Shane Ross (Independent)

It has taken a long time to get a debate on FÁS in this House, although it is not for want of trying. It is an indication of an extraordinary reluctance to tackle this monster that those politicians and others who have sought to ask questions, probe, debate and challenge FÁS over a number of years have been frustrated by a lack of information and a lack of political interest or enthusiasm. One must ask why that was so and why we are now debating the issue when admittedly sensational revelations have come out and why it was left not to politicians to ask questions or to answer them, nor for FÁS to do so. It is an absolutely extraordinary situation that a State agency, with an extraordinarily high budget, has been sacrosanct, untouched, unchallenged and protected politically for many years.

It has not been possible to get answers from FÁS. Those in power in FÁS have always been people with close political connections and, therefore, disproportionate power. I do not say that lightly, but I know it from experience. It was the Freedom of Information Act which allowed, finally, the release of the information that started to put pressure on those in charge to answer questions they had previously refused to answer.

We must remember that FÁS, however it may think of itself at the top, is not a Fianna Fáil fiefdom or a political fiefdom of any sort. It is a State agency dealing with taxpayers' money which has refused to come clean on what has been happening to it or how it is being run. It has been obstructive in providing information and now has to reveal things which should probably never have happened. We had here a State agency which was completely and utterly out of control. We now know that.

I have listened to the points made by Senator Carty and the Minister of State. I accept the Government must use the defence of the great work that FÁS does and say that therefore we should not touch it. That is similar to saying "I have the baby in my arms, do not touch me." It did great work — it does great work — but it also has a budget that is impossible to explain and nobody knows what it does with it. It does much good work, but it also has €1 billion plus and nobody knows where it goes. There is no point in pretending we do because we do not. The most extraordinary thing about that budget, as mentioned by Senator John Paul Phelan, is that it was larger, not smaller, at a time of full employment. It was more than €1 billion in some of the years in which full employment existed in this country. Nobody has been able to tell me what was happening to that money except under big block headings.

There is a heading for travel and subsistence with an expenditure of €5.7 million for last year, but there is no explanation of where that went. One never got an answer to a question if one asked it, and now we know why. One must ask what is behind all the other figures under these block headings. We have had examples of a million euro being spent on a computer that does not work. I came across a website about 18 months ago which was five years out of date. This agency was a complete shambles — doing good work on the ground but completely chaotic at the top. There may have been some good organisation when its members wanted to make their travel arrangements, but it does not appear it could organise anything else particularly well.

I take no comfort from the Minister of State's speech. I had hoped that when Mr. Molloy resigned, as he did last week, it would start a process which others would follow. I hoped the political establishment, which is Fianna Fáil, would come in and say it is time for action; the genie is out of the bottle and we are going to do what needs to be done. That is not happening. Let us remember the first reaction to Mr. Molloy's statement, which was very simple. The Taoiseach came in and tried to give him a leg up. That was bad judgment, and the Taoiseach came in the next day and dropped him in it.

However, the normal political reaction is taking over now. I can see it in the Minister of State's speech. When stating that the Tánaiste had met some members of the board of FÁS, he did not tell us which board members. Perhaps he will elaborate on which ones were there and why they were there. I suggest it is deliberately vague. He said that when the Tánaiste met these board members she "reiterated her disquiet at the recent revelations concerning activities in the public affairs division of FÁS." That statement is a meaningless piece of limp nonsense. What did she do? She whined a bit and said "We do not like what is going on; off you go." The Minister of State then stated that the Tánaiste "welcomed the board's assurance that action had now been taken to deal with these matters". That is a pathetic response. She has done nothing about it.

The Minister of State went on: "The board stated that a full examination of past practices is required." That is the usual trick. The board is distancing itself by saying "past practices" as though it has no responsibilities in this area. How long has that board been in existence? I am not sure, but it is several years. The speech continues: "to ensure that the organisation can move forward with best practice corporate governance procedures in place". There are no governance procedures in place as far as I can see. Every corporate governance procedure in the book has been broken and now they are saying they need to do something about it. The Tánaiste, at the meeting last week, made it clear that she wanted the FÁS organisation "to remain focused on its core mission". I have never in this House heard such clichéd nonsense. It means nothing. "She expressed her support for the continuing work of the board in that regard." That is exactly what the board has not been doing.

What the Minister ought to have done was to make the board accountable. There is only one question the board should have been asked. Did its members know about the complete chaos that existed in spending at the top of FÁS? These expenses are not the only thing. There is lots more. If they did know, they ought to resign on the spot because they should not have allowed it. It was completely unacceptable and out of control, and the checks and balances were chaotic. If they did not know about it, they ought to resign because they should have known.