Mr. Molloy has done the honourable thing by offering his resignation. I am sure that was a difficult decision for him and I wish him well. From time to time, when things go wrong, we get resignations of senior public servants. However, what we do not get, particularly from Fianna Fáil in Government, is any resignation by Ministers or any sense that there is ministerial accountability. The amount of money spent on electronic voting was 100 times greater than the expenses in FÁS under scrutiny, for example, but there was no ministerial resignation or accountability to this House for that. What we get — the Taoiseach gave it to us again here this morning — is the suggestion that when something goes wrong in a State agency, it has nothing to do with Ministers. We are assured that the Minister will investigate and there will be a report to Government. Then the issue disappears.

Let me remind the House how this works. A State agency, whether it is FÁS or any other agency, is accountable to the Minister and the Minister is accountable to the people for the spending of taxpayers' money through this House. In respect of FÁS, there is ministerial responsibility. The Labour Services Act of 1987 states specifically that the remuneration and expenses of staff in FÁS must be approved by the Minister and the Minister for Finance. This also applies to the board of FÁS. This is outlined in section 7 of the Act and again in the Schedule to that Act. Furthermore, there is a provision in the legislation that gives the Minister power to give directions to FÁS in respect of expenditure on specific items.

Let us be clear about this. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment had responsibility for the expenses regime which applied in FÁS, because the Minister had to approve it. There were three Ministers for Enterprise, Trade and Employment over the period in question, namely, the current Tánaiste, Deputy Mary Coughlan — who has only been in the job a very short time — the current Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin and the current Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Mary Harney.

Did the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment approve the expenses regime which applied in FÁS, under which some of the top executives benefitted? I heard Mr. Molloy on radio on Monday last say the arrangements in place were "entitlements". Did the Minister approve them? If the Minister did not approve them, then I seek an explanation from the Taoiseach as to why three Ministers — I do not know which one was responsible here — were negligent in their duty in overseeing the organisation, as the Minister is required by law to do. FÁS is not a free agent. It is responsible to the Minister, who must approve its expenses regime and who is, in turn, accountable and answerable to this House for that approval. I want an answer on that today.

My understanding is that the rules regarding travel and subsistence in the Civil Service are set out in circular No. 11-1982 as amended by circular No. 18-2006. In 1998, the Department of Finance issued a letter to all Departments and offices regarding travel. The travel and subsistence policy in FÁS is a matter in the first instance for the board of FÁS and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. These are the arrangements that apply. I do not think the Deputy is suggesting that the Minister would clear individual expenses of persons in FÁS; if that is the suggestion I do not think it is a proper governance principle. There are codes in place regarding these matters which should have been applied, in the first instance by the board and then brought to the attention of the Minister. On foot of a report from the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Minister asked for a further investigation in the corporate services division that deals with these issues so that we can get to the bottom of what exactly was going on. This is an exercise of accountability by the Minister on the agency concerned but I do not think it is right to attribute personal responsibility on the expense sheets to the Minister.

What about the board?

What about the Greens?

Deputy Gilmore without interruption.

The Taoiseach's answer is not good enough at all. Telling the taxpayer, who has to pay for this, about circular letters is not an adequate answer.

We are going around in circles.

The Act which was passed by the Oireachtas, the representatives of the people, which set up FÁS, says without any doubt or ambiguity that it is the job of the Minister to approve the expenses regime in FÁS.

Does it use the word——

I will read it for the Minister. Section 7(2)(a) states, “Such remuneration and allowances for expenses incurred by him . . . [this means any member of staff] . . . as An Foras or the subsidiary, as the case may be, with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance”. It is explicitly clear that the approval of expenses regimes in FÁS, as established by this Act, is a job for the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

I will ask the Taoiseach a direct question. Did the Minister approve travel by first class by senior executive staff of FÁS? This is the Minister's job. This is not a matter of FÁS deciding this of its own volition. The arrangement for expenses remuneration in FÁS is a matter for which the Minister has responsibility. I want to know whether this was approved by the Minister and if it was not approved by the Minister, what has a succession of Ministers in that Department been doing over the 11 years in which the Taoiseach's party has been in office?

As I said to Deputy Gilmore, the specifics of the expenses regime that would apply to Departments, offices or agencies are under the remit of Departments. In 1998, the Department of Finance issued a letter. To answer the Deputy's question, the Labour Services Act 1987 refers to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister for Finance. In 1998 the Department of Finance issued correspondence to all Departments and offices regarding the foreign travel issue and this is the regime that applies. It is a matter for the board and the management who are in charge of the day to day operations and implementation of Government policy in respect of that agency to ensure it is complied with. The issue now arising is that the evidence suggests prima facie that it was not being complied with. The question is what accountability arises as a result of this non-compliance. The director general has made a decision himself as head of the day to day operations of the agency regarding what he believes he should do in these circumstances and I commend him on that.

He is gone now.

With regard to any other aspect of the issue, the Tánaiste on her return will report to Government and the Government will decide what, if any, other matters are required here to ensure the full public confidence in those who work conscientiously in this organisation to provide the services which it is statutorily required to provide.

Does the Taoiseach have confidence in the board?