is Austria, followed by Germany. Great Britain spends 43% of its funds on non-direct development works. While I do not advocate we go down that road, I am not aware of any provision of the OECD guidelines that prohibits Irish Aid from financing any aspect of development workers' welfare.
We can pursue the issue of habitual residence. The language defining habitual residence in the Social Welfare Act contains terms such as "usually". If the order or NGO had arranged for people to be present on a regular basis one could argue as to whether it was in compliance with the existing definition. I agree that it raises a more general issue. It is being abused, not just in relation to the people we mentioned, but also in relation to others from the new EU member states. It can be argued that we do not know whether such persons intend to stay in Ireland. Lithuanians, Latvians and others are working as carers for blind people. If they have families in their native countries, they will be refused benefit for three years or more because they do not qualify under the habitual residence rules. The allegation made which is based on the family circumstances of such persons is that they are habitually resident in a place where they do not live. They might have a father or a mother in another country.
I agree with Ms Vaughan about this matter. We need to debate this concept thoroughly. I hold the view that it is an ignoble concept, when one considers the jurisprudence that governs our social welfare system. I repeat my point about the OECD which has issued commentaries and guidelines about the overseas development aid performance of various countries. It has correctly been very complimentary about Ireland's performance. It is not a restriction in any legal sense.
Are there any legal reasons the Minister for Social and Family Affairs cannot give an ex gratia hardship grant to the missionary organisations?
Ms Vaughan
Such assistance is not typically granted within the social welfare system. There were many grants, as the Chairman will know from his time as Minister for Social Welfare, but the system has been changed and streamlined. If grants are to be made available to missionaries, it would make sense for such a proposal——
We made ex gratia payments available when the decasualisation of dock labour took place, for example. It has been done before.
There are two aspects to this matter, the first of which is the social welfare code and the instructions given to Irish Aid. The second aspect is the making of political decisions which has been highlighted by Deputies Mulcahy and Carey. It is another issue that we will have to consider. We want to know where the first aspect finishes and the second one starts.
Another aspect of the matter is——
Am I right or wrong in what I say about the OECD guidelines on overseas development aid? I believe I am right.
I am not entirely happy with another aspect of the matter. I refer to the definition of "pastoral work" suggested by some. It can often be the case that up to 80% of pastoral work involves working with older people and AIDS sufferers, etc.
It results from their sheer presence in the area.
When that arose in Ireland, we had to recognise it.
I would like to raise another issue.
I do not think that issue has been explored sufficiently yet. I did not want to raise it at this stage, when we are considering how we can use the social welfare code to put in place a system that works. The report goes part of the way in that regard, but we need to bear in mind that many who have done a great deal are finding they are unable to do anything. That brings me back to the political side of the matter — we have to come up with another mechanism, which has been done. Deputies Durkan and Higgins have raised the same matter. We need to do more work to quantify it to a greater extent — to try to get a better fix on it — in order that we can propose agreed solutions from a political perspective.
There is another issue. We need to get a grip on the actual or potential cost, to which reference has been made. I accept that those with pre-1953 pensions had slightly more stamps than we expected. When I had responsibilities in this area, an assessment was made on those with less than 20 contributions per annum who did not receive a contributory pension. I tabled countless questions about this matter to the Chairman when he was Minister, as well as to his successor. The figure provided was €700 million per annum, which was wrong. My estimate at the time, which was merely done on a sheet of paper, was €14 million, which was wrong too. I erred and the final sum was less than that. There is no reason in the world to fail to examine the full potential and knock-on result. As Deputy Michael D. Higgins said, there may be some for whom the knock-on effect is beneficial. The cost may not be as great as we anticipate in some cases. For example, if a person had previously qualified for an ADA and had a pension provided in its place, the knock-on cost is not the full cost of the pension but rather the difference between the two.
It would be deplorable if, in our current state of affluence, we were to ignore the missionaries who went abroad. It should be remembered that some of them are in orders while others are not. From my time as a small child in school watching missionaries coming home and being sent abroad, I do not recall any great preparation being made for them. Young men and women were simply sent abroad on missionary work to fend for themselves as best they could. The important point is that they lived an existence based on what prevailed in the country to which they were sent at the time. They continue to work on that basis.
While a political decision may ultimately fall to be made, I am convinced there is sufficient latitude in the social welfare code as it stands to do something for them. The current code could, for example, contemplate the creation of a new PRSI class for former missionaries. Credits or other measures could be used to deal with their circumstances. In heaven's name, we should be able to solve the problem given that there are only about 800 missionaries with the number projected to fall over time. While others may come on stream, that will be balanced by decreases and the overall number will not increase dramatically. It might increase for the first few years but it could also decrease rapidly in time. It would be poor form, given what various members have said, to ignore these people.
It would be useful to ask for the cost of implementing the recommendations we finally make to be calculated for the final report. We would then have some idea of what we are talking about and could respond to Ministers. It would give them an idea of what is involved. The group of people in question will not, by definition, increase in number. I heard on radio this morning that on this day 40 years ago, 1,600 priests and nuns were ordained and professed while only one priest was ordained this year. Regrettably, that population is different now and we must cater for it out of simple equity. We would be failing in our duty to a cadre of people who have given a great deal.
I agree with the Chairman that the definition of pastoral and development work is, in essence, political. Pastoral work can be soft politics while development can be hard politics.
Deputy Durkan referred to the creation of a new PRSI class, which Ms Vaughan suggested was an option. We should simply provide for five years' worth of credited contributions rather than to choose one of those options with which I cannot agree. On page 25 of the report, it is stated that a person can have moved from pastoral development and benefit from the proposals but cannot qualify if his or her work was exclusively pastoral. I do not see why that should be so. The proposals should be all inclusive.
The Minister for Social and Family Affairs has said a further social welfare Bill is to be introduced early in the new year. We have an opportunity, therefore, to concentrate our minds to formulate a proposal to be included in the legislation. I raised this issue with the Minister in the Seanad when he referred to introducing a second Bill. I asked him to introduce a pension for missionaries and those I referred to in the disability and care sectors. The Minister is on our side as he indicated he would do so.
It does not matter what form a pension scheme takes provided it recognises those who have given great service. The proposal, while a start, is too narrow because it is confined to those involved in development work. I propose a simple solution of taking five years service as a threshold. The Chairman will be aware of the ten-year option because I understand he changed it when a pro rata pension was sought. The new scheme, which should be simple, should be introduced in time for the next Social Welfare Bill in February or March.
I concur with Senator Kitt and would support any advances which could be made on options eight and nine. I will expand on my comments on the OECD. It is past time, given the level of transfers involved, that Irish Aid or whatever is the name du jour concentrated on the concept of the development worker in terms of his or her formation, security, retirement and other issues. One cannot produce a development worker in six, eight or nine weeks. Development work is different from the normal work of representing Ireland through the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is technical and formative.
In the background to this debate lies the relationship between NGOs and Irish Aid. Many potential and former development workers spend a minimum of one third of their time on funding their advocacy of development issues. Far from there being a prohibition on the production of a top class development worker with formation, security and protection, Ireland should emphasise people as it moves up the international league in terms of the proportion of gross domestic product it contributes to development aid. It does not emphasise people. Figures are not available on the new people being hired and proposals have not been made on the security of development workers at home or in the field. Expenditure on dealing with advocacy issues is not sufficient across the board. I will make these points elsewhere.
I make the old argument that volume is not the answer in development aid and expenditure, nor is the suggestion that experience abroad in a Department is equivalent to experience in development work. One cannot argue that because a person represented Ireland in our embassy in Cairo, this experience equates to having an interest in African development. I use this as a notional example in case anyone has been stationed at the Irish Embassy in Egypt. The subject is not like that. It is time the emphasis shifted to the people involved in development work.
I thank the Deputy for thinking outside the circle. Members have thought outside the circle and the box. I agree with the approach taken to the development worker. APSO, the development workers body, if one likes, is integrated into Irish Aid. This side of Irish Aid must evolve much further.
The ghost of APSO is lurking somewhere.
Yes. The White Paper also emphasises the new volunteer initiative. All of these issues provide food for thought. From a political point of view we must bear in mind that some horrific things were done in the past that cost enormous amounts of money. I was involved in quite a few of these cases and thinking outside the box and the circle. The funny thing is we just got richer and the Department of Finance did not get poorer. We should not hesitate. I accept this is a political issue and that is one of the ways we have to look at it. People often pour cold water on the ideas of civil servants. The point with members is they are likely to throw the cold water back and boil it up.
I would not say that.
Let us look again at some of these issues. I thank the officials, both from Irish Aid and the Department of Social and Family Affairs for their presentations to the committee and for their work in general. The objective is to have a set of concrete recommendations by the middle of January. I hope we can do more work in the interim to examine the issues raised today.
Deputy Carey made the practical suggestion that the Department could carry out research on the number of people and the amount of money involved.
That is why I said it is a question of quantification. The issue relates to numbers and money.
Will that be done?
We will see what can be done in that respect in the timescale.
When are we meeting again?
Perhaps Deputy Durkan would allow Ms Vaughan speak?
Ms Vaughan
I thank the Chairman. In terms of quantification, it might be helpful if the committee secretariat were to request information from the IMU. I am not sure we have been successful in getting data. Anything can be costed, but Deputy Carey inquired about the exact nature of the proposal. We need to know that. We are happy to proceed with the Chairman's report but we need to know what he wishes us to cost.
The other issue is a political one and I will not get involved in it. However, if we cannot see our way to delivering whatever is proposed within the social welfare system, there is nothing we can do.
Sometimes issues that fall outside the usual scope can be dealt with by ex gratia payments or some other method. We will try to suggest other ways the matter might be approached.
The Chairman is correct in that it is up to us to try to find a solution. Ms Vaughan has suggested we could ask the IMU to provide us with some figures. I presume they would be approximate but reasonably accurate. I accept it is an actuarial issue as to how much it would cost to pay a contributory pension to approximately 800 people working on the basis that their average age is now over 70 and their life expectancy would be approximately another ten years. Those who do these things for a living can do it on an iPod or whatever they use these days.
There are other missionary groups apart from the IMU.
We realise that and they are taken into consideration.
The secretariat should ask the Department to inquire into all missionary groups operating from Ireland and the numbers of people involved.
I am only suggesting this for guidance because if we start trawling for every last person, it will take at least the rest of this Dáil.
We are only looking for an approximation.
We will look for approximate figures. We have been given figures by the IMU before but we want to include those who fall outside any arrangements that are in place. We could then figure out how to deal with them.
Ms Vaughan
That is the point. The figures will be available when we get the data but this issue will come back to the structure of the system, which is a bigger issue. If a political decision is taken to do this, there must be a decision on the appropriate mechanism and that is where Deputy Mulcahy's points come into play.
We will leave it at that for the moment. We will try to get a final report for discussion by mid-January. It is urgent because there is only a short time remaining in this Dáil.
I thank the group for coming in and for the work it has done. I wish the delegation a happy Christmas and a happy new year.
Ms Vaughan
We also wish the committee a happy Christmas.