David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

That is very important.

I hope the Minister will be able to accept this amendment. She will have some difficulty defending her position if she does not, in light of what she said earlier this afternoon. She pointed out the difficulties that pension schemes have got into because of people’s extended longevity. That is contained in this amendment. In the sections of the Bill, to which Senators Barrett and Quinn have referred in their excellent amendment, how much is gone? What is the difference? What will we have to fork out? It is much more important to understand why, instead of what and how much. Why did this happen? If we do not understand why it happens it is quite likely to happen again. For that reason I think this is an excellent amendment and the Minister has argued for it. I very much hope that she will be able to accept that.

I also feel strongly about amendment No. 5. I would not want to be the one trying to tie the hands of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan. He is an old friend of mine but I would say that he could be pugnacious enough if he took the notion. The Bill states that the Minister for Finance shall in consultation approve the request but what if it is a rotten request? Why should he approve it? I cannot imagine any circumstance so nonsensical that somebody should be required by law to approve something. This is in legislation before anything has been produced. People do not sign blank cheques. Bertie Ahern’s day is long gone. Why should the Minister be expected to sign a blank cheque? I support these amendments.