I called yesterday for the reinstatement of the employment wage subsidy scheme. All of us in the Chamber are concerned about the hospitality and tourism industry. Last week I spoke about supporting local businesses on Black Friday. We should really get the message out there that people can support hospitality and tourism by buying vouchers and support local businesses by buying their produce. Some of them have takeaway produce or preserves, etc. It is incumbent on all of us as legislators to get the message out that we really need to support local businesses because they are suffering, especially those in the hospitality and tourism industry. I hope the employment wage subsidy scheme is reinstated to its full value but we must support local businesses by buying vouchers and gifts available locally.

I join in Senator Maria Byrne's call for the full reinstatement of the employment wage subsidy scheme. It will be vital to business continuity because of the restrictions that have been reimposed on the night-life sector and the effect of restrictions in place on other sectors at this time.

The main issue I wish to raise, however, is the revised mica scheme published on Tuesday. It is an enormous credit to the campaigners, the elected representatives and the thousands of householders who took to the streets of Dublin and who have been campaigning across Donegal and Mayo for many months and years that they have brought the Government to this point. I have read the detail in the document, and for the most part it is a very good deal. It is a real improvement on the previous versions. Those living in rented accommodation now have the comfort of knowing that the place they call home will be eligible for inclusion in the scheme, that there will be an allowance for those who have to move out of their houses into rented accommodation while works are carried out and that those who have bought houses up to 2020 will be included.

Ultimately, however, the principle of 100% redress does not exist in the scheme published on Tuesday. The sliding scale in the scheme makes little sense. The Department talks about economies of scale for bigger houses, but we have to ask what the basis was for the 24% cut in support per square foot once a house measures over 1,000 sq. ft. Is it really plausible that the average cost of construction for an entire house drops that dramatically with each additional square foot? I understand absolutely the need to protect the public finances, and we do not want to subsidise the construction of trophy homes, but I think about my experience. I grew up in a modest 1970s rural bungalow measuring approximately 130 sq. m. I now live in a house in Dublin that is much smaller than that, at 97 sq. m. If my parents were affected by mica, they would be left short. There is a real failure in just that final part of the deal to understand people's lives and homes. The sliding scale is simply not good enough. We know that this will impose a massive cost on the State. That cost has to be borne by the State and the sector. Ultimately, however, we have to get this right for these householders because this is only the tip of the iceberg. We have construction defects in Dublin that will be addressed as well, and the people affected will need full redress when that time comes.