Mr. Bernard Coyle:

Mr. Whelan has given committee members an overview and I will give the point of view of an indigenous company on the ground. Mr. Whelan pointed out that for various reasons many good companies do not export. It has been of concern for a number of years that from the artisan market up these companies do not progress and get involved in the export market. Being pragmatic I believe many opportunities exist for Irish companies to export throughout Europe, particularly to our nearest neighbour across the water, but these are not being taken for a number of reasons. Austerity is not only an Irish phenomenon and many companies in the UK are closing because of difficult trading conditions. Many mergers are taking place and many larger companies are closing plants and reducing surplus in the marketplace because the prices of commodities are rising but they cannot secure price rises for their products from the multiples.

I will go back to basics and ask what is happening in the marketplace and why we are so slow to get our indigenous companies to export. Our focus on food companies is good, through Enterprise Ireland and Bord Bia which do a wonderful job, but we must strengthen this focus. Much is happening in IT, ICT and farming and many opportunities to create employment exist; we are all conscious of employment. A number of platforms are involved and it is about getting the artisan producers one finds in west Cork and at food markets to a level where they have the drive, motivation and initiative to reach a position where they are exporting. It is not easy for them and we need to examine the supports available to them at present, for example, through enterprise boards.

The food industry is and has been very regulated and this adds to the cost base. People used to start by making soda bread, jams or chutneys at the back of their house, but now they must work in a food grade building. One needs access to finance because of the cost of building. One needs accreditation, in particular from the British Retail Consortium as it is demanded by all and sundry. Problems also arise with middle management skills, which roll into the staff. Mentors should be more relevant, such as people with a business background who were involved in exporting and who are recently retired or semi-retired whose contacts in the sector are still relevant. They would still be able to open doors. In many cases people move on so one needs those who are relevant.

Increasing the number of employees to more than 15 requires access to finance and we are all aware of this. The business expansion scheme is one of the best initiatives that has ever been brought to the table by government. It has been a tremendous help and this needs to be stated. Such companies will have accreditation and top-class food buildings but they need further finance to expand. The availability of senior and middle management with relevant skills is still a problem. We have a disjoint between our third level colleges and industry. We continue to turn out people with skills which are not that relevant. We are aware of the issues in IT and the issues experienced by PayPal with regard to languages. Given that we have approximately 500,000 unemployed people, it is shocking that for the past two years food companies have been going abroad to recruit relevant people. It is not uncommon for people to take a hotel room at Heathrow Airport and spend a couple of days recruiting development chefs, process technologists, food technologists, production managers and chill chain management.

Technical quality is a major issue. To make things worse, the UK is hitting a downward spiral. It is seeking to recruit 137,000 people to join the food industry. We must refocus on how and where we get people. This has a bearing on our cost base, as Mr. Whelan alluded to, and salary levels at middle and senior management in the food industry are between 25% to 35% higher than our nearest neighbours. We are all aware that finance and skills shortages are factors for the food industry.

We are all aware that entrepreneurs take risks but when things go wrong there is no safety net. I think they are afraid to put their neck on the block because they feel they are being unfairly targeted. If their companies go pear shaped there is no safety net for them. That stops some people from pushing on. We need to adopt the American model. When entrepreneurs fail within reason, they dust themselves off and start again, bearing in mind that creditors must be protected and so on. Here, when an entrepreneur fails, he may be ostracised.

A number of issues need to be discussed, but we can come back to them and deal with them later.