Fergal Browne (Fine Gael)

It is a pity he did not say that yesterday when the Minister for Health and Children was in the House.

I will not even try to compete with Senator Terry who made an excellent presentation. A pension issue which arises relates to people who have been working for years and who may marry either for the first or second time after they retire. I am aware of the case of a widow who, following her husband's death, received a letter from the company for which he worked sympathising with her and explaining that she would receive the widow's pension. A few weeks later, she was informed that she would not receive the pension because she was not married to her husband while he worked for the firm; he married her after he retired. The case is currently with the pensions ombudsman and I am not sure what the outcome will be. This is something, which arises quite a lot. It is probably a reflection of the fact that people are living longer, going into second marriages or perhaps marrying late.

Senator Leyden correctly referred to free schemes. I recently spoke to a lady whose husband was much older than her. If her husband had lived past the age of 66, he would have been entitled to avail of all the free schemes but because he died before reaching the age of 66, she was not entitled to avail of the free schemes. This is an area which should be examined. This woman would have been entitled to avail of the free schemes in theory, but because her husband died a year before reaching the age of 66, the entitlement did not apply. Perhaps I am confusing the Minister. If a woman marries an older man, and he turns 66, she is automatically entitled to all the benefits of free travel, free electricity and so on. However, if a woman is 60 years of age and her husband dies at 65 and a half years, even though she would have been entitled to avail of the free schemes six months later had he lived, she loses her entitlement. This is a serious issue, particularly if one has friends who can avail of these free schemes.

I have a couple of queries regarding the backdating of social welfare benefits. I am aware of a person who was awarded family income supplement. He should have applied for it a year earlier, but he was not aware that he was entitled to it. The Department acknowledged that he was entitled to the benefit and he received it from a certain date. However, the Department would not backdate the payment. Obviously if the man had been aware that he was entitled to claim the benefit, he would have done so. It was a mistake on his part. I understand a rule applies not to backdate payments, except in the case of pensions. This aspect should be examined because, if people are entitled to benefit, they should receive it from the correct date, not from the date they make the claim. This is very unfair in the instance to which I am referring because the man is in severe financial difficulty.

I raised the issue of children's allowance with the previous Minister, Deputy Coughlan. I understand there are different rates for the first, second, third and fourth child.