I would like the Leader to give consideration to organising a debate on the stimulus package announced yesterday. There will be a serious injection of capital with some €5.4 billion going into the economy to try to address the very significant fallout from Covid-19. I understand that this is the largest amount - or wall of money, as I heard one commentator refer to it today - ever injected into our economy. Additionally, more than €2 billion in loans will be guaranteed to a great extent by the State.

The real objective of this has to be to pump-prime our economy. A debate here would be helpful because we need to tease out some aspects of this. We cannot allow, as often happens, red tape to get in the way. I have already had some people on to me from bed and breakfast businesses who were initially delighted to see a recognition of the impact on their sector but who are now concerned, since they may not be registered with Bord Fáilte, that they will not be able to be accommodated.

There is also the temporary wage subsidy scheme. Companies applying for the scheme will have to demonstrate that they have been impacted to the extent of a drop in activity of a minimum of 25%. What we do not want is companies ensuring they remain below that threshold in order to get the payment.

We need a debate here to try to ensure a degree of flexibility and a capacity to appeal certain decisions in respect of the payment of these sums because their whole purpose is to try to get people back to work rapidly and get activity going again. It is absolutely necessary to ensure some flexibilities in respect of the various criteria. Of course there must be criteria, and their purpose must be to assist companies that are affected to the greatest extent. However, if one company has seen a drop in turnover of 25% and is entitled to the wage subsidy scheme, and if another company has seen a drop of only 24.5% and gets nothing, there is an anomaly there that needs to be addressed. We must therefore be very careful in the application of the necessary criteria. A debate would help to clear up some of the potential confusion that might emerge.

I agree with my colleague, Senator Dooley. I think we would all welcome a debate on the announcement yesterday. If time could be made available next week to have such a debate, that should happen. I was looking at the schedule for next week and we seem to have a gap on Wednesday morning, so perhaps that morning would be the time to have such a debate.

As the Cathaoirleach will be aware, this is Farm Safety Week. In 2015, this House, through the Seanad Public Consultation Committee, an excellent committee of which the Cathaoirleach is a member and which has done fine work and published some great reports over the years, did a report on farm safety. I had the privilege of being the rapporteur for that report. Senators who were here at the time will remember that we had many witnesses before the committee over, I think, two days of public hearings. There was a significant engagement. In 2014, 30 people lost their lives as a result of farm accidents. While this figure has improved, sadly so far this year 14 people have lost their lives tragically as a result of accidents on farms. I commend the Government on taking the initiative of appointing for the first time a Minister of State with specific responsibility for farm safety. This was discussed during the deliberations on the report to which I referred and it is very welcome. I suggest to the Leader that she invite, perhaps in the autumn, the Minister of State, Deputy Heydon, whose responsibility farm safety is, before the House for a debate on farm safety. It would give him an opportunity to update us on the work he is doing on farm safety. Perhaps there are Senators who would have suggestions that would help him in the critical work he is doing.