Yesterday, a former Member of the House from the Taoiseach's party branded Fianna Fáil as a party of sleaze and corruption because of the actions of a minority of its members. That branding came about because of the use and abuse of both privilege and power for quite a number of years by the persons concerned.

It was not confined to Members of the House but also concerned persons associated with various organisations. The issue concerning the former director general of FÁS, Mr. Rody Molloy, is a case in point. The Taoiseach said here in the House, "The chief executive of that organisation is a person whom I hold in the highest regard and whose integrity I would defend at all times." He went on to say at the end of this saga that Mr. Molloy had done the honourable thing. On that, will the Taoiseach clear up a number of matters that are a cause of concern? Can he confirm whether Mr. Molloy threatened legal action on his stepping down as director general? There has been a deal of confusion about this.

If he did not threaten legal action and was retiring, why then did his package amount to a golden handshake of more than €1 million on top of his pension? I met workers from Waterford Crystal during the Lisbon treaty campaign who worked for 40 years and have no pension and they made the point about the gulf of anger in the streets. The Taoiseach also said he had full faith and confidence in the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to deal with FÁS, yet he overruled her when she was about to issue a press release expressing full confidence in its board. What did the Taoiseach overrule his Tánaiste if he had full faith in this sad FÁS episode?

I should point out to Deputy Kenny that in the quote attributed to former Deputy Jim Glennon, he regarded such portrayals of Fianna Fáil as being unjustified, as I do. As regards the specific matter the Deputy has raised on the director general of FÁS, the comments I made about Mr. Molloy at any time were and are based on my knowledge of the situation and of the person concerned. It is a fact that I made those comments because that was my belief at that time.

Is it now?

I do not see any evidence to the contrary in that regard.

The Taoiseach should put on his glasses.

I do not go around challenging everyone's integrity. In fact, on the day in question, Deputy Kenny said he was not challenging anyone's integrity at the time the resignation took place. I do not want to get involved in personalising matters in that manner.

The context of all this is that there was a controversy as regards travel arrangements which had been in place. It was regarded as being in the best interests of the organisation that Mr. Molloy should move on. That was facilitated as a result of a discussion that would take place, initially between the board chairman and himself, and which would be submitted to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and subsequently approved by the Department of Finance.

He gave the go ahead for it.

Those arrangements were agreed under the provisions of the Labour Services Act 1987 which cover the director general's remuneration and superannuation. Under this Act, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment determines the terms and conditions of employment, including superannuation, for the CEO of FÁS, with the consent of the Minister for Finance. Securing a speedy departure in a non-litigious manner was considered to be in the best interests of FÁS, its clients and the taxpayer. That was the basis upon which his departure was negotiated and effected.

Departure? That is where he got the car.

The Taoiseach is changing his story. Where are the guidelines?

Did he drive or walk?

Allow the Taoiseach to finish.

There is no difference between what I said and what the Secretary General had to say last Thursday. What was being asked by Mr. Molloy was that he would reserve his position on the basis of discussions that were taking place. There is always a risk of action. I am not saying action was threatened.

The Taoiseach is changing his story.

I am not. I am trying to give a factual answer to Deputy Kenny. I have nothing but the interest of ensuring the truth is known about this matter and the circumstances in which we were dealing with it.

The Taoiseach is not telling the truth. He is changing his story.

I am sorry, Deputy——

Deputy Shortall has no involvement in Leaders' Questions.

I thank Deputy Shortall. The issue in regard to this situation, as far as the Government is concerned, was to effect the departure of the chief executive, and to do so in a way that was broadly in line with the guidelines that are in place——

Broadly.

Yes. These provide for increased superannuation for people in that situation. That is what happened. It was our judgment at that time that this was important in the interests of the organisation, its clients and the taxpayer, and because it was being stated inside and outside this House at the time that this was what should happen.

Up Offaly.

I am not sure, arising from the Taoiseach's reply, whether Mr. Molloy threatened legal action or not. This seemed to be a cause of considerable controversy throughout the country. The Taoiseach says he made his comments in the House on the basis of his own knowledge, which he did, and he sees nothing that leads him to a contrary opinion at this stage.

The comments by former Deputy Glennon were made, I believe, out of a sense of frustration and as a reflection of the anger of so many people at where mismanagement, lack of accountability and lack of transparency have lead this country. It is evident from the information that under the director generalship of Mr. Molloy, the FÁS organisation, spending almost €1 billion of taxpayers' money, had very serious and glaring gaps in terms of accountability and management. The Government now seems to be hiding behind a position where, to effect a speedy departure, a package "broadly in line", as the Taoiseach says, was produced. I can tell the Taoiseach he would get thousands of people to line up for a speedy departure if he gave them a €1 million golden handshake on top of their pension.

And a car.

Which was not to be mentioned until afterwards.

The point is that what has happened under the stewardship of the Taoiseach and the Government is that although mismanagement, lack of accountability and lack of competence were clear at the very top of an organisation, which has done good work in many parts of the country, a person is rewarded with a golden handshake of €1 million on top of his pension. How can the Taoiseach justify this? How can anybody in Government, including the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, justify this by saying this was to effect a speedy departure so that the organisation would not be damaged? The reporters of The Irish Times today deal with the case of a FÁS assistant manager who was charged today with defrauding more than €600,000 from the State training agency. In order to effect a speedy departure and not to damage the organisation, a €1 million golden handshake on top of a pension, broadly in line with the guidelines, was effected with the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and was signed off by the Minister for Finance.

The Taoiseach knows Mr. Molloy — that is no fault of either. However, the Tánaiste, as the deputy head of Government, and the Minister for Finance were fully in possession of all these facts about the mismanagement and lack of accountability at the top of FÁS when this deal was signed off on. How in heaven's name can the Taoiseach justify a decision like this to effect a speedy departure by a person who, by his own admission, was lax in his competency at managing an agency spending €1 billion of taxpayers' money, where a golden handshake of €1 million applied on top of his pension? From what perspective in regard to not damaging an organisation, and not giving the truth to the branding by former Deputy Glennon that the Taoiseach's party has become a party, in perception at least, of corruption and sleaze, can the Taoiseach justify this?

There is a gulf in understanding on the streets, which this does not help, but the Taoiseach stands here, as leader of the country, and justifies a golden handshake of €1 million plus for the former director general on top of his pension. I would like to hear the Taoiseach's stance as to why this was agreed, in what circumstances it was agreed and how he can justify it when thousands of people have seen their savings go down the black hole of the banks, have no pensions and no time in their lives to reconstruct any kind of financial lifeline? Can he justify that to the House?

After he offered his resignation.

What I must put back to the Deputy is, first, the fact the Government had to act lawfully in this matter. Second, in regard to the conditions and terms of the person's employment, were the contract terminated there would have been an entitlement broadly in line with what was arranged.

If he had done the job properly. There is a difference.

Excuse me. At the time of the resignation, nobody in this House impugned the person's integrity and no one said it was their purpose to do so.

No one knew what was going on.

Excuse me. I am trying to make the simple point that had the contract been terminated, there were entitlements and accrued pension rights that had to be dealt with in any event.

That was not clear.

Where a person's contract is not renewed for a second term, there are analogous arrangements in place. It was on that basis——

What happens if somebody gets fired?

I listened. It is the Deputy's decision to interrupt when others speak.

Allow the Taoiseach to finish.

Nobody gets fired.

The details of that severance package were arranged on that basis, and it was in the interests of the organisation that this change take place.

It has no basis in law.

Allow the Taoiseach to finish. He is answering Deputy Kenny.

It was in the interests of the organisation that this change take place, and take place quickly. I can understand people looking at this situation from the outside and making some effort to suggest we were doing something other than what was going to happen if the contract was terminated. That is what had to be done. We had to take that into consideration and move the situation forward quickly, which is what was done. The approvals were sought and obtained.

Did he threaten legal action?

You approved it.

I call Deputy Gilmore.