JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 22 Nov 2005

Irish Missionaries Pension Arrangements: Presentations.

Chairman

Are the minutes of the previous meeting agreed? Agreed. As no other matters arise, we will commence our discussion with officials from the Department of Social and Family Affairs on the pensions arrangements for Irish missionaries. I welcome Ms Anne Vaughan, Ms Siobhan Lawlor, Mr. Tom Whelan and Mr. Paul Cunningham who will discuss the issue with the joint committee and give members the benefit of their knowledge.

Pension arrangements for Irish missionaries is an important issue. The joint committee has taken an active interest in the case made by the Irish Missionary Union and welcomes the opportunity to discuss the Department's response to it. It is proposed to proceed with a brief presentation by the departmental officials followed by questions from members. I propose to conclude this part of the meeting at 3 p.m. and continue with the discussion with Fr. Gerry Murphy of the Missionaries of Africa and Sr. Margaret Quinn of the Medical Missionaries of Mary, both of whom are members of the executive committee of the IMU. I invite the officials to make their presentation.

Ms Anne Vaughan

I will read my presentation and if I cannot answer members' questions, I hope my colleagues will be able to do so. I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for their invitation to appear before the committee this afternoon to discuss issues surrounding the payment of pensions to foreign missionaries. I will, first, outline the background to the social welfare pensions system and how it operates, although the Chairman probably knows more about this than I do.

On social welfare pensions, there are two basic arrangements, contributory pensions based on PRSI contributions made by individuals and their employers and non-contributory pensions which are paid to those who can satisfy a means test. In order to qualify for a contributory pension a person must have entered social insurance ten years before pension age, have paid 260 full-rate contributions and achieve a yearly average of at least ten contributions on his or her social insurance record from the time he or she first entered insurance. An average of 48 contributions is required for a maximum pension, the rate for which is €179.30 per week.

In addition to the standard pensions, the Department operates a range of special pensions which are designed to assist those with less than complete insurance records. These include pro rata pensions, based on a mix of Irish contributions and contributions made in other EU countries or countries with which we have reciprocal agreements, insurance paid at different social insurance rates, for example, full and modified rates and, most recently, special pensions based on pre-1953 insurance contributions. In deciding on eligibility for contributory pensions it is necessary to uphold the contributory principle which underpins entitlement to all social insurance payments and which requires a certain level of commitment to the social insurance fund in terms of the number and type of contributions made.

The non-contributory old age pension is available to those who do not qualify for a contributory payment. To qualify for this payment a person must satisfy a means test and be resident in Ireland. The maximum rate of this pension is €166 per week.

Entitlement to an old age contributory payment is, as indicated, based on the contributions made by an individual and his or her employer to the social insurance fund. Contributions are built up over a lifetime's work and when a person reaches retirement age, he or she has established a personal entitlement through those contributions which can be made anywhere in the world. Some 37,000 pensions are paid to individuals resident abroad. Qualification for old age non-contributory pension requires a person to be resident in the State. The pension is not payable outside the country.

It is part of Government policy on development co-operation to encourage and facilitate as far as possible the participation of Irish people and organisations in the developing world. The lack of social insurance cover for returned workers was identified as a source of concern to many such workers. The Government, therefore, decided in 1985 that continuity of social insurance cover would be provided for those development workers who were paid pocket money rather than a wage in order that they could avail of the relevant social insurance benefits on their return. Broadly, volunteer workers fall into two categories. There are those who had no history of employment before their departure and, consequently, no social insurance entitlements. There are those who had an employment history and social insurance entitlements prior to going abroad, but who then lost those entitlements because they were not entitled to credited contributions while abroad. Legislative arrangements to safeguard the social protection of each of these two groups were put in place in 1985 as a practical approach to encourage and facilitate, as far as possible, the participation of Irish individuals in volunteer development work.

In 1995 the scheme was improved to provide for better maternity benefit provision. This measure was designed to facilitate volunteer development workers who wished to claim maternity benefit on their return home. The improvements extended to enhancing the entitlement to disability and unemployment benefits for volunteer development workers on their return from abroad. Voluntary development workers overseas have the right to full rate unemployment and disability benefit on returning to Ireland. A development worker registered with Development Cooperation Ireland can be awarded up to five years credited contributions which cover the person for pension and short-term benefits.

Several issues have been raised during the past year on pensions for missionaries. These include pensions for those returning to Ireland for short holidays, those retiring to Ireland and those who will retire to the countries in which they have served. The first mentioned comes under the habitual residence condition which generally covers social assistance schemes. All applicants for the schemes covered by the habitual residence test which includes old age non-contributory pension have to satisfy the condition and exceptions cannot be made in favour of any group or nationality. Missionaries had, prior to the introduction of this condition, been paid old age non-contributory pension when they returned to Ireland for holidays or medical treatment but this ceased with the introduction of the habitual residence condition. However, missionaries coming back to Ireland on a permanent basis, for example to retire, would still qualify for a non-contributory pension on the grounds their centre of interest was in Ireland.

While exact details of occupation of claimants assessed under the habitual residence condition are not maintained, it is estimated that 206 old age pension claims made by religious have been decided on since 1 May 2004. In 142 cases, approximately 69%, the person was awarded a pension. More recently, the question of missionaries who wish to retire to the country in which they have served has been raised. In terms of pensions, this presents no difficulty in the case of a missionary who has established an entitlement to pension through PRSI contributions because, as indicated, such payments are exportable and can be paid in any jurisdiction. In this regard, I have set out the changes and improvements made to help those with poor social insurance records to qualify for payments. These changes have helped many who emigrated in the 1950s and 1960s to receive pensions. While it is difficult to generalise, people who worked for several years before joining orders or going abroad, particularly pre-1953, may well be eligible for a payment.

The position on the non-contributory pension is, however, more problematic. As indicated, residence within the State is a pre-condition for receiving the pension. There is the position under EC Regulation 1408/71 to be considered. Essentially, this regulation provides for the export of social welfare benefits to other member states. However, Article 10a provides for a derogation from this general principle to the effect that a person shall be granted special non-contributory cash benefits exclusively in the territory of the member state in which he or she resides. The old age non-contributory pension is covered by this article on the basis of certain criteria agreed with other member states. These criteria are designed to bring uniformity and consistency in the treatment of social welfare payments across member states and, consequently, the designation or redesignation of a benefit as exportable or non-exportable must be agreed with other member states. In considering what might be possible on non-contributory payments it must be remembered there are issues of equality and equity, as well as the practicalities of operating a means-tested payment at such a remove from the State.

Any move to pay old age non-contributory pensions outside the State would cause difficulties in the context of EU regulations and call into question the designation of the pension as a non-exportable benefit. This could expose the State to the possibility of having to export payments to other EU countries.

Even if this was not an issue, we cannot discriminate on grounds of nationality and, accordingly, any move to pay the old age non-contributory pension to Irish missionaries could expose us to similar claims from other EU nationals. It is difficult to see how any such scheme could be confined to missionaries or volunteer workers who decided not to return to Ireland. A similar situation arose with the pre-1953 pension, when the measure ended up costing considerably more than estimated as a result of unforeseen claims from those who had emigrated and remained abroad.

We all acknowledge the work done by missionaries in other countries. As the missionaries pointed out in their submission, the cost of providing pensions for missionaries who remain abroad is relatively modest in terms of our overall social welfare budget. However, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to accommodate their request within the social welfare system without breaching the fundamental principle that means-tested payments are only paid where a person who satisfies the test is resident in Ireland. It would be impossible to limit any such arrangement to the missionary community and the proposal would, therefore, have significantly wider implications.

Deputy Allen

I thank the officials from the Department for coming before the committee and setting out its regulations. It would have been helpful if we could have read the Department's presentation before today's meeting because it refers to a number of regulations. One regulation relates to pensions for those returning to Ireland for short holidays or medical treatment. I understand that this measure was the subject of a cutback imposed by a particular Minister some years ago. While we paid lip service to the great work done by our missionaries, we effectively reduced their entitlement to the payments they could receive when they returned to this country for holidays or medical treatment. Some of these missionaries could spend a year in Ireland receiving medical treatment. Under the habitual residence test, they were debarred from receiving short-term payments. This ministerial decision could be reversed and the habitual residence condition could be abolished for missionaries.

The statement on page 4 of the presentation to the effect that these changes have helped many people who emigrated in the 1950s and 1960s to receive payments is not credible. Few, if any, people who emigrated to carry out missionary work in the 1950s and 1960s possessed prior contributions. Is there any estimate of how many people are in this category? The summary effectively closes the door on the possibility of paying missionaries and it appears that the Department is closing the door on the provision of any pension at any stage.

There is always a legal way to circumvent a regulation. Imaginative thinking could lead to a measure that recognises work done by missionaries, much of which is development work. Could a retrospective payment of pension contributions be introduced? The budget for overseas development is considerable. Is it possible to make retrospective pension contributions on behalf of missionary workers who have taken part in bona fide development and missionary activities?

I know of a nun who retired because of ill-health to my constituency at the age of 66 years having spent 40 years doing voluntary work among the poor. In order to receive a non-contributory pension, she had to spend more than one year jumping through the hoops, which included having to supply letters and copies of agreements between the bishop and the community. The only payment she received until she won her legal entitlements was a subsistence allowance from her parish. There should be some way to address this problem because the efforts the people concerned made for humanity received our praise during the years and they deserve support and help while they see out their lives. We need to deal with the EU regulations which seem to hinder resolution of the matter. As a former Minister, the Chairman has knowledge of the system and, with a little imagination, we can overcome this obstacle.

Chairman

I welcome Deputy Allen's suggestion with regard to seeking an imaginative approach because we will not go anywhere following the standard approach. I will make no further comment at this stage but will allow other members to speak.

Deputy M. Higgins

I join Deputy Allen in looking forward to the Chairman's contribution. It is important when addressing this issue that there is not a dichotomy between the complex circumstances of those who have worked abroad in different capacities and the Department because that would not bring us far. The Department does not play the role of defender of the floodgates of the social welfare system. We debated this issue in the context of the recent expansion of the European Union which was supposed to bring a deluge of tens of thousands, whereas fewer than 1,000 actually applied for social welfare benefits and half that number received them. Therefore, we can leave aside the floodgates argument. We can also make an accurate guess of the numbers involved.

The habitual residence condition raises both general and specific problems. This requirement is creating trouble at several levels in terms of the benefits administered by the Department. I remember hearing about the case of a new arrival from Lithuania who was caring for an 82 year old blind man and was deemed for the purposes of carer's benefit to be habitually resident in Lithuania.

The argument was that it would almost be necessary to interview her mother, brothers and sisters in order to prove that she had no intention of ever returning. The individual to whom I refer was from a large poor family.

The issue of habitual residence should be examined in general. This is extraordinarily inconsistent with the propaganda we are receiving about a new integrated Europe, common European citizenship, free movement of capital and labour, etc. The only matter in respect of which there is no freedom is benefit.

As I do not wish to waste time, I will turn to specifics of the missionary union's position. I find the habitual residence issue offensive for a number of reasons. I am somewhat familiar with it because my late brother-in-law was one of the longest serving male missionaries in Kenya and my sister-in-law is the longest serving Irish person in Ethiopia. Both gave over 30 years' service to their respective causes. If my sister-in-law returned and stayed with family, she would probably be interviewed and asked if she derived benefit from doing so.

I have learned from dealing with people who have had similar experiences that these individuals are not of one country. It is the nature of the missionary and continuous development experience that a person is of two countries. These people are, to some extent, from the country they grew up in; the roots from which they sprang and from which they decided to become involved in the missionary world are to be found here. However, they also identify with the people for whom they worked.

There is probably no group in respect of which the habitual residence concept is more unsuitable than the group being dealt with today. For example, a person may work abroad and, as many do, return and decide that the Ireland to which he or she has come back has changed. The person may then decide to return to the country in which they worked and engage again with it. The habitual residence condition is generally worth reviewing because it is causing difficulty across the board. It is causing specific difficulty in the context of the issue being reviewed by the joint committee and betrays a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the experience. I am not simplifying the matter. I recall the debate on the qualification of Irish people who had worked in Britain in order for them to be included under the pre-1953 scheme. Circular migration has been the dominant form in respect of Ireland for a very long period. It took many years for this to be recognised.

Another issue is the status of the derogation under EU Regulation 1408/71. A case for the derogation needed to be made in that case, and if it had been, there would be two clear legal options. There would be changed grounds to the derogation. I believe the original derogation is not absolute. The second option is to decide, in a European spirit, to remove the derogation altogether. It is not very convincing, as we look forward to a Europe inclusive of everyone, to have something as impractical as people in other parts of the European Union applying for pensions in this way. Regardless of where a person lives — be it Spain, which has an undeveloped social welfare system, or Portugal — growing old is an irreversible process. If a person has put in much work and decided not to spend his or her declining years arguing about habitual residence, he or she should be entitled, by any construction of European entitlement, to similar benefits.

Article 10a, the basis for the derogation, should be re-examined. There is a reference on pages 2 and 3 of the presentation to two categories of people who had been assisted in 1985. First, there are people who had no history of employment before their departure and who consequently had no social insurance. The second category concerns those who lost those entitlements while abroad. I appreciate the helpful point that was made about the construction of voluntary contributions as, in effect, pocket money but I do not see how the other group was affected. It was stated that legislative arrangements to safeguard the social protection of both groups were put in place in 1985. I would like to know what were the arrangements for the second group.

A third, albeit small, group has also been mentioned. It comprises people who worked in the public service or the central or local State systems and who retired early before leaving to work abroad. In many cases, they returned to Ireland later. Though few in number, they constitute a third category.

I question the statement to the effect that voluntary development workers overseas have the right to full-rate unemployment and disability benefit on returning to Ireland. I can visualise how a missionary or development worker returning from Africa or Asia would set about qualifying for unemployment benefit but I am not sure it would be very easy to do so in light of the experiences of other people with whom I am familiar. The principal points, therefore, are the habitual residence qualification and the grounds for derogation and reconsideration.

There are other categories, including those who have fragmented careers and different life styles. For example, a considerable number of people had experience in the Civil Service before joining religious orders and later went abroad before returning home. They constitute a category that would not fit into this framework.

I have also sought details of the 1985 changes that I missed.

Senator Kitt

I welcome the delegation from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. In common with other speakers, I have nothing but praise for missionaries and the contributions they have made. It is also correct to point out that, even though missionaries are over 66 — and in some cases may be over 80 — they are still involved with their local communities and are working in developing countries. I was amazed when I heard about the habitual residence condition, which meant that they were not in receipt of benefits. I understand that some of the missionaries were formerly APSO volunteers. Deputy Tony Dempsey has already raised the issue, which the joint committee has discussed, of people who were full-time development workers and who went on to work in the missions. Their work has been valuable. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is now talking about instituting other volunteering roles, which I would welcome.

I cannot understand — perhaps the officials might offer an explanation in this regard — the suggestions made by the missionary union in respect of opening bank accounts in Ireland, paying money to a congregation, if such an entity is involved, or establishing, as the union put forward, a holding entity. Some such scheme could be devised if the habitual residence rule is to remain. I am not in favour of the rule and I agree with Deputy Michael D. Higgins in respect of it.

It is stated in the submission that missionaries who return to Ireland for holidays or medical treatment cannot not be paid a pension because of the habitual residence rule. I have raised this point at previous meetings. Is it not possible for a person who returns for medical treatment to obtain a disability benefit or allowance while they are here? I am aware, from experience, of difficulties faced by missionaries who have returned to care for elderly relatives. Could they not be considered for a carer's allowance during the period in which they provide care, which could last for months or years?

Perhaps the brief for this meeting was too restrictive because I understood that we would discuss all social welfare entitlements and benefits. The issue is much wider than pensions.

Although the position may have changed in the meantime, I read a reply indicating that a missionary must be resident for three years before he or she can be considered for entitlement to a social welfare benefit. An exception was made for missionaries returning from Britain or Northern Ireland. I hope the three-year rule has been removed because it is a further example of a provision that makes life more difficult for returning missionaries.

The figures we have received indicate that the cost of providing pensions to almost 1,000 overseas missionaries is more than €7 million, which is not an exorbitant amount. While the number of returning missionaries may exceed 1,000 in the next five years, any increase is likely to be insignificant and none is anticipated by the Irish Missionary Union.

The habitual residence condition is a major issue and must be reviewed. Other relevant issues, including entitlement to carer's allowance, sickness benefits and invalidity payments, should also be examined. For example, is a returning missionary who requires medical treatment entitled to a social welfare benefit? While the officials have clarified some matters, further issues, including the practical suggestions that the Irish Missionary Union indicated would be of assistance, need to be addressed.

Deputy T. Dempsey

Is a teacher's pension classified as a contributory pension?

Chairman

It is an occupational pension.

Deputy T. Dempsey

Is it a contributory pension within the meaning of this discussion?

Ms Vaughan

No.

Deputy T. Dempsey

I am aware of a number of Christian Brothers who worked here and paid contributions to a pension in the hope they would later receive a teacher's pension on their return from abroad. Instead, they have found they have no pension entitlement of any description. What benefit have they derived from the payments they made? If it is not appropriate to discuss this issue, I submit that the joint committee hold a further meeting to do so.

We pay lip service to those who have made a contribution. I am personally indebted to the Christian Brothers because they gave me an education I would not otherwise have received because I lived in an isolated rural area. I am aware of several Christian Brothers, including a former teacher of mine who later moved to Kenya, who paid contributions while here but who discovered that they have no entitlements on their return. If one pays contributions, one should receive some benefit. Perhaps the specific case to which I refer is a result of maladministration on the part of the Christian Brother in question. I will return to the matter at another meeting if it is inappropriate to raise it now.

Chairman

We will have the matter examined if the Deputy supplies the joint committee with details of the case. While people should be entitled to a proportional benefit, this depends on the specific circumstances of the case.

Deputy T. Dempsey

Christian Brothers working abroad were not informed, either by the authorities or their order, of changes in the pension regime. As a result, they lost out twice. I have in mind a person who spent approximately 35 years in the order before leaving and becoming dependent on his own resources.

Deputy Durkan

I welcome the delegation from the Department. It is good to see familiar faces around committee tables from time to time, including that of Deputy Woods, who has been Chairman of this committee for a considerable period.

I concur with my colleagues that the habitual residence clause is causing serious problems for returning missionaries who have sought social welfare payments. It also creates a wider problem, however, particularly for nationals of other EU member states. I doubt whether the clause would stand up to a challenge in the European Court of Justice. There are several ways to resolve this problem, for example, in respect of those who previously made contributions here or were deemed to have been entitled to contribute. In other words, some might have worked here prior to going abroad to work with the missions to teach or nurse without paying contributions, but because of the nature of the work it could be agreed they were entitled to contribute and be awarded a pension retrospectively. There are many such precedents in social welfare legislation. This was done in respect of several categories of recipient in the past.

The bilateral agreements could be examined. We have several such agreements, although very few, if any, are with African countries where welfare legislation is in its infancy. We could, however, have one now, taking into account the circumstances affecting those of our citizens who went abroad and worked extremely hard, often in difficult conditions and at great personal risk. It would be very unfair if it was not possible to find a means to resolve the problem.

Following the last round of EU enlargement the barriers went up to prevent people from the new member states drawing social welfare payments here. It is wrong and unfair to encourage people to come here to work and then tell them they do not qualify for social welfare benefits. If challenged in the European Court of Justice, that barrier would fall. It would also be simple to change the criteria for qualification for a pension, to identify a means by which someone who worked here for a few years before going abroad could be deemed to have been expected to pay contributions during that period. It would simply be a matter of calculating the total cost.

While I do not wish to upset my former colleagues in the Department of Social and Family Affairs, I recall having this argument a few years ago in respect of those with less than 21 contributions on average in respect of old age pension. The response to a parliamentary question I tabled when in opposition revealed that the cost to the Exchequer of bringing those persons with fewer than 21 contributions into the system would be in the region of £400 million. I never believed this and working in my simple way on the abacus I calculated the figure to be somewhat less, at approximately £20 million. In reality, at the time it cost approximately €15 million.

It is not necessary to repeat the mistake made in respect of pre-1953 contributions by finding out afterwards that the field was larger than thought. In this case, in regard to the missionaries, the figures should be readily identifiable and all that remains to be done is to establish whether it would have a knock-on effect on others in similar situations.

Many Irish people have worked voluntarily around the world and continue to do so, and it would be very sad if we could not find a way to recognise their efforts when they come to retire. After all, they are Irish citizens. We need to look after them and recognise their efforts and their many and varied sacrifices. I ask that the Department review the criteria with a view to identifying, under one of the headings suggested by the various speakers, how best to recognise their position and make a payment.

Deputy Gregory

I support Deputy Durkan's comments that recognition must be given to missionaries for a lifetime's work in development. The submission from the Department of Social and Family Affairs ends with the statement, "It would be impossible to limit any new arrangement to the missionary community and the proposal would, therefore, have significantly wider implications". Will the Department quantify and clarify the significant wider implications it claims would be inevitable? I do not believe there would be an inevitable follow-on from making an arrangement for the missionary community. What are the significant wider implications?

Deputy Mulcahy

I had not intended to contribute on this matter. However, I support all that has been said. It is important that the committee should speak with unanimity on the issue. This is a country that is richer financially than it has ever been. It would be morally unacceptable for the nation not to recognise in some financial way those who have made a contribution in every corner of the globe. The people concerned who have given their lives for service have never expected a financial reward. However, we must give them a way of enjoying their retirement with a little dignity and comfort in order that this rich country will not face the prospect of some of them living in penury in their last years. All members would find that unacceptable.

I do not believe the State has given our lay and church missionaries, our foreign service agents so to speak, sufficient recognition. The word "recognition" has been used many times this afternoon. There is also more than just a financial route of giving recognition. As the contribution of so many of the people concerned has been outstanding, it is time for the State to introduce some other form of public demonstration of that recognition, whether it be through a ceremony, certificate or commemorative medal. To my mind, there is no public badge of recognition for those who have given outstanding service overseas. Will the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs with special responsibility for overseas development and human rights contemplate some form of recognition?

Chairman

The officials have heard the points made by Deputies and Senators. What is clear is that we want to find a solution to this problem. We appreciate it is not a simple matter because of the many interconnections and precedents that can be established. Nevertheless, Deputies and Senators have made suggestions about what might be done. While we have a fair idea of the numbers affected, Development Cooperation Ireland could examine them to give a better figure. It is possible to work through Development Cooperation Ireland or the Irish Missionary Union. The union has offered to act as agent if an arrangement can be arrived at. Development Cooperation Ireland is centrally involved with NGOs and volunteers overseas. We are making considerable progress and need to correct a few past mistakes. References to the situation pre-1953 are unfortunate because circumstances were completely different. Ireland possessed a common travel and work area agreement with the United Kingdom. The current arrangement is much more compact and readily identifiable and we can find a solution to the problem.

There is a question mark against the position of those in training and preparing for ordination. The religious are included, although the extent to which they are and the point at which they are included are issues for debate. As they retire, they are benefiting from the changes introduced since 1988. They will receive credit if they have worked or spent some time in Ireland. The situation will become easier in the future and it may be possible to find solutions to present and future difficulties.

Deputy Durkan has alluded to the fact that we are chiefly concerned with an agreement dealing with least developed countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa. Ireland has prioritised work in seven countries, the majority of which are to be found in sub-Saharan Africa. The remaining countries are Timor Leste and Vietnam. Missionaries are also concerned with least developed countries and do not wish to spread to other countries. The issue can be defined and categorised under headings which do not apply to other people or places. The European Union must also recognise this development.

We must address the question of workers posted to other countries by their companies for certain periods of time. These workers can continue with the payment arrangements made in Ireland even when posted to a country such as Sweden where payments are much higher. Development Cooperation Ireland co-ordinates the work abroad of Irish volunteers who could be considered to be posted workers. There may be a principle used in the treatment of posted workers which can be used with missionaries and a reasonably simple scheme could be established on that basis.

Reforming the arrangements for part-time and self-employed workers was once considered to be an impossible task, yet the current arrangements are working very well. When we reformed the arrangements for self-employed workers in 1988, we were warned about the considerable cost involved. Aside from official level, people are afraid to engage in reform at political level. The views of the Department of Social and Family Affairs on the reforms were borne out as there was increased revenue for the Government.

If anything, the money coming into the Exchequer has been far greater than anticipated. Where do we go from here in our search for a solution to this urgent problem? The budget will be shortly upon us and will be followed by the introduction of the Social Welfare and Finance Bills. We should form a working group, comprising representatives of DCI, the Department, missionary representatives and members of this committee, which would seek the advice we need to break down the issues raised in the report and referred to by members. That can be done by various means — although I am unsure whether a technical approach is possible — and a report could then be presented by the committee. These are only initial thoughts and the delegates may wish to respond to the issues raised.

Ms Vaughan

I thank members for their contributions and apologise that, due to work pressures, notes were not supplied in advance. I will be submitting a comprehensive report on these issues to the Minister.

While I will ask Mr. Whelan to clarify the current position of missionaries with regard to habitual residency conditions, we have shown flexibility in addressing that area. The missionaries raised in their submission the specific issue of people who do not return home, which is separate to the HRC. However, it would be difficult for us to award a means tested payment to somebody who is not resident in Ireland. It is easier if the person in question has a social insurance record of some sort and that, rather than a means tested arrangement, is probably the mechanism by which a solution may be devised.

The Department will be happy to participate in any working group the Chairman may wish to establish because it is always easier to find solutions by means of such bodies. I do not want to paint a completely negative picture or imply that the Department is inflexible because we have shown flexibility in other areas and, as the Chairman noted, the pension system has been expanded. However, we do not see how specific groups, in this case missionaries, can be identified with regard to means-testing. If people feel there is another way through this matter, I will be happy to consider it.

I will pick up on a number of queries and points made and return to those which I may miss. We have two reasons for mentioning pre-1953 contributions, one being positive. Deputy Allen asked a related question. We do not know how many will qualify. Suffice it to say far more have qualified for a pre-1953 scheme pension than we estimated. There is a chance, therefore, that certain missionaries could qualify. It is a case of disseminating the information and alerting the relevant individuals.

As the Chairman knows, I have worked in this area for a long time. Usually we underestimate the level of take-up and costs but the opposite is the case in respect of this particular scheme. There is a certain nervousness in paying a benefit that we believe we could not contain to a specific group.

Deputy Allen raised the point of examining the issue from the ODA side. That would clearly be a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs. If there was a way of linking to the contributory system, this would be the way to go.

With regard to the points raised by Deputy Higgins, we do not wish there to be a dichotomy between us and aim to find solutions. Mr. Whelan will explain that we have moved on the issue. Generally, we are keeping the habitual residence condition under review. There are differing views on the issue, but at operational level we are keeping an eye on the matter to see if there are unintended outcomes.

Mr. Whelan will deal with the issues raised by Senator Kitt. Deputy Dempsey raised a point about the teachers' pension, on which the Chairman's comment was correct. We will look at specific cases. A teacher could have an occupational or social welfare pension. The best option in such circumstances is to give us the details of the case and we will examine it. Subject to meeting basic social insurance conditions, if a person pays into a scheme, he or she should receive something back. The Deputy was referring to a period of over 35 years, but it would depend on the make-up. If somebody was teaching and paying reduced social insurance contributions before full insurance payments were introduced for everyone, the occupational pension payable should have been able to meet that person's pension needs. If the Deputy wishes, we can look up the details of the specific case.

Deputy Gregory asked about the final part of our note on the wider implications. We do not see that we can extend a pension under the means-tested arrangements to any group. The group we are discussing today is missionaries, but this applies to any group. This would have knock-on effects for other groups which might contend that they resemble the group in the original case.

Deputy Mulcahy referred to other forms of recognition. That would be a matter for ODA personnel.

The Chairman correctly referred to other arrangements for groups such as posted and part-time workers. These are all groups which have been included in the social insurance system. The trick is to have a group included in the system. Over time we have included part-time workers, civil servants and the self-employed. Other issues flow from this, whereby if one moves to another country within the European Union or one with which we have a reciprocal agreement, his or her rights are protected. We will certainly be more than happy to participate in the working group.

Deputy Durkan

Item 4 of the presentation refers to the current position of aid workers regarding PRSI. Ms Vaughan stated:

It is part of Government policy on development co-operation to encourage and facilitate as far as possible the participation of Irish people and organisations in the developing world. The lack of social insurance cover for returned workers was identified as a source of concern to many such workers. The Government, therefore, decided in 1985 that continuity of social insurance cover would be provided for those development workers who were paid pocket money rather than a wage in order that they could avail of the relevant social insurance benefits on their return.

That is a possible area in respect of which the criteria can be changed, even at this stage. As it was provided for back in 1985, it would be relatively easy to harness. It should be done as quickly as possible.

Deputy Allen

Would there be a big cost factor regarding post-paid contributions for paid workers? If we could credit missionaries and aid workers with contributions to a level that would allow them receive pensions, how far back would the contributions have to go?

Ms Vaughan

At present, we allow credited contributions up to five years on the basis that someone goes out and returns. A person must have paid contributions for five years to get a full pension, plus average conditions. That will increase to ten years of paid contribution from 2012. We have various arrangements for people working and caring in the home to whom we give disregards or credits in certain cases. However, that is all on the basis that they make their own paid contributions. When they are away, be it on voluntary work, unemployment, illness or whatever, the system kicks in with credits. To avail of that, one must get the contributory pension and have paid a basic number of contributions.

Deputy Allen

Is it legal for the ODA budget to pay five-year contributions on behalf of someone reaching 66 years of age?

Chairman

This is very much the remit of the working group. We need to explore this area.

Deputy Allen

We would eliminate the concern on equality for other groups of workers if we could bring it under the umbrella of contributory benefit, rather than non-contributory benefit.

Mr. Whelan

I would like to deal with the issue raised by Senator Kitt on the three-year rule. The primary legislation states that if someone has lived here for less than two years, the onus is on him or her to prove habitual residency. In practice, a missionary or lay person who returns here to retire and to stay on a long-term basis will satisfy the habitual residency condition from the date he or she re-enters the country.

Senator M. Kitt

From any part of the world?

Mr. Whelan

From anywhere. Generally, a letter from the head of a missionary's order confirming that the person is coming back to retire will suffice as proof. It may be more complicated for a lay person, who may have property abroad, but the missionary situation is quite straightforward. The habitual residency condition also applies to an applicant for disability or carer's allowance. However, the issue of the application of the habitual residency condition for the carer's allowance is under consideration by the Department for the forthcoming Social Welfare Bill. Any decision to be made would have to be approved by the Cabinet. It would also require primary legislation.

As far as missionaries in general are concerned, the Department met the Irish Missionary Union in February to discuss issues arising from the operation of the habitual residency condition. Subsequently, I attended the Irish Missionary Union's annual general meeting in Dalgan Park to take queries from the floor. It has been stated the habitual residency condition impinges on those missionaries who return to Ireland for summer holidays or medical treatment in short periods of approximately three months. Approximately 64 persons have been disallowed. While I cannot confirm they were missionaries, as they were members of religious orders, we assumed they probably were. As I have stated, missionaries returning here to retire on a long-term basis can satisfy this condition from the day on which they enter the country.

Deputy Durkan referred to European legislation and the application of the habitual residency condition. From an operational perspective, we monitor the situation on an ongoing basis to ensure we are in line with European legislation and do nothing to contravene it. To that effect, we have made some changes to the operation of the official residency condition since its introduction in May 2004, with specific reference to child and one parent family benefits, as these payments are deemed to be family benefits under European law. Moreover, EEA workers have certain entitlements. Hence, we keep a close watch on how our scheme operates within the context of the European legislation.

Deputy Durkan

Can this be challenged in the European courts?

Mr. Whelan

Any legislation can be challenged in the European courts where such a case would take its course.

I hope the Chairman will permit me to outline briefly how the habitual residency condition operates. It was introduced on 1 May 2004 by way of ministerial order. The primary legislation was the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004. In our experience, 90% of claimants are found to satisfy the condition at the claim application stage on the basis of a short questionnaire or primary claim form. However, approximately 10% of claims are deemed to be complex and are referred to a central unit in Dublin for decision. Since the scheme came into operation, we have received approximately 25,000 claims, of which some 75% have been found to satisfy the habitual residency condition. While the possibility of devolving all claims to local offices and scheme areas is under consideration, other issues arise in respect of staffing levels etc. and this will take some time to achieve. Committee members should come back to me if I have not responded to any questions.

Chairman

I thank the officials for appearing before the joint committee today. It would be best if the joint committee worked with them to establish a small working group in order to devise some possible solutions. The committee will follow this up with the Minister and the officials. On behalf of members, I again sincerely thank Ms Anne Vaughan, Ms Siobhan Lawlor, Mr. Tom Whelan and Mr. Paul Cunningham for appearing before the committee. We will proceed to a discussion with the representatives of the Irish Missionary Union. I welcome Fr. Gerry Murphy of the Missionaries of Africa and Sr. Margaret Quinn of the Medical Missionaries of Mary. I am glad to be able to provide an opportunity for them to respond to the joint committee, having heard the remarks of the departmental officials. I invite the delegates to comment and will then invite members to respond.

Sr. Margaret Quinn

It is wonderful to be here and to see what happens in government. We are pleased to have this opportunity rather than watching members on television.

Chairman

Sr. Quinn is on television now.

Sr. Quinn

The presentation of the Department of Social and Family Affairs was interesting. As one of the Deputies said, it was like closing the door. There seemed to be no hope. One of the Ministers said missionaries lived in two worlds and that is true. One returns from a mission after two or three years and signs up as an Irish resident, although one is not habitually resident. It is complex and disturbing because we are proud to be Irish residents. I was happy to hear the call for creativity, imagination and flexibility. Having listened to members there are rays of hope. A committee will be set up to discuss the matter and the Irish Missionary Union will have a chance to have an input.

I reiterate the point which many members made that it acknowledges those who have worked for 20, 30 or 40 years on missions, some of whom are still there in their 60s, 70s and even 80s. One may wonder what they are doing. They are wisdom figures and support younger people. They are hospitality people, welcoming and helping visitors from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trócaire and other organisations. I worked in Uganda for 18 years and will be in Ireland for another three. I do not know if I will have the strength to go back again. If I do, I will be among those hoping to get some help. Therefore, I am in favour of this. We appreciate the acknowledgement of the contribution of the missionaries to development. We also appreciate the co-operation of APSO, the Irish Missionary Resource Service, IMRS, and Development Cooperation Ireland, DCI. I have served on the board of APSO. We are confident we will get over the obstacles. We thank the committee for its work and time and for listening to us. We are optimistic there will be a solution to this problem.

Fr. Gerry Murphy

On Deputy Higgins's comments that missionaries are people of two worlds, my own experience as a superior in Ghana for some years was that many elderly missionaries had spent so much time there that they felt more like citizens of that country than their countries of origin. They knew the people, language and customs. They were more at home there than in their countries of origin. It would be nice if we could help them live out their retirement years in an appropriate way among the people with whom they have lived and associated and among whom they feel at home. I returned to Ireland five years ago having worked in Ghana for 17 years. While I was there I knew every back road and boreen. When I returned home, I was asked to go to a meeting in Nenagh and to my disgrace I had to ask where the road began. I did not know which road to take out of Dublin. It would be nice if some consideration could be given to missionaries who have worked long and hard in Africa, South America and Asia, who have been excellent good will ambassadors for Ireland and who would like to spend their last days among the people with whom they have worked. I realise that current regulations may make it difficult to recognise their contribution financially but, as Sr. Quinn said, we look forward to the establishment of a small working committee to investigate the matter further to see what might be possible.

Chairman

The IMU has supplied a document setting out the position at it sees it, its estimate of the numbers involved from the past and how it envisages those developing in the next ten years. These are certainly very helpful. Perhaps I might, at this stage, ask members to make their contributions.

Deputy Allen

I welcome the delegation. Many members of the committee have travelled widely, including to countries in which members of the delegation have worked. One of the most vicious and dangerous places I visited in the 1980s was the Central American country of El Salvador. I have an abiding memory of one incident. On election day, we visited the north of the country by helicopter and were surprised to encounter several Franciscan priests from Limerick in a place called San Francisco, which was not the home of the Golden Gate Bridge but a tiny village. We arrived there when rebels had kidnapped the village mayor. The four missionaries supposed to be there were out negotiating his release at enormous risk to themselves. Oddly enough, a few months ago at the ODA protest march in Dublin, a Franciscan priest approached me and said that he had met me in that village. My point is that missionaries spend their lives in different countries but in some places they also risk their lives on a daily basis. As I said——

Deputy M. Higgins

He was installing electricity in homes.

Deputy Allen

My point is that the time for lip service is gone. We praise what people have done, both here and abroad. It is time that we used our imagination to give them their entitlements. We spend very large amounts on ODA and those who worked for decades — unpaid and without seeking payment — should at least be supported. Many of them, even in their retirement, work as village elders, advisers or supporters. Under that umbrella, it should not be beyond our capacity to devise a scheme recognising their contribution. I welcomed the previous presentation, which gave us time to consider matters. I hope that, as a result of today's meeting, we can work with the Department of Social and Family Affairs to devise a scheme to give those men and women the recognition they deserve.

Deputy M. Higgins

The fact that a working group is to come into existence is welcome, as is the commitment by spokespersons from the Department of Social and Family Affairs that they will participate. The important thing is that we must resolve this issue. The reason I spoke of people in two worlds is to distinguish between a highly qualified person who decided to move through the international economic system — working in the financial services area in Singapore or wherever — and afterwards returning and someone working in Africa. The reality is that the person to whom I refer would have come from a place with a particular set of traditions. It is very interesting that when some of our representatives visited Africa or elsewhere, they noted on occasions that at receptions people attached great significance to their roots. At the same time they know that the intimacies and familiarity the workers have built up in villages and houses and the people with whom they work are stronger. The workers are of the people with whom they work, or with whom they have arrived, but do not forget from where they came. This is not sentimental nonsense but immensely practical — it is the way it is on the ground.

When people speak about coming home, they very much speak about wrenching themselves away. Some of those involved in the orders with which I am familiar return to Ireland every few years and one can see the impatience with which they gather information they will apply when they go back. They make use of training in all the low-cost skills such as homeopathy because the technology needed for high-cost skills is not available in the regions in which they work. They are looking at all the low-cost ways of helping people. They are of two places, but the important point is that we have taken credit for this. The development project takes credit for it. It is regarded as Irish work in Africa, not work done at random and delivered speculatively in a labour market or the international economy. This is true, irrespective of whether one is talking about those involved in religious orders because there are lay people in a similar position.

One of the great challenges of our time, morally and philosophically, is to defend the right of people to give unselfishly in settings not immensely remunerative. A great contemporary ugliness works against their doing so — I will use other occasions and venues to speak about it.

Having had a traumatic debate on what it means to be an Irish citizen and in the full knowledge that there is a unit in the Department of Foreign Affairs called the Irish abroad unit, I note that citizenship issues arise in this area. The people involved have never disaffiliated from their Irish citizenship, no more than from anything else. I am not imputing anything to those who have to administer the arrangements which are ultimately the responsibility of the Legislature and the Cabinet, but I have real difficulties with the concept of habitual residence. I will say no more about it except that it is a miserable definition which is fragile in international law. In time, the issue will arise as to whether it will atrophy or be struck down. In the meantime, the working group should do its work in the knowledge that it has to be dealt with.

Senator Kitt

I welcome the delegation and hope the working group will make some progress. It was indicated by one official that there may be a provision regarding habitual residence in the social welfare Bill to be introduced after the budget. I, too, have many difficulties with the idea. We will see what the legislation will achieve in this regard.

Where I live in County Galway there are annual mission dances or functions which I attend regularly. One of them has been held for 40 years. It always struck me in the earlier years of such functions that the missionaries would not be able to come home every year to attend, but the fund-raising ventures are great social occasions which have attracted some of the biggest crowds I have ever seen. It is great that some missionaries have been able to attend in recent years to see what takes place and note how much people appreciate the work they are doing. Despite what has been said here today, I am hopeful we will make progress. As the Chairman said, we all want to find a solution; the quicker, the better.

Deputy Durkan

I thank Sr. Margaret Quinn and Fr. Gerry Murphy for their presentations. The important and positive point is that a sub-committee will be established and that they will both have an opportunity to make an input to it, as will the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It may be that the pre-1953 contributions carried a sting in the tail in that the costs were not anticipated. However, we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater just because of one bad experience. After all, we are bound to have other, more positive, experiences and have had in the past. This provides us with a great opportunity to ease the hurt we might have caused by a failure to calculate accurately on the first occasion. On this occasion we will have a much more pleasant experience. It behoves all of us to recognise the generations of Irish people who left this country, many for economic reasons. We should also recognise those who left to do missionary work all over the world. They worked abroad when we had little or nothing to give. Now in this time of plenty when this is supposed to be one of the wealthiest countries in the world, I see no reason not to respond positively to the request made. We will do everything possible to assist.

Chairman

We survived the pre-1953 contributions issue with an abundance of funds. Therefore, many of these matters have to be put right. It is a matter of having the will to do it. There are complicated implications for the future, as well as cross-references to other EU countries, but we must find ways of dealing with them. In order to do so we need to sit around the table with the experts to work out reasonable solutions. That is what we hope to do in following up on the presentations we have heard and the request made to the joint committee.

I thank Sr. Margaret Quinn and Fr. Gerry Murphy for appearing before the joint committee. I congratulate them on the work that they and their members have been doing so effectively for so many years. As someone said, Ireland has taken much credit for this work. Everywhere we go we find evidence of the tremendous work done by missionaries and NGOs in a wide range of countries.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.43 p.m. and adjourned at 3.46 p.m. until 11.45 a.m. on Wednesday, 30 November 2005.