Reverting to subsection (1) of section 2 which gives the Minister discretionary powers to amend the scheme, I welcome this but I am critical of the fact that there was such little detail in the Bill. I fear we will have an anomalous situation. We on this side of the House would have put down many more amendments but we realised that the time was not available to us to discuss them and that we would be dragging the business out all night. It is left to the Seanad to go into this Bill in detail. Naturally, where more time is available, I have no doubt that that House will be putting down amendments which I believe the Minister will accept. Does that mean then we have to come back here, go over this Bill again, because there is an urgency about it? I would have preferred that we could have dealt in detail with those amendments here.
Subsection (2) says:
The purpose of the Scheme shall be to encourage employers in industries or activities to which the Scheme applies to employ persons....
This has been going on since 26th June. As far as I can see we on this side of the House do not know yet the specific industries included and these excluded.
I thought this Bill could have been extended to help to create employment in all spheres at present. If one looks today at a Question to the Minister for Social Welfare and the reply to it, we see a figure of £18,356,000 being paid out in unemployment benefit from the 1st of January to the 30th of June, 1975, and unemployment assistance of approximately £16,779,900 and one realises that these figures are staggering. It would be an imaginative idea were this Bill extended to embrace all industries, all activities and not confined to manufacturing industries. But, of course, I accept that there would have to be control. We could not have a situation in which people exploited its benefits. Certainly that would not be acceptable. If it were more embracing, we could then see real value being gained by our Exchequer generally. We would see a saving in the figures I have just mentioned. We would see the contribution by way of stamp, and possibly some income tax, out of the £12 being paid by the State towards the premium. That is why I express disappointment at its narrow nature. I would appeal to the Minister —and we will give him power if he wants to amend the scheme—to broaden its scope in the coming months. In that way only can I foresee a realistic number of people re-employed under the scheme in the coming months.