Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I promise I will conclude soon. I disagree with almost everything the Minister of State has said. We are passing legislation for the future, not just a few years. I hope most legislation passed by the Houses will endure for decades and there will be no need to return to it. As I stated, the Minister of State's position is akin to someone in the 16th century expressing doubt that the printing press would catch on.

On the issue of cost, the proposal does not entail a cost as every insurance company already has a website. The amendment could be changed and the condition added that notification must be included, provided the company in question has a website. The Internet is the cheapest form of public information.

I have another concern. Since I started tabling amendments such as this one a few years ago, I have identified some Departments which are very au fait with modern communications and others which lag behind and do not appear to realise the need for change. The Department of Finance and several others have been good at using these communications.

The target audience does not necessarily consist of people who took out an insurance policy 20, 30 or 50 years ago. It is much more likely that they will be the sons or daughters of such people who have been asked to seek information about the scheme. The people concerned will not become aware of the scheme unless they happen to buy the newspaper in which notification is published on the day of publication. For example, people living in the Cork area, who tend to read the Irish Examiner, will never become aware of the scheme unless the notice appears in that newspaper.

I am disappointed by the Minister of State's response. If he indicated a willingness to think over the matter overnight and introduce an amendment on Report Stage, I would considered withdrawing my amendment.