Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Labour Party motion which states that far too cosy a relationship was allowed to develop between the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the agency it was supposed to be supervising. The motion also condemns the failure of the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and her predecessors, Deputy Micheál Martin and Deputy Mary Harney in not exercising appropriate supervision of the agency to prevent wanton waste of taxpayers' money.

As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, I have observed and followed closely the scandalous waste of taxpayers' money that took place urged on by the management structure of FÁS with the board, at the very least, turning a blind eye to what was going on. The Tánaiste today published the Labour Services (Amendment) Bill 2009 which proposes to reduce the number of members on the board of FÁS. However, this is a classic case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Not alone has the horse bolted, it must be a couple of miles down the road. While the measures being taken now may be useful, the Tánaiste did not face up to her responsibilities when she presided over what happened at FÁS.

While the management of FÁS flouted procedures and wasted money on travel, unnecessary advertising, junkets for management and board members, the board of FÁS appears to have been asleep on the job and should have resigned a year ago. I am not following the trend of the past month or two in calling for the board of FÁS to resign. At a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts on 4 December 2008 I stated:

I will ask the question rather than the Government. Given that the board has been negligent in this issue, should it not consider its position?

I put that question to the board at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts on 4 December 2008. I also referred at that meeting to the travel issue and the responsibilities of the board in that regard. I listened carefully this morning to Mr. McLoone's statement. The words were well spoken but the board seemed not to accept any responsibility for any negligence regarding travel. There was no provision for payment of travel expenses and Mr. McLoone said spending on travel was inappropriate but the board did not look at payments.

In the Labour Services Act 1987, it states a member of staff of An Foras Forbatha, a predecessor of FÁS, other than the elected chairman or the staff of the subsidiary, shall be paid out of moneys at the disposal of An Foras Forbatha or the subsidiary as the case may be. Such remuneration and allowances for expenses incurred by him and An Foras Forbatha or the subsidiary, as the case may be, will be paid with the consent of the Minister for Finance — the Minister for Finance had to consent to spending. When that question was put to the Taoiseach, who was then Minister for Finance, in the Dáil, he said the Minister could not be expected to follow up every little detail, that it was the responsibility of the board. Clearly, the board was negligent in looking after its responsibilities.

I also asked Mr. McLoone if he realised when he was appointed chairman of the board that it was the responsibility of the board as set down by the Minister to approve of such payments, and he said "Yes", but the payments were not presented to him or for approval by the board. There was a game of cat and mouse between management and the board at FÁS in not bringing the necessary information to the board and the board was negligent in not seeking that information which was necessary for them to carry out their duties as members of the board.

After the meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts last year, Mr. Molloy went on "Today with Pat Kenny" to justify the extraordinary expenditure and waste of taxpayers' money in FÁS. After that his position became untenable and he offered his resignation to the Minister. Fast forward to the last meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts and we discover that Mr. Molloy eventually resigned after being awarded an extraordinarily generous pension and a lump sum worth more than €1.1 million.

The waters get very muddy here. The impression giving by the Secretary General of the Department, at the last meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts, was that Mr. Molloy had threatened litigation if he did not get the extraordinary deal. This was not clearly spelled out but it was strongly hinted at. That was the news story for the next few days and the media ran with it, that Mr. Molloy had put a gun to the Minister's head and would not resign unless he got this package. The following Sunday, the Taoiseach stated that Mr. Molloy never threatened legal action.

I do not know what happened. I believe on the morning Mr. Molloy offered his resignation, the embattled Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment consulted the Taoiseach, as would be natural in this case, and I presume the Taoiseach told her to get the best deal possible for Mr. Molloy and they would see how things work out. Once the Tánaiste went with that information to her officials, they were obliged to carry out the request of the Minister in arriving at the best deal. Clearly the officials did not remove any benefits from Mr. Molloy in the deal they eventually worked out.

At the end of the long day of negotiations, after Mr. Molloy had apparently offered his resignation in the morning, the deal was worked out and the Taoiseach had to be informed of it. He was informed and signed off on it, and we are told the Minister for Finance gave his go ahead to the deal. We are then told by the Green Party Ministers that they knew nothing about the deal. It appears that three Cabinet members signed off on the deal. If that is how the Government operates, it is a funny system.

See this speech in context