asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if he will reconsider the decision to withdraw financial support from CPL, Scarriff, County Clare, in view of the recently published accounts of the company.

I understand that the receiver, in conjunction with the IDA is seeking a purchaser for this company and that, in fact, a number of prospective interests have already emerged. If a viable proposal materialises my Department will be prepared to negotiate, in as favourable a manner as possible, terms governing the supply of timber to the new enterprise.

Has the Minister fully examined the report of the auditors for the period July to November 1983 which shows a net profit in the region of £90,000 to £100,000? In the light of these figures will the Minister change his mind? Will he finance the receiver to enable the company to re-open and to operate as a going concern while the negotiations to find an alternative purchaser are under way?

I understand the accounts were published some time in late December, and I received them last Friday. The accounts relate to a period from 1 July to 18 November, the day on which operations terminated in Scarriff. From some of the background to the operations of CPL, very little can be based on this selective period because, as the Deputy knows better than most people, this was the optimum period for good results in an operation like this. I would not consider the contents of these accounts to be a basis for changing my mind in relation to this firm. Negotiations are going on between the agency responsible and prospective clients for the take-over of this company. I suggest that public statements at this stage could be potentially harmful to the efforts being made by the IDA and the receiver in consultation with officials of my Department to get a potential client to take over CPL as a going concern.

Would the Minister consider very seriously the fact that it would be a much more attractive proposition to dispose of the plant as a going concern? It would be possible to negotiate to have this plant taken over as a going concern if the Minister were to continue to fund the receiver to enable the plant to re-open so that the workers can continue production. Would the Minister not consider the possibility of funding the receiver temporarily until such times as these negotiations are brought to a successful conclusion?

The information emanating from the accounts I received would not justify a change of mind. The receiver, together with the IDA, is happy to negotiate with clients who are showing a very serious interest in this company. I suggest that they be allowed to do their work without hindrance or without any public interference because this is a very sensitive issue and negotiations are at a very sensitive stage.

Would the Minister be willing to ask the Government to reconsider helping this company financially? Emphasis has been laid on the fact that features of the latest accounts show that the company could ride out their difficulties. Could the Minister tell the House if the auditor laid emphasis on these points?

The accounts I have seen do not differ substantially from what I already knew. They are based on certain assumptions. As I have already stated, the people charged with responsibility for negotiating the take-over of this company should be allowed to continue the negotiations hopefully to a fruitful conclusion.

Would the Minister agree that, prior to the withdrawal of funds by the Government from this company, which ultimately put the company into receivership, his Department had an agreement to supply timber to the Scarriff factory until May of this year? Is he now aware of the very strong financial commitment made by the main private shareholder and the several commitments made by the dedicated staff? Would he now reconsider making funds available to the receiver to keep this factory operating until May of this year when his Department's agreement expires? Would he then review the whole position to see if this company could remain operating as a viable trading company after May of this year?

There are a few questions there. I have not been made aware of any substantial financial commitment made by the principal private shareholder. The contract in relation to timber has to run until next May. That contract can be fulfilled if the receiver so wishes. As I have said, any interference or intervention at this stage could possibly result in disrupting the negotiations which are at a sensitive stage with the prospective clients who want to take over this plant.

The Minister made use of the words "if the receiver so wishes". Do we take it that neither he nor his Department have any further wish to be associated with assistance to this company?

That seems to be argument.

The only involvement I have at the moment is in relation to the supply of raw material which I am prepared to supply if the receiver seeks that supply.