I move amendment No. 29b:
In page 22, subsection (2), to delete lines 39 to 44, and substitute the following:
"(a) be carried on by a body corporate and must not wholly or mainly consist of any of the following trades:
(i) distribution trades,
(ii) professional services, or
(iii) banking, financial, insurance and services ancillary to any of the foregoing:
Provided, however, if in the case of (i) to (iii) above the service qualifies under Chapter VI of Part I of the Finance Act, 1980, or the rendering of services in the course of a service".
This is a substantial and important amendment and it represents the reason for our having to rush through so many other parts of the Bill. It is a great pity that, although we are working to an arrangement to deal with all parts of the Bill, we must rush through a Bill as detailed as the one before us and have merely one-line replies which do not do justice to what we are supposed to be doing here, that is, legislating.
The Committee Stage of any Bill is hardly exciting. It is never very sexy from the point of view of public presentation. However, our job is not to entertain. It is to deal with matters of substance and argument. If detail is not very entertaining, that is too bad; but we must do our work.
The Minister is confining the scheme as outlined in section 16 to manufacturing industry. I am glad he has met the argument we made some time ago and has not confined the scheme to new manufacturing industry. He is now extending it to manufacturing industry and to certain international trading services, namely, consultancies and the IDA and SFADCo recognised services. That is as far as it goes. To put it simply, our amendment — and this is the most important we will be making on this Bill — proposes that this provision for investment should not be confined to manufacturing industry. A job is a job wherever it is created. From the latest trends in unemployment we see the need to maintain and generate employment at every level. Our amendment would have the effect of enabling this scheme to be operated through a service sector, with the exception of distribution trades, which we understand should not be included for many reasons, professional services and banking, financial, insurance and services ancillary to any of the foregoing. With those exclusions only, we see no reason why the other services such as those in the construction and tourist industries, which have a capacity to generate much more employment than the manufacturing industry, should be excluded. It is essential that the Minister should adopt our proposal. The IDA project that we will create 1,000 new jobs in the manufacturing industry this year but that will not be nearly enough to meet our employment requirements. From the figures issued by the Central Statistics Office we can see that the numbers employed now in the manufacturing industry are fewer than they were in 1966 and falling. It is regrettable but true.
The numbers unemployed at present are about 20,000 more than the numbers employed in the manufacturing industry. A recent report issued by the ESRI suggests that, on current trends, unemployment could rise to 325,000 by 1991. This indicates that we must do something radical and positive and give clear signposts for investment in any area which will generate and maintain employment. Having regard to the experience in the United States, Japan and other countries which have developed economies, it is obvious that the service sector is the engine of growth for employment, and that is not denigrating the contribution of the manufacturing sector. The numbers employed in the manufacturing industry in the United States are nearly the same now as 20 years ago. Nonetheless, they have witnessed an increase of 2 per cent in each year of the 20 years in the service sector of their economy.
If we look at the trends in the manufacturing industry here we must recognise that they are very discouraging. As the IDA have limited their projections to 1,000 new jobs this year, do we really think that this scheme is going to be a signpost for new growth and development of employment on a major scale? I have not had time to argue about the impact which the scheme will have because of the unnecessary complexities but I believe that all but the most technically illiterate will be discouraged from investing because of its complexities. However, it is important to realise that, if we want to generate employment, we cannot confine it to the manufacturing industry. On that basis, we are proposing that this scheme would allow participation and we have done it in a very simple form which is not particularly characteristic in the sense of some of the definitions in the Bill. We say it should be applied to all trades except distribution, professional services and banking, financial, insurances and services ancillary to any of the foregoing. Is there any reason why jobs created in the hotel industry should be distinguished from those created in the manufacturing industry? Are they not as valuable? Is the same amount of employment not involved? Is there any reason why jobs created in the construction industry should not be as important in terms of critical unemployment? Is there any reason why agricultural developments, where three young farmers form a company and need capital for development purposes but cannot afford it because of high bank charges, or perhaps because of inherited charges, should be excluded?
I acknowledge that this scheme is desirable and we have been calling for it for the past 12 months. The Minister should take his courage in his hands and promote investment right through the corporate trades with the exception of those I have mentioned. Nothing short of that will make any impact on the drop off in investment here, especially over the last couple of years. We have heard of black holes and investment leakages and we have seen the increase in the rate of unemployment. We must create a better climate for investment in every area. For that reason, this amendment is vitally important. If the Minister could give some indication of his readiness to extend the scheme beyond the limited areas to which it applies at present we would have achieved something. If it is confined to the manufacturing industry basically, with the constraints and technicalities involved, it will not make an impact.
At an investment conference recently I was asked by a pessimistic if not cynical businessman how long it would take to get the country moving if the right climate and encouragement were there. It did not take very long to do this some time ago. In 1957 and 1958 the change was dramatic because the right signals were given and the proper signposts were erected on the basis that investment was welcome. Work will be rewarded. Achievement will be honoured. Above all else the confidence to achieve it will be promoted in every direction. It did not take even six months to bring about that dramatic change. That can be done now by the Government, provided they put up the right signposts and signals. What I have suggested is the kind of thing that is required.
It would not cost very much money. Deputy Taylor may have asked about this earlier. In the UK where it extends to the services sector in some areas, the evidence is that the cost to the Revenue is relatively very little. If we were to extend that scale over here, or even with a full-blooded application of the scheme, in initial terms we might be talking of a loss of £10 million in one year, but there would be a much greater benefit to the Revenue in a very short time through all of the increased investments in activity and jobs which would be created.
Deputy G. Mitchell rose.