Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 3 Jun 1988

Vol. 381 No. 7

Supplementary Estimates, 1988. - Vote 35: Industry and Commerce.

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1988, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including certain services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain loans, subsidies, grants and grants-in-aid.

On 26 May I announced that Kilkenny Design Workshops will be making arrangements for the sale of their shops in Dublin and Kilkenny as going concerns and that their remaining activities would be rationalised. The factor giving rise to this Supplementary Estimate is the need to provide funds to Kilkenny Design Workshops to enable trading to continue until the shops are sold and other rationalisation measures implemented.

Kilkenny Design Workshops were established by CTT in 1963 to provide a design resource for the improvement of industrial design in Ireland but in 1974 the direct link with CTT was ended and Kilkenny Design Workshops came under the direct control of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

During the seventies Kilkenny Design Workshops were largely dependent on State assistance by way of annual grant in aid to support their activities but in the early eighties the move to achieve full commerciality by the early nineties began.

To facilitate this Kilkenny Design Workshops were provided with a proper capital structure in 1982. The Kilkenny Design Workships Act passed by the Oireachtas in December 1982, set the authorised share capital of the company at £1 million of which £500,000 was put into the company before the end of that year.

The company then achieved surpluses on its overall activities in 1983 and 1984 with profits from its retail shops amounting to £11,000 in 1984. At the same time income from design services was meeting 50 per cent to 60 per cent of expenditure in that area compared with 32 per cent in 1979. In fact, in 1985 income from design services made up 88 per cent of the expenditure incurred in that activity. In mid-1985 the board of Kilkenny Design Workshops presented a commercialisation programme to the Minister which was agreed at that time.

This programme envisaged that in the period 1984 to 1987 the design practice would be developed and become self-supporting while growing profits from the design shops would facilitate new product developments and the provision of market information to manufacturers. The grant-aid would be concentrated in fulfilling Kilkenny Design Workshops primary responsibility for design promotion.

In the period 1988 to 1990 the programme envisaged that Kilkenny Design Workshops would move towards total commerciality when profits on design and retail activities would be sufficient to replace grant-in-aid. In line with that plan further capital of £262,000 was put into the company at the end of 1985.

For some time past Kilkenny Design Workshops had been considering opening a Kilkenny shop in London and after detailed research including a consultancy study which indicated good commercial prospects the decision by the board of Kilkenny Design Workshops to open the shop at London was taken in mid-1985. Arrangements were finalised in May 1986 and the shop commenced business in November 1986.

In March 1987 a further capital injection of £225,000 was provided to the company, bringing to £987,000 the total capital injection since December 1982. This was in addition to the annual grant-in-aid payable each year which amounted to a a total of over £3 million in the four years 1983 to 1986.

In January 1987 the then Government had approved the phasing out of Exchequer grant-in-aid to Kilkenny Design Workshops over three years commencing in 1988. In autumn 1987 when deciding the Estimates for 1988 the Government decided to implement this in three stages and the allocation for 1988 was fixed at £536,000, a reduction of £178,000 over the £714,000 which had been allocated in 1987.

This decision reflected the realities of the budgetary situation facing the Government and the options available to them. There was simply no justification for continuing high levels of State support for Commercial activities and services which were becoming increasingly available from the private sector at no cost to the State.

It is now clear that the Kilkenny Design Workshops commercialisation plan has failed. In 1986, despite the provision of grant-in-aid of £740,000, the company had a deficit of £376,000 largely due to losses on retail trading in Ireland. The final deficit for 1987 is expected to be even larger than this due primarily to losses incurred in the London retail operation. In addition, start-up expenses incurred in London will have to be written off following the closure of the shop at Ireland House in London.

The deterioration in the financial situation of Kilkenny Design Workshops which was becoming evident towards the end of 1987 was a matter of great concern to me. Kilkenny Design Workshops is a properly constituted company with its own share capital and responsibility for its operations and commercial decisions rest with its board.

During 1987 Kilkenny Design Workshops had implemented some 29 redundancies and there was some optimism that the cost savings arising from these redundancies which was estimated at £270,000 yearly together with greater operational efficiencies could lead to an upturn.

The grant-in-aid allocation for the whole of 1988 was £536,000 and this had to be paid to the company over the first three months of that year to enable settlement of pressing creditor claims. By April 1988 it was clear that the company's financial situation was such that more radical measures were necessary and the Government asked the board of Kilkenny Design Workshops to present its rationalisation proposals. The Government have accepted the following proposals: the closure of the London shop which has now been completed; the sale of the shops at Dublin and Kilkenny as going concerns; the sale and disposal of other assets, including properties in Kilkenny.

Arising from the losses incurred over the past two years Kilkenny Design Workshops has accumulated substantial trading and other debts as well as very substantial liabilities in respect of bank borrowings. None of these debts are guaranteed by the State and it would not be normal practice for any shareholder to give guarantees for trading debts incurred by a properly constituted company.

Kilkenny Design Workshops also has substantial assets both in property and business, including trading assets and stocks. It is not the policy of the Government to provide continuing support for loss-making commercial enterprises and Kilkenny Design Workshops must follow the only commercial way open to companies in its situation which is the disposal of assets to pay its creditors.

The Government are very conscious of the very many small companies and craft enterprises which are owed moneys by Kilkenny Design Workshops and are anxious to safeguard their position as far as they can. If Kilkenny Design Workshops were to be forced into liquidation, which might involve premature disposal of assets, its losses could be quite large. It is, therefore, essential that Kilkenny Design Workshops be afforded sufficient leeway to dispose of its assets in an orderly way so as to maximise realisations and come to satisfactory arrangements with its creditors.

The Government, with this in mind, have agreed to make Exchequer funding to the extent of £250,000 available to enable Kilkenny Design Workshops to continue trading pending sale of its assets provided that its creditors permit it to do so. The Government recognise the importance of the Kilkenny shops as outlets for high quality, well designed craft goods. These shops are understood to be trading profitably and the Government are anxious that they can, under new management, continue to provide profitable outlets for such goods.

Mr. Michael McNulty of Ernst and Whinney, Chartered Accountants, has been appointed as acting chief executive to assist the board of the company in carrying through its rationalisation measures. In these circumstances, the question of arrangements with creditors as to the timing of payment of outstanding debts will continue to be a matter for the management of Kilkenny Design Workshops.

Currently there are 85 persons employed by Kilkenny Design Workshops of which 56 are engaged in retail activities and 13 in design. The board and management of Kilkenny Design Workshops will have to look at the question of staff levels in the light of the prospective sale of the shops. I have taken up with the Minister for Finance the question of whether compensation will be available under the Government redundancy scheme for any redundancies arising.

As I indicated in my statement on 26 May 1988, the Government have decided that the design function, particularly the promotion of good design in crafts and industry, should continue and that the craft centre in Kilkenny city should be retained. The optimum structure for this will need some further examination and suitable arrangements for this will be made in the course of the restructuring of Kilkenny Design Workshops.

The effect of the Supplementary Estimates will be to increase the Kilkenny Design Workshops allocation for 1988 from £536,000 to £786,000. While the additional amount now required for Kilkenny Design Workshops is £250,000 this has been offset by a projected increase of £249,000 in appropriations-in-aid.

A Cheann Comhairle, I propose to divide my time with Deputy Kieran Crotty and to say a few words on this subject in Irish.

Is that proposal acceptable? Agreed.

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá faoin obair thábhachtach atá déanta ag Ceardlanna Dearthóireachta Chill Chainnigh leis na blianta. Ba iad a chuir tús le dearthóireacht thionsclaíoch in Éirinn. Chuir said oiliúint ar dhaoine a chuireann seirbhísí dearthóireachta ar fáil anois san earnáil phríobháideach. Tá caighdeán ard ó thaobh cur i láthair earraí Éireannacha ina gcuid siopaí, agus lean siopaí eile san earnáil phríobháideach a sampla.

Is maith an rud, áfach, athscrúdú a dhéanamh ar obair Cheardlanna Dearthóireachta Chill Chainnigh anois i 1988. Tá cuid de na fiontair a thosaigh said in ann leanacht ar aghaidh astu féin, gan chabhair ar bith ó Cheardlanna Dearthóireachta Chill Chainnigh.

Tá fhios againn anois go mba léir don Rialtas ó thuarascáil bhliantúil na cuideachta i 1986 go raibh fadhb ag an gcuideachta — an fhadhb atá á plé anois. Cuirim milleán ar an Rialtas gur fhan siad bliain gan aon rud a dhéanamh faoin bhfadhb a léiríodh i dtuarascáil bhliantúil 1986. Cuirim milleán orthu freisin gur fhan said ceithre mhí dhéag sular chuir siad an tuarascáil os comhair na Dála agus os comhair an phobail. Cén fáth gur fhan said go dtí Bealtaine 1988? Cén fáth go raibh post an Stiúrthóra Bainistí fágtha gan líonadh ar feadh na tréimhse sin? Ceist eile, an mbeidh gá le tuilleadh airgead Stáit, seachas an méid atá iarrtha orainn a cheadú inniu?

The main question is why there was so much of a delay in dealing with this problem which was plainly obvious from the contents of the 1986 report? Furthermore, is there a conflict between what the Minister said in reply to a parliamentary question to me on 31 May on this subject — I am referring to Question No. 99 of that date — when he said there was no worsening or reduction in the trading income of the company in 1987 over 1986 and what he said today in his speech, that the situation in 1987 was considerably worse than in 1986? Will all of the trade creditors be paid? Is this the last injection that will be necessary? Can the Minister give a categoric assurance on this point? I support the Estimate because of the necessity to ensure that creditors are paid.

I might also ask the Minister, in regard to the sale of the shops, whether any convenants are being entered into or sought in regard to the continued use of those shops as a means of promoting welldesigned Irish goods which might have a longer requirement to remain on shelves than the quick turn-around, less high quality, goods that might be more attractive to a strictly private sector operation.

Therefore, I am prepared to support the Estimate. I hope my questions will be answered.

I thank Deputy John Bruton for allowing me part of his time. I welcome the introduction of this Estimate as it will enable the Kilkenny Design Workshops company to continue trading. The Kilkenny Design Workshops was established in 1965 to actively promote good design particularly in the industrial sector. They have achieved considerable success in this field, design having improved dramatically in the intervening years. I was relieved to learn from the Government press release of Thursday last that they intend to retain the design function in their rationalisation plan. Perhaps the Minister will inform the House, when replying, where this discipline will be located and to what extent it will be retained. For example, will this vitally important function be expanded because, unfortunately, it has assumed a back seat in the activities of the company in recent years? Furthermore, I hope the Minister will inform the House whether training of design apprentices will continue and be carried on in Kilkenny.

As we are all aware, good design is fundamental to the continued expansion of Irish industry. Furthermore, the introduction of free trade in Europe in 1992 will require Irish industry to further upgrade their product design. While it is essential that the Kilkenny Design Workshops be critically reviewed I would suggest that the Government's intention to sell the Dublin shop, the Kilkenny complex — shop, design buildings and Butler House — is a panic reaction. It is accepted that the opening of the London shop was an unfortunate development and that it should be closed.

The Dublin and Kilkenny shops have provided a fundamental service nationwide, a design service, product advice, administrative assistance and a shop window for hundreds of craft businesses all over the country. Crafts people in my area readily admit that they owe their commercial existence to Kilkenny Design Workshops. These shops also provide a shop window for Irish products of excellence. The Kilkenny shops also provide a national consultancy service for foreign retailers wishing to purchase quality Irish craft which is not taken into account in consideration of their role in our commercial life.

There is the suggestion that the Kilkenny Design Workshops retailing activity has outlived its usefulness, its role now being filled by the private sector. I am totally committed to the private sector but I am convinced it does not fulfil the Kilkenny Design Workshops' role in this instance. We should remember that the private sector are geared to reaping maximum profit and it follows that the private sector will stock articles with a fast shelf turnover, a maximum mark-up. I am informed that up to 60 per cent of the products in these private sector shops are imported. The Kilkenny shops constitute the anchor clientele of our craft producers, in some cases handling 30 per cent of home-produced craft products. I am convinced there is a role for the private sector and the Kilkenny shops and that they should work in tandem.

I am informed that as a result of rationalisation implemented at the beginning of 1988 — and I was glad to hear the Minister say this morning — the shops in Dublin and Kilkenny are trading profitably and that it is expected that this trend will continue to the end of the year.

I should like to inform the Minister that retailers in Kilkenny have no objection to State involvement in retailing as at present undertaken by the Kilkenny Design Workshops. However, I would inform him of the very strong feeling in Kilkenny that the Kilkenny Design Workshops' buildings should not be removed from public ownership. These buildings form an integral part of the Kilkenny Castle complex, are a focal point in the city, and their removal from public ownership would be quite emotive. It is imperative that control over the future use of the buildings remain in public hands. The complex is unique, the name Kilkenny Design Workshops projecting an image of excellence; a visit to the complex and purchase of their products being a must for visitors, native and foreign. The people of Kilkenny wish to have the Kilkenny Design Workshops complex retained in public ownership.

I appeal to the Minister to postpone the disposal of both the Dublin and Kilkenny shops. I contend the whole of the company's operations can be run profitably because there is enormous interest on the part of the local authority and the public in the development of Butler House which could also be rendered profitable and would not constitute any drain on State funds. Taking all of these considerations into account, I appeal to the Minister not to go ahead with the sale of any of the Kilkenny Design Workshops buildings but rather have the overall position examined with a view to converting their operations into a profitable commercial enterprise.

While I am glad that the Government are intervening to ensure that wages and trade creditors' interests are safeguarded, my fear would be that they might not be fully taken care of and in that respect I share the sentiments of Deputy John Bruton. I question whether there is sufficient money being made available.

I am disappointed to note, yet again, that the taxpayer is being forced to pay for the consequences of gross mismanagement. I am pleased the Government have decided that the design functions of the Kilkenny Design Workshops will continue. Some of my constituency colleagues have condemned the sale of the shops. In the circumstances we must recognise that we cannot have it both ways. Indeed, there are people who would like to see public expenditure increased further but I do not share that view. If we are to get our national finances in order we must make some sacrifices. There appears to be a common perception here that where there is State involvement it is not imperative that operations or activities pay or be profitable.

It is regrettable that the position has reached this stage but one must be realistic in all the circumstances. The Government cannot continue to prop up operations losing money. I fail to understand how the board of the Kilkenny Design Workshops allowed their financial affairs to reach such a crisis point. One may well question what they have been doing in recent years. It is regrettable that they allowed matters become so acute. The over-ambitious plan to open a shop in London, off the beaten track, is an example of a regrettable decision on the part of the board. It is my belief that such a decision would not have been taken had the venture been in private ownership. This whole episode emphasises for me the potential benefits of privatisation.

It will be important to retain the internationally-recognised Kilkenny Design Workshops name as a condition of sale, so that local craft and design people will have access to the markets they have enjoyed to date. I should be glad if the Minister would inform the House whether he or the IDA has any suitable purchaser in mind so that the high standards of the company can be maintained. If possible, the Minister should give suppliers an assurance that their interests will be guaranteed. Most importantly, the Minister must insist that these premises are not turned into a fast food joint or into some other downmarket enterprise.

It is a pity this debate is so time constrained but I hope we will have another opportunity to debate some aspects of the problem relating to the Kilkenny Design Workshops in some detail. I will devote my time to making an earnest appeal to the Minister to retain in State ownership the properties in Kilkenny, and to reconsider the Government decision to sell or lease the Kilkenny Design outlets. the crafts, the workshops and the outlets depend on each other for success. This has proved to be the case down through the years.

I cannot overstate the concern of people throughout the country about the future of the Kilkenny Design Workshops. The concept of the workshops was always regarded as one of the brightest gems to come out of what has been described as the Lemass era, an era which encouraged new ideas and industrial development. No other State or semiState body was as successful as this design centre. A lot of thought and research went into the setting up of this centre. If it was important in the sixties to set up such a centre, it is even more important now. What is now being proposed has not been given anything like the degree of consideration that was given to the original concept of the design centre. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this whole area.

The decision of the board, whether or not prompted by me in Government, to present a commercialisation programme in mid-1985, was a turning point in the fortunes of the Kilkenny Design Workshops. Coupled with that was the Government decision followed through by the present Government to reduce grant aid to the centre. The Minister in his speech mentioned that for some time the Kilkenny Design Workshops had been considering opening a shop in London and that after detailed research, including a consultancy study which indicated good commercial prospects, the decision was made by the board in mid-1985 to open a shop in London. I do not know who the consultancy firm were but from the first day this shop was not a commercial success. The whole aspect should be further examined as it is the London shop, coupled with the withdrawal of State aid from the centre, which has brought about this problem.

It is obvious from the Minister's statement that all the properties, including Butler House in Kilkenny, will be up for sale. Over the years there have been massive financial allocations from the Government for the building and renovation of buildings such as Butler House which has been used to accommodate foreign students and others who come to study and avail of EC Social Fund grants. Butler House has proved to be a tremendous asset in the whole area of development and design and to sell it off would be a retrograde step. It was the intention, and I hope it is still the intention, to provide there something similar to a third level education facility for student designers.

The design facility is a service to this country and its benefit cannot be measured in profit and loss terms. I know it is important that it pay its way to a certain extent but it is difficult to quantify in terms of profit the success of the Kilkenny Design Workshops. Their work may not have generated profits for themselves but they generated profit for many other businesses both in the manufacturing and service areas. They generated profit and employment in the manufacturing and service areas and also in the tourist area because of the development of craftwork. The tourist spin-off in the Kilkenny area and in the surrounding counties has been immense.

The cold figures detailing losses, the amount of State money invested and the amount now required to rescue the project do not show the true picture. We would be doing a disservice to the project and anyone who worked in it if we looked at it in that way. We should look at the tremendous benefits that have accrued to the whole country as a result of the setting up of the project and I appeal to the Minister to give this matter further consideration.

This project was set up in the sixties by dedicated people, some of whom have gone to their eternal reward. There are now similarly dedicated people involved and they are available to give advice and direction at this stage. I do not know what experience the acting chief executive officer who was recently appointed has had. I have no doubt he is expert in the financial area and expert in the area of these difficulties. We need people who have knowledge and expertise in the specialised areas of design, craft, the relationship between the student, the craftsman, the product and the outlet for the product. Those areas need an input from a committee of people, which I am sure the Minister could put together, to advise him on the best way forward.

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy, but the time allotted to him is exhausted. Perhaps he would now bring his remarks to a close.

The mistake that has been made was that of going too far too quickly commercially. If we go back to a point before that mistake and work from there we can make the success of the Kilkenny Design Workshops that they were in the sixties and seventies.

I want to thank the Deputies who gave their deliberations on the question of Kilkenny Design Workshops and I thank them for their support for the Supplementary Estimate. It is generally recognised in the House that people must get their wages, that this business must be carried on until such time as it can be disposed of in an orderly fashion and that we must ensure that we get the best return for the State's assets. I will deal with the individual comments as they arise. Deputy Bruton raised the question as to why it took so long to deal with Kilkenny Design Workshops. Deputy Pattison, on the other hand said: "Do not rush it, do not be in any hurry, and take plenty of time to consider it". In this House one cannot win and I recognise the reality of that.

Deputy Bruton raised the matter of a reply to Question No. 99 on 31 May where I responded by saying that the accounts for 1986 which were laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas on 21 April 1988 showed that the trading income from the retail shops had declined by £388,124 in 1986 over 1985. The accounts for 1987 have not yet been presented to me but the indications from the company are that a similar decline did not take place. The Deputy will appreciate that in the London shop the sales started to come in 1987, and if you want to analyse it properly there would have been a decline, if the London sales were taken out. When one looks at the sales revenue coming in, because of the additional London sales, that is the reason there was no decline. That is not to say that a profit was being made or that the financial situation is not deteriorating; sales are one thing but a financial situation is a different matter.

The 1986 accounts which were held up by the Comptroller and Auditor General were qualified in a number of areas and that is the reason they were not available as early as they would normally be and as they should be. Deputy Crotty, as Deputy Gibbons said, wants his loaf and eat it, but he cannot have it both ways. There is a position which must be faced up to and it must be faced up to in the best possible way. The fact is that Kilkenny Design Workshops are deeply in debt with large amounts of money owing to both banks and trade creditors. Continuation of retail trading by Kilkenny Design Workshops would require a large injection of capital not only to pay off the debts which have already been incurred, through massive retail trading losses in the past two years, but also to provide future working capital. There is no guarantee that Kilkenny Design Workshops would not incur trading losses in the future let alone provide a return on the additional investment. I could not, therefore, justify seeking the approval of the Oireachtas for extra capital for Kilkenny Design Workshops for that purpose. I would also point out that Kilkenny Design Workshops main objective is design, promotion and development.

Over the past few years the resources of Kilkenny Design Workshops, both financial and management, have been overly concentrated on retail activities which allowed the design function to be run down. Kilkenny Design Workshops in effect lost their way. It was never the intention that Kilkenny Design Work-shop's retailing activities should be supported by way of grant-in-aid nor could such support be justified. The retail business is a commercial activity in the commercial area but could not be seen to be putting State funds in to compete in a retail area. I note what Deputy Crotty said in relation to the interest of retailers in Kilkenny. They now say that they would be quite happy to see the State go in. Would they be quite happy to see the State go in and subvent their activities? I do not know. I was in Kilkenny last night and I heard views expressed. When I go back to the files it is strange but the opposite views were expressed when Kilkenny Design Workshops were not able to retail the first day. I take what the Deputy says. There will be time for plenty of submissions in relation to what is the best way to put it together at the end of the day. I think I have clarified the position. I would remind the House that these are recommendations which came from the board of Kilkenny Design Workshops and that their rationalisation——

That is not quite true.

If it is not I will give the Deputy an opportunity to tell me why it is not. I do not mind if the Ceann Comhairle wants to allow that. As far as I am concerned it is absolutely true. A document exists in my Department and there is no question about it.

It is not quite true.

If the Deputy wants to expand, he may feel free to do so. I stand over what I said. I have the recommendations and a report in my Department from Kilkenny Design Workshops. The aspect which I did not accept, or that the Government did not accept, is in relation to their proposals on design because my views differ as to how they should be constituted and run in the future.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, the Kilkenny Design Workshops board were given an ultimatum on 22 April. I understand that the shops were being closed down and they were to react with a submission of how to close them down and the best action to take. That is the document I think the Minister is referring to.

It is not.

As a result of an ultimatum from——

I happened to see a report in a local paper where Deputy Crotty made certain statements. There was no ultimatum given by me to the board of Kilkenny Design Workshops at any meetings with the board of Kilkenny Design Workshops.

Or by other Ministers.

I did not attend any other meetings. I was out of the country for three weeks and I asked the Government to keep an eye on the situation and indeed the Taoiseach and the Minister——

Did the Taoiseach meet Kilkenny Design Workshops?

The Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance met them in my absence.

And they gave the ultimatum?

I stand over everything I have said truthfully and openly. I cannot stand over a meeting which I did not attend. I can stand over the report of a meeting.

(Interruptions.)

Was there collective responsibility?

I have a report in my office from a civil servant who attended that meeting and if anybody wants to make the charge that he is making incorrect reports to me I would not accept it for one minute in this House. I have no intention of misleading this House, telling lies or otherwise and I will not stand to be accused of it.

Deputy Crotty rose.

Please, Deputy Crotty, I have allowed you to intervene. That must be sufficient.

They should stop messing. When the hatchet came down the State might not have lost as much money.

That is how I view the position. Kilkenny Design Workshops Limited are not being sold, they are being held on. I am fully conscious of the great contribution that design has made towards the improvement of craft and skills in the whole area. The workshops where that work is carried out will be retained. I am also aware from what Deputy Crotty said, and I was told again in Kilkenny last night and indeed from the deputation I received, who were very positive in relation to how the whole matter should be handled, that they will have an opportunity at local authority and local level of having an input into Mr. McNulty's proposals for the future. We all want to see the best result at the end of the day. That is all I am interested in. I have told the board that and I have also told Mr. McNulty.

In relation to his expertise, as mentioned by Deputy Pattison, he is acting chief executive. He works with the board of Kilkenny Design Workshops in the best manner and in the most orderly fashion in which to do this job. I will be kept informed of developments. I am interested in seeing that the best results are achieved. I recognise that the operations in Kilkenny were part of a tourist trail and that they make a major contribution to the tourist industry in Kilkenny. I can assure the House that there will be no fast food joint allowed into the shops. Whatever convenant needs to be inserted will be inserted. This is not a situation where fast food joints, noisy shops or otherwise could be accommodated. I will instruct them to have that type of convenant inserted because it would be the view of everybody in this House that it should be done.

I cannot accept what Deputy Pattison says, that the turning point came with a reduction of State grants. That is ignoring reality. The turning point came with the disastrous failure in London——

——that sank the whole operation. Perhaps I misread what the Deputy said.

That is the main reason.

That is the main reason. The reduction in aid was in line with the three-year commercialisation programme instituted by Deputy Bruton and carried on by me, which plan failed.

That is true but in the light of subsequent information one might have looked at the thing slightly differently.

As Deputy Pattison says, there was a consultant's report. I assumed decisions taken then were taken on the best information available. It subsequently did not work out. We can all be great decision-makers with hindsight.

Again, I thank the House. Deputies will have an opportunity of coming back here next week on this, I believe.

Two questions——

It must be taken that the Minister in his reply has concluded the debate. I will permit one brief question from Deputy Bruton.

Could the Minister indicate why the post of managing director was left totally vacant, not even filled on a temporary basis as it is at the moment, for a long portion of the period of the difficulties of Kilkenny Design? Were the board prevented from filling that position, having selected a candidate for it, even temporarily? Finally, I asked another question in the course of my contribution. Will any more funds be needed? Is this the final matter in dealing with the liabilities of the retail operation?

In relation to the first question, Kilkenny Design's chief executive resigned some time around October. The board held the interviews in the normal fashion. They sent a name in to me for my consent to the appointment around December. At that stage by October-November I was beginning to ask serious questions about it and I did not consent to the appointment of a chief executive. I do not think it is insinuated in the Deputy's question, but it has been peddled about that the collapse and the serious financial problems of Kilkenny Design arose because of my not consenting immediately——

I am not saying that.

I know the Deputy is not saying that but it has been suggested by others. I want to put it clearly in this House that any organisation functioning in the commercial area who would put up a silly excuse that they had not a chief executive for a few months is insulting to the intelligence of anybody.

But the figures——

If any organisation who want to get a chief executive put an advertisement in a paper, do their interviews and the chief executive has to give normal notice, they can expect to have to carry on for at least six months without a chief executive. If the structures of that organisation were so weak that they could not do that, do not try to sell me a simple excuse that that was the reason for the collapse of Kilkenny Design. It was not. I did not approve it and I told the board so. They were beginning to come apart at the seams at that stage. I would not appoint any chief executive to a job where the whole future was in doubt and maybe it would be a different size operation by the time you would be finished with it. I think Deputy Bruton will accept that.

The second question is this. At the end of the day——

This cannot continue.

On the best judgment available we hope to trade out of it. It depends on the sale of the shops and getting it through in an orderly fashion.

That must be the end of the debate——

We are doing the best we can with it.

——in respect of the Supplementary Estimate Vote 35 for the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share