This needs to be pursued a little further. The Minister spoke earlier about our general economic situation. I would not quarrel with a good deal of what he said but I suggest this section is largely irrelevant because, although it recognises there is a problem and attempts to do something about it, the real question is will the section give some relief to those sectors of the economy which need it. The Minister has made the point that blanket relief would give relief to those who do not need it. That is a valid point but is that not precisely what he is doing in a small sector of the economy? On the definition of trade, for instance, we find it will apply to the manufacturer of goods. There is no restriction. The manufacturer of goods will get this relief. There may not be many manufacturers of goods who do not need relief, but there are some. Then there is the carrying out of construction operations within the meaning of section 17 of the Finance Act, 1970; one can assume that the great majority here need assistance, but there may be some who do not need it Whether they need it or not they will get it under this section. Again, in regard to farming, the great majority need assistance, but there may be some who do not; they will all get it under this section. The Minister has actually been forced into the situation he was decrying in relation to what we put forward. The Minister has been forced to adopt a relatively blunt instrument. I do not fault him for that because I can see the difficulties with which he is faced but, since he himself was forced into that position, the validity of the criticism he made of this side of the House that relief may be given to those who do not need it is considerably reduced.
I mentioned earlier that there were sectors of the economy in as great need of relief as those being relieved by this section, sectors which are not covered in the section, and I suggested the Minister would not controvert that statement. He did not controvert it because he knows just as well as I do that there are sectors that could come into this category. One is the wholesale sector referred to by Deputy Fitzpatrick. Some in that sector will be covered but some will not. A great many of them will not. A great many wholesaling firms are in the gravest difficulty because of shortage of cash, shortage of cash contributed to by a number of factors—in particular, by the rapid increase in the price of the goods they stock, by the necessity in some cases, because of prospective shortages, of carrying much larger stocks than usual, by the falling demand for their stocks which means that the holding of larger stocks is aggravated still further by the fall in demand, and the very high price of money which they needed to finance these stocks, plus the fact that they are obliged to pay value-added tax every two months while they have to extend credit to their customers for three, four and more months.
All of these and other factors are combining to leave a number of wholesalers in a most precarious position with the consequent danger to their employees and the consequent reduction in their demands from manufacturers. All manufacturers are being given relief under this section. We tried to make the point earlier that there is not much value in giving relief to one link in the chain if by reason of failing to give it to another link the link not getting the relief collapses, and the link which you are purporting to give relief to, if it does not collapse, will get no benefit from the relief. That should be self-evident and is a very strong argument for urging the Minister to extend the scope of this section.
The Minister said, for instance in response to what Deputy Fitzpatrick said, that a sharp eye will be kept on the situation. I want to put two points to him in regard to that. First, as I see it, the section does not give any power to extend the categories who would benefit from it by order. Therefore, if he decided, having kept a sharp eye on the situation, that there were other categories which should get relief it would be necessary to introduce legislation to give that benefit. That does not inspire too much confidence in the keeping of a sharp eye on the situation and moving quickly to give relief where it seems to be needed.
The other aspect of this is that, having presumably looked at the situation with a sharp eye, the Minister has come up with this section. However, it is clear to anybody who looks at the situation, even without a very sharp eye, that there are sectors, which are not included in this relief. For those reasons I believe it is necessary to go a little further and for the Minister to show a more genuine readiness to extend the scope of the relief, where it can be clearly demonstrated that the need is at least as great as it is in the case where relief is being given. I do not think the Minister is giving himself power under this section to do that where it is demonstrated. He ought to consider very seriously taking that power under this section.
I believe it may well be that by limiting the scope of the relief under this section, in the way it is being limited, as Deputy Fitzpatrick said, the benefit expected to accrue, not just the individual firms concerned but our whole economy, may be either lost or substantially lost because the line is not extended along the chain in order to be really effective. Here we are talking about, to a great extent, the maintenance of employment and keeping in being firms which might otherwise go out of business. If the Minister is correct in his assessment that we are at the bottom of a trough, then as Deputy de Valera said, it is true that this is the time to give the relief if only to keep those firms in being until the situation improves.
Very often, if such firms go out of business, not alone do you have the consequent unemployment but they are not replaced that easily and a good deal of expertise and knowledge goes out of circulation altogether. If we are to benefit, if there is an up-swing in the economy in the future, we cannot afford to allow such firms to go out of business because we are prepared to give relief to one sector and not to another. I believe if it can be demonstrated that the need in some sector of the economy is the same as it is in those sectors covered by this section then the relief should be given and the Minister should have power to give it. I believe the case for different sectors can be made and vincingly. They are not covered by this section and they should be covered by it if we are really serious in what we are trying to do.
I very strongly urge the Minister to reconsider this situation. If he cannot extend the scope of this section on its face—I can see some difficulties in definition and so on—he should at least take power to apply this relief to other sectors where the kind of criteria that he applies in arriving at those sectors mentioned in the section apply. There is no case, either in economics or in equity for refusing to extend that relief to sectors which need it as much as those which are getting it under the section but are not included. I strongly urge the Minister, if he cannot extend the scope of the section, at least to amend it by taking that necessary power to give the relief where it is needed and where it is demonstrated it is needed.