Skip to main content
Normal View

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 4 Dec 2008

FÁS Annual Report and Financial Statements 2007 (Resumed).

Mr. Christy Cooney (Assistant Director General, FÁS), Mr. Peter McLoone (Chairman, FÁS) and Mr. Rody Molloy (Former Director General, FÁS) called and examined.

We are looking at special report No. 10 of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which deals with general matters arising on audits of non-commercial State sponsored bodies, and the FÁS annual report and financial statements for 2007.

I make witnesses aware that they do not enjoy absolute privilege. As and from 2 August 1998, section 10 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997 grants certain rights to persons who are identified in the course of the committee's proceedings. These rights include: the right to give evidence; to produce or send documents to the committee; to appear before the committee either in person or through a representative; to make a written and oral submission; to request the committee to direct the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents; and to cross-examine witnesses. For the most part, these rights may only be exercised with the consent of the committee.

Persons invited before the committee are made aware of these rights and any persons identified in the course of proceedings who are not present may need to be made aware of these rights and provided with a transcript of the relevant part of the committee's proceedings if the committee considers it appropriate in the interests of justice.

Notwithstanding this provision in the legislation, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are also reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 158 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or of a Minister, or the merits of the objectives of such policies.

Mr. Christy Cooney is assistant director general of FÁS, and I ask him to introduce his delegation today.

Mr. Christy Cooney

Thank you, Chairman. With me is Mr. Patrick Kivlehan, director of internal audit, and board member Mr. Niall Saul. Also with me is Mr. Peter McLoone, chairman of the board, Mr. Donal Sands, assistant director general of finance, Mr. Jim Coughlan, regional director of the south east, and Mr. Denis Rowan, assistant director general for employment services.

I welcome Mr. Peter McLoone, chairman of the board of FÁS, and Mr. Rody Molloy, former director general of FÁS. I ask the officials from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to introduce themselves.

Mr. Dermot Mulligan

I am an official from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I am head of the labour force development division.

I welcome Mr. Mulligan. I ask the officials from the Department of Finance to introduce themselves.

Ms Gráinne McGuckin

I am principal officer on the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment Vote side. David Hurley works on the travel policy side and represents the Department in respect of that today.

I also welcome Ms McGuckin and Mr. Hurley.

Mr. Christy Cooney

I wish to correct the record from the last day in connection with the issues raised around the €32,000 expenditure on tickets to Florida. As the Chairman is aware, I did him the courtesy of telephoning him that evening to tell him that on returning to my office I was informed that the credit notes had been found and that there was no cost to FÁS. It was an administrative error and a miscoding which resulted in them not being traced. I want to correct the record on that. Credit notes were received for the €32,000 and there was a cancellation charge of something like, I think from memory, €400. I just want to correct the record if the Chairman does not mind.

Thank you.

Mr. Peter McLoone

I thank members of the committee for their invitation to attend here today and for the opportunity to make an opening statement to the committee.

I am the chairman of the board of FÁS, which consists of a chairperson and 16 ordinary directors. Board members are appointed by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

The board's primary role is in policy making. The role of the chief executive officer — in FÁS's case this is the director general — is to implement this policy and to carry on, manage and control the administration and business of FÁS. The director general is assisted in this task by seven assistant director generals.

The current board, which was appointed in January 2006, will take responsibility and be fully accountable for the governance of the organisation since 2006 and in addition will take responsibility for our handling of past shortcomings that have come to light during our term of office even if we were not responsible for the shortcomings.

I will be upfront about why I am here today. In the past there has been poor management of some FÁS resources and in some instances there has been unacceptable waste of those precious resources. The vast bulk of the wasteful practices that have emerged were confined to one section of the FÁS organisation — corporate affairs — and, as members have heard at previous hearings, the management of FÁS took steps to uncover and end those practices.

The practices initially emerged through our internal audit process and subsequently emerged publicly in media reporting and commentary on those internal audit reports — and other material that came into the public domain — subsequent to the publication of the Comptroller and Auditor General's special report No. 10. All these revelations are the subject of legitimate and serious political and public concern, and are matters that are also of great concern to the board and management of FÁS.

As chairman of FÁS I acknowledge the anger and in some cases the hurt that this has caused among those who use, deliver and pay for the crucial services that FÁS provides. Above all, I stress to those who use, deliver and pay for FÁS services that, while such waste took place and was unacceptable, this is not typical of the general approach of the overwhelming majority of those involved in FÁS. It is not and has not been a feature of the vast majority of FÁS activity and expenditure, and we have taken measures to ensure that it does not happen again.

I firmly believe that once completed, the current internal audit investigations and the Comptroller and Auditor General's review, which is to follow these proceedings, will bear this out and will agree that the typical attitude of FÁS — its board, executive and staff — is one of hard work, diligence, good governance and above all respect for those who use and pay for the services we provide.

I refer to a number of matters in the public domain and the board's ongoing engagement with these matters. With regard to the INV. 137 investigation into corporate affairs, members of the committee will recall that it commenced in 2004. In July and September 2005, the FÁS board at that time was kept advised with regard to the progress of this investigation. When the current board was appointed in January 2006 it too engaged directly with this investigation and with a range of other matters through the work of the board's audit committee. Last week my colleague, Mr. Niall Saul, who is the chair of this audit committee, outlined to the committee the very detailed processes and time lines relating to this investigation and confirmed that this report was placed before the full board of FÁS in December 2007.

The content of the INV. 137 investigation report into corporate affairs continues to be the subject of the ongoing public discourse surrounding FÁS. It is important that past practices be examined so that lessons may be learned, but it is also important that past practices be examined so that we can establish precisely what was wrong, who is responsible and that we hold those responsible to account. It is important to note that by the time this report was published and became the subject of public controversy, the board of FÁS had already taken action on foot of the findings.

By March 2008 this board had overseen the introduction of sufficient controls into corporate affairs to ensure that there could be no repetition of those events. However, in the latter part of this year, as the details of past events became public, it quickly became evident that public confidence in FÁS was rapidly evaporating, that staff morale was being seriously undermined and that the ability of the organisation to keep focused on the needs of the ever-increasing numbers of unemployed people was seriously jeopardised.

This was why, with the full support of the board, the former director general and I met separately with the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in September of this year to get agreement to send an external person into FÁS quickly to undertake a comprehensive review of FÁS and its management practices. I considered that this would allow FÁS to get on with its core business and, to some degree, begin the process of raising staff morale and restoring public confidence in the organisation, while at the same time getting to the root of the problems the Committee of Public Accounts was examining. The Tánaiste subsequently said in a public statement that she had asked the Comptroller and Auditor General to undertake such an investigation. However, we understand this will not happen until the committee has completed its hearings.

The earliest possible commencement of the Comptroller and Auditor General's inquiries is vital to enable FÁS to move forward. He will be able to examine every document at FÁS headquarters and will be in a position to talk to every member of the management of FÁS and anybody else who has relevant and helpful information. On that basis, he will be able to produce a full report and issue recommendations which will be available publicly. Most importantly, his report will be available to the committee to assist it in the comprehensive completion of its exhaustive deliberations. At that point we will be ready to return to continue this process with the committee. With the indulgence of the Chairman, I emphasise how important it is for the future of FÁS that the Comptroller and Auditor General be allowed to begin his external examination quickly. His report will give the committee fuller information than is currently available to it, thereby facilitating its proceedings and the completion of its work.

The commencement of the Comptroller and Auditor General's inquiry will allow FÁS to concentrate on its role, which is to train and upskill workers when they lose their jobs in these difficult economic times. It may lead to a further full discussion at this forum on the lessons that must be learned. It will allow the management of FÁS — a new director general is due to be appointed in the coming period — to drive the organisation forward and implement the change programme that is deemed necessary. All of us in this room share that objective. Last week the board authorised the FÁS audit committee to strengthen the internal audit functions within the organisation. It approved the use of external support and specialist assistance, as required, to accelerate the audit work under way in the corporate affairs area. All of this information will be placed at the disposal of the Comptroller and Auditor General when he commences his examination.

With the permission of the Chairman, I will conclude by speaking about the staff and clients of FÁS. It has been the board's experience — it is certainly the experience of many individuals, businesses and communities throughout the country — that FÁS performs sterling work on the ground. Its staff need to be offered the leadership, direction and management practices they deserve. Like the rest of the board, I am determined to make this happen as soon as possible. This will provide the platform for FÁS to develop and deliver a range of programmes and services to meet the needs of a diverse range of clients who find themselves in difficult circumstances due to the economic downturn.

I thank the Chairman for allowing me to make an opening statement. If the committee would like me to deal with any questions or points of clarification, I will assist it in any way I can.

I thank Mr. McLoone. May we publish his statement?

Mr. Peter McLoone

Yes.

Does Mr. Molloy wish to make a statement?

Mr. Rody Molloy

Yes. I will make a brief statement.

I have been a public servant for over 35 years. During that time I have worked with members of virtually all parties in the Oireachtas. I have always shown the utmost respect for Parliament, including all of its committees. When I have appeared before various Oireachtas committees during the years, I have always tried to assist them to the best of my ability. I say this to assure the Chairman and other members of the committee that my non-attendance at last week's meeting was not in any way a show of disrespect by me for the committee. I had resigned from FÁS the previous Tuesday and was no longer its Accounting Officer. In such circumstances, I considered it would be inappropriate for me to attend last week's meeting. However, it was clear from the Chairman's opening statement that he had expected me to attend. My understanding was that I was not invited to attend and therefore did not do so. If I misunderstood the position, I apologise to the committee. I assure members I intended no disrespect to the committee. I am not sure that I would have been in a fit state to be of any real service to it. Members will appreciate that the days after my resignation were traumatic for me and my family, particularly as my home was besieged by elements of the media.

In the past few months the release of FÁS internal documents under the Freedom of Information Act, the leaking of other documents and their treatment in the media made my position as director general increasingly untenable. I responded to all issues raised in the internal audit process in an appropriate manner. Mr. Saul's evidence to the committee last week gives credence to this view. The final straw was my ill-judged radio interview on RTE's "Today with Pat Kenny". I knew after it that my position was no longer tenable. On Tuesday of last week, after long and difficult consideration, I informed the Tánaiste and the chairman of FÁS of my decision to resign.

I was proud to lead FÁS for eight years. I never ceased to be amazed at the dedication and commitment of the staff of FÁS to deliver important services to the community it serves. I made a contribution to continuously improving that service. I also made mistakes along the way. In relation to foreign travel, I understood the class of travel was in order and in line with public service guidelines. I accept, in hindsight, that it was not appropriate, particularly in an organisation charged with helping many underprivileged people. It should not have happened. The services provided by FÁS were never more needed than they are now. For this reason, it is important that the committee's investigation and the subsequent examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General restore confidence in the organisation and allow the new leadership to rebuild morale as quickly as possible. I thank the committee.

I thank Mr. Molloy. May we publish his statement?

Mr. Rody Molloy

Yes.

The committee is considering a report produced by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is legally obliged to do so. There was an implication in Mr. McLoone's opening statement that the committee's investigation or examination of the report was holding up the Comptroller and Auditor General's investigation of FÁS. We are obliged to conduct an investigation and are doing so with all the speed and efficiency we can muster. The commitment of members of the committee cannot be questioned. A great deal of private work needs to be done before a matter such as this can be dealt with in public session. For example, documents need to be examined. We need to consider how public sessions can be conducted in a responsible way but we are determined to carry out our examination quickly and effectively. We have encountered difficulties and delays arising from the late arrival of documents. I can understand, however, why documents arrive late at times. Legal advice, to the effect that certain documents should not be supplied in full, has led to the committee being given redacted or censored documents. We are trying to deal with such difficulties in as effective a manner as possible. I assure Mr. McLoone that we will come to a conclusion when we consider we have our job done. That will happen as quickly as possible.

I accept Mr. Molloy's point about a comment I made last Thursday. Like other members of the committee, I am often frustrated when the committee tries to deal with issues in Departments and agencies only to find that the relevant people have moved on, retired or been transferred. The comments I made last week were an indication of that frustration. That was the context in which I made my comments last week. We try to be fair to everybody and we will be fair today. A point was made about the morale of staff in FÁS. We are all aware of what FÁS staff do at local level and encounter their work every day. We recognise the effect this issue has on staff but we must continue with our examination.

The committee has received a solicitor's letter relating to Mr. Gregory Craig.

We must leave for the vote but will be back.

The Chairman, Deputy Shortall and I are paired.

The letter is signed by Ms Patricia McNamara of Patricia McNamara and Co. It is dated 3 December 2008 and marked "Urgent". It reads:

Client: Mr. Gregory Craig; Committee of Public Accounts meeting on Thursday, 4 December at 10 a.m.

Dear Sir,

We refer to your correspondence of 1st inst. Our client notes the provisions of section 10 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997. However, he received a letter from his employer, FÁS, earlier on 1st inst. informing him that he is suspended from his employment and warning him that he must not discuss with anyone matters in relation to the ongoing audit in FÁS as same could have serious disciplinary consequences for him.

Our client intends to challenge his purported suspension. However, while our client's employer is of the view that this condition is in place, clearly it would be a matter of grave concern if our client avails of section 10 of the said Act.

I would like clarification on this issue and the committee wants to get to the bottom of it. This may mean asking Mr. Craig to come before the committee to give evidence. Can Mr. Cooney provide a copy of the letter which was sent to Mr. Craig? He has the right, under section 10 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997, to give evidence to the committee and we have invited him to do so in writing. After that, we will decide whether to invite him to come before the committee to give a personal account of his evidence.

Mr. Christy Cooney

Does the Chairman want me to comment?

Yes, please.

Mr. Christy Cooney

I saw references to this matter in the media but was not aware that the Chairman of the committee had received a letter from Mr. Craig's legal advisers. The said person was never advised by the organisation not to co-operate with the Committee of Public Accounts. He was advised that the current document presented to him had nothing to do with INV. 137 or the related issues. I wish to make it abundantly clear that we have not said he is not in a position to come before the committee.

Could we have a copy of the letter?

Mr. Christy Cooney

I do not have it with me because I did not know this was coming but what I have said is factual.

Will we receive a copy of the letter?

Mr. Christy Cooney

Absolutely. There is no problem.

For clarification, to what does Mr. Cooney refer when he says the current document was sent to Mr. Craig?

Mr. Christy Cooney

A document was attached to the letter which is personal to him and relates to issues arising during an audit currently being carried out by public affairs. He has been asked to meet the director of internal audit to discuss the matter and provide clarification.

Is this entirely separate from the issues relating to INV. 137?

Mr. Christy Cooney

Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Niall Saul

Deputy Shortall may remember that, last week, I mentioned the fact that we had been investigating a number of other issues since INV. 137 and the letter is in the context of one of those investigations.

What is the timescale covered by that document?

Mr. Christy Cooney

Mr. Kivlehan deals with this matter.

Mr. Patrick Kivlehan

It covers 2006, 2007 and approximately four months of 2008.

Last week, Mr. Saul mentioned a statement of charges. Is the document which accompanied the letter referred to by Mr. Cooney a statement of charges?

Mr. Niall Saul

No, this is a stage back from that. In the audit investigation several items are identified and the person under investigation is allowed to deal with the audit team. However, if the audit team find there is a prima facie case for pursuing the case in a disciplinary environment it is passed to the relevant section and the statement of charges follows.

Is the statement of charges the letter dated 29 March 2007?

Mr. Niall Saul

Yes. That is in connection with INV. 137.

It is comforting to know there is no attempt to gag Mr. Craig.

Mr. Christy Cooney

There is none and I assure the Chairman that there has been no effort on the part of FÁS to do so, nor anything in our correspondence with him to signify any such attempt.

That is the case in regard to INV. 137 but is Mr. Craig precluded from commenting on the issues raised in the recent document sent to him?

Mr. Christy Cooney

Yes, because we are discussing the issue with him and the audit process has not completed. We will not have a report on how to deal with the situation until the audit process is completed.

We are to receive a copy of the letter but can we receive a copy of the attachment?

Mr. Christy Cooney

I do not believe so. We are advised that we are legally restricted from supplying the attachment because it contains data personal to an individual and, as the process is ongoing, we are not in a position to supply it.

Is Mr. Craig at liberty to give the committee a copy of the document, if requested?

Mr. Christy Cooney

That is a matter for Mr. Craig.

I call on Deputy O'Brien to address issues related to the internal audit report.

To follow up on Mr. McLoone's statement, I assure him that this committee also finds it regrettable that aspects to come out of this investigation are having a negative impact on staff morale and the operation of FÁS. However, we have a job to do on behalf of the public and the taxpayer and these issues arise mainly from the corporate affairs division. I and other members of the committee appreciate that the vast majority of people in FÁS carry out a very important role, particularly in the present difficult economic times. This committee has stated that view week after week since our meeting on 2 October. It is a regrettable matter but it is regrettable that issues raised in INV. 137, identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, happened at all and that is where the problem lies with staff morale. We are operating as quickly as we can but have a job to do. We must do that job diligently and respectfully and must not rush to judgment. I assure witnesses that we have been doing our utmost to identify areas which are of public importance.

Mr. Christy Cooney

I fully accept what Deputy O'Brien says and I fully recognise the work the committee has to do. We are making every effort to fully co-operate and provide every bit of information we can as we proceed. We do not withhold any document except for legal reasons. I assure the Deputy and the Chairman of that.

Mr. Peter McLoone

I assure the Deputy that there was no intention in my remarks to suggest the committee had any responsibility for the matter to which I referred. The committee has an onerous and difficult task, which I fully respect. I was merely making the point that in September we had recognised the need to get somebody external. It was subsequently announced who that person would be.

Before I ask Deputy O'Brien to proceed, I must point out that as a result of the discussions with the Tánaiste — I do not wish to become involved in party political issues, I am simply making a statement of fact — the terms of reference given to the Comptroller and Auditor General were very narrow and related to corporate affairs only. Our deliberations will result in the committee eventually making recommendations to the Comptroller and Auditor General about terms of reference that he may accept for his subsequent investigation.

Mr. Peter McLoone

We will welcome them when they emerge.

In recent weeks we have covered many aspects of INV. 137 and the internal audit report; therefore, I will not go back over old ground. Mr. McLoone stated in his opening statement that FÁS had acted upon the issues that had arisen and that procedures had been changed. Basically, he has said FÁS is getting its house in order. The internal audit report took most of three years to compile. My biggest concern is procurement and the awarding of contracts without tendering, matters we have covered extensively in recent weeks. Last week Mr. Saul said new procurement measures would be put in place early in 2009. I have been assured that these are belt and braces procedures. The operation of procedures is most important, not the procedures as such. Does Mr. McLoone agree that putting the procurement procedures together has taken an inordinate length of time? I will not delve into the current investigation taking place but since the internal audit report, covering the period from 2004 to 2007, it appears, from what was stated, that other issues have arisen. Are the chairman and the board satisfied that FÁS will be able to operate these procedures? How will the board interact with the corporate affairs and finance divisions to ensure the occurrences we have been examining and issues raised will not recur?

Mr. Peter McLoone

Yes, the board is satisfied that since it received the report and its recommendations in December 2007, we are plugging the leaks, to use a phrase, that gave rise to these problems. At the last meeting Mr. Saul gave the committee a detailed account of the steps which had been recommended to the board and which we activated in March, including the fact that corporate affairs, as it was known then, was under the stewardship of Mr. Cooney. He also outlined in his statement that the audit committee was preparing further procedures, described as the belt and braces procedures, for presentation to a meeting of the board this month or, at the latest, early January. We are seeking to ensure the arrangements for procurement and purchasing are strictly in line with what happens in the rest of the organisation.

It was mentioned that a current investigation would deal with a four month period in 2008. If it relates in any way to procurement, does that not show there are issues even this year? I am seeking assurance that the operation of the new procedures will be effective.

Mr. Peter McLoone

As outlined on the last occasion, INV. 137 resulted in the audit identifying many more practices than were originally covered in the anonymous letter. The audit committee and the board have resolved to get to the bottom of everything and identify every problem that occurred in the past in order that we will be aware of them. In the meantime, since we received the report in December 2007 we have been putting the procedures in place and enhancing them. That is not to say that during the term of office of the board, from February 2006, we will not uncover more difficulties in that department.

That is understandable because one cannot know until the current investigation is completed. A report was presented to the board in December 2007 which it examined. Now, according to what was said, there is an investigation dealing with a four month period in 2008. Can Mr. Saul give the committee a timeframe for when the procedures will be in place? In addition, it appears from our investigations and those of the Comptroller and Auditor General that many of the issues arose in procurement when there were either personal or business relationships between corporate affairs and third parties; that is, private companies outside the organisation. That was identified in INV. 137 also. In the new procedures which we have not seen how will FÁS ensure contracts awarded are tendered for properly? If there is an existing business or personal relationship with any individual in the finance or procurement section, how will this be identified? I refer to OSK and what has been raised in the internal audit report. It was obviously a company which had an existing relationship with the head of what was the corporate affairs division. Will Mr. Saul outline how he will ensure that will not recur?

Mr. Christy Cooney

Before Mr. Saul responds, let me bring clarity to a point the Deputy made. There is no investigation ongoing in the corporate affairs division. I requested the internal audit unit to carry out a normal audit process for 2006, 2007 and up to early 2008 to clarify for me that there was nothing going on, because I had taken responsibility from March. Since then, as I assured the committee at the last meeting, I have put in place procedures and a financial administrator to ensure everything is done as it should be with regard to tendering and the management of financial and corporate affairs.

Mr. Niall Saul

We are hoping to cover a number of the concerns that arose in INV. 137 and the procurement issue. We were concerned about the level of awareness among managers involved in procurement of their exact responsibilities. Procurement is carried out under EU procurement regulations which are matters of law. People need to understand this. They also need to understand the responsibility that rests on them, particularly in situations where there are tenders of that size.

Second, we found evidence which the committee will have seen of a situation where a piece of work would be given to an agency but that agency would act as a procurer of services, that is, moving outside the strict FÁS procurement disciplines and acting as a proxy purchaser on our behalf. The new procedure deals with this. To reply to the Deputy's particular point, there will be a rigorous examination of the list of preferred suppliers. Where we see regular preferred suppliers cropping up, we will examine the matter.

As I mentioned to the committee last week, one can sometimes have a pattern of emergency purchases, when somebody cannot do it. We are providing for discipline in that regard. A person cannot just activate the emergency procedure without getting somebody above them to sign off on it. If they do it a second time, two people above them must sign off on it. If it happens a third time, we need to look at how they organise themselves. If they are making that kind of mistake and getting the wrong purchases, there is a more fundamental problem. There is an obligation on anybody involved in the purchasing process to declare any conflict of interest. That is a responsibility that sits on an executive. If they fail in that, it is a disciplinary issue. I hope I have given the committee a flavour of the kinds of things we are talking about.

What is the target date to get these processes in place?

Mr. Niall Saul

We got the processes at our last meeting in about September. We raised five issues. One was around that emergency issue, while the second was around the limits identified in the document to change. The third was that I wanted the fact put into the policy that any breach of these procedures will be a matter of discipline under the heading of serious misconduct. The current policy does not say that. It is in people's contracts. As far as I am concerned, the policy will specifically mention it.

They will be implemented early in the new year.

Mr. Niall Saul

I hope to have them back to the board for implementation early in the new year. The policies are not deficient. They are pretty well in line with good practice. The issue is around observance of them. In an audit one has to put the procedures in place and rely on the management and people to carry out their work in line with those procedures. I cannot have an auditor sitting on the back of every manager. The cost issues alone would be crazy. People will have to be accountable for their conduct as managers against those policies.

I hope, as I am sure does the committee, that many lessons will learnt. They are being learnt at the moment by the board of FÁS and the management. It is part of our role to make sure of that. Regarding disciplinary penalties, has FÁS updated guidelines for disciplinary actions? Perhaps this is a question for the chairman or for Mr. Cooney. On INV. 137, is Mr. Saul today in a position to outline what disciplinary actions were taken against Mr. Craig following on from the investigation? I would be interested to hear that. They are apparently out in the public arena. I want to make sure that they are recorded properly. What penalties would be imposed if something like this were to recur?

Mr. Niall Saul

I will answer the question more from a HR standpoint in terms of my general understanding of HR and FÁS can speak for the practice in the organisation. My understanding is that in any disciplinary situation where a person was found to be at fault, there would be a range of possible actions — a verbal warning, a written warning, a second warning, a final written warning, a final warning, suspension without pay and dismissal. Broadly speaking, they are the issues. It would appear from the media — and my understanding is that Mr. Craig has put this out in the media — that the issue fell into the category of final written warning and pay cost, which to me would be on the higher end and just short of dismissal. That is where I would have seen it.

I am not just being driven by what is reported in the papers but it was reported as well that 20 days' holidays were given up that were accumulated over a period. I am not saying that is the fact. I just want to know the truth of the matter regarding the disciplinary action taken against Mr. Craig after INV. 137.

Mr. Niall Saul

I have given the general position from a HR perspective as that is my background. The FÁS situation is for FÁS to answer.

Mr. Christy Cooney

A similar question was raised by Deputy Shortall. Based on legal advice under the Data Protection Act, disciplinary action taken by FÁS against an individual is personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1988, as amended, and accordingly I am not in a position to disclose the disciplinary action taken.

This was raised last week. In the context that information is in the public domain and the media, that Mr. Craig is quoted as saying that effectively this was like a slap on the wrist, would you like to comment on what was reported last week in terms of whether it is or is not correct?

Mr. Christy Cooney

I am sure you will understand that I am not under privilege here and I am not aware whether Mr. Craig actually said that or did not say it. It would be inappropriate for me to comment.

In the vacuum, we will have to reach our own conclusion on this.

Mr. Christy Cooney

During the procedures on the last day Mr. Saul outlined clearly how the committee can deal with this situation. It is a matter for the committee to decide if it wishes to do so. We understand that perfectly.

Mr. Niall Saul

In the generality, if the information that appeared in the media was accurate, I and I think most employees in any organisation would have classed it as different from a slap on the wrist, as very much at the higher end of the discipline piece. A step short of dismissal was what I understood it to be, not stopping at a final written warning but going a bit beyond that. Normally, in suspension cases companies consciously do not go for long suspensions because in effect that destroys the person's capacity to continue in an organisation. It read to me as being at the higher end, just short of dismissal, if that is any help to you.

We might beg to differ on that one. I appreciate the position Mr. Cooney is in and the advice he has received. I wondered if he could comment on what is there, and he cannot. Mr. Saul and I might disagree on this. From looking at what has come up in the internal investigation and in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, what was reported in the media regarding giving up holidays effectively carried over from previous years does not seem to be at the high end of the disciplinary scale. As someone who worked in the private sector all my life before becoming a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas, it is my view that if issues such as this arose in a private company we would be looking at far more serious disciplinary action than forgoing 20 days' holidays. We might beg to differ on that. I know you have a HR background.

Mr. Niall Saul

My understanding of what I saw was 20 days' unpaid suspension or 40 days' holidays. My point is that it was higher than a final written warning. There was a final written warning in what I read. One thing that neither of us knows at this stage — I am not privy to it — is what emerged in the disciplinary investigation. The person may have had some valid explanations for some of the issues and I cannot comment on that because I was not party to it.

That is understood. I suppose Mr. Saul can appreciate our position as we are in the dark on this matter.

Mr. Christy Cooney

Could I clarify something? In fairness to Mr. Saul and to the chairman who is here with board members, disciplinary matters do not come to the board. It is not normal practice that such should happen. Mr. Saul would not be familiar with the outcome or the decision made or anything in relation to an investigation carried out by Oliver Egan. I want to clarify that, in fairness.

That is fair, Mr. Cooney.

There was a letter dated 29 March from Oliver Egan to Mr. Saul which is basically a charge sheet involving 23 issues. As a board member, you would have been aware of the seriousness of the charge sheet. It seems strange to say that 20 days' suspension or the docking of 40 days' annual leave balances the 23 items on the charge sheet.

Mr. Niall Saul

I can clarify it. The charge sheet is the issue the investigating officer will take into the investigation. I cannot comment, because I was not party to the investigation, as to the number of issues to which there were satisfactory answers. The only thing that interested me from the point of view of the audit committee was that every single issue raised in INV. 137 that had a material element to it was included in the investigation. That is where my responsibility finished.

You were talking to each other and if a letter is sent to you with 23 items on a charge sheet, surely there is some interaction between——

Mr. Niall Saul

Following on from the correspondence to which Deputy Shortall referred the last time, Mr. Egan provided me with the list of the issues he was going to investigate. I was anxious to ensure that the investigation was on a proper footing, once the audit committee was satisfied that all of the issues in INV. 137 were being raised, which is what is set out in that letter. If he had left a number of issues out, then we would have gone back to correct them. The other members of the audit committee went through it and checked it against INV. 137. Once that was finished, it was up to Mr. Egan to pursue the investigation and the audit committee's work was over in that regard.

All these issues had to be put to the executive concerned. He may have had satisfactory answers, but I do not know. The investigation officer would have made a decision on the disciplinary action arising from whatever emerged.

Mr. Peter McLoone

I do not know, Chairman. I assure you that this matter did not come to the board for discussion. We all know what it did not involve, which is the ultimate sanction. I understand that the committee is seeking to establish what kind of sanction occurred if the ultimate sanction was not applied. I have sought advice on whether we could be more forthcoming since matters are in the public domain, but I have been told that the restrictions that apply under the Data Protection Act are still very relevant because we cannot assume that what is in the newspapers is a statement of fact.

I take on board Deputy O'Brien's comment that in reviewing the experiences of INV. 137, there may be a need to look at the processes and procedures in respect of the relationship between the board and the notification of disciplinary matters. It did not happen in this case, and any dialogue that took place was with Mr. Saul in his role as chairman of the audit committee. The detail of that dialogue was not brought to the board's attention. The board had no discussion about this.

I appreciate that. Mr. McLoone has received legal advice to which he must adhere, and that is fine. However, over the course of four years one individual was effectively able to spend close to €50 million. Some of it was spent correctly, but some of it was not. That is under investigation. If the board knew about these things sooner, we might have been able to plug the holes mentioned earlier on. This was not about a few pounds going missing in the stationary cupboard; it was much greater than that. I would have thought an issue as big as this should have been brought to the board's attention much sooner, even if it was not covered in the agreed procedure with the internal audit committee. In the new procedures to be implemented in early 2009, anything like this should be flagged to the board immediately.

I want to get a little clarification from Mr. Cooney about his letter to the committee dated 3 December and the first point raised about the direct loss to FÁS arising from the internal audit report. Within the figures quoted on the loss, I take it that we have a figure of €160,000 for Young Euro RSCG. The report suggests that FÁS probably paid about €1 million more than should have been the case on the FÁS Jobs Ireland website. The contracts for the value for money issues cost about €152,000. Does that relate to the OSK items which were found in the internal audit report?

Mr. Christy Cooney

If the Deputy does not mind, I will ask Mr. Patrick Kivlehan to deal with this issue, as he is much more familiar with it than I am.

Mr. Patrick Kivlehan

There is a distinction between the two losses that were listed. The first one adds up to €160,000 and we can have precise figures on overcharges on invoices, some of which are the subject of the Garda investigation, where items were paid for but not delivered.

That is being dealt with at the moment.

Mr. Patrick Kivlehan

Correct. The other issue deals with where the costs of €152,000 and €1 million come in under the value for money heading. The service was provided but the question is whether it was appropriately valued.

Does the €152,000 relate to OSK?

Mr. Patrick Kivlehan

No. It was included——

Where are they included in this?

Mr. Patrick Kivlehan

That issue is more of a tendering nature——

I would not necessarily say that. We went through it the last day, where one €250,000 contract was double anything that was paid before or since.

Mr. Patrick Kivlehan

That is included in the——

I just want to get clarification on that.

Mr. Patrick Kivlehan

That €250,000 contract and a second contract with an incentive-based payment are included in the figure of €152,000. The OSK issues were related to tendering procedures, contracts in advance of tenders and so on. We had no sense that there was a loss arising from those.

How much was OSK paid for the review of the financial controls of FÁS? Was it €45,000?

Mr. Patrick Kivlehan

I will check the report on that.

I am nearly sure it was. Was that report to FÁS just six pages long? If that is the case, I want to make sure it is included in these figures. I need not say any more about €45,000 for six pages.

Mr. Patrick Kivlehan

In that case, I did not include it in those figures.

I want to get a handle on this. Paying €45,000 for a six-page report is not value for money.

The report shows that OSK quoted €7,500 but was paid €15,000 for what was described as five to six loose pages of diagrams.

So it was €15,000 and not €45,000.

Mr. Cooney submitted a letter to Mr. Ted McEnery following last week's meeting. I asked questions about the contract for the Jobs Ireland website last week. The report states that the agreement was terminated, resulting in savings of up to six months on the original 36-month commitment, and that no contract was ever found to support the agreement. The contract was with Ultimate Communications. Was the contract worth €3.5 million to that company?

Mr. Patrick Kivlehan

The €3.5 million in the report was a combination of the contract for the website maintenance and other contracts for FÁS Opportunities. I received an update this morning about the Ultimate Communications issue. As we stated in the note, our own legal affairs department was not involved in the determination of that contract. Corporate affairs requested that an account manager — the FÁS account manager in the agency — would deal with this. The contract was terminated early and based on the total value of the contract over 36 months. On what was actually was paid there was a saving of around €570,000 in relation to what could have been paid if the contract had run its full duration, but the €3.55 million is a combination of other contracts as well.

There was a saving. The question for us is whether it should ever have been instigated. I know the website issue forms part of the internal audit report. Was there ever a report other than the internal one that indicated whether it should have happened? I again refer to media commentary this week. Mr. Craig was quoted as saying there was value in the website and contradicting some aspects of the internal audit report. Was there ever a definitive report on that?

Mr. Patrick Kivlehan

No. My understanding is only that the internal audit report looked at that. I suppose there are two issues in the context of the website. When we did our internal audit work, there was an assessment on development and then there was the assessment on the maintenance of the website. Our view is that it was on the maintenance of the website — the 36-month agreement — where the larger loss arose. Development did look somewhat pricey, but one takes a view on that. The maintenance contract was the more expensive option and that was what led to the assessment of the €1 million.

Mr. Christy Cooney

Outside the work our internal audit people did, I am not aware that there was any other report on the situation.

Is that other than what is in the internal audit report?

Mr. Christy Cooney

Correct. We can check that further, but I am not aware that there was.

May I come in on this? Mr. Molloy shut the website down.

That was my next question.

Would he like to comment? He deserves credit for that action. Obviously there is a different view.

Mr. Rody Molloy

My recollection is that the organisation at the time — it was shortly before I joined the organisation — was under significant pressure to deliver on what became the Jobs Ireland programme, where we attracted people from overseas to meet job demands in the economy. I look back and say "God be with the days." When I arrived on the scene some of the people in our IT department had concerns about a separate website operating, as I had because I believed it would have been better to have a single one operating. That is why I moved to merge the two or close one down and ensure we had a single one, which led to what has now become the single Jobs Ireland website. I was not involved in setting up the website. My only involvement was in ensuring that the two websites should not run together, which to me was not what an organisation should do. I could see how it was understandable that in the need to get a website up and running quickly to meet the demands that were there, it may have been necessary to go outside the organisation initially.

Mr. Molloy appeared before this committee in October. Last week we discussed advertising, in particular the advertising referred to in the internal audit report. Mr. Cooney admitted that much of the advertising did not stand up to scrutiny. At the meeting in October Mr. Molloy defended the placing of a contract worth €100,000 with Gazette Group Newspapers. Does he still stand over that?

Mr. Rody Molloy

My recollection is that I said that the audit report suggested initially that it was just for an advertisement in a single newspaper. What I said at the time was that it was not a single newspaper. It was several newspapers that covered, essentially, all of west Dublin, which would be a major captive area for FÁS in terms of the kinds of people we try to attract into our training centres or to whom we try to deliver services. It was in that context that I said that. These judgments are subjective as to whether that was the best way to spend money on advertising or whether to do it another way. The call was made at the time, not by me but by the director of corporate affairs, that this was the appropriate way to do it. The point I was trying to get across, from recollection, is that it was not just an advertisement in a single newspaper; it was a series of advertisements in several newspapers covering a very large population area.

The call was not made by Mr. Molloy.

Mr. Rody Molloy

The call was not made by me. I very rarely interfered in a call of that nature. That is why we hire experts.

Advertising has been covered in the internal report. Mr. Cooney submitted a considerable amount of documentation to us. The expenditure controlled by corporate affairs from 2001 to 2007 encompasses advertising-related costs. In 2006 it increased significantly to €5.7 million from €3.1 million in the previous year. It reduced to €2.6 million in 2007. Was the increase in 2006 not extraordinary?

Mr. Christy Cooney

It clearly is. If the Deputy asked me to analyse it I would not be in a position to do that today because we have only had a short space of time. This is not an excuse. We got clarification from the clerk on Monday of exactly what was required. The Deputy can imagine the hours we have been putting in to try to get as much data as possible for the committee today.

Mr. Christy Cooney

If the Deputy desires and the Committee of Public Accounts desires to have a total analysis of items in that, we can certainly do that, but it will take a considerable amount of time. We will make it available. It is very high.

It is a startling contrast. Mr. McLoone would have been on the board at the time and have seen the 2005, 2006 and 2007 reports. Would the significant increase in 2006 have been questioned?

Mr. Peter McLoone

No, it was not. In my recall, it was not questioned. I share the Deputy's reaction to the starkness of this, but until we do the analysis I cannot explain how that happened.

Equally, expenditure on FÁS Opportunities was doubled from 2006 to 2007. Did it not strike anybody as being out of the ordinary?

Mr. Christy Cooney

When one looks at the figures as we have done now — we produced these figures in recent days — it certainly brings us to understand we need to do an analysis for our organisation, never mind for the Committee of Public Accounts, on how this money was spent. We need to justify it and learn whether it was justifiably spent. We need to learn how we should manage events like this into the future. We are very conscious of this.

Mr. Molloy was in place at that time. Was there any reason for it? I am sure there is a reason, but can he shed any light?

Mr. Rody Molloy

I am wrestling with memory here because I do not have access to papers anymore. My memory is that there were several significant new events in 2006, but I may be wrong in this. That is why I am very nervous on it now. I think it was in 2006 that we ran a pretty large event in New York trying to attract back Irish people who were illegal, for want of a better phrase. Doing an event like that in New York would have been pretty expensive. I am not 100% sure if that is correct. I am just wrestling with my memory here. That was probably the first year we did an event in Cork — in City Hall in Cork. I do not have access to the papers.

Last week when we asked Mr. Cooney about FÁS Opportunities he said he had no hand, act or part in it. He said that it was dealt with specifically by you and nobody else.

Mr. Rody Molloy

That would be——

Mr. Christy Cooney

This has to be in connection with whether I was part of the decision-making process about the event going to Croke Park or going to Nemo Rangers.

Mr. Rody Molloy

On the issue of Croke Park and Nemo Rangers, which has been the subject of some press comment in relation to Mr. Cooney, I make it clear that the decision to move to Croke Park from the RDS did not involve Mr. Cooney. It was a decision that I took, or I initiated the change. If the committee wishes, I will explain the reasons I did that. The last event we had in the RDS was on a very wet weekend. It was at the time of the flooding down in Sandymount, if people will recall. The event was inside an arena with thousands of young kids on the Friday afternoon. There was a strong view expressed by the kids in there that the food and the price of food available in the complex was unacceptable to them. They were going across the road to various other cafeterias or whatever. As I stood on the balcony of the RDS and looked across the road, I noticed that kids were ducking and diving through heavy traffic in the heavy rain. I commented to somebody that if one of the kids was hit by a car and killed, it would be our fault. I wanted to find a better location so that the problems at the RDS would not be repeated. Thousands of fifth and sixth year school children tend to come to the FÁS Opportunities exhibition on the Friday and the Monday of the exhibition. I asked the public affairs division to try to find an alternative venue. Given the size of the event, not many venues are available. The division considered several venues around Dublin before deciding that Croke Park should be used. I agreed to that. We held an event in Croke Park that was quite successful, on one level. When the event was analysed, however, it was found that there had been difficulties relating to crowd control in the stadium, as opposed to outside it as had been the case in the RDS. Rather than changing immediately to another location, we worked with the Croke Park authorities to ascertain whether there was a better way of using the stadium to deliver our exhibitions. We did that by spreading the flow of people around the four sides of the stadium, rather than having everyone on one side as we had done on the first occasion. We have received positive feedback about our use of Croke Park since then. I repeat that Mr. Cooney had no hand, act or part in the decision to use Croke Park.

What about the public procurement rules?

Mr. Rody Molloy

We adhered to those rules. We considered a significant number of other venues that could hold the kind of crowds we are talking about. They were just not available, however.

We were told by a representative of the Department of Finance last week that Mr. Molloy needed to make a statement to that effect. That may well have been the case. There was need to document the process of making a decision on expenditure of €2 million.

Mr. Rody Molloy

The €2 million in question was not all given to Croke Park. A significant proportion of it was spent on advertising and setting up the exhibition.

It was a significant spend.

Mr. Rody Molloy

It was.

There are rules governing such expenditure.

Mr. Rody Molloy

I cannot remember the detail of it. I am quite happy that any analysis will find that no alternative venue in Dublin, other than Croke Park and the RDS, could have hosted an event of this size. I have explained why I was unhappy with the RDS.

Questions were also asked about Mr. Cooney's involvement with Nemo Rangers. The first FÁS event in Cork was held in the City Hall. It was not a perfect venue. I am not sure whether Deputy Clune was there. When we tried to book City Hall the following year, we found that it was not available, for various reasons. I am operating from memory when I say that. We had to consider alternative venues. Our media partner in the event, the Irish Examiner, suggested that the Nemo Rangers facility might be a suitable location. We sent some people to look at the facility and speak to the Nemo Rangers officials. It was agreed that it was a suitable venue.

There is a great deal of concern about the whole advertising area. Does Mr. Cooney accept that the figures are stark? Does Mr. McLoone agree that there was a huge increase in one particular year? There have been continuous year-on-year increases. We have not yet received any answers in that regard. Will we get an analysis of it?

Mr. Patrick Kivlehan

The documents we sent in advance of the last meeting of the committee included an analysis of advertising, known as Schedule 9. We also provided a narrative that explains the movements from year to year. We mentioned things like the increased capacity of exhibitions like Opportunities, the Jobs Ireland event in Munster and the New York fair. That should be in the papers from the last sitting.

Mr. Christy Cooney

We accept that we need to undertake a serious review and analysis of advertising expenditure, to satisfy ourselves as to how we should use our advertising moneys into the future. We accept fully that we have to do that ourselves.

I will come back in again later.

I thank our witnesses for coming to this meeting. Everybody accepts that irregularities, perhaps serious irregularities, arise in major organisations from time to time. This committee is concerned with examining the manner in which the FÁS irregularities were dealt with by the senior management and board of the organisation. I understand how people have come to the conclusion that we would not find ourselves in this situation — further investigations would not be under way — if the matters raised in INV. 137 had been dealt with adequately and expeditiously. The principal concern of this committee is to ascertain how senior management and the board dealt with the issues within FÁS. We need to find out how they dealt with the issues when they came to their attention. Did they deal with them in a satisfactory manner?

I thank Mr. Molloy for coming to this meeting. In his opening comments, he referred to some of the reasons he decided to resign. What did he mean when he referred to "the release of ... documents under the Freedom of Information Act" and "their treatment in the media"?

Mr. Rody Molloy

I mentioned those matters as comprising part of the reason for my resignation. I felt that my position was becoming untenable, both publicly and within the organisation, because of those documents. Many issues were portrayed in the media in a way that reflected as negatively as possible on the organisation. That is what I meant.

Can I put it to Mr. Molloy that if that were the case, it would not be a reason to resign?

Mr. Rody Molloy

I resigned as a result of a series of incidents over a period of four or five months. As I said in my statement, my ill-advised interview on RTE radio created a clamour among the public that clearly made my position untenable. My decision to resign was probably the most difficult decision of my life. At the time I felt, and still feel, that my resignation will bring the processes that were taking place to some kind of speedy conclusion. I wanted the organisation to be able to concentrate once more on what it should concentrate on, rather than on my stewardship or the personalities involved in the processes I have mentioned. I really felt I was watching an organisation disintegrate as a result of a continuous flow of negative media comment over a long period.

It could be argued that Mr. Molloy's decision to resign did not resolve the problems in the organisation.

Mr. Rody Molloy

Time will tell. All I could do was make the best decision I could. I was looking at a very difficult situation for the organisation. The negative aspects of the processes I have mentioned seemed to have a never-ending attraction for the media. I felt that all the negative talk ignored many of the positive things that had happened in the organisation over the years. Quite honestly, I felt that I would best serve the organisation by leaving it.

What contact, if any, did the Tánaiste make with Mr. Molloy in the days preceding his decision to resign?

Mr. Rody Molloy

My memory is that the Chairman and I — he can correct me if I am wrong in this regard — met the Tánaiste on the previous Thursday to discuss the issues faced by FÁS as an organisation. The tone of that discussion was that some mechanism had to be found to bring the investigative processes to a speedy conclusion. We agreed that something needed to be put in place to give assurance to this committee, the political system and the public at large. The organisation has processes and procedures in place to allow it to do its job properly and well. We all recognise the challenges facing the organisation. It needs to turn itself around, yet again, in light of the economic situation as it has developed. As I recall it, subject to the correction of the Chairman, the meeting ended with an agreement that every effort would be made to try to get the organisation to that point. The events that unfolded over the weekend — the release of documents under freedom of information legislation and the publication of certain newspaper articles on the Sunday — resulted in my ill-advised decision to give an interview on the Monday morning. My next contact with the Tánaiste was on the following Monday night or Tuesday morning, when I telephoned her to say I was considering my position. I contacted her once more shortly after that to tell her that I intended to resign.

Did she suggest at any stage that Mr. Molloy might resign?

Mr. Rody Molloy

No.

Was Mr. Molloy under any pressure to resign?

Mr. Rody Molloy

No.

I take it that the Tánaiste has accepted Mr. Molloy's resignation.

Mr. Rody Molloy

She has accepted my resignation.

She has formally done that?

Mr. Rody Molloy

She said she accepted my resignation but I have not received any formal communication. I presume it is official.

When did Mr. Molloy become aware of irregularities in the corporate affairs section and with the individual in question?

Mr. Rody Molloy

I first became aware in the early stages of the investigation that has now become INV. 137. Internal audit people came to me after the initial stage of the investigation, although I do not have the exact time line. They said they could not stand up the allegations in the original letters but had discovered procedural breaches with which they were unhappy. That was the first time I became aware that there were issues. We held a meeting with internal audit and legal people to discuss what course of action to take. It was agreed that the best thing to do was continue with the investigation. I was put into a situation where, on the one hand, I had to ensure the internal audit investigation was carried out in a full and proper way while there were also issues around the rights of the individual who was the subject of the investigation. I said at a meeting of this or another committee that I was very aware that the investigation could give rise to serious difficulties, which is why I took legal advice on how to respond to particular aspects of the investigation.

Part of the documentation supplied to us a few weeks ago was a speaking note prepared by Mr. Molloy for a meeting with the board in October 2006 in response to INV. 137. It read: "A number of years ago I also asked Mr. Gerry Pyke to take line responsibility for this individual and told him to emphasise and re-emphasise the need to observe public service norms within what is reasonable given the demands of that office." It seems that Mr. Molloy had concerns for several years before 2006.

Mr. Rody Molloy

When I took over as director general in October 2000 the manager, as he was then, of corporate affairs reported directly to my predecessor. I allowed that to continue for a short while but felt it was inappropriate because I did not have the time for the proper management of the function, given that I had responsibility for a whole organisation. For that reason, I put the corporate affairs department under the responsibility of an assistant director general, in this case Mr. Gerry Pyke.

I did not have suspicions that anything untoward was happening but the man in question, despite everything else that has been said about him, was very innovative and had demonstrated an ability to get things done. I made the unfortunate assumption that those things were being done appropriately and I put him in the position whereby he reported to an assistant director general to ensure proper management processes were in place in the corporate affairs division.

Does Mr. Molloy not think it somewhat unusual to have to emphasise and re-emphasise to a senior executive the need to observe public service norms?

Mr. Rody Molloy

Maybe so. The person in question had to report directly to the then director general. I was unhappy with that but I would not have been able to give the time and attention necessary to ensure the place was managed properly so asked the assistant director general to take responsibility and ensure proper procedures were followed.

Who was Gerard Gasparro?

Mr. Rody Molloy

He was director of finance.

Mr. Christy Cooney

I am not too sure if he was manager or director of the finance section.

To whom did he report?

Mr. Christy Cooney

He would have reported to the director, if there was a director at that time. If he was director, he would have reported to an assistant director general responsible for that area.

In 2003 he wrote to Mr. Craig expressing serious concern that, in a 12-month period, Euro RSCG was paid an estimated €5.5 million, which is €500,000 per month. He also expressed concern about the invoicing associated with its work. I assume senior management was aware of that. Was it brought to Mr. Molloy's attention?

Mr. Rody Molloy

Not that I recall.

Did this person report to Mr. Pyke?

Mr. Christy Cooney

The director of finance would not have reported to Mr. Pyke as the latter was secretary to the board and responsible for corporate affairs. He could have reported to Mr. Donal Sands or Ms Patricia Curtin, either of whom may have been assistant director general in finance at that time.

Was a copy of this memo sent to Mr. Gerry Pyke?

Mr. Christy Cooney

I would assume it was because Mr. Gregory Craig reported to Mr. Pyke.

One certainly would have expected Mr. Pyke to sound alarm bells and notify the director general.

Mr. Christy Cooney

I cannot assume that and that question will have to be put to Mr. Pyke.

Another issue of concern was the fact that, in 2003, €1.17 million was spent on the discover science programme, with more than half spent on advertising. That seems excessive.

Mr. Christy Cooney

As the Deputy is aware and as I have already said, I did not have responsibility for the science programme. We have only just completed an analysis of the programme and it needs to be examined in great detail by the organisation, irrespective of the investigation by the Committee of Public Accounts. We will review whether it represents value for money but I am not familiar with the advertising spend.

What are Mr. Molloy's views?

Mr. Rody Molloy

I was not aware of the specifics of the advertising spend for the science programme but the transcript of last week's meeting indicates the board of FÁS intends to carry out a full review of the science challenge. That will help us determine whether we get value for money for the programme.

I am interested to know what senior management did about these issues at the time, rather than five years later.

Mr. Rody Molloy

I would need to re-examine the papers. The Deputy said a certain amount was spent——

It was €700,000 — more than half the entire budget.

Mr. Rody Molloy

That was in its early years and I would need to go back and look at the figures as I do not recall specifics.

As Deputy Shortall has said, the figure was €689,000 out of a budget or €1.174 million. Those figures were for 2003 but can we have the figures for 2004 and 2005? Who is in control?

Mr. Christy Cooney

We will send those figures to the committee — they are on the second page of the schedule we have provided. I understand it was difficult for the committee to prepare for today's meeting because of the amount of information and it was certainly difficult for us. The figure for 2004 was €765,000, for 2005 it was more than €800,000 — the figures are at the bottom of the page, the supplement to Schedule D.1. Significant moneys were spent in 2003, 2004 and 2005 and would have reduced significantly in 2006 and 2007.

The figure of €688,774 is out of a budget of €1.17 million, for 2004, €765,000 out of €1.337 million, and for 2005, €863,315 out of a budget of €1.9 million.

Mr. Christy Cooney

Yes. The following year it is €126,000 out of a budget of €1.1 million. That is the information we have pulled together. The parties here would not have been directly involved in responsibility for the science programme and the director in question did not report to any of the people here. We would have to do a massive, detailed analysis of every invoice — where the money was spent, how it was spent, and talk to various people to see if we could come up with an analysis.

Deputy Shortall's question is simple. Who was in charge? Who was responsible?

Mr. Christy Cooney

The situation at the time was that the director concerned reported to the ADG up to February of this year, who in turn reported to the director general. That is where it is.

The science challenge is a very tight programme for a very specific cohort of individuals, university or IT graduates. I query that level of advertising. I would have thought these people would have been targeted through their education programmes rather than through a general advertising budget.

Mr. Christy Cooney

There was also a significant schools programme at the time and there was advertising around that, promoting the whole science challenge area from a work perspective. It was broader than advertising for people to go on the programmes in the States. It was also——

Was it not very targeted?

Mr. Christy Cooney

It was, yes. We spread advertising across quite a number of scenes. We would have to go through the whole advertising budget to pull this issue out, identify the invoices and make sure.

Mr. Cooney mentioned how it was spent. Another issue is why it was spent.

Mr. Christy Cooney

I have not an answer on that.

All the indications would seem to be that there were certainly grounds for serious concern several years ago. Those concerns have been documented by senior people within the organisation and, I suggest, by Mr. Molloy also in his notes to the board meeting. Mr. Molloy, what role did Gerry Pyke have in overseeing the work of the directorate of corporate affairs?

Mr. Rody Molloy

The same role as any ADG would have with his reports. He would have had a number of reports to him at director level, including reports from the director of corporate affairs. It was his job to ensure that the director of corporate affairs and the other directors reporting to him did their job appropriately. He then obviously did assessments of his performance, and so on.

Did he at any point raise concerns with Mr. Molloy about irregularities within corporate affairs and particularly about the individual at the centre of this?

Mr. Rody Molloy

We had some discussions, as INV. 137 emerged, around the possibility of irregularities, for want of a better word, but never to the extent that is now emerging.

That was when INV. 137 came out?

Mr. Rody Molloy

During the process of INV. 137.

Apart from that, did Mr. Pyke at any stage raise concerns with you about Mr. Craig?

Mr. Rody Molloy

Not any specific concerns that I can recall.

When did Mr. Pyke retire?

Mr. Rody Molloy

In February of this year.

Is he in the country if we decide we might want to contact him?

Mr. Rody Molloy

To my knowledge, yes.

Details and events are changing. I ask Mr. Cooney to clarify the Garda investigations under way.

Mr. Christy Cooney

There are two Garda investigations at present. One relates to invoice overcharging.

Mr. Christy Cooney

INV. 137. The second one is another matter that accrued as a result of an audit in the corporate affairs section earlier this year. Arising out of that, there were serious concerns within the organisation and they have been passed on to the Garda for investigation. In fairness to the director of corporate affairs, he would have had no direct personal involvement in that situation, even though — because it is under investigation I am being very careful in what I am saying — the person that was there would have reported to him.

To clarify, apart from the issues raised in INV. 137, there are further issues which are the subject of a Garda investigation associated with corporate affairs.

Mr. Christy Cooney

Yes.

Then there are——

Mr. Niall Saul

The first investigation to which Mr. Cooney refers came from the original letter that was the cause of INV. 137. There is one issue in INV. 137 which refers to what might be referred to as overcharging. The second investigation is a completely separate issue.

The third one is the subject of the letter sent to Mr. Craig.

Mr. Christy Cooney

There is no Garda investigation involved in that. There are only two Garda investigations.

I had just moved on there. I am talking about the set of issues of concern. Issues arose about INV. 137. There were further and separate issues associated with the audit carried out. Correct me if I am wrong.

Mr. Christy Cooney

In the summertime of this year, yes.

They are the subject of investigation by the Garda.

Mr. Christy Cooney

No, they are not. I want to clarify this. There are two Garda investigations, one around the overcharging in invoices and one around a separate situation. An audit we undertook very early this year gave us some cause for concern and we passed it on to the Garda to be investigated.

Mr. Christy Cooney

The other situation is that internal audit carried out a normal audit, as requested by me, in the summer of this year. Some areas are of concern to the director of internal audit and he has asked Mr. Craig to meet him to discuss these areas of concern. That is where that matter is.

So there are three separate investigations that we are talking about.

Mr. Christy Cooney

Investigations is not correct.

Mr. Niall Saul

There are two Garda investigations.

Mr. Christy Cooney

Yes, absolutely.

Three separate areas of concern.

Mr. Christy Cooney

Absolutely.

Last week Mr. Saul spoke to us about the further investigation that is under way. My understanding was that the audit committee had instigated that, but Mr. Cooney says today that he requested an investigation into 2006, 2007 and the early months of 2008.

Mr. Christy Cooney

Can I get the terminology correct? Mr. Saul said last week that the audit listing, the work that the internal audit was to undertake included a follow-up in corporate affairs. Even without knowledge of that I had asked the director of internal audit, because I had encountered a situation in March and I wanted to know exactly where things were for the previous two years so that I could make sure that proper procedures and practice were put in place for the future and that they would be adhered to. I just asked him to carry out a normal audit. Arising from that normal audit, I have outlined the concerns that came up. He has asked now for a meeting with the said director of corporate affairs. All I did was bring it forward, even though I did not know that the audit committee had requested that. I made this request directly myself.

Maybe Mr. Saul would indicate to us what the audit committee is overseeing at the moment.

Mr. Niall Saul

Mr. Kivlehan would have put the audit into corporate affairs which would not have been scheduled into the audit plan. He is the head of internal audit. In addition to that, we would have scheduled to look at Opportunities, job fairs and advertising. We had enough controls to deal with the situation from March this year. These three items were scheduled to be audited, but we are bringing in extra resources in order that we can audit them at an earlier stage.

Is Mr. Saul saying the work is being and would have been done, irrespective of the work of this committee or as a result of its work?

Mr. Niall Saul

Mr. Molloy has pointed out that as there was a lot of stuff coming out in the media, we decided that we needed to examine all of these areas. The plan was to deal with them on a sequential basis, but we are now bringing them forward and examining them together.

Does it not raise serious questions about the internal controls within the organisation if it takes action by the media or this committee to raise concerns in FÁS?

Mr. Niall Saul

Concerns are raised in the audit function in all sorts of areas. In theory, the procedures in place in the organisation are as good as in most other places. The issue concerns how people conduct themselves in the implementation of these procedures. In one particular area of FÁS there seems to have been a significant degree of looseness. We pursued a certain set of items in INV. 137 which raised other issues that we were to pursue specifically. The first priority of an audit function is to ensure what may have happened does not happen again. We tightened the controls and are now going through the other four areas. We have a small audit team.

I accept that the numbers appear significant, but while it is often said FÁS has a budget of €1 billion, we act as paymaster for a sum of nearly €400 million with money running through us as a conduit to community enterprise. We are responsible for controlling the use of that money and that is where we focus our resources. We also have another €150 million to €200 million for various training allowances. The core funding of FÁS for training and so on is only about €200 million, not €1 billion. We only act as a payment agency for a sum of about €800 million but still have to police that expenditure through the audit function. Therefore, in terms of priorities, corporate affairs in an organisation such as this would not normally receive that level of attention because in terms of scale the money running through it is much smaller. The issues that have arisen will mean that we will have to focus on them. We have done so.

Mr. Christy Cooney

I requested that this be done last April. It was not done as a result of media concerns. I took that decision because I was taking responsibility for the matter and wanted to ensure best practice was followed. That is why I asked the director of internal audit to carry out a normal auditing process. It did not happen because of media concerns but because of a decision I had made as I took responsibility for the matter.

The INV. 137 report was issued in May 2006. We are now at the end of 2008; therefore, two and a half years have elapsed since it was issued. In the meantime, there has been significant exposure in the organisation to overspending. There is an issue about the failure to act expeditiously.

Mr. Christy Cooney

I am not going to question what the Deputy has said. I know I am the Accounting Officer, but I have explained my stewardship. I have requested that certain things be done and that is why I am where I am today.

If there had not been a delay of two and a half years, there would not have been any more leaks from the organisation. I put that to Mr. Molloy and Mr. McLoone.

Mr. Peter McLoone

There is no doubt that a major fault is that the current full board did not connect with the issue until it received the report in March 2007. It was presented with INV. 137 and a series of——

Were any members of the current board on the previous board?

Mr. Peter McLoone

There were seven in total.

The code of business conduct for directors states all members are required to accept responsibility for ensuring accounts are prepared; for the annual review of effectiveness of internal controls, including financial, operational and compliance controls and risk management; for ensuring the chairperson keeps the relevant Minister advised of matters in FÁS and for reporting that the organisation is a going concern with supporting assumptions or qualifications as necessary. Will Mr. McLoone as chairperson and other members of the board demonstrate to us that they did their duty in that respect?

Mr. Peter McLoone

We have published reports for the years 2006 and 2007 which contain that declaration. They are supported by the managing letters from the Comptroller and Auditor General. I accept that the current board did not engage with the problems in corporate affairs until INV. 137 was presented in December 2007. I have described the actions we have taken since we received that report, but that does not explain or excuse the fact that we did not engage with the problems prior to that date.

Can Mr. McLoone explain why the board did not do so?

Mr. Peter McLoone

This is not a matter that is reported to the board. The current board engaged with the investigation after its appointment through the internal audit process. We recognise that the internal audit review which started in 2004, not 2006, was not completed as a transaction until well into 2007. We were operating within the conventions that allowed for a matter to be investigated before it was presented to the board.

The INV. 137 report was presented to the board formally in December 2007. However, I presume the board was aware of the fact that the process was under way. It started in 2004 and was completed in May 2006. There must have been an awareness within the board that it was under way.

Mr. Peter McLoone

As Mr. Saul indicated the last day, the conversation he and I had about this issue arose from the argument that had followed the completion of the report and whether it should be released as a single report or as a report with two component parts. We discussed the fact that there was a problem.

Was it discussed at board level?

Mr. Peter McLoone

No. We discussed it as chairman of the board and chairman of the audit committee, respectively.

Was there a view on the matter?

Mr. Peter McLoone

I indicated that the board or I would intervene if the problem proved impossible to solve. Mr. Saul indicated that he was satisfied that it would be solved, but if not, that he would come back to the board. I read the transcript of last week's proceedings and Mr. Saul went into the matter in some detail. That is why I did not cover it in my opening statement today.

Last week, I quoted from robust exchanges Mr. Saul had with senior management over the handling of INV. 137 and how it seemed to come to a sudden standstill. Since that meeting we have got that letter he referred to as the charge sheet. Was that the end of his involvement at that point? It seems strange that it was taken so far and then everything stopped without the audit committee getting any kind of report on how the matter had concluded.

Mr. Niall Saul

As I tried to explain, under the separation of powers the audit function — from the audit committee's point of view — finishes when it is satisfied that a disciplinary investigation has been set up and the issues that have been highlighted in the audit report are all included in the charge list. Beyond that the audit function has no involvement in the situation because to do so, I believe, could be construed as being unfair to the individual concerned. It is up to the organisation then to take the disciplinary part of that issue forward. Our function as an audit committee was to ensure that the issues were highlighted and that a proper investigation process was put in place. In so far as we could be satisfied of that, it was fine. Our concern was that an investigation might have been held — if one were to look at what concerns might exist — that might have left some of the issues out. However, when Mr. Egan provided us with that letter, we were satisfied that he had addressed most of the issues. I did not check that myself. I actually asked my colleagues on the audit committee to go through INV. 137 and cross-reference each of the items against it so that it was an audit committee view that he had actually satisfied that standard.

I put the same question to Mr. Molloy as I put to the chairman of the board. If these matters had been dealt with adequately and expeditiously there would not have been exposure to further losses for the organisation. Does Mr. Molloy have any response?

Mr. Rody Molloy

As I said earlier, I was terribly conscious in this whole process to ensure that everything we did stood up so that if we ended up with a litigation situation I would not put additional cost on the organisation. I may well have been too cautious in that regard. When we got the final audit report and had that process of interchange between myself as director general and Niall Saul as chairman of the audit committee, which Mr. Saul outlined at great detail last week and with which I have no issue, after taking some legal advice I instituted the investigation which again was the subject of some correspondence because the audit committee wanted to be assured that we were going to do a proper investigation. I instituted that investigation and that has been the subject of some discussion in this committee. I received a recommendation from the investigating officer. I implemented that recommendation. It may well be the case that I was way too cautious in how I handled that, but I did have a concern for the rights of an individual in the organisation and I also had a concern to protect the organisation from further litigation.

Some people would wonder whether it is possible to get dismissed from FÁS. What procedures exist to dismiss a staff member?

Mr. Rody Molloy

In any public sector organisation the issue of getting dismissed is a difficult one. I believe Mr. Saul outlined at some length last week the need to ensure that the procedures and processes are absolutely perfect every step of the way. If an organisation's procedures and processes are not perfect, regardless of the substance of the case, it can lose out in a legal situation. It is only in the instance of very serious breaches and usually, in my experience, where somebody steals from the organisation and puts money in their pocket, which would be the obvious easy case, that it can have somebody dismissed. Where there are subjective issues around particular actions, it is extremely difficult.

Over the weekend Mr. Craig spoke to the media. He indicated that he accepted that he cut corners in the way he did business, but that he did so with the approval of his superiors within FÁS. Does Mr. Molloy have a response to that?

Mr. Rody Molloy

I can answer that in the sense that certainly he would have been complimented on occasions for getting things done, but that was on the presumption he had done them through proper procedures. If he is interpreting that as saying that we somehow or other condoned breaches of procedures, I never condoned breaches of procedures.

Mr. Molloy gave him tacit agreement with what he was doing on the understanding that he was adhering to proper procedures. However, Mr. Molloy had previously raised concerns about his ability to follow proper procedures. Did he put too much trust in him?

Mr. Rody Molloy

That may well be the case as well. Time will tell whether I put too much trust in the man or not. I certainly did trust the man and I may well have been wrong in that, but I did put in place a management structure and fitted him into a management structure he had not been in prior to my arrival in the place to ensure he followed normal procedures.

As director general, Mr. Molloy had responsibility to ensure there were proper controls in the organisation he headed up and that there was adequate supervision and oversight of staff.

Mr. Rody Molloy

That is why I put in place a management process around corporate affairs which had not been there prior to my arriving on the scene. We mentioned Mr. Gerard Gasparro earlier. In my early days in the organisation I recall stating very clearly to him — he was then effectively head of accounts in the organisation — that regardless of who signed anything, if there was anything wrong with it he was to come to me rather than pay it and that even if I signed something that was not appropriate he was to come and challenge me on it. The Deputy may well be right. I may well have put too much trust in an individual.

Why did Mr. Cooney decide to suspend Mr. Craig last week?

Mr. Christy Cooney

I did not suspend last week. The HR director made a decision based on the information he had received from internal audit that the appropriate course of action was to suspend Mr. Craig with full pay while the process was still ongoing.

Presumably Mr. Cooney approved it.

Mr. Christy Cooney

I would not approve it. He took that line of action and I explained that last week. There is a process whereby in the event of a person wishing to appeal that course of action, I would have been the next line of appeal. I would have been the first line of appeal.

Why did his director suspend him?

Mr. Christy Cooney

I cannot go into that situation. It is personal data and I have been legally advised that I am in a similar situation as I am in the other stuff and that I cannot comment on it.

I thank Mr. Cooney.

Are we on the same issue or are we going on to the next one?

I thought I might cover the same issue but I may touch briefly on the other one.

I want to speak on the same issue, but I must go for a vote. I will be back after that.

I will touch on it so that we can get it on the table. I begin with Mr. McLoone's statement. He stated that the board last week authorised the audit committee to strengthen the internal audit functions within the organisation and take other steps. While some people might believe that is very worthy and proper, would Mr. McLoone accept it was shutting the stable door after a lot of taxpayers' money had bolted?

Mr. Peter McLoone

The decisions that were taken by the board have been part of an ongoing discussion about getting to the root of this problem. We recognised, as was reported to the committee last week, that we had initiated an audit into the science challenge and aspects of that, that there was a need to interrogate job opportunities and maybe other aspects of corporate affairs. In recognising the point Deputy Shortall made in her last comments that these matters needed to be progressed at, maybe, a much faster pace than heretofore what we did was respond to a request from the audit committee. It was agreed that we would strengthen the structures in whatever way they needed to be strengthened, in order to bring a sense of completeness to this whole process, and that we would address all the questions on all the issues that arise. Questions have been asked about what was going on in corporate affairs in respect of different programmes. We recognise that the review, which is what it is, in many ways, might look back as far as 2000 in some areas. We will certainly have to look back beyond February 2006.

On 27 June last, Mr. McLoone signed a statement on FÁS's system of internal financial control that was attached to the organisation's 2007 annual report. The relevant portion of the statement clarifies that Mr. McLoone, "on behalf of the board" acknowledges FÁS's "responsibility for ensuring that an effective system of internal financial control is maintained and operated". The statement concludes by saying that "no weaknesses were found in the system of internal financial control, which resulted in any material loss, contingencies or uncertainties being disclosed in the financial statements or the auditor's report on the financial statements". A similar statement was attached to FÁS's two previous annual reports. Perhaps we will deal with this statement. Mr. McLoone signed the statement on behalf of himself and the board. In the statement, he accepted responsibility for ensuring that "an effective system of internal financial control" is in place. He said, in effect, that such a system was in place. In retrospect, does he accept that the statement was problematic?

Mr. Peter McLoone

I do not. The systems we have in place, which were explained in great detail at the last meeting of the committee, are robust and strong. We recognise that our internal audit concentrated on areas of significant expenditure that are difficult to manage. Since 2004, the corporate affairs division of FÁS has been involved in an ongoing investigation of certain issues pertaining to procurement. When the board got sight of that report, it took the actions that were recommended. As Mr. Cooney said, the board recognises the steps that were proposed. For example, it accepts that the process of examining other aspects of corporate affairs, which has been discussed at this committee, should be accelerated. We have been consistent in what we have been saying about our processes and procedures. The corporate affairs story, extending back over a considerable period of time, has yet to be revealed in the public domain in its totality.

Does Mr. McLoone accept that the action that was taken last week seems to be somewhat inconsistent with the statement he signed on behalf of the board last June?

Mr. Peter McLoone

No. The statement that was signed on behalf of the board last June reflects the board's consideration of all the finances and procedures of FÁS. Last week, we recognised the need to get on top of other audits that were taking place, and to do that at a faster pace than would otherwise have been the case. When INV. 137 was completed, it was decided to examine some other aspects of this matter, which were outlined by Mr. Cooney earlier. Rather than taking them sequentially, it seems clear to us that we may need to take a number of these in tandem. The Comptroller and Auditor General will engage with this process at some stage over the next while, if the committee agrees. Therefore, the sooner we get all the answers to questions about what went on in respect of these programmes back as far as we need to go, the sooner we will be able to bring this process to a conclusion.

The bottom line seems to be that even though the internal audit report was available in May 2006, and the action to which Mr. McLoone referred in his statement was taken in November 2008, Mr. McLoone, on behalf of the board, signed documents in June 2006, June 2007 and June 2008 stating that he was happy with the relevant processes and procedures.

Mr. Peter McLoone

Yes. I am satisfied with the answer I gave the committee. The annual reports verify that we interacted with the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General in respect of the internal audit work that is being done. The Deputy referred to the 2007 report, but the management letter in the 2006 report mentioned that certain areas are being examined. Those investigations are not yet complete.

Mr. McLoone has mentioned the Comptroller and Auditor General. He is probably aware of the issue that arose at a previous hearing, concerning the delay in bringing the specific matters being investigated by the internal audit committee to the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Peter McLoone

With the Deputy's agreement, I would like to refer him to the comments made by Mr. Saul when he dealt with this issue last week.

I am interested in Mr. McLoone's assessment, as chairman of the board. Mr. Saul gave his take on the situation last week.

Mr. Peter McLoone

Yes. Last week, the committee was advised of correspondence we have on file. As far as we are concerned, the correspondence recognises that this knowledge was not kept internal to FÁS.

Was it not clear from the correspondence that certain specific issues were not drawn to the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General at the time?

Mr. Peter McLoone

My understanding of the exchange that took place last week was that we disputed the contention that we had not mentioned these issues. We did so with reference to the letters that are on file. I do not know whether there continues to be some disagreement between ourselves and the Comptroller and Auditor General in that regard.

Another issue relating to the responsibility of the board arises in this context. Mr. McLoone will be aware of the procurement requirements set out in the code of practice for the governance of State bodies. I would like to comment briefly on a couple of aspects of that. The code states:

Competitive tendering should be normal procedure in the procurement process of State bodies. It is the specific responsibility of the Board to ensure that this procedure is implemented and that it is fully conversant with the current value thresholds.

In light of what has emerged to date, has the board discharged its responsibility, which is referred to as a "specific responsibility of the Board", to ensure that proper procurement procedures are implemented?

Mr. Peter McLoone

We are dealing with two aspects of that question. First, we are considering whether the board that was appointed in February 2006 discharged its responsibilities in respect of competitive tendering. Second, we are considering whether the board's obligations in respect of competitive tendering were applied in respect of many of the matters that are in the public domain and before this committee currently. As I said in my initial comments, we are quite happy for all of that to be subjected to internal and external examination and verification. If the committee identifies shortcomings in respect of this board, we have to be held responsible and accountable for that. The Deputy's question is a general one.

I am asking whether there was a specific focus on the issue.

Mr. Peter McLoone

Yes, but the specific focus of the current board must be on any defects or shortcomings identified in respect of our stewardship from February 2006 to 2008. I do not ignore the responsibility for issues brought to our attention or our obligation to deal with them. However, in the public domain there is a clear perception that the public procurement defects in FÁS, to whatever extent there were defects, are the exclusive responsibility of the chairman and the board. I am anxious to sort this out and obtain the facts.

In his opening statement Mr. McLoone said he and the current board also took responsibility for their handling of past shortcomings that had come to light during his term of office.

Mr. Peter McLoone

Yes. With the committee, we have sought to explain what measures we take once a matter has been reported to the board. The starting point for it in dealing with the issues which have surfaced as a result of INV. 137 is its consideration of the report of December 2007. What we have been doing, not since November this year but December 2007, is a matter of record.

I take it Mr. McLoone is also aware that there is a requirement for the chairman, in the annual report to the relevant Minister, to affirm compliance with procurement procedures as outlined in the code of practice. Has he done this?

Mr. Peter McLoone

I provided information for the Minister on our interpretation of what had been reported to the board, over which I stand. If it emerges that there were issues of which the board was aware but on which I did not report to the Minister, I can be held responsible. However, I am as anxious as the committee to have these matters cleared up. Statements made on behalf of the board represent our consideration of the detailed reports presented to us on what is happening in the organisation.

To follow up on what the board has been doing, I will refer to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. His report contains a reference to an advertising agency which charged an additional percentage of contracted charges, amounting to €160,000. We will leave non-civil matters aside, lest we prejudice them, but will Mr. McLoone update the committee on the civil matters? Have steps been taken to recover the sum of €160,000?

Mr. Patrick Kivlehan

While the Garda investigation is ongoing, there is no civil action but, once it is concluded, one can be taken.

Why is that the case?

Mr. Patrick Kivlehan

It is my understanding that is the procedure to be followed. The Garda investigation needs to be completed before we can take a civil action.

Everything is held up pending the outcome of the Garda inquiry. As we must be somewhat careful, I will not name the people involved. I will refer to the firm as "the outdoor postering contractor". When these matters were discussed before the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment last July, my colleague, Deputy English, asked whether the outdoor postering contractor continued to be given work, either directly or indirectly, by FÁS. Is it correct that his question was not answered at that meeting and that the information has not been forthcoming? Is it the case that the same outdoor postering contractor continued to be given work by FÁS until April this year?

Mr. Christy Cooney

That is possible but I need to seek clarification.

Mr. Patrick Kivlehan

Details from accounts payable state that in 2007 and 2008 the company has received no payment.

Did it do any work, directly or indirectly, for FÁS?

Mr. Patrick Kivlehan

I do not know if it worked for FÁS indirectly but it certainly has not received any direct payments.

It never received direct payments because they were made indirectly through AFA O'Meara, which appeared to raise concerns about the issue with FÁS at one time but the contract, I believe, has been subsequently discharged. I am not asking about direct but indirect payments.

Mr. Patrick Kivlehan

The agency agreement terminated in October 2007; therefore, there would have been no indirect payment in 2008. I will verify the indirect payment details for 2007.

We discussed the issue of travel at the last meeting. Mr. Hurley has since sent us a very comprehensive letter which substantially confirms the point I was making last week, namely, that there is no provision for first class travel for officials.

Mr. David Hurley

I cannot quite hear the Deputy.

The principles relating to foreign travel are set out in Regulation No. 11 of 1982.

Mr. David Hurley

That regulation relates to travel in general. Foreign travel principles are dealt with in a regulation of 1998.

There is no provision entitling officials to travel first class.

Mr. David Hurley

There is no provision for first class travel in the 1998 regulation but such a provision was present in the 1971 regulation, in an era when there was only first class and tourist class travel. The 1998 regulations state that, particularly for short haul travel, every effort should be made to use economy class. As matters stand, there are few options other than economy travel for short haul flights. The regulations state business class may be used in certain circumstances such as where flexibility is required. In practice, Departments are required to develop their own policy within the parameters set in the Department of Finance guidelines. The general practice is to allow executive class travel if a journey is of a certain length, stipulated as five, six or seven hours.

There is no provision in the departmental guidelines for first class travel.

Mr. David Hurley

There is no provision for first class travel for officials.

Neither is there provision for trading down on a two-for-one basis. There could not be any such provision, as there is no provision for first class travel.

Mr. David Hurley

There is no provision for trading down in such circumstances.

Is the basic point I made last week correct, that if there are any savings on travel they should accrue to the Department or the organisation rather than the individual?

Mr. David Hurley

Generally speaking, yes. There is the issue of frequent flyer points, which by Government decision is retained. Generally speaking, the preference would be that they would be pooled for a Department, but that is not the practice of airlines. That is the one instance where there are some that may well accrue to the individual.

In fact, there is now no first-class travel by any airline operating out of Ireland.

Mr. David Hurley

Nobody offers first-class travel out of Ireland now.

Thank you. That clears that. In relation to foreign travel, we have had an analysis of the foreign travel, excluding economy travel, over the last number of years. I take it we will be asking the Comptroller and Auditor General to have a look at that. I appreciate Mr. Molloy's opening statement in relation to this matter. He accepts it was inappropriate and I accept that. Would you accept in the same way as Mr. Molloy that much of the travel outlined in this analysis was completely inappropriate?

Mr. Christy Cooney

The analysis you got was completed last night. It gives the detail of everybody who would have travelled. It outlines the foreign travel situation over a period of time. We have not had a chance to analyse it because some of it would be involved in European projects and programmes on which we would have a refund. We have not analysed it in any great detail to determine the justification or otherwise of all these trips. I want to make that point. You can understand.

I accept that. Perhaps Mr. McLoone as chairman of the board for the last few years would give his overview.

Mr. Peter McLoone

First I received a letter on Tuesday from the Department asking us to provide clarification as a matter of urgency as to whether FÁS has adhered to the Department of Finance circulars on travel subsistence relating back to 2001 and that we continue to do so. The analysis that has been prepared has now to be subject to a detailed look to satisfy what has happened in relation to the circulars. In terms of your question, I think it is inappropriate for FÁS, an organisation funded by taxpayers and providing the service it does to the client group, to use first-class travel. That is my view.

That it is inappropriate?

Mr. Peter McLoone

Yes.

When did you come to that view? Did you or the board over recent years ever question the level of expenditure involved in overseas travel or the kind of expenditure?

Mr. Peter McLoone

No, we did not address the issues of foreign travel. In truth, we have never received any report or had any look at the foreign travel that was taking place.

Do I get the impression that you and the board do not really delve into any issue unless you get some report or there is some publicity?

Mr. Peter McLoone

In fairness, the work we have to undertake is fairly extensive. We have a very wide remit and there is significant responsibility and workload for board members. Anything considered by the board is considered in great detail and we satisfy ourselves that procurement rules, procedures and so on are followed. That is the case. In answer to your question, we have not subjected foreign travel to any look. I suspect that the incidence of foreign travel during our period in 2006, 2007 and 2008 is something we will look at. What I am being asked to do now is to provide an account of all the foreign travel going back to 2001. I am not sure how extensive that would be. For example, the issue that has been in the public domain is a visit to the centre in NASA to do with the science challenge programme. The information I have is that one trip took place in January 2007 in respect of the period of this board, 2006, 2007 and 2008. That is the analysis we are now looking at but we have not looked at foreign travel as a specific item. That we will do now and come back with the information.

I do not need to refer back to the €32,000 lost and found between our last meeting and the following morning. That related to back-up tickets. Apart from the need to attend places in China, Cape Town, Johannesburg and so on, did you as a board ever look at the question of whether there was a need to be represented and the numbers involved in some instances? On 21 January 2005 there is a bill for over €3,000 for a trip to Orlando, one for €2,500 and another for €31,000,indicating a whole series of people travelling. Does the board ever look at the need for such large numbers of people to go, if there is a need for anyone to go, on these outings?

Mr. Peter McLoone

The board which I chair took office in February 2006 and the answer to your question is "No". We did not have a look back at foreign travel in respect of the period before we took office. We are required to do that now, as I said earlier. It is the case that when we came in we did not look back at what had been happening in that period. You mention the €32,000 credit that was discovered. That happened following the meeting here last Thursday. As Christy Cooney said, we notified you as soon as we discovered that. That indicates the sort of problems that the current board has in dealing with the amount of queries that arise in respect of all of this, going back nearly eight years.

Even if we do not go back and we look at 2006, I see a figure of €33,000 for a group and a number of other quite substantial sums, including Mr. Pyke going to New Zealand on 1 November 2006. In November 2007 I see an account for over €12,000 for Mr. Pyke. I think he was going around the world. Is that appropriate expenditure for FÁS? Tokyo, Honolulu, San Francisco? Who would have authorised it?

Mr. Christy Cooney

I am not in a position to respond to that because I would not know. I am sure Mr. Molloy would know the position with regard to both of these and he could respond to that.

Mr. Rody Molloy

Regarding the issue that caught the attention of the media, the issue of travelling around the world, I referred in my opening statement to the custom and practice in FÁS dating back to the 1971 circular. I checked and could find no communication that withdrew that. I admit openly that was inappropriate and I do not defend it. In that context, the price of the ticket for Mr. Pyke to travel first class to Tokyo would have been greater than the price of the ticket to which the Deputy refers. I was the one who authorised it. It was inappropriate and I put my hands up in that regard.

The New Zealand trip was mentioned. It concerned a meeting including representatives from Ireland, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, all of which are members of a group called the Belmont Conference. We meet every two years to discuss, essentially behind closed doors, labour market issues. We exchange experiences in an up-front way and try to learn from each other's mistakes or successes. It has been extraordinarily useful to us in terms of devising labour market policy. It rotates between the six countries. The meeting before that in New Zealand was actually in Dublin and the next is in London. The forum has proven to be very valuable for us and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has an opportunity to explore what is happening in other countries with labour markets similar to ours.

Do the delegates all accept that the disclosure of this kind of activity leads to a well-founded belief that "squandermania" is fairly prevalent in FÁS?

Mr. Christy Cooney

I answered that the last time I was here. In respect of three areas of questioning, I outlined clearly that what happened was unacceptable. That is my view on it.

On the last example, what does Mr. McLoone feel about the round-the-world trip?

Mr. Peter McLoone

I have said that this kind of spend for an organisation such as FÁS is inappropriate and unacceptable. It is not something I am in a position to defend.

Can I raise one other issue, that of property, which needs to be considered carefully? Was there a virtual free-for-all regarding the acquisition of property and the opening of new offices over recent years? Let me be specific and, with a view to making my question easier to handle, let me confine my remarks to Laois and Offaly. It is Mr. Molloy's area and was mentioned this morning, but that is not the reason I raise the issue. There was very substantial expenditure in Birr on a decentralised office. Was this expenditure justified? The land, amounting to five acres, was purchased at a price of €300,000 per acre according to the Irish Independent. Over €1 million was spent subsequently on high-spec offices in which virtually nobody is working at present.

Mr. Rody Molloy

In terms of the site, we were under instruction from the Government, as part of the decentralisation programme, to acquire a site in Birr to build a new head office for the organisation. We acquired that site and did so through normal purchasing processes.

Was it through the OPW?

Mr. Rody Molloy

We did it ourselves but had advice from the OPW.

Would that be normal for the OPW?

Mr. Rody Molloy

We have a pretty substantial property portfolio and tend to handle our own property activities. However, we do work closely with the OPW on the procedures and processes we follow. We bought the site at Birr and went through the normal procedures. The site is in our ownership. Off the top of my head, I cannot remember the figure in question.

Mr. Christy Cooney

The figures quoted of €1.5 million are correct.

The cost was €300,000 per acre.

Mr. Rody Molloy

That was the market price at the time for the site in Birr.

What was spent on the office?

Mr. Rody Molloy

There is no office on that site. Since we were anxious to get people to Birr quickly, we rented some accommodation, which was available in a building in which Shannon Development was the main tenant. There were a number of vacant floors and we took these on for a period of five years, if my memory serves me well.

Mr. Christy Cooney

We took it on a five-year lease with an option of ten years.

How much was spent on it?

Mr. Rody Molloy

I recall that it was in the order of €1 million.

How many people are there now?

Mr. Christy Cooney

There are 25 or 26 at present.

Mr. Rody Molloy

There is capacity for 40 but, as everybody is aware, major issues arose regarding the transferability of staff. There were Labour Court issues in this regard so we have not been in a position to fully occupy the building, up to the limit of 40.

Not 100 miles away, in Portlaoise, FÁS had an office for many years. For some reason, it moved to what I understand was a lavish new office down the street. Was there any reason for that?

Mr. Rody Molloy

Again, I am not absolutely familiar with the situation in Portlaoise, other than that we have a number of offices around the country that are not very well fitted out and are actually pretty poorly equipped. We will be going through a process over a number of years of upgrading the offices. I am not immediately familiar with Portlaoise but I suspect that what we did there was move to a more suitable office in a better location.

Mr. Rody Molloy

As I said, I am not familiar with the details of the project.

I presume the——

The figure is €561,000.

I thank the Chairman. I understand that there was a similar office transfer in Tullamore where there had previously been a suitable office.

Mr. Rody Molloy

It was a very unsuitable office in Tullamore, in my view, and we transferred to a more suitable office on the main street, with ground access from the street. My recollection of the old office is that there was an issue concerning having to go upstairs to it. I am not familiar with the actual detail but that is my recollection.

The organisation has an office in Edenderry.

Mr. Rody Molloy

I do not believe there are employment offices but there is a call centre.

There is also a premises in Mount Lucas, in Laois-Offaly,

It is a popular place.

It was an old briquette factory. FÁS bought it.

Mr. Rody Molloy

We rented that. I was not expecting this to come up nor, I suspect, was anybody else. We have been developing services for the construction industry with regard to safety and safety training for that industry. We had a site at Kill which was being claimed back from us by its owner. There were difficulties with it in any event and we had to find an alternative site. Bord na Móna, which was the owner of the site in Mount Lucas because it is old bog that is no longer any use, offered us the site, which seemed to us to be eminently suitable for what we were trying to do.

How much did FÁS pay for it?

Mr. Rody Molloy

My recollection is that we were actually renting it rather than——

FÁS paid €281,000 in 2006 and €1.474 million in——

Mr. Rody Molloy

That was for building the centre.

It is a new building.

Mr. Rody Molloy

That was for building the centre rather than buying it. I think we got the land at a very economic rent from Bord na Móna so the costs associated with Mount Lucas are for building and equipping the place with the necessary classrooms. It involves a lot of heavy cranes and equipment of that nature from the construction industry.

It was a centre of excellence for construction. I would say that Mr. Molloy's timing was a bit off.

Mr. Rody Molloy

That may be the case in the present climate but in fairness, we would all expect that we will still need a construction industry in the future.

With all due respect, Deputy, the information we are getting here is very vague. For example, Mr. Molloy says that in his opinion Tullamore was unsuitable because the premises was upstairs. My office is upstairs.

Mr. Rody Molloy

We had to have access for wheelchairs.

I think we need a detailed report for next week on the whole issue of offices and properties because there seems to be a lot of questions and we are not getting answers here.

I will leave it at that. My approach is that I get a feeling of what I refer to as "squandermania". I worry that such substantial moneys do not appear to have been properly controlled and in some instances, where proper procurement procedures had not been followed, that taxpayers' money may have been wasted. This is why that detailed analysis is necessary.

Mr. Christy Cooney

I wish to make a comment.

May I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General with reference to report No. 10, were any aspects of purchasing of offices or buildings raised by the comptroller?

Mr. John Buckley

No. There were none. However, we are doing a report on decentralisation and we will touch on it in that report.

Specifically relating to FÁS and to our investigation, there were no matters raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General relating to purchasing or upgrading of offices or building new centres as has been outlined here today. Would this be a correct statement?

Mr. John Buckley

Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Christy Cooney

In fairness to the committee, with regard to the type of analysis that the Deputy would require — and I am being very genuinely honest in this because I do not know the nature of it — it would be very significant to have a detailed report before the committee next week. I do not know how practical or realistic that is but we can certainly try.

In the near future.

Mr. Christy Cooney

Absolutely in the near future but I could not see it being ready for next week.

I am interested in the cost in capital terms and the increases in current terms of such new developments.

Mr. Christy Cooney

When Rody Molloy came into the organisation, he asked for a serious study and report to be done on all our buildings in the organisation, particularly with regard to health and safety and accessibility for people with disabilities. Based on that report, over a period of time, when money was available to the organisation, remedial jobs were done and a course of action taken to bring them up to the required standard to meet health and safety legislation. In all cases where major capital funding is spent by the organisation, it has to go before the board and it has to be approved by the board. I just want to make those points but we will do a detailed analysis.

That does not give me great comfort.

Mr. Christy Cooney

I do not know why it should not, Deputy.

I will make one last observation on which Mr. Cooney may comment if he wishes. Is it the case that the organisation had a budget and it was a question of finding ways of spending that budget?

Mr. Christy Cooney

Absolutely not.

Before I move on to Deputy McCormack who has been waiting a while, I refer to some of the issues raised by Deputy O'Keeffe. Also last week Mr. Cooney spoke about cancellation fees and he corrected the record this morning. I came across one of them for travel dated 13 January 2004 where there was a cancellation charge of €19,106 and a refund of €4,700. I ask Mr. Cooney to look at that. This information was supplied by FÁS.

Mr. Christy Cooney

I certainly will look at that.

The information only arrived in the past few hours, in the past 24 hours.

Mr. Christy Cooney

We can certainly check that as part of the checking we must do on the whole analysis of this area. We are happy to do that.

It was with respect to a visit from Orlando to Dublin by a group.

Mr. Christy Cooney

I do not know.

I will not name the people.

Mr. Christy Cooney

We will certainly have a look at that.

I want to revert to the travel issue and the responsibility of the board as regards the travel issue. I listened carefully this morning to Mr. McLoone's statement. They were fine words and well spoken. It appears to me that the board does not seem to be accepting any responsibility for anything to do with negligence relevant to travel. His subsequent answers to my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, do not reassure me in any way at all. Deputy O'Keeffe has established that there is no provision for payments of expenses for first-class travel and Mr. McLoone said that the spending on travel was inappropriate but the board did not look at payments for first-class travel. It would be the responsibility of the board to have looked at payments for first class travel. I quote from theLabour Services Act 1987:

A member of the staff of An Foras (other than the Director General) or of the staff of the subsidiary shall be paid, out of the moneys at the disposal of An Foras or the subsidiary, as the case may be, such remuneration and allowances for expenses incurred by him as An Foras, or the subsidiary, as the case may be, with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance, may determine.

Last week in the Dáil, that question was put to the Taoiseach who was then the Minister for Finance and he said that the Minister could not be expected to follow up on every little detail, that this was the responsibility of the board. According to the answers we have received from Mr. McLoone to Deputy O'Keeffe's question, and according to his statement made this morning, the board does not seem to have accepted any responsibility for the checking or otherwise or the paying out of the expenses that were incurred. Deputy O'Keeffe has been around the world on expenses a while ago. The board does not seem to accept any responsibility for the payment or the sanctioning of the payment which, according to the Taoiseach in the Dáil last week, was the responsibility of the board.

Mr. Peter McLoone

As I indicated, I have been asked to provide confirmation going back to 2001, that Department of Finance circulars were adhered to in respect of foreign travel. We will do that and we will prepare that comprehensive response. I do not want to convey the impression that this board is ducking its responsibilities because it is not. We will be held responsible and accountable for any matters that were inappropriate in respect of the period for which we were appointed as a board at the beginning of 2006 until now. I have said that in my view, regardless of what provisions were in what circular, for an organisation like FÁS, it is inappropriate that we would avail of first class, business class or whatever. That is the case. I do not want to convey the impression that I am trying to duck our responsibilities because we are not.

Mr. McLoone mentioned he received a letter last Tuesday asking him to carry out this investigation of the past. Who sent that letter?

Mr. Peter McLoone

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. As I understand, it was on foot of the statement that you referred to in the Dáil last week.

That is to investigate the past. Does Mr. McLoone as chairman and the board not accept any responsibility for having neglected, in my opinion, their duty of responsibility which is passed on from the Minister to the board, to be responsible for the payment of travel that could not be sanctioned because there is no provision for the payment of expenses for first-class travel?

Mr. Peter McLoone

I think this will require a detailed look and of that there is no doubt. From my understanding of the operation of first-class travel, going back over the years, tickets were requisitioned, invoices emerged and were paid out of budget.There is no record in my recall from the time I became chairman in February 2006 of individual travel and subsistence claim forms that sought clearance or approval for payment for first class travel.

Did Mr. McLoone not realise when he was appointed chairman of the board that it was the responsibility of the board, as set down by the Minister, to approve such payments?

Mr. Peter McLoone

Yes, but the payments did not present themselves to me or the board for approval. If an invoice arrived from a travel agent to the organisation, that was paid.

Was it not Mr. McLoone's responsibility to ensure the invoices and the accounts relating to them were presented to the board for sanction, which was his duty?

Mr. Peter McLoone

They did not come before me and they did not go to the board for sanction.

Did Mr. McLoone think of looking for them? Deputy Jim O'Keeffe went through the travel involved and, therefore, Mr. McLoone would hardly be unaware that officials were going to all those places——

Mr. Peter McLoone

I was not aware of the travel in respect of the period before I became a member of the board in January 2006. Many of the matters that are raised are legitimate. I will provide answers but what I am being asked to do as chairman is to account for a considerable spend on first class travel that predates the board.

Will Mr. McLoone take on the responsibility as chairman of the board to ensure the payment of such expenses is sanctioned by the board?

Mr. Peter McLoone

The decision we took the other evening was to the effect that we would not facilitate first-class travel.

In future, will Mr. McLoone ensure that the payment of travel expenses will be sanctioned by the board?

Mr. Peter McLoone

Yes.

Given the lapse in the past in this regard and, as late as last Tuesday evening, the Government refused to issue a statement of confidence in the board——

The Deputy should leave that. That is a matter of Government policy.

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?

Mr. Peter McLoone

If I look back to the events of the past week, we dealt with the departure of the director general and we have been in situ since then seeking to manage the situation that presents from that and many other issues in the public domain, so the board has not sat down to address its future. We do not know the outcome of the committee’s deliberations and investigation and the decisions that will be made in respect of the board. However, the board has engaged with the problems that now present and we continue to do that as we speak.

This evening we go back to engage with the replacement and to put somebody in charge of the organisation going forward. We have to address the recruitment of a permanent replacement for the DG. We have to address the issues of the staff and the engagement with the prime function of the organisation. It does not seem that process would be aided or assisted by a decision by myself, as chairman, or members of the board to respond to calls being made to us in the public domain. It is not within my gift to stay as chairman or for board members to continue where Government conveys to us that it is not happy with this. We have had dialogue with the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and we are tasked with continuing to manage this situation, deal with the committee and the replacement DG and try as best we can to get the thing back on track as quickly as possible.

I take that to mean Mr. McLoone will await the report from the committee before he considers the question I asked.

Mr. Peter McLoone

The board has to continue in office until it is decided otherwise.

Decided by the board or somebody else?

Mr. Peter McLoone

The board has made no decision in respect of itself. The decision the board has made is to engage with the task in hand.

That is a matter for the Government.

I refer to the person suspended pending an investigation. Is that person on full pay?

Mr. Christy Cooney

I outlined earlier that the person is suspended on full pay pending the outcome of discussions between himself and the director of internal audit. Depending on the outcome of that and whatever report is deemed necessary by the director of internal audit as a result of those discussions, a decision will be made on what appropriate action should be taken, if any.

As I pointed out last Thursday, we were trying to probe what penalty was applied to the suspended person and we were unable to do so. It appears it has been beneficial to the person to be suspended having been on sick leave for more than six months. The suspended person has gained an advantage. He is not obliged to appear before the committee because he is suspended, whereas, in media reports, he says he would love to appear.

I clarified this earlier.

I was in the Dáil for a division. I did not know that.

If he had not been suspended and was still on sick leave, would he be able to appear before the committee?

Mr. Christy Cooney

I clarified that situation this morning fully for the Chairman and the committee.

I will look up the minutes. He seemed to indicate he believed if he was before the board he might make statements that would question other people's actions. As I clearly established last Thursday, by being on sick pay rather than being on suspension, it was to his advantage and it is to our disadvantage that he is suspended rather than on sick pay. Is there any link between his suspension and appearing before the committee?

Mr. Christy Cooney

I clarified that last week and again this morning.

Mr. Cooney did not clarify that last week. He clarified last week that the fact that he would be on full pay while suspended and only on half pay if he was on sick leave for more than six months was not a factor in his being suspended. Could it be a factor in his not being eligible to come before the board?

Mr. Christy Cooney

As I outlined this morning, I made it abundantly clear that FÁS is in no way stopping the person from coming before the committee.

The fact that he is suspended is stopping him.

Mr. Christy Cooney

No, I do not believe there is any difference in that. The answer is "No".

I presume we will seek clarification on that.

I welcome the witnesses. I looked at the FÁS website again yesterday and the number of courses located abroad is striking, for example, the options to go to Canada, W45 and W50. Media courses are provided in Belfast and Vancouver, Canada. One of the options is Belfast and Kitchener in Canada for another course, and others are also listed for Vancouver. In trades courses, go to there is an 18-week course in Belfast and Cape Town in South Africa and there are other courses based in Europe — in Seville and Granada, and in Poland, Germany and Belgium.

To begin by addressing Mr. Cooney, this is an amazing range of courses abroad for a national manpower agency. I am aware that FÁS was given a remit some years ago by the then Minister, Deputy Harney, to source workers from different places but these are courses for people who are currently job seekers in Ireland.

Mr. Christy Cooney

I will clarify this and will try not to be long-winded in doing so. This goes back to a time of serious difficulties in Northern Ireland, a time when peace did not exist. An American fund was made available to try to support the integration of Nationalists and non-Nationalists, if I could put it that way, and also to support integration between North and South. We worked very closely with the American Government and with our opposite numbers in the North to try to create training and opportunities for these disadvantaged people.

The programme the Deputy is talking about is called Wider Horizons. I can send the Deputy a complete outline of the programme, when it started, where the funding came from and how it is managed. It is not one of the normal run-of-the-mill programmes we offer to unemployed people. These are not programmes in regard to bringing people from this country back into Ireland. It is really a programme about supporting the situation in Northern Ireland with cross-community programmes, building confidence, building relationships, building the process and creating that relationship between North and South. That was the logic behind the programme, although I am not sure when it commenced——

Mr. Denis Rowan

It was 1978.

Mr. Christy Cooney

It is a long-standing programme. It has worked significantly in supporting the process among the communities in Northern Ireland and their relationships with communities in the South. We will send the committee a detailed outline of the programme content and why it existed. It creates a work experience opportunity in a different environment to help them in understanding what they can achieve and where they can move to in the future.

Did concerns ever arise on the cost-benefit side with regard to these courses, given that all courses obviously have to be evaluated to find what people are gaining from them? Was any cost-benefit analysis carried out, for example, in regard to the Canadian trips? I notice that on 6 October 2003, a board member, Mr. Owen Willis, attended a meeting in Canada and I notice other references to Canada. A journalist, Mr. J. Walsh, is listed as being on the visits to Orlando and other far-flung places on several occasions, including 27 January 2004 and 26 July 2005, and Mr. John Walsh, journalist, is listed as travelling to Tokyo on 9 November 2007. It seems to have been a policy. Several journalists, Mr. T. Fell, Mr. J. Carroll and Mr. J. Walsh, to whom I have just referred, are mentioned in this regard on 26 July 2005 as travelling in a major delegation to Orlando which cost approximately €38,500. What was the purpose of all of this in PR terms? Was there a positive impact for the organisation or the people FÁS was trying to serve?

Mr. Christy Cooney

The people mentioned were not involved in the Wider Horizons programme. Their visits were of a totally different nature and they had nothing to do with the earlier courses the Deputy has outlined or the Wider Horizons programmes. The Wider Horizons programmes were managed completely internally and the views were taken by our own staff who were working in that area. I am sure Mr. Molloy can outline in significant detail the purpose behind the other situation because I would not have that detail.

I notice Mr. Craig travelled on at least one occasion with one of the journalists.

Mr. Rody Molloy

On several programmes, journalists accompanied us for the purpose of publicising what we were trying to do and generating an interest in the activity. The specific ones mentioned by the Deputy were around Science Challenge and the Jobs Ireland promotional activity, which was creating an awareness here and an acceptability of what we were trying to do. The Wider Horizons programmes tended to go to Canada or the US mostly and should not be confused with them. They were regularly evaluated by the International Fund for Ireland and, in my recollection, were always positively evaluated in terms of their contribution both to the development of the children on the programme and the overall peace process.

Those programmes were structured essentially around disadvantaged children from loyalist and republican communities in Northern Ireland and from disadvantaged areas in the Republic. We tried to always have a mix of a third from the South, a third from the loyalist community and third from the Nationalist-republican community in Northern Ireland. There was a dual aim. One was to give them some basic training that they could use when they came back, but the other aim, which was always more difficult to evaluate, was that they learned to live with each other, because we tried to put them in situations where they actually had to live with each other in the foreign locations.

I appreciate what FÁS is doing and I understand we are examining the Science Challenge evaluation as a kind of fourth level programme with regard to the amount of money spent per student and the benefit that would have accrued to the students and the country. The problem for the public relates to the ancillary people who were travelling, for example, our journalist colleagues, given the fact FÁS had already spent so much on advertising. In other words, FÁS had already gone directly to the public so people would find it hard to understand why it was necessary to bring particular writers, administrators and so on.

Mr. Rody Molloy

I understand there will be a review of that by the board. On the Science Challenge issue, we were asked as an organisation, as were several other organisations, to promote the whole issue of science and engineering through our school system and the university system. The Deputy and other members of the committee will be aware we are facing a problem as a society with the lack of interest in maths, science and engineering. I am not justifying the total expenditure——

Out of 300 young people, did any of them get employment with NASA or with a third or fourth level university in the United States?

Mr. Rody Molloy

The intention was not to get them employment in the States. The intention was to get them the experience in the States which they would bring back and use in Ireland through the contacts they developed, both for themselves as individuals and for their host university in Ireland, which would develop a close relationship with the universities in the US and help the whole process of advanced research for the universities here. I will leave it to the evaluation to determine whether what we did there stacks up but I strongly believe it will and that it is a real contribution to our future skills needs.

People always tend to focus on the fourth level side of this. There is also a significant part of the Science Challenge around apprentices, where we put apprentices into situations which are not available in Ireland but which are available in the US, particularly, for example, around renewable energies and additional training for plumbers and electricians in the new kind of technologies that are emerging. This is to ensure we have a sufficient core of people here who can apply those new technologies because many new technologies get damaged through bad installation practices or otherwise, and the technology is damned rather than the bad installation practices. We have put considerable energy into that.

In addition, we have arranged through that programme for a number of Air Corps apprentices in the final phase of their apprenticeship to spend some time in a major helicopter complex in Florida. While there, they can receive what the Air Corps admits is the kind of hands-on training not available to them at Baldonnel.

I welcome the chairman, Mr. McLoone, and wish to ask him some questions. Earlier this week I attended a review of the performance of a partnership company in the past six years. A number of middle ranking FÁS managers also attended the meeting, as did many whom FÁS had helped in the period in question. There was a palpable sense of anger among both mid-level staff and users of the agency's services at what had transpired. They had a profound sense of betrayal. Does Mr. McLoone accept that is the case?

Mr. Peter McLoone

I acknowledged it in my opening statement. I am very sensitive to the damage done to the organisation's reputation which was built by the people to whom the Deputy referred.

We have before us a number of the core statutory documents, other than the records of the company. One document setting out the code of practice for the governance of State bodies was drafted when Deputy Bertie Ahern was Minister for Finance in 1992. Does Mr. McLoone accept that, in regard to procurement and chapters 4A and 4B of the code of practice which outline the charter for internal audit, the corporate affairs division led by Mr. Craig drove a coach and four through the code of practice? The statutory regulations for managing procurement in semi-State bodies were wilfully neglected. Is that not the bottom line? This document which was prepared 16 years ago by the then Minister for Finance was flagrantly ignored.

Mr. Peter McLoone

Again, all I can do is refer the Deputy to my acknowledgement in my opening statement that the management of resources has been poor and that there was unacceptable waste in some instances. As the Deputy will appreciate, I have to keep my comments general because it is one matter to identify concerns but another to identify who is responsible and hold individuals to account. He will understand we have to recognise the need to join these three matters together.

To take Mr. McLoone's responsibility for the 2007 accounts, in meeting our constitutional responsibility through the Chairman of the committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General for all State expenditure we are totally dependent on the annual reports of State bodies. In June Mr. McLoone signed a statement on a system of internal financial control which indicated that the board's monitoring of a review of the effectiveness of the system was informed by the head of internal audit and confirmed for the year ending 31 December that the audit committee had conducted a review of its effectiveness and no weaknesses had been found in the system of internal financial control. Can he stand over that statement, given what we now know from INV. 137 and what the internal auditors and board members, including Mr. Saul, were doing in the preceding period?

Mr. Peter McLoone

Yes is the short answer. I stand over the accounts we signed in 2006 and 2007 which are the subject of management letters from the Comptroller and Auditor General. We are looking at a picture in which many of the areas of corporate activity operated under the radar in terms of reporting to the board. I do not say this to excuse our responsibilities in respect of matters which have now been brought to our attention. I have explained to the best of my ability the timelines in respect of our appointment in January and February 2006 and our receipt of the INV. 137 report in December 2007.

FÁS is an unusual board, given that it represents the social partners. It is also quite large in my experience as a community and social director. I am a graduate of FÁS. It is ironic that we are examining board management in my alma mater. What is the total membership of the board?

Mr. Peter McLoone

There are 16 members, including me.

A large number of people would have been there during the preceding period.

Mr. Peter McLoone

It has been whispered in my ear that there were seven. I am trying to do a headcount.

My colleagues have gone through the elements of the internal audit report. The sum of €3.5 million in OSK money, the constitution of Ultimate Communications and a number of other matters clearly should have been brought to the board's attention in view of the amount limit. Did that happen?

Mr. Peter McLoone

No. These matters did not come to the attention of the full board until INV. 137 was presented to the board in December 2007. As I acknowledged in response to a question from Deputy Shortall, that was a major faultline in respect of where we are now and the extent to which the board was able to engage with the matter from February 2006 until December 2007. The problem with which we have attempted to engage since December 2007 has been outlined but that does not in any way rectify our failure to pick up mistakes or the absence of reporting. Without making excuses, we are dealing with past events that extend back for a considerable period of time.

The difficulty for us, given our responsibility to the Oireachtas, is that we cannot have confidence in the accounts for 2003 to 2006 because if the Comptroller and Auditor General's value for money report had not been made and in the absence of the famous letter, we would not have known about the irregularities. Is it not a fundamental problem that Mr. McLoone and his predecessor signed off on internal audit statements which did not report the problems in one division of the organisation?

Mr. Peter McLoone

It is certainly a fundamental problem that a matter which was the subject of an anonymous letter at the beginning of 2004 was not acted upon by the board until December 2007. However, today and in greater detail at the last hearing of the committee we have sought to set out the workings of the internal audit process within FÁS and the relationships between the audit function, those who work in the audit section, the committee and the board. It is unusual, if not exceptional, for something which started in 2004 to remain incomplete or that the board's engagement was three years in gestation. At the end of the day, we have to deal with matters as they stand. Just as the committee is examining the set of accounts I signed in 2006 and 2007 when I was asked to take over the role of chairman, I looked over a set of accounts which was indicative of a normal situation. I confirm the conversations members have had with various people about the organisation. When they go in, they are obviously informed by those conversations, the information available on the public record and what may have been verified.

The directors are dependent on their auditors and accountants. At the end of the day, that is critical. Who are the seven directors out of the 17 who were on the previous board?

Mr. Christy Cooney

I will have to get that information for the Deputy.

Would Mr. Cooney not notice people who have been around a long time?

Mr. Christy Cooney

In fairness to the people concerned, the information I give would have to be correct. I do not want to give the name of a person who was not on that.

Last week, you mentioned the then Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern. I do not think he was on any of the visits.

Mr. Christy Cooney

He was. I did not mislead you, Chairman.

I am not saying you did. He is on the list. That is what I got back from him.

He is down for Houston, rather than Orlando.

Mr. Christy Cooney

I gave the names of the Ministers who I understood were there.

I noted last week that there was a very fine code of ethics within the organisation that was drawn up in 2003. There is also a statement of interest. Some people have said that some of the issues that have arisen would have serious ethical dimensions and would constitute a conflict of interest. Have board members looked back at the code of ethics and the register and how they are utilised and promulgated within the organisation? Have they any intention of updating them or changing them?

Mr. Peter McLoone

We will certainly have to update and revise them as necessary. However, the straight answer to the question is "No". I have not yet looked back at that area.

Deputy Shortall referred to briefings to the board, but the briefings were to the audit committee in October 2006.

Mr. Christy Cooney

That is correct.

Mr. Peter McLoone

The board was not briefed on these matters until 2007.

Since 2004, apparently 14 officers have been disciplined. Does that list contain Mr. Craig's name, or is he named in addition to it?

Mr. Christy Cooney

The current position of Mr. Craig would not be considered to be as a result of disciplinary action. The process means that he is suspended on pay, so he has not been disciplined. The previous disciplinary action would be included. I only got the information this morning, so I am not sure, but I know that the current situation is not regarded as discipline.

I notice that of the 14 actions taken, three people were dismissed, three were suspended without pay, two were demoted, two resigned during the process, two moved location and the decision on two others is pending or under appeal. We are told that the reasons for disciplinary action include misappropriation of funds, misappropriation of materials, misconduct and misuse of IT facilities. Would Mr. Cooney have had the responsibility for that area?

Mr. Christy Cooney

It would have been dealt with by the HR director over the period of time, be it the current director or the previous director. It would have gone through a process with trade unions, which is the normal scenario. Some would have gone to third parties, which would also be normal. The decisions would be made and the matter dealt with in that fashion. I have been in HR for approximately two years, so all this would have happened before my time.

Would most or all of those misbehaviour offences have been detected by superior officers and management?

Mr. Christy Cooney

They would have been detected in the way outlined by the Deputy or through an audit process that would have been undertaken by Mr. Kivlehan or his predecessors. Issues that arose would be identified and we would then have to deal with them.

Effectively, the whole procedure depended on the chain of command. One of the issues we will consider is the disciplinary area. The chain of command is critical in that.

Mr. Christy Cooney

That is absolutely correct.

I accept Mr. McLoone's contention that the INV. 137 report was given to him and the board in December 2007, but given what they found out, what actions did they take to satisfy themselves that the matter was being dealt with appropriately by senior management?

Mr. Peter McLoone

The action taken against the individual who was held to account was not reported or dealt with by the board. We focused on the recommendations made by the audit committee, and this is an ongoing process. The board did not engage with the disciplinary action that was taken against the individual. That was being dealt with outside of the board's processes.

That is hard to understand. These major concerns were raised following a lengthy investigation process. The changes to the procedures are critical, but surely the board would have inquired about what happened to the individual at the centre of this.

Mr. Peter McLoone

At the time it engaged with INV. 137, the board was dealing with a situation where the disciplinary process was concluded.

Was Mr. McLoone aware of what that was?

Mr. Peter McLoone

No more than the Deputy. The board has not received the detail of the disciplinary action that was taken against the individual.

I find it very strange that the board did not establish what action had been taken against the individual. I was going to ask Mr. McLoone his view on the action, but it seems extraordinary that the board did not ask about disciplinary action.

Mr. Peter McLoone

Mr. Saul may want to come in on this.

Mr. Niall Saul

We asked about it. The advice at the time from the director general was that the custom and practice within FÁS — I assume by agreement with the unions — was that matters of discipline were kept confidential.

Mr. McLoone just said that the board did not ask about this situation, but Mr. Saul has said that it did.

Mr. Niall Saul

The question was asked in Cork by someone on the board about the disciplinary action. Mr. Molloy explained why the board was not being given the detail of the disciplinary action.

Mr. Peter McLoone

I apologise for having misled the Deputy on that.

This is not generally the way boards operate.

Mr. Peter McLoone

I do not know, within the process, whether the individual would have exercised the right of appeal that might have triggered the involvement of the board, but he did not. I have been involved in boards where the board itself is part of the process of appeal. I have dealt with this on hospital boards, where disciplinary action has been taken. In some cases the board is part of the appeal, whereas in other situations the board may be a board of inquiry. It did not arise in this case.

I would have thought that would be a clear part of the board's oversight and that board members would satisfy themselves that new procedures were being put in place arising out of the report, and that the individual concerned would have been adequately dealt with. I find it quite extraordinary that the board did not pursue that.

Mr. Peter McLoone

In the circumstances, I am not sure that we would have been in a position to reopen and pass judgments on decisions.

Board members did not ask.

Mr. Peter McLoone

As Mr. Saul pointed out, the question was raised in Cork. I am sorry, but I had forgotten that.

As chairperson of the board, Mr. McLoone did not ask the question.

Mr. Peter McLoone

No, I did not.

Will Mr. Cooney clarify the position on the credit notes to which he referred?

Mr. Christy Cooney

In getting information for the committee I learned that the flights had been booked. I sought clarification on whether there were any credit notes or a cancellation during that time. I was assured on the morning before I came here that they were not in place and that they had not been. I will not repeat what I said when I got back to the office and was informed that they were there. In some respects they were discovered because of this whole process. The credit notes had been coded to a different account. I had placed great emphasis on this because I was very conscious of the evidence I was giving to the committee based on the information I had received. It was discovered that we did receive a credit note and I was informed of this at approximately 5.30 p.m. when I returned from the committee meeting. I then did a somersault about how the hell that had happened and I had not been made aware of it. I went to great lengths to ensure the information I had been given was 100% correct. I found that it was. I made two telephone calls immediately. First, I rang the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts to inform him. I outlined to him——

Will Mr. Cooney please explain whether it is a piece of paper saying FÁS is owed €38,500?

Mr. Christy Cooney

It is a number of credit notes relating to the various flights involved.

To a total value of approximately €38,000.

Mr. Christy Cooney

The total is €32,000.

I thought it was €4,800 per ticket.

Mr. Christy Cooney

No, the amount was €32,000, as should be clear from the transcript of the previous meeting. From memory, there was a cancellation fee of approximately €400.

What can Mr. Cooney do with it? Did he go back to the travel agent?

Mr. Christy Cooney

No, we received credit notes from the travel agent. That is what I said to the Deputy. They went through our accounts and there was no cost to the organisation.

Mr. Christy Cooney

They were not coded to Science Challenge, but to another code that I cannot remember off the top of my head to which they should not have been coded. It was an administrative error which had not been picked up as part of the checking process. There is nothing mysterious about it.

I am trying to figure out how it works if there are credit notes. The next time people go on a trip, will they bring credit notes to the travel agent?

Mr. Christy Cooney

No, we have received credit for them already. We did not pay; the documentation only showed the invoices that had gone through the process. Because the credit notes had been coded to a different code, they did not line up. That is what happened.

It does not say a lot for the accounting systems in place.

Mr. Christy Cooney

Human nature is human nature and people can make errors in coding, as I am sure the Deputy is aware.

It is a lot of money; it is public money.

Mr. Christy Cooney

Absolutely.

Earlier I asked Mr. Molloy about oversight in regard to Mr. Craig and the exact role, if any, that Mr. Pyke had played and that played by Mr. Molloy as his superior. He shrugged his shoulders as if to suggest that there had been no oversight. One wonders why that is the case in a major organisation. When one looks at the list of foreign travel, it is not hard to see why there was not any oversight. I have totted up Mr. Pyke's foreign travel trips, most of which involved long-haul flights. In the space of four years he went on 13 major trips. In the space of three and a half years, the coinciding period, Mr. Molloy went on 16 trips — to Orlando several times, Boston, Helsinki, Warsaw, New Zealand and New York. How on earth could he have done his job when he was away to that extent?

Mr. Rody Molloy

Every one of the trips can be justified.

There were sixteen major trips in three and a half years. To say the least, that means Mr. Molloy was out of the office a lot.

Mr. Rody Molloy

Again, one can take a view about whether my job was to sit in an office from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. or to be out and about ensuring——

It is to supervise the people employed.

Mr. Rody Molloy

It is about more than supervision. There is the role of representing the organisation, promoting it and interacting with major institutions where it is expected that the head of the organisation will attend. I was with Ministers who were travelling to events on a significant number of the 16 trips mentioned. It is appropriate that if a Minister is travelling, the chief executive of the sponsoring organisation will also travel. Clearly, I cannot go through each trip individually off the top of my head but if it helps Deputy Shortall's case, I will do so and say why I went. In truth, people in the organisation who know me know that it is difficult to get me to travel, rather than it being the case that I was anxious to travel.

That is hard to believe given that Mr. Molloy took that number of trips in a three and a half year period. How can he support that statement?

Mr. Rody Molloy

The Deputy can ask the people in the organisation who tried to get me to travel. I have a problem with flying and travelling in general.

Given the number of trips in which Mr. Molloy and Mr. Pyke were involved, a number of issues arise. Clearly, they were both in breach of the travel policy within the organisation.

Mr. Rody Molloy

That remains to be seen. I accept that——

My reading of the Department of Finance's travel policy is that Mr. Molloy and Mr. Pyke were clearly in breach of it. They incurred substantial expense for the taxpayer. Probably the most important aspect is that neither Mr. Molloy nor Mr. Pyke were around to do the job they were supposed to be doing within the organisation. That is at least part of the reason Mr. Craig appeared to be given free reign. We are all now paying the price. I wish to ask the chairman of the board whether the extent of foreign travel by senior people in FÁS and their friends was ever discussed at board level?

Mr. Peter McLoone

The board did not engage in any look-back from the time it was appointed in February 2006.

The board must have been aware that people were going away on a regular basis and that all of those expensive trips were being undertaken.

Mr. Peter McLoone

As I said, I have been asked for an analysis and I will provide it in respect of the years 2008, 2007 and 2006. We can then discuss the extent of overseas travel. I will provide also the information being sought prior to that period but we did not have a look-back.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien took the Chair.

It is clear to the public and us at this remove after the event that the carry-on was outrageous in respect of foreign travel. I find it difficult to accept that there was no awareness of this within the organisation and the board.

Mr. Peter McLoone

All I can say is that I will accept responsibility if there was extensive travel and I was not aware of it. I will account for what has happened in the period since I have been there, 2006 to 2008, but there is a story in respect of what happened in the years prior to that which is now in the public domain. As the previous director general said, it will require a look-back at each of the years to determine why that was the case.

We have details of foreign travel between 2003 and 2007. That is the period about which I am talking. It is not as if it stopped when the current board was appointed.

Mr. Peter McLoone

I did not say it stopped when the current board was appointed. I did not suggest that.

The frequency of the trips is extraordinary. I find it hard to accept the board was unaware of it. Was it the case that it was aware but that it turned a blind eye to it? Such standards in a public body are not acceptable.

Mr. Peter McLoone

The board did not have any discussion about foreign travel. That is the answer I gave to Deputy McCormack. We did not look at it. Obviously, that does not imply that we had an awareness of it and turned a blind eye to it. We did not look at the analysis we are discussing.

I have a final question on the competency development programme. I have said I find it difficult to understand why at a time when the economy was booming the taxpayer was shovelling tens of millions of euro into private companies for training. There does not seem to be any justification for that. The committee has details on the breakdown of the programme in 2007 when €42 million was spent. What controls are in place to assure people, to guarantee that this is not a slush fund and that proper procedures are in place to ensure transparency in the decisions taken on allocating moneys from the fund?

Mr. Christy Cooney

I will ask my colleague, Mr. Denis Rowan, to answer the Deputy's question because he is fully familiar with the management of the programme and was involved in great detail in setting it up.

Mr. Denis Rowan

I will take the committee through a few things. I know members have this information but 45,000 people trained last year from 11,000 employers.

I asked specifically what controls are in place to ensure the programme is not a slush fund.

Mr. Denis Rowan

Clear and detailed tendering rules apply, which our staff must go through. I have gone through it all in the last day or two and I am quite clear that our staff have complied with all the rules.

It might be helpful if Mr. Rowan were to give a little background information. How many people went through the training programmes?

Mr. Denis Rowan

Some 45,000 people from 11,000 employers were trained last year, 390 trainers were used and the cost of the programme was approximately €42 million. There is a tendering process——

Will Mr. Rowan outline the controls in place to ensure the money is allocated in a transparent manner?

Mr. Denis Rowan

There are detailed tendering rules which staff are aware of. I have checked it and——

Who ultimately decides?

Mr. Denis Rowan

It depends on the line function. There are levels of spending at which people can sign off.

Will Mr. Rowan provide the committee with a brief note on this in the next few days? We may return to the issue at the next meeting.

A Witness

Yes, the information will be forwarded.

The meeting will conclude following Deputy Broughan's contribution unless others wish to speak.

I was the Labour Party's spokesperson on enterprise, trade and employment when Mr. Molloy assumed the role of Director General at FÁS and recall meeting him at that time. On the issue of travel, at that time the large agencies in the Department, such as FÁS, the IDA and Enterprise Ireland, were under Forfás. Enterprise Ireland was interesting because its job was to promote indigenous Irish industry in locations abroad. On FÁS projects in Orlando and Canada and so forth, was any effort made to work with the IDA or Enterprise Ireland or enrol them, as it were, in supervising or invigilating such projects? The committee may at some point examine the foreign travel of these organisations, although foreign travel is part of their job.

Mr. Rody Molloy

The answer is "Yes". We worked closely with both Enterprise Ireland and the IDA. For example, we had an arrangement in, I believe, Japan, where we used the Enterprise Ireland person there to promote our overseas graduate programme where we placed graduates in Japanese companies to get experience of working in the Far East. We went through the details of the programme with Enterprise Ireland and the IDA. In terms of science challenge, for example, somebody from the IDA has been closely involved with that programme. Clearly, as we involve companies as well as universities in the programme, there is an interest for the IDA. For example, on our board for the science challenge we have senior people from Wyeth, a major employer here, and somebody from Merck, which is also a major employer here.

Was consideration given to subcontracting Enterprise Ireland to do all the foreign training?

Mr. Rody Molloy

No, that did not come up because Enterprise Ireland would say its own people were fully active carrying out their activities. We tried to use that where we could to assist us so that we did not have to place people in situations. There is a very close working relationship between the three agencies. As I stepped down as director general of FÁS, I also stepped down as a director of Forfás. The heads of the other two agencies are also directors of Forfás. There was interaction at that level and right throughout the organisation. That would have been amply demonstrated, for example, in major redundancy cases where FÁS, Enterprise Ireland and, where appropriate, the IDA, went into companies together to try to develop a response to assist people who were about to be made redundant.

Perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor General may consider this issue in his final report. The committee's final report will focus on the chain of command. Mr. Gerry Pyke has not come before the committee. It is still unclear when Mr. Molloy first became aware, or was made aware through Mr. Pyke, of the activities of Mr. Craig. Was Mr. Pyke paid any bonuses in Mr. Molloy's period of administration?

Mr. Rody Molloy

He was paid some bonuses during my period, as was each of the assistant directors general under the normal scheme operated by the Department of Finance for heads of agencies and assistant directors general who come in similar to the assistant secretary bonus scheme in Departments.

Did Mr. Molloy evaluate that? Did it not encourage him to look more deeply at Mr. Pyke's areas of responsibility to ascertain how his people, including Mr. Craig, were delivering?

Mr. Rody Molloy

The scheme has been made available to the committee from earlier discussions we had. Essentially there was an agreement with each assistant director general under our targets for the year and what they were expected to achieve in their areas of responsibility. If they met those targets, they got paid a bonus and if they exceeded them, they got something extra. There was an overall figure within which we had to operate. It was not just——

The committee dealt with bonuses and how they were appraised at our meeting of 2 October.

I raised a specific point.

We may seek that information separately. I ask Mr. Buckley to make his closing remarks.

Mr. John Buckley

To reflect on the hearings to date and where we go from here, at this juncture the engagement with FÁS management has been substantially completed. I know there may be other hearings with Mr. Craig and so on. However, to put the matter in building construction terms, there is substantial completion at this stage. What I have to move on to do now is set the terms of reference for my study. I emphasise, in case there is any misrepresentation of my role, that as an independent constitutional officer, I will set those terms myself. However, this does not mean I will operate in splendid isolation from the Department, which has a supervisory responsibility, and the committee, which has the right to suggest matters I should take up.

I will give a broad indication of where the study might lead. Having taken the committee's views into account, I will examine broadly the area of internal control in FÁS, which will extend particularly to the organisation's corporate affairs, procurement and finance divisions. I wish to clarify one issue which arose in the course of today's hearing in the sense that the Accounting Officer of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment signalled that a wider examination than that which would involve the corporate affairs division was warranted. It was not the case that the Department was asking for a limited investigation. I wanted to clarify that. I have not yet engaged with the Department on the detail.

As well as internal control, I will look at governance arrangements, including how the governing organs of FÁS ensure there is both conformance with public norms and how it manages the achievement of its goals. I will also look at the Department oversight arrangements, including arrangements for performance reporting, compliance with the code of practice and the specification of service levels.

I will then obviously deal with specific follow-up matters which have been raised in the course of these hearings which I will go through with the committee in private session. I will specifically look at the arrangements for marketing and advertising, and I will also look at how breaches in procedures are investigated and dealt with, and whether there might be lessons to be learned about how this is done. In general the focus of the report will be on lessons that might be learned.

I thought it would be useful to give that broad indication of where we are going. However, the detail obviously will have to be filled in over the next two weeks.

Mr. Christy Cooney

We welcome the course of action the Comptroller and Auditor General wishes to take and will be fully supportive in making everything he requires available in that course of action.

I thank the comptroller, members and witnesses for the meeting. The committee will assess the information which has been brought forward today and will meet in private session early in the week. Through the clerk and the secretariat, we will be back in contact to see if there is a requirement for further meetings or to assess where we go from here.

Mr. Christy Cooney

We would ask that, as normal, the clerk would make contact with us to clarify the further information which the committee requires following today's meeting.

That will be done.

Mr. Christy Cooney

In the absence of the Chairman, I thank the committee for its courtesy. We fully respect and understand within the organisation that the committee has a job to do and it has been our intention at all times to co-operate fully with the committee and give whatever information we can to help the process to proceed and to be finalised. We thank the committee most sincerely for its courtesy to us at all times.

Mr. Rody Molloy

For my part I echo what Mr. Cooney has said. I regret the misunderstanding over last week. It was a misunderstanding. Notwithstanding that I have resigned as director general of FÁS, I am available to Mr. Buckley or any of his officers if they so desire in the context of his investigation.

The witnesses withdrew.

The committee adjourned at 2.15 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 11 December 2008.
Top