Well, as a fellow regional Member for this area, I’d like to express my personal sympathy with those who are now living with a massive uncertainty about their futures. Simon Thomas has just asked, I think, a very pertinent question, and I’m sure that the Public Accounts Committee will want to look at this grant in due course—not in any spirit of animosity towards the Cabinet Secretary, but just because we do need to ensure that due diligence has properly been undertaken here.

I’m very concerned about the role of the Inland Revenue in this area. Does the Cabinet Secretary know how big the current tax debt is that they’re owed by the company, on the basis of which it has been put into administration? Administration may not, of course, be the end of the road; there may be a viable business, or several viable businesses, that can be created out of the assets. But it’s very disappointing if a public body like HMRC has put this company into administration for a relatively small sum in comparison with what might be realised even from a fire sale of the assets. I don’t know whether the Cabinet Secretary would be able to put it into perspective for us so that we can see whether the Revenue’s decision prima facie is reasonable or not.

The Inland Revenue is no longer—the HMRC is no longer—a preferred creditor, as it used to be, so it may not be that they will scoop the pool in an administration or ultimate liquidation of the company. It would be grossly irresponsible, I think, of HMRC to have destroyed a business if it proves that a very small sum is going to be recovered. After all, if it is the case, as the Cabinet Secretary has said, that it looked as though the company was improving its performance and it was viable but for the debts that were in existence, then it would be a very short-term-ist view that the tax authorities would have, and it would be seen as an act of sabotage as well as betrayal of those who currently either have lost their jobs or have that prospect.