The committee is being assisted by the solicitor from the Office of the Parliamentary-----

Do we not need to take a first decision to note that it is in public?

I beg your pardon?

Do we need to say there is agreement that this is a public session?

It is in public session, yes. A quorum of the committee is present so we can now proceed. The committee is being assisted by the solicitor for the office of the parliamentary legal adviser, Sinead O'Brien. The Clerk of the Seanad, in accordance with section 8 of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, as amended, referred complaints from Mr. John Mulligan and Mr. Patrick Hurley to the committee. These complaints make certain allegations and I will ask the clerk to the committee, Ms Jody Blake, to read those letters into the record.

Complaint made by Mr. John Mulligan dated the 31st of May 2010:

Ms Deirdre Lane, Clerk of Seanad Eireann, Leinster House, Dublin 2.

Re: Senator Ivor Callely, expenses claims.

Dear Ms Lane,

I refer to the article published in yesterday's Sunday independent (attached), concerning the expenses claims made by Senator Ivor Callely.

The article suggests that the Senator has made claims for expenses based on his being domiciled in Cork and not in Clontarf in Dublin. It appears from the article that the Senator filled out the "home details and allowance" form with information showing his domicile as being in Cork. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that Senator Callely lives in Clontarf in North Dublin, and that his Cork address is simply a holiday home. However, I am sure that analysis of his home telephone account and utilities usage will establish the veracity of this.

From the information contained in the Sunday Independent article, I want to make a formal complaint under section 8 of the Ethics in Public Office Bill 1995 in respect of Senator Callely's expenses claims. I am sending you this complaint in e-mail format but I am also posting you a hard copy, given that the Act specifically states that any such complaint shall be in writing. While an e-mail does constitute a written complaint, I am also sending the hard copy in case of any other interpretation of the Act.

I would ask you to treat this complaint with the seriousness with which I take it. I have no issue with the Senator's politics, I simply feel that his actions in this instance reflect badly on all politicians and undermine public confidence in the political system. I believe that his apparent subterfuge of claiming to live in Cork is a blatant attempt to maximise his personal enrichment from the political process and shows utter contempt for taxpayers and citizens. In this context, I would respectfully request that you process this complaint and let me know of any outcome by e-mail to this e-mail address.

In the event that the newspaper article is incorrect and that the Senator has indeed relocated permanently to Cork, I offer my apologies for wasting your time on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

John Mulligan.

The second complaint is by Mr. Patrick Hurley, dated the 2nd of June:

Dear Ms Lane,

Below, is the content of a letter that I have sent to you by post today.

IVOR CALLELY, Senator - DUBLIN NORTH CENTRAL

Dear Sirs:

I wish to lodge a complaint under Section 8 of the Ethics Act 1995 as amended by the Standards in Public Office Act 2001.

Senator Callely has recovered expenses from the Irish taxpayer based on an erroneous claim that he lives in County Cork. This is a falsehood on two counts. They are:

1. Senator Callely states on his website that he lives in Dublin. I attach evidence of this. He notes inter alia that he is educated and continues to live in Dublin North Central.

2. On the Oireachtas website, it gives Mr. Callely's address as Dublin. The address being "Landsdale House" 7 St. Lawrence Road Clontarf, Dublin 3.

I request the matter be reviewed and the appropriate action be taken against Senator Callely.

Yours sincerely,

Patrick Hurley 'Acadia', Rathmichael Dales, Rathmichael Dublin 18.

Senator Callely has been provided with a copy of these complaints. The committee also received a statement from Senator Callely dated the 2nd of June 2010. The committee met on the 3rd of June 2010 and decided there was sufficient evidence to sustain a complaint under the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, as amended, and decided they would conduct an investigation. Thereafter, the committee sought general information with regard to the parliamentary allowance system. The committee also has before it the information that was released on foot of a freedom of information request that was made by the Sunday Independent. All of the materials that are before the committee have been provided to Senator Callely. The two complainants were informed that the committee would investigate their complaints and were informed of this meeting and were unable to attend.

The committee met on the 17th of June 2010 and in accordance with the Acts agreed the procedures they would adopt in relation to conducting this investigation. These agreed procedures have been provided to the complainants and to Senator Callely. As required by the Acts the committee also agreed a statement of contravention of the Acts. This statement of contravention has been provided to Senator Callely. I will ask the clerk of the committee to read the statement of contravention into the record.

Statement of Contravention: Two complaints from members of the public have been referred to the Committee of Members' Interests of Seanad Éireann under the provisions of section 8 of the Ethics in Public Office 1995, as amended by the Standards in Public Office Act 2001, the Acts.

The two complaints relate to allegations that Senator Callely misrepresented his normal place of residence for the purpose of making claims for allowances. The allegations are such that they may give rise to a contravention under the Acts if it is determined that the act or omission complained of, or the circumstances of which, is a specified act within the meaning of section 4 of the Standards in Public Office 2001, and is determined to be inconsistent with the proper performance by a Member of the functions of the Office of Member or with the maintenance of confidence in such performance by the general public, and the matter is one of significant public importance.

Senator Callely has been invited to attend before the committee today. I will call on Senator Callely to read out the statement he submitted to the committee on 2 June and when he is finished reading it out, he may, if we wishes, elaborate or add to it. After that, the members of the committee will put questions to Senator Callely.

Our procedures state that all evidence given before the committee will be given under oath. I now call upon Senator Callely to take the oath or to affirm. The clerk will provide the wording of the oath and the affirmation to you, and a copy of the Bible, if necessary.

Senator Callely can now proceed to read out the statement that he submitted to the committee on 2 June 2010.

Thank you very much, Chairman.

Arising from the presentation of a Sunday newspaper article, there has been considerable speculation about my expenses. Since my nomination to Seanad Éireann I have been open and transparent with my expenses and communication with the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Contrary to public perception, I am not currently in receipt of subsistence and travel from Cork. I was residing in my Cork residence in 2007, part of 2008 and periods of 2009, and continue to do so. I did attempt to change my chosen option for subsistence and travel allowance for attendance in Leinster House but was unable to do so.

I now put the most relevant parts in chronological order and will fully co-operate with the select committee. It is my intention to wholesomely address and respond to all matters.

On 24 May 2007 I lost the seat I held in Dublin North-Central for 18 years. This had an immediate and devastating effect on my social, domestic and personal life. It had been a long and difficult campaign as the constituency had been reduced to a three-seater and for that period I resided mainly in my Clontarf home.

Once the formal matters were attended to, I had then to attend to a difficult campaign - the Seanad election campaign. For a significant period my home and my base was Kilcrohane, west Cork. I found that residence, with the well-known warmth and sense of community, to be a great source of assistance to me at that time.

I continued to reside in Kilcrohane after I was unsuccessful in the Seanad race and for the period June onwards, it was my normal place of residence, so much so that when I was appointed to Seanad Éireann on the Taoiseach's nomination on 2 August 2007, I was resident there and this is reflected in my letter of appointment, which I have already supplied - see Document 1.

Following my appointment to the Seanad, I maintained myself in west Cork. I decided to remain in west Cork, commute to Dublin to fulfil my duties in the Seanad, retain my home in Clontarf and maintain my constituency office in Dublin North-Central.

In December 2007, I informed the Members' services that while I retain my Dublin residence and my constituency office, my principal residence is Kilcrohane as per my letter of appointment to Seanad Éireann, which I have supplied - see Document 2. In completing forms for the Oireachtas, I advised them that this was my address and the forms were processed in the normal way by independent officers of the public service doing their job in a professional manner, and payments were made on that basis.

On 2 October 2008, I was advised in very clear terms by the Members' services to confirm my normal place of residence and the officer helpfully defined it as per section 4(1)(c) of the Oireachtas (Allowance to Members) Act 1938. I confirmed this on correspondence of the same date, in stating that Kilcrohane was my normal place of residence for the time being though not necessarily my permanent and principal abode at all times. I replied honestly and properly, and this reflected my personal, domestic and social circumstances which existed from June 2007 to that date, and I have supplied that in Documents 3 and 4.

During the period of late 2008 and 2009, I began to spend more time in my home in Clontarf. This was due to the change in personal and domestic circumstances. I also answered the Taoiseach's call to Fianna Fáil Oireachtas Members to put the shoulder to the wheel in relation to the second Lisbon referendum, and because of the local and European election campaign in 2009.

Accordingly, in 2009, I reflected on what was my normal place of residence. I contacted the Members' services to reconsider the position as to the expense regime. I was advised by a member of the Members' services section that section 5 of SI 101 of 1998 states that a Member whose normal place of residence is more than 15 miles from Leinster House may opt for the daily allowance of travel and overnight allowance once, and once only, within a normal calendar year - see Document 5.

I acknowledged this situation in a response by e-mail, which I have supplied in Document 6, dated 7 October 2009, and noted that the Minister for Finance was considering amendments and/or a new scheme for expenses. I was optimistic that whether amendments to the old regime or a new system was introduced, it would reflect Members' circumstances and travel, such as in my case travel between my residence in Cork and my home in Clontarf and my constituency office in Killester.

On 16 December 2009, I wrote to the Members' services section. I advised them that in order to reflect the travel between my Kilcrohane and Dublin abode, and the expenses incurred, I wished to indicate that my claim up to August 2008 was my last claim for 2008. I was claiming for eight months only in 2008 and do not intend to claim for September, October, November and December as I feel this best reflects my particular situation - see Document 7.

I honestly feel that this was a fair way of dealing with the anomaly in the old expenses regime, which was inflexible for those who may find themselves with a normal place of residence separate from their family home. The complexity of such situations was not reflected in the statutory instrument or in the administrative scheme pursuant to it.

When the new expense system and allowance did come into effect in March of 2010, I was disappointed that, while the new scheme was a vast improvement, it could only still reflect one address. I immediately returned the full allowance cheque I received from March 2010 - see Document 8. This is, of course, before this whole issue came into the public domain - all of these actions.

On 31 May, I received the standard personal representative allowance of €1,250 for the months of March, April and May 2010, which I have not cashed and retained on file, as I am determined to try and come to resolution and resolve this issue.

The chronological order of these events do not lend themselves to a personal statement on the floor of the Seanad, and I feel that a hearing before this body was required in order that I could attach relevant correspondence and endeavour to satisfactorily respond to any other matters at the committee.

I am very grateful, Chairman and members, for the opportunity to clarify the situation and confirm that I will comply with any directions this committee gives.

If the Senator wishes to make any further statement or elaborate on that, feel free to do so now.

Thank you, Chairman. I am here to co-operate with you and your committee as best I can. I do not intend to put up a fighting defence of my expenses but I will present the facts. The media coverage did not accurately present the facts and I am happy to correct that position.

It is important to point out that the matter under investigation is the old expense system and I understand that I complied with the regulations of that scheme. I am currently not in receipt of expenses from my residence in west Cork and duly returned moneys that I received under the new expense system introduce on 1 March last.

It might be fair to just give you a flavour of some background. I entered the political arena in the early 1980s, developed a political base in the toughly guarded constituency of Dublin North-Central, ran and was elected in the 1985 local elections, ran as a general election candidate in 1987, and was elected in the general election of 1989 and every subsequent election up to 2007. I covered a lot of ground. I did a lot of good work. I was hugely, hugely committed to the constituency of Dublin North-Central. I worked hard and long hours, including Saturday and Sundays. When I was Minister of State, a matter arose surrounding some work I had done in my home. Without bringing this all up again, as far as I am concerned, I was hung for a non-hanging offence in December '05, and left me with no option but to resign as Minister of State. The months that followed did not help my re-election campaign or prospects. I lost my seat in May 2007 and this had a significant impact on me, my family and my political career. Unfortunately, at that time the economy was also taking a nose-dive. The global financial difficulties were hitting us like a tsunami. I felt I needed to spend time away from the constituency to reflect on my political career and consider what options were left to me at that late stage of my career. I might add that I believe many people can relate to the position I found myself in, as there are many others who have lost their jobs, lost their life's ambition and suffered the consequences.

I always have spent a great deal of time in west Cork; always have received a very warm welcome and I feel this was the right place for me to deal with the ongoing trauma I was experiencing. Following the loss of my seat I resided in west Cork and where I continue to spend significant periods of length in my home as a residence. For the purpose of clarity, my home in west Cork was initially intended as a holiday home and indeed used over the past 20 years - there or thereabouts. However, as a result of personal circumstances, this no longer was to be the case. I did not make this public knowledge on the basis that I wanted to protect my family and related personal issues. In hindsight, perhaps this is a matter I should have handled differently and I apologise for that. You've all have families and I am sure you can understand the reasons in this regard.

As you can see from the statement I supplied, I was appointed by the Taoiseach to Seanad Éireann from my residence in west Cork in August 2007 on the official documentation and whatever else is officially recorded throughout Government Buildings and the Houses of the Oireachtas - I would not be privy to that, but I presume it is all ... whatever.

Following my appointment, I maintained myself in my family's west Cork residence, and retained my home in Clontarf and maintained my constituency office in Killester. I have been open and honest in this regard and continually informed the Houses of the Oireachtas of my circumstances. You'll note from my statement that I put this on record in December '07, October '08, December '09 and April 2010. I believe the old expense system contained options which led to a number of anomalies which were inflexible for those who may, as I said earlier, find themselves with a normal place of residence for periods throughout their membership of the Oireachtas separate from their family home. I tried to have my circumstances reflected in my expenses or be vouched, but that was not possible. I sought clarity on the term "normal place of residence" and my residence in west Cork accurately reflected that clarification.

Around May 2009, I made an inquiry with Members' services, which I again refer to in my statement, to change details of my normal place of residence and I received a response to advise that I could not change my travel and subsistence option for 2009 'til 2010. Indeed, they pointed out that they had no discretion, that it was clearly covered under the regulations.

In order to reflect my time in Dublin - because I do spend some time in Dublin - and the anomaly of restricted options in the old expense system in 2009, I made no claim for any travel or subsistence in October, November and December. and in 2008 I made no claim for travel and subsistence in September, October, November and December. The new expense and allowance system which came into effect on 1 March 2010 is also restricted in options, and I was of the view that this would address my situation, but when it did not and when I received the March expense cheque, which was based on my west Cork residence, I returned the payment in full. So I did not draw down a full 12-month claim in 2008 and 2009. I returned the March 2010 expenses. I have requested that matters relating to my expenses be parked. I have retained on file and not lodged the cheques that I have received for ... I think it is ... March, April ... yes, for March, April and May 2010, I have retained the cheques on file as I wish to have all these matters resolved. This has all been done before this issue came into the public domain.

All I can say - and I am very happy to answer any questions people may have - is that ... I believe I have taken every reasonable action available to me and I have taken it at every possible level, including the highest level available to me, by initially working through the Houses of the Oireachtas, by making contact with other people who would have had influence in relation to the various schemes. I think you will find that in looking at the facts I have been very open, honest and I have taken every reasonable action to try and have the matter corrected. I will say that while we are all accountable for our public actions and the mere fact that we choose to serve the general public as public representatives, I do believe our private lives also come under scrutiny. This, however, does not mean that we are answerable to the people for what are private and personal matters. But I am very happy to put all other issues relating to my expenses, as I have done so and I will be as helpful as I possibly can to the committee in your deliberations and I look forward to working with you.

Thank you very much, Senator Callely. Questions by committee members will now follow. I shall take them in the order they indicated starting with Senator O'Toole.

Thank you very much, a Chathaoirligh. I would just like to note at the beginning to Senator Callely that we recognise that this is a pretty stressful occasion. It is not our intention to make that any more difficult, but it is our obligation to get to the basis of this. I also should put on the record that Senator Callely responded to an invitation to be here and co-operated without being directed to do so. It is important to note that in what he said here this morning, he has apologised for any difficulty this might have created. I think that goes to the core. I ask Senator Callely if he would understand this, that what we are looking at here is really to recognise that there is a question of public confidence as well as the private issue. The question of where Senator Callely travelled from to the House and the private reasons for that are not the business of this committee and we do not need to go into that in the sense of the private aspects of his life and so on.

However, I would just ask Senator Callely if he is aware of the fact that under the Act, we are required to establish, first of all whether there was contravention. It seems to me that in the sense that you made it clear that whereas you tried to comply with the regulation you felt you did not comply with the regulation. Now, you said the regulation is too difficult to comply with, but that is your view on it. However, we have to determine, first of all, whether there was a contravention and secondly whether that contravention was inadvertent, whether it was negligent, whether it was reckless or whether it was intentional. These issues are important. For us then we have to look at the public issue on this. The difficulty for us - and this is my first question to Senator Callely - is that on your website, you say you were educated and continue to live in Dublin North-Central. You go on to say that you were working hard in your constituency and in regular contact with walkabouts and everything else. Can you recognise the problem that creates in terms of public credibility for us, for the House, and that it is an untenable situation for us? That would be the first question.

The second issue is in terms of the address. Yes, it is correct that you stated about your address at the time of your appointment by the Taoiseach that it was west Cork but the official address you gave to the House for your Oireachtas correspondence was the Clontarf address. So in fact at that time you gave two addresses; you gave one address to the one-stop shop for the purposes of expenses and another to the Seanad office for the purpose of correspondence. Do you recognise that it immediately puts us in an untenable and impossible situation in terms of finding out where you are? That would be the second question.

The third question that I would put to you is did you pay a second home tax last year and on which home did you pay it? In other words, as you will recognise, that defines the whole question and makes you decide legally which was the principal residence, as the principal residence is exempt. I suppose the final question at this time, although I have some questions on your statement as well, is where in fact are you registered to vote? We are politicians here, all of us, and we recognise the law of the land states that one should be registered to vote in the constituency in which one is normally resident. On which electoral register are you? I suppose those are my questions to begin with, at the time we are talking about. I will come back on other issues afterwards.

There are other members wishing to ask questions, Senator Callely, so I will take them.

Thank you Chairman. There is booklet of documentation that was obtained under freedom of information - you know that booklet that we were all given. The the Chairman mentioned it at the start. Do you have that to hand?

I am not sure which booklet you are talking about.

It is a booklet which I think was obtained by the press, which perhaps led to this matter being dealt with publicly. I will just make sure you have a copy of the booklet, because the last-----

That is the freedom of information that was sought and got by the Sunday Independent.

That is right, Chairman. You referred to it at the outset.

I presume-----

I think Senator Callely has it but I want him to have it in front of him when I ask him about it. The Senator should look at the very last page. It is a letter to you from Ms Scott here in Leinster House. It asks you towards the end of the letter to confirm - this is current; this is April of this year ... "I would be obliged therefore if you could inform me where your normal place of residence is in order to facilitate your appropriate entitlement" and so on and so forth. The office is asking you now - or at least last month - what your current normal place of residence is. Can I ask you if you have responded to that letter and if so, what address have you given as your normal place of residence now? That is the first question.

The second question I have for you, Senator Callely, if you do not mind is that you mentioned that you returned cheques and that you did not pursue a claim in relation to the last few months of 2008, and that you have also returned cheques in respect of this year of 2010. Is that right? Or, you have retained cheques.

Not quite, not quite ... but ask your question.

Okay. You indicated that your claim for August 2008 was to be your last claim for 2008.

I didn't say that, actually Alex, or Senator White, I put in .... When I informed them of that-----

Let me just finish the question. The documentation makes it clear that you-----

I think what I might do is that I will allow maybe two people to put questions and then he might reply to your questions and then I will take two more.

Yes. That might be more helpful.

To be fair to the Senator; if we put too many questions we might not get back to the replies we want.

Yes. Will I proceed?

You can proceed and then I will ask the Senator to reply to both Senators.

You know the point I make in relation to 2008. You indicated at one stage that that was to be your last claim for 2008, August 2008. Is that not right? But, you did not point out to us earlier that of course you resumed making payments in 2009. Sorry, I meant making claims for 2009 in respect of west Cork.

The question I want to ask is this. You say that you chose to cease making claims in relation to it in August 2008, then resumed again in 2009 and then stopped at some stage in 2009. I suppose I want you to indicate, if you would not mind, the periods when you say the home in west Cork was your normal place of residence. You say it began to be so in June 2007. You appear to be saying that it ceased being so in August 2008, resumed being so again for a period in 2009 and ceased again. I just want you to give us the dates when you say the home in west Cork was your normal place of residence.

I suppose it flows from that, Senator Callely, in relation to the non-claims. I have other questions as well but I think in deference to what the Chairman said, I will come back later. I will just ask one final question because it relates to this line of questioning. Why did you in fact send back cheques for late 2008? Why have you not cashed the cheques that you are properly entitled to in respect of expenses for 2010? Why?

Senator Callely, do you wish to reply to the questions raised by Senator O'Toole and White? We will then take Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Boyle.

Senator O'Toole, you asked some very relevant questions. First, I suppose, on the web, one can probably understand why I would want to create an image of still being as committed and as involved in Dublin North-Central from a political perspective there. Equally, I reside at 7 St. Lawrence's Road when in Dublin. So I do live in 7 St. Lawrence's Road, Clontarf, when in Dublin.

Can you understand how hard it is to explain that to ordinary people out there?

Of course I can.

Okay.

I understand your point as well. But, I want to be straight and fair and honest here. Indeed, we know even that there has been some entertainment about this on some of the media programmes, because I am visible when I'm in Dublin. I do not hide myself. I make myself clearly visible when I am around ... and again, maybe most politicians do that in their constituency. I shop in my local independent grocer, Nolan's on Vernon Avenue. I would be seen in the local gym or walking my dog on the promenade.

Was that the case also during the material period we are talking about '07 and '08, when you were making claims for Cork?

Not necessarily. Maybe when I am in Dublin, yes. Can I also say there was an invasion of the small quaint village in which I reside in west Cork. A number of journalists, seemingly, did not want to hear any good news on me; they only wanted to hear what was bad news. One German, who was about the only person who was prepared to talk to them, said the only time I see Mr. Callely is when he's out walking his dog. They asked him when was that and he said nearly every morning, but I'm not out nearly every morning. That was a German who was residing there. So I am seen in west Cork walking my dog as well. But to go back to Senator O'Toole's point - registered to vote. I am registered to vote, as far as I know from the last check on the register, was for Clontarf, which is as it has always been, and-----

You recognise that is a statement that your normal place of residence is Clontarf.

Well, I suppose, the other issue would depend on when an election is coming as we all know. We are then able to register where we want to vote.

No, no, that is not-----

But, I accept your point.

There is no doubt about this point.

Did you change that at any stage?

No, never. I suppose another issue that you have asked which is a very relevant issue which I wasn't going to bring up, but I did ... I was aware that it may have been brought up, and that is the non-principal residence. Yes, I have paid a tax for a non-principal residence or a second home.

On which house?

It is addressed to Ivor Callely, The Paddock, Kilcrohane, Cork, and it is paid on 7 St. Lawrence's Road, Clontarf.

Sorry?

I paid it from-----

You do not pay it on your principal residence. You do not pay that extra. It is a second home tax.

Yes.

You only pay it on one home.

That is correct.

The home you pay it on is the one which is not your principal residence.

I have paid it on St. Lawrence's Road.

Can we have that document?

I will see. What we will do is that we will get that later. I will take the initial run of questions from members.

Just to clarify, since it is relevant to this point, that he is referring to a document which is relevant. I am simply asking him can we have the document. Can we have it copied now?

Yes. He has stated it there, so it will be made available.

I have other questions to answer that Senator White has asked. The April 2010 letter - and I suppose I should apologise. I did not respond to the 14th April 2010 letter, but I think you might also appreciate all of us have other things in our life to be doing other than responding to ... there is a lot of people available in one particular office to send us memos and letters, but other things sometimes take priority, so I had it on my file - I have that letter- and in fairness to the very efficient officer, a further letter was issued on 24th May and on 26th May, recognising that I should have answered the earlier letter ... I referred to communication of the 24th:

I regret any admin. difficulties that I have caused. It is not my intention. The residence from which I received my appointment to Seanad Éireann is Kilcrohane, Bantry, County Cork, which is my residence for the time being, although not necessarily my permanent and principal abode at all times. For personal, domestic and family reasons, I also reside in my Dublin abode.

I again thank you and the One Stop Shop for your assistance with this matter.

That letter is dated 26th May, as I said.

You asked why did I return cheques in 2008 and resume in 2009. I didn't return cheques in 2008. I indicated that I would not be making a further expense claim in 2008 and I did not make an expense claim after August, so I didn't receive an expense. Again, just to be clear so I won't be seen not to give this information, if I remember correctly, I was asked by the officer in the One Stop Shop to complete a claim form and ... that I could complete it with "Nil", which I did.

Yes, but why? If Cork continued to be your normal place of residence, why did you not claim?

Because I started to spend a little more time in Dublin. From the file that you have and from what I've submitted, you will see that I was somewhat uncomfortable about receiving full claims from Cork when I was spending some time in Dublin and that's why I chose to do that - again, in a reasonable action, I thought, by me - not to claim from Cork when in the latter part of '08 and periods of 2009 I was spending some more time in Dublin, and I hadn't got a choice on this - I could not change the option.

The answer to your question in relation to dates ... the dates that I would spend time in Cork would be in line with the referral on my expenses. They would've reflected that.

Why send back the cheque? As I said, Senator White, throughout 2009 I was - and I think we all might have had discussions about this in our parliamentary parties and I know Members were discussing it that there was going to be an amendment to the existing expense regime - by the latter part of 2009 I think it was clear that it wasn't going to be an amendment, it was going to be a new scheme. In my discussions with people, both at parliamentary party level ... the Minister for Finance ... the people serving on the Commission on the Fianna Fáil side, I was optimistic that the new scheme would accommodate a different number of regulations that would accommodate the situation that I found myself in.

Could we-----

And-----

Sorry.

When that did not come about ... I think the new scheme, if I remember correctly, is an automatic payments system that you give the option at the start and now the cheque comes every month and I just didn't want to receive monthly cheques because of what I had done in 2008 and 2009-----

But why? Could you not just claim from one or other of them once you decide where it is?

I do commute and it is my intention to be in Bantry later on today, so I do, but, again, I suppose I was also conscious of the political perception and I wanted to try and reflect, as best I could in my own way ... and that is why, when the cheque came in March of ... sorry, it came in April, the second day of April, I think, we got them ... but the March expense system ... I didn't want to continue to receive moneys on that basis. I got a very detailed letter, by the way, from the Members services section in relation to the public representative allowance aspect and I understand that that is totally separate.

That is not relevant to this at all.

I know, but it is my way of dealing with things, I just want to try and find resolution. I've taken this to the highest level. I've also sought a meeting with the Taoiseach on the matter to try and get this resolved, just to try and put this to bed. That is why I did what I did. Thank you, Chairman.

Other people indicated. Senator Francis Fitzgerald is next, then Senator O'Donovan and Senator Boyle. Perhaps we can come back again with questions. If the Senator did not get the opportunity to answer questions, you can come back on them again.

I would like to get some more clarity on some of the points that you make in your statement and what you've told us here today. Why didn't you, if you were spending more time in Dublin in 2008, 2009 and 2010 ... why didn't you change your place of residence with the officials for 2009 and 2010?

You might just take two and then I will take the others. Senator O'Donovan.

Thank you, Chairman. One thing that is troubling me, Senator Callely, is that there has been, looking at the media, the various speculation about whether it is €60,000 or €80,000 or €160,000 ... there are all sorts of ... have you quantified precisely the charge against you to the exact euro ... how much it's alleged against you that you have over-claimed? Has that information been put to you from the Oireachtas Members services or as we call it the One Stop Shop? I think it's critical to this inquiry that we know ... there is a serious allegation put before you, Senator Callely ... that we know exactly the quantum because there's a lot of confusion in my mind that there was ... if I am correct in this ... that in '08 and '09, for four months in each of those years, you didn't claim and that you also have cheques on your file - I believe three - that you haven't cashed. I would like, as a precise method ... if you do not have the answers, maybe it is the duty of this committee, Chairman, with all respect, to ascertain precisely what the charge is against you because if it was the case you were brought before any court or tribunal and you were alleged to have fraudulently taken €100,000, there would be accuracy in that charge. I am concerned that we are dealing somewhat with a blank cheque. All I know is all the rumours that are spreading. I certainly would like to know precise details. If you don't have them, Senator Callely, I am not demanding that you do have them, maybe it is the duty of this committee to find out and ascertain precisely what is the debt.

Also on that point, Chairman - I have other questions - if there is veracity in the argument that you've over-claimed, what is, say, the amount of claims from Kilcrohane versus what he should have been entitled to claim from Dublin, in other words, the net amount? I would like to know the net amount of the charge against you and if you have the figures, I would like you to give it to the committee members here. I think that's important, too.

You say in your statement as well that you had concerns about the interpretation of Statutory Instrument 101 of 98 regarding ... about the method of claiming. I think there's a question of the interpretation of private residence. Maybe you could elaborate on that again because it seems confusing to me from the information we have got as to what precisely ... I just want to get the precise ... just to be precise in this, under section 4(1)(c) of the Oireachtas (Allowance to Members) Act 1938 which is a long time ago, the terminology of normal place of residence has been defined by the Department of Finance in previous correspondence with you as - I am quoting - “what is involved is a premises which, though not necessarily one’s permanent and principal abode, is used for a period which is both of some length and for a purpose which is not an ad hoc and goes beyond mere shelter in passage, such as a few nights in a hotel”. This, again, caused confusion. I didn’t realise until I studied this that the regulation and the Act and the Finance interpretation is so vague. I am just wondering, Senator Callely, has this caused you confusion in your ability to respond to this committee? I have other questions, but I will leave it.

Senator Callely, we seem to have some things in common. I, too, failed to retain my Dáil seat in 2007 and the circumstances you describe and allude to are something I empathise with. I certainly recognise the circumstances. I do not recognise the response, and there is a lot of uncertainty that committee members have already asked about in the form of questions.

I would like to ask you two sets of questions. One would be about your appointment to the Seanad, something again which I share, and your experience of use and ownership of the house in Kilcrohane over the years preceding this.

In regard to your appointment, prior to getting the letter of appointment did you receive a phone call from the Taoiseach's office and, subsequently, a direct call from the Taoiseach himself, as I think that would have informed the issuing of the letter of appointment?

In regard to Kilcrohane, you might inform the committee the length of time the house has been in your ownership. Your previous holiday experience of the house, was it the main venue you would have used for personal and family holidays in between either House being in recess? Was it something you went to occasionally and had other holiday destinations? If it was your main holiday venue, were there circumstances in which you regularly would have forwarded mail directly to that address or would you have used another procedure for forwarding mail? If not, was there another means you used either by way of your constituency office or returning to Dublin on a regular basis to collect your mail?

I will call Senator Glynn - the questions have been more brief - and we can come back to members on further questions when Senator Callely has an opportunity to reply to them.

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathoirligh. Senator Callely, I refer to a response to you from Ms McCormack in the Members Services section in July 2009, which is almost a year ago, and it relates to your concern that "you elected to recoup expenses incurred in respect of your attendance in Leinster House by way of Overnight and Travel Allowances for the year 2009". It goes on to state: "Section 5 of the SI 101 ... states that a Member, whose normal place of residence is more than ... 15 miles from Leinster House, may opt for the Daily Allowance or Travel and Overnight Allowance within a normal ...". The last paragraph is central. It states:

You have previously declared on 12 November 2008 that your option for 2009 is to be the Travel and Overnight Allowance for the year ending 31 December 2009. We are unfortunately unable to accede to your request to change the option chosen until the start of the new year on 1 January 2010.

In your opinion, Senator Callely, how much has that contributed to the situation which you now find yourself in? In my opinion it seems that particular provision is a serious systemic failure, from my perspective anyway. Would you consider that that has contributed greatly to the situation which you find yourself in? With that in mind, would that be the reason you did not cash a number of cheques that you still have on file?

Thank you very much, Chairman. Chairman, Senator Fitzgerald asked about 2009-2010. My understanding is we were asked in ... I was asked back in November 2008 to choose my option for 2009, which I did and which was Cork because I was using my Cork residence. In 2010, I have retained my option as is, as always has been, and I had continued to try to correct the anomaly, which I would refer to, that Senator Glynn has alluded to.

Can I pick you up on something? I do not understand that. What do you say about 2010?

My option for 2010-----

Is-----

I continue to use my west Cork residence as my residence for periods of length, and this is going back to what Senator O'Donovan asked as well, in relation to the definition of the use. The definition of the use of west Cork accurately reflects what I use it for. I use west Cork as my residence and it is for periods of length, and it is for a purpose as a residence, and-----

Could I ask you ... You did say that you were spending more time in Dublin in 2008 and 2009 and, I presume, 2010. You did try to change your main residence in 2009 but it was too late to change it for 2009. You went in November, I think, 2008. You opted for Cork for 2009. Then in 2009, when you decided that you would change it, you were told you could not change it because you had already made a choice for the beginning of the year but in your statement you are saying you spent more time in Dublin in 2008 and 2009. Let us just take even 2010. If that is the case, why didn't you change it for 2010?

In 2009, as we know, which I alluded to earlier on, and also I was increasing my political activity, personally, but I was also involved in the European and local elections, and we had the Lisbon treaty in the latter part - I think around October of 2009 - and because of that I was aware that I would be spending more time ... I only made an inquiry about whether I could change my option, and the response I received is in line with what Senator Glynn has referred to, that it was not possible. They were very helpful in this regard. There was no discretion, they referred to, in the regulations.

But did you want to change it?

I made an inquiry could I change. If I wanted to change, how did I go about it and could I change, which was the first step, and I was advised clearly that there was no discretion. One of the letters that I have states that there was no discretion available.

Did you want to change it then for 2010 or did you want to leave it as is?

It was because of my increased political activity in 2009, which was clear. It is straightforward.

Sure.

It is clear. There were also evolving personal circumstances, and I wanted to ensure that if I could change it, how did I go about it, and that is why I made the inquiry. As it happened, because of the response that Senator Glynn has referred to, and don't forget we are talking about the old system-----

No, but the annual claim hasn't changed. You still have to make your determination for a year.

Why didn't you change it for 2010?

Old or new makes no difference to this question.

My understanding, and I have not gone into it in any great detail ... The regulations attached to the new system may allow for certain flexibility.

I just want to clarify that you did not try to change it for 2010. You left it as it was.

Yes. I left it as it as it was.

Even though you were spending more time in-----

In 2009 I was spending a little more time because of the political activity and because of evolving personal circumstances.

Is that the reason you have not put in a claim for January and February, or what did you do for January and February of 2010?

No. If I recall correctly, I have put in a claim for January and February 2010, which I have asked to be parked. I have retained the residence that I have used, always.

To go on to Senator O'Donovan's point, and I appreciate what you are saying about a charge against me, I would have to say to you that whatever expenses I have claimed are correct, have been made in good faith and are in order. I have undertaken the travel that I have submitted.

The clarification of the definition of the residence, as I said earlier, accurately reflects the use I have of west Cork, and without being in any way personal, I think you might be aware from the fact that you represent the constituency yourself of my attendance... Well, you do not always know when I am there but as it happens, I think in the last two or three weekends we happened to bump into each other on a fair day at a butcher's shop and I forget where else. I think it was coming out of your constituency office.

Senator Boyle, you are right. We can sing from the same hymn sheet. I suppose everybody deals with things differently. I do not know how long you are a Member of the Oireachtas, of the Dáil, but as I said in my opening statement, or in my statement, I had spent the guts of 27 years at it. It was my life. I might be a little bit older than you as well and I had reached what one would consider a fairly successful position in politics as well. So I think the impact would be slightly different, if you do not mind me saying so. Of course, everyone deals with things differently and I think I am entitled to deal with things the way I feel it is best to deal with them for myself.

The appointment to the Seanad was in line with what you said, the phone call from the Taoiseach, if I remember. You asked the length of time in relation to Kilcrohane. As it happens, I was probably about three months old when I was first in Kilcrohane, as my mother is from the village of Kilcrohane, well not from the village, from the townland. Have I spent time there? You asked the length of time I have spent in Kilcrohane. It would be hard to give you the period over the early parts of my life.

What would the routine be in most summers?

Most summers? Of course we have taken an odd family holiday overseas, which you would do with children, but a lot of the time would be west Cork.

Do you have arrangements for forwarding mail? Did you have arrangements for forwarding mail during that period?

No, because I would normally be in contact with Dublin and I would be up and down to Dublin. Whatever mail comes to Kilcrohane, comes to Kilcrohane, and whatever comes to Dublin, comes to Dublin.

Senator Glynn, I have responded to your point. That was my point in relation to the old expenses system, there may have been a need to bring in the new expenses system to deal with some of these issues that you refer to.

From here on in I want to go back to one on one. We are getting into specific questions that you want replies to and I do not want to take too many speakers together. I will go back to Senator O'Toole.

I am not sure that we are learning a lot, Senator Callely. The issue for us as I said at the beginning is not whether or not you travelled from west Cork to Dublin during those periods, the issue for us is the regulation. I just want to point out the 1938 regulation about the determination of what was a home reflected those times. We are talking about the period from 1997, when the statutory instrument required an annual commitment to be made and it was done precisely, as I recall, but this is just anecdotal, to deal with an impossibility for staff of the House with people who were changing residence at certain times of the year so it was taken in 1997. That was confirmed in the recent statutory instrument. The new and the old regime make no change to the requirement that you have to make a commitment for a year.

The issue for you in terms of what you said yourself, you said in your statement to us that during the period of late 2008 and then you go on to say 2009 you began to spend more and more time at your home in Clontarf and that, etc. You are making that point. But in November 2008, you got a specific letter, which you have in your records there, from the staff of the House asking for you to indicate where your claim period for 2009 would be. You chose west Cork. You got a letter back in late or mid, I do not have the date in front of me, mid-November or late November 2008, pointing out to you that if you chose west Cork as your claim period for 2009, then it could not be changed until 1 January 2010. You were asked to confirm that you understood that and you did confirm it so there was no need to find out what were the rules, it was offered to you on two occasions in that regard. I cannot understand how you can say to us that you were spending more and more time in late 2008 and 2009, etc., and that seemed to be referred to and at the same time you were telling the staff of the House.

The other thing is what you did not say to us here. You said in your final paragraphs that you returned the full allowance cheque you received in March 2010. We may put on the record as well that you actually claimed from west Cork for the first period, I am not sure, January, February, March 2010. So in fact that is still the position, and as you confirmed here earlier, it still is the west Cork. I do not understand. When you say you are not currently claiming from west Cork, the actual position is that you are, you have chosen to claim from west Cork for this year and that is the position until the last day of this year, whether or not you put in a claim, but the current position is as such. The difficulty, and I want you to understand it from our point of view, you may well be secure in your head that you only claimed for travel you did, but you do not seem to understand that what you refer to as an anomaly is a problem that we all have to deal with, everybody in both Houses, and that you were in breach of that.

I think what you were saying, in fairness to you, is that you recognised you were in breach of that and you were trying to compensate by not claiming for certain periods. If that is the case, really you are telling us it is a contravention. You are explaining how it came by and that is important for us to hear and I acknowledge that fact, but I just want you to explain the 2008 and 2010 thing, why it is you tell us you are spending more and more time in late 2008 and still you claimed west Cork for 2009 and continue to claim it for 2010? Do you understand the points made about 1938, 1997, 2010 and also the fact that contravention is a contravention, it does not matter how?

There may well be, as Senator Glynn said, a systemic problem. That is not our issue here. It may well be that the quantum of money involved is important to you, and I think it is important to you, but it is not a relevant issue to use because we are not talking about figures, we are just talking about the contravention. I do not want to be legalistic about it but I want us to be careful about our position in that sense. I want you to respond to that if you would not mind, please.

Simply, I can say to you that I understand I have not breached the regulations. The claims that I submitted are in line with my residency in west Cork and equally I understand I am entitled to make a nil claim, which I have done. So that is what I have done, that is the actual position. It was my decision not to make a claim for the period of time involved and I think I have tried to explain to you the reasons why. Particularly, you mentioned 2009. I was back in Cork and I still am in Cork and I made a decision not to make a claim for the period of time I did not make a claim. For the periods of time that I did make a claim, I was resident in west Cork.

The conflict is between November 2008, when you tell us in your thing that you found yourself spending more and more time in Dublin, and that goes on to 2009 you say, at which time you knew the local elections were coming up, you knew there was a referendum coming up, and still, after that, in late November, you told the staff of the House your residence would be Cork. Surely you can see that is a conflict for us to resolve?

The answer to your question is my residence is west Cork whenever I am not committed to Dublin, and as I indicated at the outset, I was hugely committed to the constituency of Dublin North-Central when I represented the area. I think I was probably known to have a mobile information unit out every weekend and so on and so forth. I do not have that commitment so I am able to utilise my residence in west Cork far greater than I was ever able to do since the loss of my Dáil seat. That is why I am resident in west Cork but I do also retain my Dublin home and my constituency office. I understand your point and the difficulty that it presents but I can only openly and honestly tell you the truth.

You are telling your constituents you continue to live in Dublin North-Central and you are telling us-----

And I answered that earlier on.

Senator Callely, plenty of people-----

I do not mean you just ask one question and he will come back to you, if people want to put two or three questions together or when I take a member we would hope to get through it that way.

It is not unusual for people to live in Dublin and to have a holiday home down the country, it is not unusual and I am sure you are not the first such person who has that facility available to them. It sounds from what you are saying, Senator Callely, and I want you to address this, that you want the system to facilitate you to claim intermittently, as it suits you and as you choose, between Dublin and west Cork. You want the system to accommodate you to say that, "I'll be here for so many months and there for so many months and therefore I will just put in a claim as it suits me for when I decide I am going to be in Cork and when I decide I'm going to be in Dublin".

I suggest to you, Senator Callely, there is no such system and the scheme does not accommodate that. There is no scheme that could accommodate that and there was never any suggestion that the new scheme this year would accommodate such a facility as you seem to want for yourself. So the position is clear. In relation to the changing of options - and I am putting that to you - there is no scheme that accommodates that kind of option that you seem to want for yourself. It was never going to accommodate it and no one would agree with a system that accommodated somebody who wanted to flip between Dublin and Cork as it suited them, depending on where they wanted to make a claim. That is the first thing.

The second thing is this issue about changing it or seeking to change it. There is a slight nuance in this, Senator Callely, that I just want to put to you because it is something that committee members have to be aware of as well. The question of taking an option, or the question of changing in the course of a claim period - that is, an option that a member who lives more than 15 miles from Dublin has an option to decide whether he or she wants a daily allowance or an overnight and travel allowance - is only available to people who are more than 15 miles from Dublin. It is not an option to decide whether I am more than 15 miles or I am not more than 15 miles. For example, it is not available to me. I live within 15 miles of Leinster House. That option is not available to persons such as me or others who live within 15 miles. That is the option a person gets to take, not an option about whether they are in Cork one day or in Dublin the next. Let us be clear on what the option is. The option is an option that is only available to people who have already stated that their address is more than 15 miles from Leinster House. So when the Members' office here was asking you to take options or choose between one or the other, and when you were apparently dealing with this or struggling with this in correspondence and so on, that is what it was. It is perfectly simple, Senator Callely, I put to you. If somebody moves house they can perfectly simply write a letter to the Members' office here and say, "I've moved house". Why did you not do that?

Thank you very much. I would not necessarily agree with what all you have said, Senator White. My position is clear. I wanted - and I think some of my correspondence which you have before you - I wanted my expenses to reflect my circumstances.

What does that mean?

Senator White also indicated that no system would suit an individual. I don't know what you mean necessarily by that comment.

I can explain what I meant by it. I meant that when we are elected to Seanad Éireann we are asked where do we live - "Give us your address where you live" - and we all fill out the form and that is where we live unless we notify Seanad Éireann or the Oireachtas that we have moved house. Now, what's wrong with that?

I completed that form, honestly and openly and stated "West Cork".

In the same week you gave an address to the Seanad Office that for its correspondence your address was Clontarf.

And on the Oireachtas website.

In the same week, the same day, perhaps. I do not know.

I have answered the reasons, politically, why I would want to keep my constituency office-----

Sorry, it was not your constituency office.

-----and my Dublin home. Of course, I have a family who would have commitments in Dublin as well and that would be part of the reason the Dublin home would have been retained also.

In relation to the scheme to suit me, I am not looking for a special scheme to suit me but what I was trying to establish was whether I could have a fair and accurate reflection of when I would be in west Cork and when I would be in Dublin and I didn't want to be seen to be, or indeed to breach, any of the regulations associated with the scheme. That is why I completed the forms in good faith for the periods of time that I was in Cork, and continue to do so, and retain my west Cork residence.

One last question. Now that you know that you cannot do that, do you accept that you were wrong to claim for those periods in west Cork and will you reimburse that money to the State?

I have said this already today. I have claimed for west Cork when I was resident in west Cork and undertaken the travel associated with that.

Senator, that is not the issue.

I take it the answer to my question is "No", then. You will not reimburse the money.

I have no problem if I am found to have taken money that I should not have taken, and I would certainly say that if that be the case it is totally unintentional and, of course, I would reimburse. But I think it is very important for me to say that I have completed any claim form in good faith which reflected my residency at that time. I think it is very important, Senator White, and I know you are probably more qualified than me in relation to posing-----

It has nothing to do with qualifications.

-----questions. I am not used to the questioning that you might have a professional background in. What I am simply saying to you in ordinary layman's terms, if you do not mind, I completed whatever forms for the actual position that pertained at that time. I do not believe I have received any moneys that are due to be reimbursed but, if they are, I would be happy to do so.

There is more than that here, a Chathaoirligh. Can I ask just one thing? Senator Callely is still in contravention if he does not change the system of claiming. That is the problem for us.

Why would I be in contravention?

Senator Boyle indicated.

Can I ask you, Senator, about your payment of the charge on the second home? You read out a letter that was sent to the address in Bantry for paying the second charge on your house in Clontarf. So the payment of the €200 would have gone to Dublin City Council. You are making a statement to Dublin City Council that your principal residence was in Bantry and paying the €200 charge. Is that my understanding of what you read out earlier? The letter was sent to Bantry.

Yes, that is correct. It is Dublin City Council.

Dublin City Council is also the body that is charged for keeping the election register. You would have made an annual - not so much a statement but would have affirmed to Dublin City Council that your principal residence would have been in Clontarf for electoral purposes. Do you not find that inconsistent?

Senator Callely spoke about putting matters on the record. I would ask that we get a copy of that for the members, if that is in order. I think it should be in order.

Where possible, I would suggest, Chair.

That is in order, Senator Callely, that the girls will get that and give a copy to the members. Sorry, Senator Boyle.

It is a simple question. Dublin City Council is responsible for both taking a second charge on a property in its area and for registering people in their principal residences. You seem to have given contradictory evidence to that local authority.

Not at all. As I said, I am registered. I am not too sure of the definition in relation to registration on the electoral register.

Normal place of residence.

Yes. As I said earlier on with regard to the west Cork residence, it is a place where I spend some period of time and it is used for a purpose which is not ad hoc, which is a residence. So I am quite satisfied that I accurately reflect what meets the criteria of the expense regime in the Department of Finance.

Do you think both registering bodies in Dublin City Council will be satisfied? You seem to have given a different answer to two sections of the one local authority.

I am not too sure if Dublin City Council collate information of that nature.

Find out, you mean?

Which?

So they would not find out. The question Senator Boyle is asking you is, do you not think it is inconsistent giving two different answers? Your response seems to be, "Well, they wouldn't collate it so they wouldn't discover the problem". Is that your answer?

Again, Senator White, you are more professional than I am. I am not going to be ...

What is the answer to the question?

The answer to the question is quite simple. Yes, I am registered at 7, St. Lawrence's Road. Do I do it annually? No, I don't, as far as I know. I think you are annually recorded and I think it is up to the individual to check.

You are obliged to check.

You are obliged to check, and hands up I haven't, but I would also do so when we are on approach to an election, and I think most politicians would do the same.

That was last year - for the local elections.

Senator Fitzgerald wishes to come back in.

The point in relation to that is that you were registered to vote in your Dublin address but you were saying that your Cork address was your main residence. There is a contradiction there. What I wanted to ask you was, I want you to explain to the committee what your thinking was in 2008, because as far back as 2008 you were, effectively, creating your own expenses system because you decided that you weren't going to put in a claim for a number of months. You said you were only going to claim for eight months and you wouldn't claim for the other four. Can you explain to the committee why you made that decision? If you were concerned at that point in relation to, I suppose, effectively, over-claiming for those four months, because you decided not to claim on the basis of the situation you were in ...

I want to return again to why you didn't change your main place of residence when you had the opportunity to do it. You would have had an opportunity to do that in 2009 for 2010. I know you tried in 2009 and the system didn't allow you do it. You left it too late; you left 'til the middle of the year to July, but you still didn't do it for 2010. So just to go back, clearly, there were issues in relation ... You were concerned in August 2008.

Someone's phone is on there and I would ask you to leave them on silent or turn them off please. It's impossible for people to get the records correct-----

Sure.

-----in recording if people leave on phones. I ask them to turn off their phones please.

So to go back, you were making your own decisions in 2008 that you weren't going to put in a claim for a number of months but you then didn't act on that for 2009 or 2010 to correct the situation and change the place of residence, if that was what had led to those concerns in the first place. You still kept with your own more personalised approach to expenses and your own rationale. That's what I would like you to explain to the committee.

I can only respond for myself. I'm not too sure of all the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, whether they make monthly claims or whether they make 12-monthly claims - I can't answer that question. My expenses are under scrutiny here today. I believe that my expenses will stack up and I will not be found having contravened or broken any regulation.

With regard to the question that you are asking, simply in 2008, as I indicated earlier on, I made a nil claim for the months September, October, November, December, I think. You indicated that this is effectively creating my own expense system - that would not be correct.

Well I don't think ...

That would not be correct. My understanding would be that I was utilising the existing system in a fashion which I - and I am entitled to do so I gather - either make a claim or not make a claim, and, as I said, I am not too sure who else in the House has either made a claim or not made a claim. I would gather maybe there would be other people who would have done similar, and there is a load of other regulations in relation to the use of a motor car and the use of this, and I gather everybody signs off that they've undertaken such travel or whatever it might be in such a vehicle and so on and so forth. All I simply did was I completed the form, which I'm entitled to do, on the basis of the travel that I have undertaken for the period of time. I decided that I would not make a claim for the months that you mention.

I have answered the other question as well and I hope I've been clear on it. I still have my residence in west Cork. I still use my residence in line with the clarification that I have been given by the Department or by the Members' Services section, I forget which one, and I use it for a period of length and I use it for a purpose as a residence, and I continue to commute, as I will be doing today and as I have done for the last number of months and years.

Can you explain why you didn't claim for those four months? Can you just explain to the committee why you didn't claim for those four months? What was your rationale for not claiming for those four months in 2008?

My rationale was that I began to spend a little more time in Dublin. When I made an inquiry, or my understanding, I suppose, would be that I could not claim for Dublin, and I decided - I decided - intentionally that I will not make a claim for the latter part of 2008, as I did in 2009 as well, simply because I wanted to reflect that - and I suppose, send a clear signal and message to the system - that I had a Dublin abode and I was spending some time in that Dublin abode, and the once and once only, which was brought to my attention, and which Senator White or Senator O'Toole indicated that I signed accordingly, and so I did ... All I was trying to do was be satisfied within myself on the claim that I was making, and I believe I am entitled to make an nil claim. This is what, following discussion with the Members Services section, I understand.

Effectively to pay back, did you see it as paying back-----

No.

-----money? You did not.

No. Because I had undertaken the journeys that I had made a claim for in the earlier months.

You could not claim from Dublin then, was that the point?

That's ...

For the last ...

Yes. That is correct.

Senator O'Donovan wishes to ... and then I will come back again.

Just to get some bit of clarity on this. You were appointed to the Seanad at your address in The Paddock, Kilcrohane, and for '08 and '09, as I understand it, there were four months in each year, that is eight months out of 24, that you did not claim for in those periods, apart from some other cheques that you've in your possession.

Could you outline to the committee and the members here, the periods of time that you spent in Kilcrohane? I suppose, being originally from Kilcrohane even though I don't live there any more, would it be fair to say - I don't want to put words in your mouth either - would you be spending the four weeks off at Christmas down there, the three or four months that we have off in the summer - from the point of view of not sitting days? In a given year, would you spend entirely, say, 12 or 14 weeks in Kilcrohane, apart from the fact that from what you're saying in your evidence here today on the rota, you're down there, if not every weekend, at least every second weekend? Could you kind of elaborate so we've some picture of the time you spent in west Cork as opposed to Dublin? In say any given year, would it be 60% west Cork and 40 Dublin, or vice versa? That is one thing.

The other thing is, you said in your statement there that there was an impact after losing your seat in 2007 and that it was affecting social, domestic and personal life. Are there - I have to be careful how I put this - but are there personal or extenuating circumstances that you may wish to outline to the committee but maybe not wish to do it in public? Are there personal circumstances that you may wish to elaborate, obviously, not in the glaring light of the media, as you may wish to elaborate to us, which we have the option, I believe, in hearing certain stuff in private, that for maybe family or personal reasons? I'm just exploring that because it has come up a couple of times in your statement about social, domestic and personal life. I don't want to invade your privacy in that regard but I just wanted to clarify that in my mind. Are there such circumstances?

Thank you, Chairman and Senator O'Donovan. Yes, when I was appointed to the Seanad I was full-time and there was nothing else I was doing at that time other than spending my time in Kilcrohane because I was no longer a Member of this House or had any other duties. So, unfortunately, on the 25th of May, like Senator Boyle, I found myself without a need to push the pen. I was full time in west Cork. A pattern? I would be fearful that maybe, if I gave a particular pattern, Senator White might start picking holes in it.

We are only looking for an approximate pattern.

That is not helpful.

I want to be as helpful as possible. I just want to simply say that, like most people in this room, when you have a young family, you may decide that you're going to spend holidays overseas or you may even decide, as many people in Ireland have done, to buy something overseas or to invest in an apartment in costa del wherever. My decision, and mainly because of my connections with Kilcrohane, my decision was at a very early stage, my desire was to have a place in Kilcrohane. No better man than yourself, Senator O'Donovan, to recognise the quaintness and the tranquillity and everything that goes with the warmth of the people down there. I was delighted when I was in a position to have, and fortunate might I add, to have my own residence in west Cork. As I mentioned earlier, every opportunity possible that I have been able to get to west Cork since that dark day of May 2007, I've been in Kilcrohane. Yes, you're quite right. If it's the period of our Christmas recess, or if it's the period of the Easter recess, or if it coincides with my children's school holidays or whatever it might be, I would be in Kilcrohane. Percentage terms, certainly in recent years, it would be hitting the 60% plus.

Before that, I would have spent a lot of time in west Cork as well, as I said from a very, very early age, originally in my mother's home farm, and then since I built my own place in I think it was sometime in the early 1990s. Of course, having your own home, you are inclined to utilise it. There's no point having a place and not utilising it. I am also, as I think I have a bit of a track record of a person liking to get into stuff and get work done, so I am always setting projects for myself, setting targets. That may mean I would be, I'd have a particular project on and I would be up and down more regularly on that project in west Cork, and of course having to fulfil my duties in Seanad Éireann at the same time.

With regard to the other question that you asked, which I appreciate, regarding private session, I think it's important that I put all the facts on the table in relation to my expenses as best I can, and I hope I'm doing as clearly... I am doing it to the best of my ability and I hope that is clear. We are accountable for public actions, but I did indicate earlier on, I don't think it's necessary, unless there's something specific that somebody would like to ask me, which I'd be very happy to answer in private session, but I don't think it's necessary for me to seek it but if any member of the committee would like to seek it to ask me a particular question, I would be happy to co-operate with you in that regard.

Just to clarify, I have no interest in knowing whatever your circumstances, private or otherwise. I just thought that if there was an issue, that you could avail of that opportunity if you so wished. I'm just trying to be fair.

That opportunity is there if anybody wishes.

Can I say to you, Senator Callely, you are very clear about what you're doing and about your claim of expenses, but I don't think you understand where we're coming from. I just want you to be very clear because I don't want to be saying something when you're not around, in terms of the opinion I'm forming. I would like you to come back to me. You told us... I have the list of correspondence here, the very datelines, the letters you have had the various people, the one-stop shop, the various confirmations that were given as to how the system works for me.

You have tried to tell us that you sought information. You didn't need to seek information. There is letter after letter here, explaining how the changes can be made, when the changes can be made. Despite that, in 2007 you claimed west Cork to be your home, even though in the same week you told the Seanad that your correspondence address was Dublin. You continued to be on the voting register in Dublin. You told us that in 2008 and 2009, you were spending more and more time in Dublin. It was not reflected in your determination in late 2008 to opt for west Cork for 2009. We had 2007, 2008, 2009 and now 2010. It seems to me that if there was an attempt to reflect changing abodes in some way or changing patterns, that it's not in any way reflected. There is a consistency here on that. We are looking at a situation where you're telling the general public on your website one thing, for reasons - your reasons are your own on that - that you continue to live there. We are faced with the whole question of how we explain this to the general public, to whom as you rightly say, we are all responsible. I can't do it.

I just want to be absolutely clear. You're telling me that the regulation doesn't meet your particular needs. I accept that. What you're not telling me is that you are, therefore, in contravention of that and that you continue to be in contravention of that if you don't accept it.

It seems to me that the way we're going at the moment, the only option open, and this is my view by the way, it's only my own view, is that we are almost inexorably coming to the conclusion that maybe, willy-nilly, maybe inadvertently, maybe for all the reasons you gave, but that you are in contravention of the regulation as it stands at the moment, a regulation which may well be systemically incredible, but it's there and it's the one that we are all stuck with and it's the one that we have to use as a benchmark. So we find ourselves in that situation. I want to hear from you that you are prepared to put yourself properly in line and take yourself out of contravention of the regulation. Following that, if there is the calculation made by the one-stop shop, not by us... the quantum here is not an issue for this committee, the amount is not an issue for us, it's just the process, but we do need to hear that if you are to be in contravention, that you will certainly repay whatever it is that's outstanding. The general public, as you well would see, would want to see that.

So I would want to hear, are you prepared to recognise, however difficult it is, that you have to come into line with the regulation and that you may be - I say no more than that because I can't make a judgment - have over-claimed in terms of what you should have done, and that by claiming for west Cork in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, you have made no attempt to reflect any kind of variation.

Thank you, Cathaoirleach and Senator O'Toole. I would ask Senator O'Toole if he can draw my attention to what aspect of the regulation he believes I'm in contravention of.

I believe that we can't countenance a situation where you are telling us that your home is in west Cork, at the same time when you're telling our office, the Office of the Seanad, to correspond with you in Dublin. I believe that's in contravention. I believe that you can't have us come to the conclusion that your home is in west Cork if you're registered to vote in Dublin city. I believe that's in contravention. I believe that if you are spending the amount of time you are saying in Dublin - you talked about during the local elections, during the European elections, during the second Lisbon, etc., that you're spending all this time - I believe that that didn't reflect your claim and I believe that was in contravention. Those are the issues and I believe that when you tell us in 2008 that you were aware you were spending more and more time in Dublin and that in September 2008 you confirmed to the office west Cork was your home, October 2008 you were asked again and you confirmed it again, November 2008 you were asked did you want to change the method of recoupment and November again you confirmed that for 2009 you would continue with it and you confirmed that you wouldn't be changing until 1 January 2010. In January 2010 you made no change. I believe those are all in contravention of the requirements of the regulation. That's where I am coming from.

As I said, I'm not familiar with the actual regulation that would indicate anything to do with your web or anything to do with your postal address. I think I've been fair in indicating at all times that I have the residence in Cork and the home in Dublin and the constituency office.

Sorry, the contravention is this ... you are asked a question, "Where do you live?" The reasons I said to you ... those are reasons why your answer to that question is untenable.

No, I think there is a consistency in that - I am sorry, Senator O'Toole - but I think there is a consistency ... I live in west Cork and I have said that over the last number of years and I have not changed from that position. To deal with the question that you asked, I have stated ... and some of the other questions that you asked ... I think there are some anomalies, which does make it somewhat inflexible for those who may find themselves-----

Sorry.

I think there are some anomalies in the old system.

Are there any anomalies in what you told us? That is what I really want to know.

None, no, because there has been a consistency, Senator O'Toole, that my residence ... I have responded openly and honestly ... you have asked whether I have completed the forms or not, yes, I have completed them and, in line with Senator O'Donovan's previous questions with regard to the amount of time, I have answered that request on the basis of honesty. Am I in contravention? I believe I am not. I believe that I have complied with the regulations. Yes, of course, you are quite right, the public want to hear, if I am found to have breached any regulation, will I repay. My answer, again, will be very honest and open and will be, as I have indicated earlier on, of course, I would. Yes, I will.

Can I ask you, Senator, on travelling from Kilcrohane to Dublin, where did you stay in Dublin when you were up for Oireachtas business? Is it the Clontarf address, because the expenses claims are made on two bases, one of which is travel to and from the place you are travelling to and, the second, is the place you are staying in? So, your claims would have been based on the fact that you are claiming accommodation in a place that was notified as your principal residence in all other claims that you would have had with the Oireachtas previously, that you wouldn't have been staying at another address. I am looking at one of the forms through the freedom of information request that was made; it's the last such form and is dated for the period 5th April '09 to 2nd August 2009. It says that you made 49 one-way journeys over that period, which is 24-25 return visits to Bantry, I presume. You overnighted 45 nights in Dublin during that same period, so I presume you are claiming for two-three days in the week between those journeys and you are claiming that the place you stayed in during that time was in Clontarf. Am I right in thinking that?

Yes, you would be correct in your interpretation. I am travelling from Kilcrohane, as I've indicated earlier. My address in Dublin is my Clontarf home and that is where I would stay. You mentioned also in relation to ... prior to the current FOI information ... where was my abode? It would have been my Clontarf home.

So, you are actually claiming money for a residence that you normally live in, whether you see it as a permanent residence or not. That is the basis of your claims. Whatever about the travel to and from Kilcrohane, the place you are claiming your accommodation expenses for is the place that you normally see as a residence, whether you define it as permanent or not.

I am at a crossover here because my understanding is when you make your claim - again, this is probably applicable to other Members of the House as well who would have an apartment or a home in Dublin and live in the country - you make your claim on the basis of the mileage and then you make your claim on ... I think it's called subsistence, so it's not necessarily that you have a hotel, it's your choice ... it's the actual ready reckoner of the number of-----

The form has a number of boxes, one of which is the journeys you make.

That's right.

One of which is the accommodation which you could choose to leave blank or otherwise. That option is there, you could choose to leave it blank or otherwise. Then you account for your presence in the Oireachtas, whether it was for formal sittings, for committee meetings, for meetings with other people or for general use of the facilities of the House. With all these forms, you have filled in the accommodation and the accommodation is for the use of the house that you otherwise would have deemed your permanent private residence.

That's correct, yes.

Thank you.

I'd like to go back to you saying that you were spending more time in Dublin in 2008 and 2009 and, presumably, 2010, but you certainly say 2008 and 2009. You were spending more time in Dublin, but your claims were still coming in from west Cork. Why didn't you consider changing it when you say that that was the situation? Why didn't you change the claims? I mean it was financially advantageous to you to continue claiming from west Cork, obviously, that's the issue here really, to some degree, that you weren't claiming from the place that you were spending more time in. You had a letter in October '08. We know as well that for the last four months of '08 you chose not to put in any expenses, but you had a letter from Miss McCormack to you where she said, "For the avoidance of doubt and for absolute certainty and for future audit purposes, I would be grateful if you could certify in writing that this house in Bantry was your normal place of residence for the time being for the period of the claim". Did you not consider at that point, given that letter and given the fact that you were not making claims for four of those months and that you were saying that you were spending more time in Dublin, that it should have been changed at that point? Why didn't you?

Again, I think I've been as clear as I possibly could have been with the House and that's on record in relation to my claims. It certainly wasn't for financial ... advantageous, as you put it, for me to do what I was doing. It would have been if I had done full 12 month claims; it would have been far more financially advantageous. I didn't want to do that, but what I did do was ... I certainly reflected my residence in west Cork for the times I was there. As I said to you earlier on, I decided which I am entitled to do - I am not too sure in relation to other Members - I decided I would not make a claim for the period of time that I would not make a claim, but I think it's important to say that for the periods that I made the claims, they are correct claims.

Does that mean, therefore, that west Cork was your normal place of residence from June to December 2007, from January to August 2008, but not from August to December 2008? It was again from January to August 2009 but ceased being so from August to December 2009.

No, that would not be correct, and I think I have answered Senator O'Toole in a simple-----

No, Senator Fitzgerald has pressed you on this several times now and in fact you haven't been clear in the response to the question that she has asked, even though you keep saying that you are being clear.

I will try to be as clear as possible.

If you take the periods in relation to which you did not claim for a minute, that is, August to December 2008 and August to December 2009, because you did claim for the first eight months in both of those years based on west Cork, but just take the periods where you did not claim - I want to put this question to you as clearly as I can and if it's not clear, go back to it - is the reason why you didn't claim for those periods that west Cork ceased to be your normal place of residence or is it some other reason, that you were seeking to pay back or recompense the system because you felt, as you said in one of your letters, you wanted the situation to reflect your actual expense? You said in one of your letters and I will quote this. This is your letter on 30 November 2009: "I have indicated for some time that I wish my travel expenses to reflect my actual..." Sorry, do you want the get the letter?

No, you are okay. What is the date of the letter?

It is dated 30 November 2009 and is addressed to Mr. Haran in the Members' services section. I will just quote from that letter.

I have indicated for some time that I wish my travel expenses to reflect my actual incurred travel expense and appropriate subsistence and or be vouched in order to reflect actual expense.

I understand the current system does not permit such to reflect my circumstances.

That would seem to suggest that you accept - sorry, I will wait until you get the letter.

It is okay.

It is in the booklet, you know the freedom of information one? Have you got it there?

Yes.

You go on to say:

I understand the current system does not permit such to reflect my circumstances. I have spoken to the Minister for Finance on this matter and he has indicated that work on a new scheme is currently in progress.

That would seem to suggest that you accept that the system did not allow you to, as I was putting to you earlier on, sort of go from one to the other or have both in the picture. You seem to be accepting in November 2009 that's the case. This letter suggests to me, Senator Callely, that what you were doing is that you were recognising that there was a problem and that's the reason why you didn't claim for part of the year because, as it were, you were saying: "Look, there's a problem here so, look it, I won't claim for the full year because really if there's a problem, that's my way of solving the problem, I'll give some money back to the system or I won't claim some money from the system, even though I believe I'm entitled to it, I'm not going to claim it because, look, there's a problem here and I better kick something back into the system to reflect the fact that there's a problem or there's an issue." In other words, it is Senator Callely's way of balancing the situation up. Is that why you didn't claim? Am I right in that or is it because your normal place of residence changed for that period? Which is it? Do you understand the question I'm asking?

Yes, I think, and Senator O'Toole is on a similar vein. Clearly-----

We're all on the same vein but we can't get the answer. That's the problem.

The answer is in the forms that I returned. I have returned the forms, as Senator O'Toole alluded to and indeed Senator Fitzgerald, clearly stating that my residence is west Cork.

No, that is not an answer to the question. The question is why you didn't claim for the periods you didn't claim for.

The answer to your question, "Did I cease to be resident in west Cork?" No, I did not. I continued my residence in west Cork but I chose not to make a claim for the latter part.

There were two options. One was, and I suggested it to you, that the reason you didn't claim was because your normal place of residence changed. That is not the reason you did not claim, you are now confirming. So the reason you didn't claim was for some other reason, more reflected in your letter of November 2009 where you are kind of seeking to rebalance things. You feel: "There's a problem here. The situation is not reflecting my situation and, do you know something, my way of answering that is I'll only claim for two thirds of the year and I won't claim for the full year and sure they'll be happy with that." Is that the reason?

No, that's not correct.

Well, what is the reason?

Because I am entitled to choose whether I want to make a claim or not.

But you didn't in fact claim.

No, that's correct.

So you are asserting a right to claim for that period but deciding not to do so.

That's correct, and I believe I am entitled to do that.

I suggest to you the reason in fact why you, notwithstanding that you assert that you had an entitlement to do so, I am suggesting to you the reason you didn't claim was that that was a clear recognition on your part that you were doing something wrong.

I would refute that, Senator White. That is not the reason and I want to be as helpful as I possibly can.

Give us the reason then.

Am I not entitled to the-----

You are entitled. Now tell us why did you exercise that entitlement not to claim?

Because I am entitled to.