I welcome the Bill, which will increase the total amount of money made available to the board from £90 million to £160 million. The figures in the Minister's speech indicate the need for a support programme, considering that the total value of our exports in 1982 reached £5,688 million and that we expect further increases of from 18 per cent to 20 per cent this year.
CTT are not by any means the worst of our semi-State bodies. They have the confidence of our people, particularly the business community. It is important to note that the management of their resources can be controlled readily, because we can see details of their expenditure on promotional and advertising. Some of our State bodies have not got that kind of control.
I should like to point to some recent criticism of alleged political or Government interference in the State bodies. This criticism has received a considerable amount of publicity. Many of the semi-State bodies have complained about such interference. In the magazine Irish Business for October last an interview with the chief executive of CTT appeared. It referred to “the shadow of Government control”. The article stated that behind the £1 million contract, the international trading fairs, the trade missions, and “the jet jumping freedom associated with an export board there is a growing shadow falling over CTT”. The article referred to faceless civil servants who have been gaining steadier footholds in the working of the export board. It referred to the “campaign of sinister control” which was threatening to swallow CTT autonomy and to exchange it for sub-sector status within central Government.
This worry which semi-State bodies and the public might have from interference by politicians should be examined, for obvious reasons. I am not criticising for the sake of criticism but to clear the air so that attention will be paid to the concern expressed by those people in high positions in these bodies. They are people who have responsibility to perform to the satisfaction of the taxpayers whose money they are entrusted with.
In the article I have been referring to the CTT chief executive said he could name five or six other executives who would back up what he was saying. He said that the autonomy given to CTT when it was founded was real in the seventies, "but it has been gradually eroded by successive administrations". That is a very serious accusation. Recently, because I dared to question whether one of our semi-State bodies was being monitored sufficiently closely, I was vilified, in the past few weeks. It is coming to the stage when politicians should not dare to interfere, that is if politicians want to interfere. It is fairly evident from the Minister's speech that politicians have no intention of doing that. I was encouraged when I read in the article—this was also stated in the Sunday Independent of 2 October — the words “successive administrations” in the previous five years.
This always seems to happen when Labour-Fine Gael come into power: suddenly everybody says "Hands off, we do not want political interference". Because the two articles referred to interference over the years by successive administrations, and to civil servants, they may not have been referring to political interference but one must ask questions in this respect. I am sure the Coalition do not want to interfere, indeed they should not interfere, in the running of these bodies, and therefore the chief executives of these bodies should be very careful that they do not interfere in the political process. Apparently they do not take that into account and they should be reminded of it: they should stop telling us not to interfere. We were elected to do a certain job.
The Sunday Independent article stated that the politicians are elected to make the policy decisions, and the boards are appointed to implement the policy. Is it wrong to question £1,600 million of borrowing by semi-State bodies? Is there anything wrong in politicians asking if that expenditure is warranted? Is there anything wrong with examining a body that is granted £230 million in one year, asking if the money is being spent wisely and if the organisation is efficient? We were elected to be watchdogs over these organisations and I do not make any apology for asking these questions. I am putting the organisations on notice that I intend to ask more in-depth questions in the future. I do not believe in interfering with the running of these bodies but I am concerned about their performance, whether they are using their best efforts in the most efficient manner and whether the huge amount of moneys involved is being properly spent. We have had examples in this House during the last few weeks of tremendous stress, argument and discussion over trying to raise maybe as little as £1 million to try to keep an industry going which employs 200 people. If we are expending billions of pounds and handing out budgets of hundreds of millions of pounds to these bodies, we have the right to monitor them. We do not want to look over their shoulder, but we have the right to check that they are doing their job properly.
The chief executive in CTT complained that accountability for that organisation has increased considerably because they are reporting on their activities almost monthly to the Department of Trade, Commerce and Tourism. He quoted from the Act that CTT was set up "to promote, assist and develop exports in any manner the board thinks fit". Are chief executives of bodies telling us that they can do what they like with the money that is granted to them? Are they saying that we have no right to check and approve of what they do? Indeed, we do not do that very carefully in the case of Estimates which pass through this House. It is about time politicians stopped nodding through staggering amounts of £80 million and £120 million and people saying they need £60 million or £70 million for a particular venture. Aer Lingus lost £20 million on the North Atlantic route; yet they expect to be subsidised further and nobody asks what is wrong. Up to now the Estimates debate has been an irresponsible practice and the Estimates must be examined in greater detail. I believe in free enterprise, mixed economy, laissez faire and getting on with the job, but in every phase of business people have responsibilities. Managing directors have the responsibility for running their companies and if those companies do not perform properly they go out of business. These bodies should be examined in the same businesslike manner.
I should like to refer to the accessibility of business here to the CTT enterprise. In regard to other bodies, I have mentioned how difficult it is for indigenous businesses. They have tended in the past to try to attract large foreign companies to the virtual exclusion of business people here, small businesses in particular. CTT are not accessible to small businesses or to people in businesses who are not aware of the export opportunities or indeed could not afford to export. It is very easy to see why that is so. There would be very costly travelling expenses involved in going abroad in search of markets. Usually this is done on behalf of the business but I believe that the best people to sell are the people who are in the business and they should be given more opportunities to do that.
If this five-and-a-half billion pounds of exports is attributable to the success of CTT then they should be very strongly supported. It is assumed, because of rising exports, that a large amount of the credit is due to CTT. The Minister referred to CTT's ability to adjust and adapt their approach to the changing needs of exporters and to the requirements of the trading environment in which exporters operate and that that has characterised the board's approach over the years. I should like to emphasise that any semi-State body should not be afraid of scrutiny and I do not mean interference. The Minister said that the grant-in-aid provision to be made in each financial year will continue to be submitted to careful analysis and scrutiny before being included in the annual vote for his Department. I am glad he said that because I do not think he is too sensitive to hear what I have to say about it. Anybody who has witnessed the Minister's handling of his portfolio believes that that will be done and that we will get value from his Department in the expenditure of moneys.
In the last year, we have had about 2,400 companies exporting from this country, but I believe that that pool must be enlarged. Many people do not know that they have exportable products and they need help in identifying markets from a body such as CTT to introduce them to these markets and to help to get established because, for every job that is created by importing, three jobs can be created by exporting. This is an area to which CTT should give special attention. I do not think there is any substitute for visits to foreign markets by the personnel of the companies themselves. Nobody knows better how to sell a product than the person who is involved in the business. There are criticisms levelled at civil servants, who are specialists in their own jobs, by the chief executive of CTT, but CTT are using employees to do the selling and open up the markets for businessmen. The same analogy can be adopted. Their criticism of civil servants can equally be made of their employees when they do not allow or do not encourage people to make these trips themselves in the search for business. I would urge a review of the existing forms of assistance in the context of establishing the needs of Irish business. This body should have a special section whose task would be to encourage Irish businesses to export as opposed to the situation where perhaps 100 per cent of the staff concentrate on markets abroad. Just as the IDA seem to have ignored the home market, CTT appear to ignore it also.
Apart from the criticism in this article by the chief executive, there are some constructive suggestions that should be listened to. He refers to the understaffing of CTT, to the lack of international marketing expertise in Irish firms and to protectionism. He refers also to the introduction of an employment support scheme whereby 93 firms were approved in terms of going abroad and getting the best personnel available. He refers also to the attraction of the 10 per cent tax concession in terms of foreign manufacturers operating here and he expresses concern at the clawbacks by other means. These other means are taxation and the high cost of living. The result of this is that Irish businesses as well as foreign businesses operating here are suffering badly. On the one hand we are trying to create jobs while on the other hand we are taxing businesses to such an extent as to force them to close down. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot create new jobs if we continue to close down companies. In terms of the restraints on our economy now, that is a factor that cannot be ignored. It has been brought to the attention of the Government by businesses and by individuals who are crying out for help, but they are being told that nothing can be done to help them. We cannot go on squeezing the private sector to such an extent that it is not worthwhile even thinking about going into business. One would want to be almost mad to consider starting a business in this country in the present situation. Apart from being hounded in respect of taxation, a businessman is also given the unsolicited task of tax gatherer on behalf of the Government. These problems must be faced up to because they are damaging our economy.
Well-deserved credit is due to CTT for the job they have done, but let us not assume that all is well. We must be prepared to re-examine their role. We should increase the aid to this body if it can be proved that they can match extra allocations with growth in exports, because exports are the lifeblood of our economy. The budget of £13.74 million in respect of CTT is not sufficient. A prestigious and much-praised body of this kind should have sufficient moneys at their disposal to put on the right kind of show when bringing people from abroad to this country. They should have the right type of accommodation in a central part of the city. If one compares their budget to the £24 million that Bord Fáilte receive, one realises that the CTT budget needs to be re-examined.
On the attitude of "hands-off the semi-State bodies", I do not think it is the intention of this Government to interfere with these bodies. This has been demonstrated by the various Ministers in their statements and it has certainly been demonstrated by the Minister for Industry and Energy in his dealings with the semi-State companies. But we must have the right kind of people at the top in our semi-State bodies, people with drive and energy. Conversely, we must reward them adequately. Many of the people in charge of our semi-State bodies are capable of running businesses for themselves. In order to retain the best people in bodies such as CTT we need to reward them at perhaps even higher rates than they would command elsewhere. There is a good deal of poaching of the best people in CTT. This is because of their experience and because of the excellent work they have been doing. They are sought after by people in industry. We are talking of a specialised area and many of the people involved in sales and marketing with CTT are capable of earning much higher rewards in private enterprise. That is a factor to which we should pay attention.
The smaller indigenous businesses, those employing from 50 to 100 people, are crying out for opportunities. There should be a section within CTT to help and encourage such concerns. I know that the IDA are involved in this area but I am thinking in terms of exports. It is in this area that CTT can play a major role in so far as making Irish people aware of what is involved in terms of exporting. People who are responsible and who are anxious to export should be encouraged in every way possible. That is why increased aid to CTT is needed. They should be in a position to help smaller business particularly to become involved at every level in so far as exports are concerned. Deputy Kelly in his contribution said that experience gained abroad is invaluable. Our business people need to have experience abroad but the small businessman cannot afford to go away on junkets.
The Minister tells us that there are indications of enormous potential for the export of service activities particularly to areas such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries. CTT will have a vital role to play in this field.
How do you get to Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Middle Eastern countries? How can small businesses even afford to go there? You are depending on the officials of CTT to shake up those markets for you. If you are invited out there you must pay your way and that is extraordinarily expensive. An air ticket would cost about £1,500 and you need another couple of thousand pounds for expenses. It is the business of CTT to support those who are now not exporters here but whom we want to make into exporters. A huge pool of revenue can be earned by doing that. Many successful small businesses all over the country have able people in them and if they were given the opportunity that would represent a tremendous return in jobs and revenue earned.
The fine out-turn by our exporters of this £5.6 billion in the previous year is attributed by the Minister to three things. These are (1) a growing awareness of the importance to Irish industry of developing new markets, (2) a growing and more professional marketing effort by Irish exporting firms; and (3) better support and assistance provided by CTT. Those three factors are very weak. A growing awareness in Irish industry of developing new markets supposes action which does not necessarily follow. It is not necessarily a contributing factor. I do not see anything concrete in that. The second, a growing and more professional marketing effort by Irish exporting firms, raises the question: how professional is "more professional" when we do not measure the professional in the first place? If in the past year, for example, we had used this professional marketing as a comparison with certain other countries' performance then we would have a barometer, but there is no barometer in here. These are the three main reasons given for this rise to £5.6 billion, but to me it indicates the enormous amount of work and research that need to be undertaken. In this body a tremendous amount is taken for granted. I am certain that a big contribution has been made by CTT in this £5.6 billion, but there is an assumption that they are responsible for achieving it by themselves. If they are responsible for achieving that, then they are not being supported sufficiently in their allocation. Because of the enormous number of jobs that this £5.6 billion is contributing we should increase the budget, double it, treble it, find out what we can do with it. If we can double that figure it will give us tens of thousands of jobs.
The third point mentioned is the better support and assistance provided by CTT. These are contributory factors but as provided in the Minister's speech they are: (1) advice, (2) basic market information, (3) market research, (4) incentive grants for individual exporters and (5) organisation of national stands at international fairs. On examining those five factors one finds that the first is weak. The second, market information, is a strong point for an exporter. The third, market research, is also a very strong point. The fourth, incentive grants for individual exporters, is helpful but limited, and cumbersome because it is very selective.
Therefore, I would not give it a very high mark. CTT personnel travel at ease and it is very difficult for individuals and members of businesses to get assistance for themselves from CTT to go travelling. CTT people travel freely and at ease and have a budget which enables them to do that — I am not saying that it is abused in any way — but that is a big limiting factor for anybody in business who is just ticking over or making a small profit and has not other people working for him. He may long to get to such and such a place and export his products to such and such a country but he cannot afford to pay £5,000 out of the kitty to do that. This is where CTT can contribute. The fifth point, the organisation of national stands at international fairs, is strong, but our standards have been badly shown up at international fairs and exhibitions. I have visited many of them around the world and I have found that very often we rate about tenth. Now and again we rate first, but frequently we come off very badly in our displays and presentation, which Deputy Connolly has mentioned.
I would like to add some points to show that I am being constructive. To the above I would like to add contacts, introductions. Deputy Connolly also referred to this. It is desirable that when you go to a foreign country you are met by somebody who knows people there. Earlier this year I went to Saudi Arabia and I was met by the Irish Ambassador at the airport although I had not asked him to meet me. I told him what I intended to do there and the next day his embassy had prepared information on all the places I intended to visit, the people I was going to see and the strength of their businesses, and provided the contacts and information. That is exactly what should be provided. I must say that Mr. O'Toole is an outstanding ambassador as is shown by the tremendous effort he puts into his work. I had a similar experience in Greece where the ambassador met me and did the same for me as the ambassador in Saudi Arabia. That is much more valuable than a certain amount of money spent and a PR exercise. I have 25 of these brochures from different bodies——