I propose to answer Questions Nos. 107 and 108 together.
I understand that when the extent of the difficulties facing the company began to emerge, the board and management of IFI considered a very wide range of options for the company which might provide a basis for establishing a viable business going forward, most of which would have entailed the Arklow plant remaining operational. Unfortunately, despite the identification of a number of significant cost savings as part of the efforts made to save the company, it was not possible to establish a basis for a viable future and the board decided that it had no option but to cease trading.
At this stage, the liquidator of IFI is responsible for the disposal of the assets of the company, including the Arklow plant. In this regard, the role and responsibilities of the liquidator are well established under company law and I have no role in giving any instructions to him. Of course, it would be open to any new buyer of the Arklow site, who was proposing to operate a suitable business activity at the plant, to enter into discussions with the State's development agencies. I should point out that the responsibility for the granting of any support to individual companies, and for the level of support, if any, is a day to day matter for the industrial development agencies concerned, and is not one in which I am directly involved.