asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will allow persons in receipt of invalidity pension, who transfer to retirement pension at the age of 65, to qualify for the same extra benefits with their retirement pension as they would if they were in receipt of invalidity or old age pension; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

In general entitlement to the free schemes is confined to persons who are over 66 years of age. Persons under 66 who are in receipt of invalidity pensions and who satisfy the appropriate conditions also qualify for the free schemes.

An invalidity pensioner can remain on invalidity pension after age 65. Where, however, a pensioner opts to transfer to the retirement pension at that age he is not entitled to the free scheme as he is not in receipt of a qualifying payment.

As Deputies will know, I am this year extending entitlement under the free schemes to additional categories, namely pensioners from other EC member states and recipients of certain pensions under the occupational injuries scheme. I will be examining the scope for further extentions of the schemes as circumstances permit.

Would the Minister not agree that it was an oversight on his part and on the part of his officials not to have included this category before now because people on invalidity pension who have been on long-term disability and invalidity assistance and who have reached the age of 66, will bring their benefits with them? Having reached the age of 65 they are notified by the Department that they have reached retirement pension age and they are asked to apply for this pension but having qualified for retirement pension they are then advised they will lose the benefit of free electricity. This is very traumatic because these people may have had this benefit for the past eight or ten years. I ask the Minister to examine this issue as a matter of urgency and to advise those people that they are better off to stay on invalidity pension rather than apply for retirement pension. The last part of my question——

The Deputy has made his point and he has got a great amount of latitude in making it.

——relates to the one-stop-shops which are far removed from the information offices the Minister promised and which——

Please Deputy Sherlock.

——were set up to eliminate this problem.

The Deputy was incorrect in saying that people are told to apply——

They are invited.

No, they are given the option and they can take one or the other pension. The reason for this is very simple. A couple on retirement pension will get £93 per week and on invalidity pension they will get £82.40. The Department will write to them and say "You are receiving £82.40 per week and, if you wish, you can go on to retirement pension for this year before you come to old age pension and the rate will be £93". Obviously a couple will make a substantial financial gain by going on the £93 per week rate as against the cost of the free electricity. The extension of free electricity to, say, those on retirement pension is a separate question and separate costings and provisions would have to be made.

Is the Minister aware that people who lose the benefit of free electricity, and have the right to it, are opting out of retirement pension and reclaiming invalidity pension? This shows that those people are not properly informed.

They will lose financially if they do that. The Deputy can work that out himself.

I want to make what hopefully is a constructive suggestion. Would it not be fairer to a person in receipt of invalidity pension, when the option is being given to him, to point out in the letter of option that if he goes for the higher payment there is a downside as well and he will lose the non-cash benefits? Would the Minister accept that as part of the answer to Deputy Sherlock's problem?

I will certainly look at that suggestion. These people will lose the various free schemes but even taking into account the value of all the free schemes, if they use them to the full, they will still gain, for example in the case I gave, by £185 per annum.

Would the Minister——

A final question please, Deputy.

——agree that this will only be true if they qualify for the full retirement pension, and not everybody will necessarily qualify for the full retirement pension? Would the Minister not also agree that this is yet another example of the failure of the system to communicate effectively with those who are entitled to benefits?

I will certainly be prepared to look at the nature of the communication on that.

Would the Minister consider reducing the contributory old age pension age to 65? This would get around the problems created——

That is a separate question, Deputy.

I should like to point out to the Deputy that the age in Europe and America is going up because people are living much longer now and the trend is the other way.

Question No. 14.

Does that indicate a change on the Minister's part?

No, I am just telling the Deputy what the external environment is like.

Is the Minister following Mrs. Thatcher?

No, it is happening all around us. Many people are trying to come to where we are now in striking a fair balance.