The announcement was made yesterday of the resignation of the director general of FÁS. The Government will launch another committee today to deal with cutting down the waste of taxpayers' money. The Taoiseach has 33 Ministers and this is their function. He has cast doubts on the judgment of others in this House, but the only two people who did not seem to realise that something was radically wrong in FÁS were the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste.

Is the Taoiseach fully aware of what has gone on in this organisation? Many years ago he was Minister for Labour and dealt with it then. I have flight records for a round the world trip from Dublin to Frankfurt, Tokyo, Honolulu and San Francisco, and back to Frankfurt and Dublin at a cost of €12,000 of taxpayers' money. I have the records of a major hotel in Dublin, with a booking costing €29,000 for a two and a half week stay. Two banquets were held in the hotel on the same day, one of which cost €8,000 and the other €9,000. I want to make it clear that when this country does business internationally, we expect to measure up to the standards that are required. However, the Taoiseach is in charge of this and what has gone on here is the gross abuse and reckless expenditure of public moneys.

Every Deputy in this House is visited by people on community employment schemes and so on who are trying to get back on FÁS schemes. However, things seem to have gone completely out of control at the top. Can the Taoiseach respond on his own judgment of the director general and his defence of his position? He has representatives on the board, appointed by different Ministers and Departments.

We are now at what I would call a "values revolution", where the taxpayers' money has to be respected as much, if not more, than individual money. The Taoiseach has responsibility for this. In view of the importance of FÁS in the years ahead, does he now believe that the board members should consider their positions?

Both I and the Tánaiste have been aware of the processes that were put in place to see what exactly is the problem in these matters. A similar process is also being conducted by an Oireachtas committee. I made the point two days ago that the Tánaiste indicated that an investigation was being conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General into issues that have taken place, and that the director general would be before the Committee of Public Accounts in the normal way this week. I then went on to say that I know him personally, that he has been an excellent public servant and that I have every confidence in him. That confidence was justified. He is an honourable public servant and he did the honourable thing on behalf of the organisation that he led and tendered his resignation to the board of that organisation. I commend him for that.

He made a significant contribution to the development of services at FÁS during his tenure there, including the One Step Up programme, which has greatly improved the upskilling of the workforce. He tendered his resignation of his own volition because he is a public servant with a good track record. I do not think, no matter the size of the controversy, that it is right for me to reduce that career over that period of time and the good work done down to this issue. He has taken a decision based on accountability for this issue and I commend him for it.

The Tánaiste will report to the Government next Tuesday on what happens next. I understand that the board of FÁS will meet this evening for the purpose of appointing an interim director general of the organisation.

When I raised this issue yesterday, the first point I made was that I would not impugn the personal integrity of anybody. Did the Taoiseach discuss this with the Tánaiste before she contacted Mr. Molloy yesterday in terms of her conversation with him? Does the Taoiseach take the view that the audit committee of FÁS is representative of Ministers and Departments?

If they did not know about this, they should have been in the position of finding out, given that they represent the taxpayer. If they did know about it and its extent, then they are guilty of criminal negligence. This organisation now has a very bad name, even though it has done some great work over the years. In that context, the Taoiseach should ask the members of the board to consider their positions.

We are at the start of a values revolution in Ireland, as I have already said in other fora. In the past, we had the situation where the Taoiseach's predecessor saw no difference between right and wrong in accepting large sums of money over the counter. In this Chamber he told us that members of various boards were appointed on the basis of friendship. Irrespective of the party involved, this is a consequence of being in power for too long.

Hear, hear.

The same would apply to any other party in office for too long.

On the basis of the Taoiseach's comments about the former director general's integrity, I assume Mr. Molloy wants to co-operate with the Committee of Public Accounts to get to the bottom of this issue. If the Taoiseach did have a conversation with Mr. Molloy, did he point out to him that there would be no agreement on severance pay or a golden handshake until there is co-operation with the Committee of Public Accounts, which represents the people and taxpayers? We cannot have a situation where the director general resigns and makes no further comment to a committee of this House, representing the people, on the profligacy that went on. That is fundamental to the start of clearing up this matter.

The Taoiseach will make appointments to another committee today, known colloquially as "An Bord Snip". It is a function of Ministers — and is part of what they are paid to do, along with setting out policy — to call in Secretaries General and Accounting Officers to deal with these matters. The Government does not need any more committees to point out what should be done. It is up to Ministers to identify where the waste lies and root it out.

Does the Taoiseach agree that there should be no agreement on severance pay or a golden handshake for the former director general of FÁS until and unless there is full co-operation with the Committee of Public Accounts? Did the Taoiseach discuss this matter with the Tánaiste before she spoke to the director general?

I wish to point out, on the basis that Deputy Kenny is not impugning anyone's integrity, that the outgoing director general has been co-operating with the committees.

That is not so.

Any suggestion that he has not co-operated is incorrect.

He is not providing information to the committee.

Deputies cannot, on the one hand, say they are not impugning a person's integrity and then suggest that if co-operation is forthcoming, all will be well. Co-operation has been forthcoming.

That is not so.

It has not been forthcoming.

The chairman and the director general of FÁS have welcomed the fact that the Tánaiste asked the Comptroller and Auditor General, on foot of the public procurement report, to prepare further reports on other matters, including the question of the corporate services division. That is the factual position.

It is not so.

It is so. In relation to——-

Please allow the Taoiseach to reply to Leader's questions.

I am not answerable to Deputy McCormack during Leaders' questions.

I am a member of the Committee of Public Accounts and I know what has gone on.

I do not agree with the Deputy because Mr. Molloy has been co-operating.

That is an opinion, not a fact.

He had blanked-out pages.

The Taoiseach is offering his opinion, not facts.

Deputies are saying that people's integrity will not be impugned. They are aware that in relation to that redaction, it was agreed between the legal advisors of the Committee of Public Accounts and of FÁS, on the basis——

That is not so.

——of the Data Protection Act.

That is not so. The Taoiseach is wrong again.

That is the information that the deputy chairman has indicated to the public.

That is wrong.

To return to the point at issue, rather than be distracted by these matters, the director general tendered his resignation and I understand the severance arrangements are in line with public sector norms. That is the normal procedure and Mr. Molloy would have that entitlement, the same as everybody else in that position. The board of the FÁS organisation will be meeting this evening. The Committee of Public Accounts will be holding its scheduled meetings and the arrangements for the attendance of FÁS officials is a matter for that organisation. Equally, it is a matter for the Committee of Public Accounts to decide what to do in this new situation. I am not going to get into any of that because it is a matter for the committee.

The director general, of his own volition, tendered his resignation. I commend him for making that decision, which he has done in the interests of the organisation he served and led. He has done a lot of good work in that organisation and in other Departments. I wish we were all in a position to say that we did everything perfectly, but none of us are able to say that. However, Mr. Molloy has taken on the accountability issue, for which I commend him. While there might be an avalanche of abuse against him personally — whatever way people want to play it is a matter for themselves — the honourable thing was done here. He has done it correctly——

We are only protecting taxpayers.

——and his career over that period commends him as a good public servant. In respect of specific issues, he has dealt with them honourably.

What about the board?

The Tánaiste will report to the Cabinet next week regarding the board and any matter that arises in that context. I wish to make clear that FÁS will continue to co-operate with any ongoing investigations into these matters.