Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

There was an investigation by the Standards in Public Office Commission into this matter and a report has been published. The origination of it was actually in the audit of the Family Support Agency for 2012. We discovered that a director of the Family Support Agency had been claiming for attendance at the meetings, but the individual was also employed by a family resource centre in Waterford and was claiming there for attendance at the same meetings. That created at difficulty. The audit found that. We brought it to the attention of the Family Support Agency. In the audit certificates for 2012 and 2013 for the Family Support Agency, I drew attention to the fact that there was a difficulty there and that the matter was being pursued by the Family Support Agency.

I cannot comment on the individual or on anything to do with the individual, but I think the point raised by the Deputy relates to the agency and the governance of the agency. The report produced by the commission on the matter does point out that the Family Support Agency reported the matter to An Garda Síochána, but An Garda Síochána reported back to say that it cannot proceed because it did not receive a complaint. Similarly, when the matter was brought to the attention of the Standards in Public Office Commission, it was reported that there had been a double claiming but it did not name the individual. Therefore, it did not constitute a complaint that the commission could act on per se. The commission did pursue it with the agency, got the details and carried out an investigation subsequently. I believe it does point up the difference between reporting something to an investigatory body and making a complaint to an investigatory body. As it stands, the agency's last stated position on the matter was that it was satisfied that the moneys were appropriately paid to the individual. As auditor of that agency, I do not take the same view.