A quorum of the committee is present so we can now proceed. The Select Committee on Members' Interests is resuming its investigation under the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, as amended, in relation to complaints made against Senator Ivor Callely. At a private meeting of the committee which was held subsequent to the public meeting last Friday it was agreed that Mr. Derek Dignam, principal officer, Members Services of the Houses of the Oireachtas Service, would be invited to give evidence to the committee. Mr. Dignam has been provided with a copy of the two complaints, a copy of the committee's memorandum of procedure and a copy of the statement of contravention pursuant to the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, as amended by the Standards in Public Office Act 2001.

Mr. Dignam, as a witness before this committee, is entitled to the same privileges and immunities as a witness before the High Court in respect of his evidence and any documentation he produces to the committee. Our procedures state that all evidence before the committee will be given under oath. I now call on Mr. Dignam 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.

Thank you very much. I will call on members of the committee individually to ask Mr. Dignam questions and on Mr. Dignam to respond after each question.

I want to confirm that Senator Callely was informed of this meeting.

Yes.

He was. I want to put it on the record that I have to leave at 9.45 a.m. I do not have any choice as I have to make a report to another committee on justice.

Senator Callely has advised the clerk to the committee that he is not exercising his right to cross-examine Mr. Dignam but he is aware of the meeting. Does any member wish to ask a question? Senator O'Donovan.

I have asked the clerk to distribute the papers from Senator Callely's file which post-date the FOI request so they will have the most recent papers. They were referred to in evidence last Friday and I think it is appropriate for the members of the committee to have them.

Just for my own clarification, because I think some people misunderstood when I raised this issue the last day with Mr. Callely and I did not get, in my view, clear answers, is it possible - and I do not want to get bogged down and want to clear this in my mind - to get the figures that Senator Callely claimed since his appointment in 2007 in total? I also would like to know - what were the amounts, I think in 2008 and 2009? Going on my recollection, there were four-month periods in both of those years in which he did not claim and chose not to submit claims. And furthermore, I understand that in this year, 2010, there was - I think and subject to correction - one cheque returned and two or three others not cashed.

I am anxious for my own interest, or balance, to find out what precisely was claimed and also - and again I am being the Devil's advocate here - let us say we find in one way or another on the expense issue against Senator Callely, I want to know the net amount if he had opted for the other option, being living in Dublin claiming the mileage or overnights. In other words, I am a little unclear in my head as to what the net - if there was an overclaim, which I think Mr. Callely denies or that he done anything wrong - what is the net amount versus his travelling from Kilcrohane to Dublin, his claim for overnights minus what he would have got had he claimed as per normal in Dublin? Maybe that is too much to take in because I just want to know is there a net figure, because there is confusion in my mind that he claims his normal residence is Kilcrohane. Just to get a net figure so that the committee will totally know, if there is an overclaim, what the amount is if we do come to a particular conclusion and bearing in mind also that Senator Callely, on three occasions the last day, to me and others confirmed that he would be prepared to pay if such was the finding of this committee.

I am a bit confused. All I have in total is the headline in the Sunday Independent arising out of John Drennan’s article. If it is possible - and maybe it is too much to chew for you, Mr. Dignam, today - the overall that he claimed minus maybe the months he did not claim or cheques that were not cashed or returned. Then taking that - sort of Kilcrohane to Dublin - the total amount of claim less the amount if he had used his Clontarf address, if you can gather the train of thought just to find out figures. I think it is important that it be clarified. I am not saying anything particularly rests on it because somebody accused me of saying that if it was €500 or otherwise - certainly if it was €500 of an overclaim I think there would not be such a furore over it, not that the principle has to be acknowledged as well.

That is my initial query to Mr. Dignam. Maybe it is too big and too broad for you to be able to answer this today but if it is possible I would like, as a member of this committee, to know the figures, the quantum, precisely and I think the public are entitled to know as well.

I might just run through a brief financial-type report on the Senator's claims, if that is of assistance to members. I will not be drawing any value judgments as to netting off - I think that is a matter for the committee. In 2007 Senator Callely claimed approximately €21,000; in 2008, €32,000; in 2009, €27,000, and that gives the figure which approximately was released under FOI as €81,000 in claims.

The second part of your question is really hypothetical. You are asking if he had continued to claim from Kilcrohane what would he have claimed and that, of course, would have depended on whether or not he made the travel involved or had stayed overnight in Dublin. What I can say is that his nil claims for the four months of 2008 and the three months at the end of 2009, for those seven months are valued, if he continued at the rate that he was claiming for the previous months of those two years, the nil claims would have been valued at something around €23,000 approximately. He has claims pending - and I have given you those claims in the documents I have just circulated - for the months of August and September 2009 and January and February of 2010 and the combination of those claims pending is about €13,000.

Senator Callely asked, as he mentioned in his evidence last Friday, for those latter two claims to be parked, which we have done. The new system started on 1 March. Senator O'Donovan asked about the non-encashment. The Senator will see from the correspondence I circulated that he was paid for the period of March for his travel and subsistence and for his public representation allowance. He returned that cheque. We told him that even if there was a concern about the travel element of it, that he was entitled to draw down his representation costs as a Senator. He was issued with three cheques which he says are uncashed. That is true, they are uncashed and they are to a value of €1,250 per month. He has three cheques at that value from the new regime but really we should separate them out.

I thank Mr. Dignam for that information as it has cleared up an issue for me. If Senator Callely had claimed for the months for which he did not claim in 2008 and 2009 and the current cheques that have either been returned or uncashed and had continued to claim and accept the money arising from his Kilcrohane address, a further €36,000 approximately would have been paid out.

That includes two months from 2010 as well.

Okay. Thank you.

Does Senator White wish to speak?

Yes, I had indicated.

I call Senator Alex White.

I wish to ask a number of questions. I thank Mr. Dignam for the additional documentation which relates to the period since the freedom of information request. For the sake of completeness, I know that the office, as it always does, complied with the freedom of information request made by whatever newspaper. There is a booklet of documentation which is the documentation that was issued under the freedom of information request. For the sake of completeness, is there any other documentation relevant to this case? I am not for one moment suggesting that it was not issued with the freedom of information request in the normal way but there might be some documentation that, for some reason that I cannot currently think of, is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act that is relevant to this case and would be relevant to our inquiries for the period we are talking about which is from August 2007 onwards. I am speaking specifically in relation to Senator Callely. If there is such documentation, may we have it?

We understand from Senator Callely's evidence on the last occasion and from his statement that he made certain inquiries at various stages to try to change the situation as it pertained to him. It is dealt with in his statement and also in his evidence on the last occasion but I am not sure if Mr. Dignam had an opportunity to follow that. In any event, there was a lot of discussion about this the last day, about inquiries which he made, or efforts which he said he made, to change the position, arising from his own particular situation.

I want to ask Mr. Dignam to focus on the nature of that inquiry to the office. Was it an inquiry of the office as to whether and, if so, how he would change his address for the purpose of claiming expenses, or was it an inquiry as to whether and, if so, how he would change from box A to box B; in other words the scenario where people who live more than 15 miles from Leinster House get an option to choose as between the daily allowance and the overnight allowance. That option is only available to people who are more than 15 miles from Leinster House. That particular option is not about changing your address but about choosing between how you wish to claim your overnights when you come to Dublin. What was the nature of the inquiry that he made? Was it about changing his address, or was it about switching from A to B?

Finally, I wish to ask about a letter from Ms Bernadette McCormack of your office, dated 2 October 2008 to Senator Callely. I think this is an important letter. It is addressed to Senator Callely and it reads, in part, as follows:

Dear Senator Callely,

I refer to your recent claim for the recoupment of expenses for travelling facilities to Leinster House. I note from your letter of December 2007 that you have stated that the house at Kilcrohane, Bantry, County Cork is your "current principal residence". However, for the avoidance of doubt and for absolute certainty 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. This is the statutory provision used in section 4(1)(c) of the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act 1938 for the payment of such expenses.

The letter goes on to define from the regulations what "normal place of residence" means.

Was this letter to Senator Callely prompted by any letter from him or any contact from him? Why did the office feel it necessary in October 2008, to ask Senator Callely to confirm for the avoidance of doubt and for absolute certainty for future audit purposes, some 14 or 15 months after he told the office that Cork was his address? Why did the office feel it necessary to ask him to confirm that again?

In relation to the documentation - it is a payments file so there would be e-mails on the file asking people to do certain things and make certain payments. There would be internal e-mails on the payments file in relation to that. We can make them available to the committee without any difficulty. If there are any other e-mails we will do the same.

I noticed from reading the transcript that there was a detailed discussion around the change of address or change of options issue. Senator Callely, at one point, seemed to indicate that he sought a change of address but I think towards the end, after you had a conversation with him, he decided that, no, he had not applied for a change of address, so the answer appears to be in the transcript.

What I can say from our point of view is that the nature of the inquiry was clearly understood by the staff in the one-stop-shop on two occasions to relate to a change of options; in other words, to change from 4(b)(ii) to 4(b)(i) - to change from travel and overnights to the Dublin daily rate, but without changing address. I think Senator Callely conceded that in the transcript that the replies he had received on those two occasions related to the inquiries he had made and those two replies refer to your inquiry about changing options, not change of address. We were clearly working on the basis that he was looking for a change of option and, as we pointed out in those letters, we have absolutely no discretion in relation to a change of option, once the Member opts.

Within the year.

Yes, within the year.

I am sorry to interrupt Mr. Dignam's train of thought. Leaving aside Senator Callely for a moment, if a Senator or a TD, but for our purposes a Senator, moved house tomorrow from Dublin to, say, Mullingar and notified Mr. Dignam's office, presumably that could be incorporated into the system and dealt with by the system. The requirement that a change can be made only once a year has to do with A versus B, which perhaps we have not explained sufficiently clearly in this committee to people watching us, because the option between A and B is much narrower. If somebody closed up shop in Dublin and moved to Mullingar and notified Mr. Dignam's office of that, the office could cope with that, could it not?

The Senator would be surprised how infrequently that happens.

I imagine it would happen infrequently. It may never have occurred in recent years but I suppose if it did occur it could be coped with relatively easily.

We had one case. To the best of my knowledge one case has occurred where a Member has moved from Dublin to a rural area, and that was granted. We have never dealt with a change of address which also involved a change of option for a rural Member to move back to Dublin, so we never decided that question. It is largely hypothetical for me. I imagine that we would approach the Department of Finance which is the regulatory authority and agree some sort of situation. That is not to say that a Member may change address within his constituency and simply notify us. That is much more likely to occur.

That need not wait until the end of the year to be changed.

Not at all. No.

The regulation is silent on that issue.

Exactly, it is silent.

The last question related to Ms McCormack's letter on 2 October.

On what prompted it, the Senator had written to us and enclosed his option and claim forms for 2007, which were paid. I do not recall exactly when, but at some time during late 2008 we were doing some analytical work on the new system and it emerged that Senator Callely was in the bracket of rural Members, whereas I would have always thought of him as being in the Dublin category of Member, to be perfectly honest. That is just the way I thought about it. We reviewed the file and it was clear from the file that he was using terminology in his letter of December 2007 referring to current principal residence and not normal place of residence. It was immediately obvious to me, in any event, that if I noticed it, an auditor might notice it and to set matters to right we wrote to him asking him to confirm that, in fact, Kilcrohane was his normal place of residence. We did that and we enclosed in the body of the letter the working definition of normal place of residence to facilitate his understanding of it.

Did that arise from any specific controversy in the days or weeks beforehand?

No.

Was it just that you spotted it on the file and thought it should be checked?

Yes.

On the same issue, I just want to establish that there was no query to the office about Senator Callely's place of residence, apart from the freedom of information request.

No.

Thank you. In other words this emerged from the normal stress testing of the audit system within the office.

Yes.

That is very clear. In terms of the other issue, I am just developing the point raised by Senator White, is it possible for a rural Member to claim the daily allowance, as opposed to claiming mileage?

Yes it is, if they opt at the start of the year to do so, and some Members do.

I just want to get that on the record. I am aware that is a fact. In other words, those are the choices. I want to confirm again that Senator Callely never, at any stage, opted to change his address from Cork.

Correct.

So, we are absolutely clear then, in terms of the operation of the expenses regime and claim regime, etc., that he opted at all times for expenses from Cork and never sought to change his address and that the option of changing from one to the other was simply the option of from A to B, which you have dealt with already, clearly.

Yes.

That is fine. They are the issues I wanted clarified. Thank you very much, Mr. Dignam.

Thank you, Mr. Dignam. I would like to return to a point you made in relation to the change of options. I think you made a comment that the Senator inquired about changing to the Dublin rate, without changing his address. Is that correct?

Yes.

Can you explain what was envisaged there, or what was your understanding of that?

The scheme is governed by regulation 101 of 1998. At the start of every year a Member nominates a place of residence. If it is less than 15 miles or 23.135 km, they go onto the daily rate. If it is greater than 15 miles, they have an option to go on the daily rate, which is the Dublin rate, or on the travel and overnight rate. So, for a Member who is a rural Member - beyond 15 miles, they make the nomination for the daily rate or travel and overnights and cannot change back within that year. Does that answer the question?

Yes. How many opportunities, from the time of the first claim in 2007 until 2010 would the Senator have had to change his address?

At the start of each year. To change his address?

To change the option of normal place of residence.

At the start of each year.

So there would have been an opportunity in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

The end of 2008 and the end of 2009, yes.

And no opportunity was taken. That was not done. He did not change.

He did not change his normal place of residence. No.

On the letter that was issued on October 2008 from Ms McCormack, have you ever issued a letter like that before to anyone?

No, but normally claim forms do not come in from Members with a letter attached explaining particular sets of circumstances.

So this was a unique letter, in effect, that you drafted to deal with Senator Callely's unique circumstances as he was presenting them to you.

Yes.

On the contact with Senator Callely, did he go to the office and talk to you or was it all by telephone and e-mail? How many opportunities or how many discussions would there have been in relation to the expenses? Can you outline the format of those?

Mostly he would call to the office, the one-stop-shop. There was one e-mail he sent seeking a change of options. He would have been logged as popping in and out of the one-stop-shop on occasion to discuss something or, perhaps, collect forms or things like that. The heart of his contact was in the correspondence you had before you in the freedom of information request.

My apologies for missing the earlier response. In the additional information we received today, there is a form for the period at the start of this year, from 1 January to end February 2010. There were adjustments on the form for the total mileage travelled, the overnight allowances claimed and respective attendance in Seanad Éireann in the total period. These are all initialled and there is a reduction in the overnight allowance claimed. Can you explain why that happened?

You mean he claimed 23 one-ways and 30 overnight allowances and they were reduced to 21 and 28 -----

They were reduced subsequently and they were both initialled. Were they initialled by the Member or by the office?

By the office.

Was there a query in relation to the numbers?

To be honest, it can occasionally happen that a Member might include a date inadvertently. We cross-check with the travel section. There are two travel episodes there where the Member was abroad or involved with committees and there may have been some inadvertent listing of a day. That would not be significant. I would not regard it as significant. The system just looks through the claim, the dates and cross-checks with foreign travel or domestic travel arrangements and comes to a judgment, informs the Member and it is accepted straight away. I would regard that as purely inadvertent.

It is part of the internal audit procedures in any case.

We have to cross-check anyway, so it is part of our normal cross-checking procedures.

Could I ask you about the letter received from Senator Callely just a month ago, dated 26 May? In the letter he informs the office that his principal residence for the time being is Kilcrohane, Bantry, and states:

....although not necessarily my permanent and principal abode at all times. For personal, domestic and family reasons, I also reside in my Dublin abode.

Members' services would not have an awareness of where people stay if they claim the out of Dublin allowance, but this would have been your first knowledge that where Senator Callely was staying was the place that he claimed as his permanent residence while a Member of Dáil Éireann. There would be a record of his claims as a Member of the Oireachtas since his election. Was that thought of as strange, that is the first realisation that would have been known by the office?

Do we as an office consider it strange that he stays in his Dublin house? I am sorry, I do not fully understand your question.

The first knowledge you would have had that what was previously defined as his permanent residence - and your office would have had a knowledge of - was the receipt of this letter a month ago.

Well, no. I think from the very start, Senator Callely made it clear that he was retaining his Dublin home. I think he says it in the December 2007 letter. It states, "... I retain my Dublin home and my constituency office", so we would have known.

I think there is a difference between staying in it and maintaining ownership of it. I would argue there is a difference between that.

That is a matter for the Member. The allowance is paid for an overnight stay in Dublin and Members make their own arrangements as to what they want to do and we do not look behind that.

There are three cheques that have not been cashed at the moment. They are for €1,250 each month. That is the Dublin allowance, is it not?

No, it is the Senator's public representation allowance.

It is vouched.

The vouched, yes.

Back to the letter again, something the office would not have had a knowledge of, and it would probably not have affected the definition of something being a principal residence for the time being, but the property in Kilcrohane, Bantry, has been on the market for quite a period of time and that would indicate that it is far from being a permanent residence. There is no way you would have had knowledge of that and could have acted on it in any case.

It is a matter for the Member, really, whether he is selling his property or not.

Thank you.

Senator O'Donovan has pretty well covered the questions I wished to ask but I think the letter of Ms Bernadette McCormack to Senator Callely in October 2008 is central and I referred to that at the last meeting. Mr. Dignam, in relation to the uncashed cheques and the periods for which there was no claim made and the queries by Mr. Callely, would you accept that Mr. Callely was trying to-----? He said in his evidence here in the last meeting that he was spending more time in Dublin and he wanted to reflect that in his claims. He might not have used those words but I think that would reflect what he meant, would it? Arising from the queries made by Mr. Callely and the communications he had from your office, would you accept that Mr. Callely was possibly aware that, the fact that he was spending more time in Dublin, he was trying to regularise the situation?

That is a value judgment that I cannot make. That is a matter for Senator Callely.

People want to come back in. There was a point and I may have missed it and I apologise for my hearing may not be as good as some of the rest of you. In relation to the point asked by Senator O'Donovan, what would have been the amount if he had been in Dublin full time on a Dublin daily allowance? I missed that figure. If he was in Dublin full time from his appointment from say the end of 2009 can we look at the figures to see what would he would have been entitled to claim? I am not saying whether he was here or not but what was his entitlement?

That is a central question.

I might have missed it.

It was posed.

I disagree that it is a central question. We should deal with it in private. It came up the last day as well with respect to you and my colleagues. I cannot understand why we feel it necessary to have a debate about the actual amounts. I am not saying it is not a relevant question but surely if the issue of the principle of an entitlement to a claim is dealt with, it is a matter of simply sitting down with a pen and a piece of paper and working out what the actual figures are.

In deference to Senator O'Donovan-----

I shall do that but I thought the figure may have been given and I missed it.

In deference to Senator O'Donovan, he did make that point in the course of his contribution.

Yes.

It is partly my fault, Chairman. The question was asked but I did not answer it, largely because it is hypothetical to start working out what a Member would have claimed had he been in Dublin in the last two and a half years. I can give you an attempt but it is largely a hypothetical question as to what the Member's availability was for each day the House was open during those last two and a half years. I would prefer not to put a figure in the public domain that is purely hypothetical, if you do not mind.

That is fine.

To clarify, I am not making a big hang-up but we may very well be asked, as a committee, to come to certain conclusions, one being that he should repay - and I want to get this crystal clear - the amount he has overclaimed. In fairness, you have given me very precise answers on what he did claim and what he did not claim maybe, but if we come to a conclusion, maybe in private as other Senators say, there could be a big difference between the net amount, in other words-----. The public are entitled to know this, Chairman, as well. In other words, if he was entitled - let us say the daily allowance was €100 per day though I am not sure as to the Dublin rate because I have never claimed it - as a committee we need to know, either privately and I think the public should know as well, what the difference is if he had claimed from his Dublin address the daily allowance, option A as I think it is, since his appointment in 2007 up to now. It is important because we need to know if we are asking the Senator - which he has agreed to do, to pay back the overpayment - we need to know what the figure is.

Can I intervene and say this? If there is a repayment to be made, then that figure has to be calculated. It will not under any circumstances be calculated by this committee - under any circumstances. It will be calculated by the audit procedure within the one-stop-shop. The point that has been made by Senator O'Donovan is correct but it is way down the line. It is a fact that if we come to a conclusion at some stage that there was an overpayment and there is money to be recouped then that is our decision. That money has to be recouped and that would have to be made public, I absolutely agree. But I cannot see how it impacts on anything we are discussing. Unless I am missing a point at this stage, I do not see it.

Senator Callely has asked for his claims to be "parked" and you have confirmed that that is what he has asked you. I am just not absolutely clear on what that means, other than-----. Do you understand it to mean what I think it means which is not proceeded with for the time being but not withdrawn?

Correct.

I am sorry to have to come back to this business of the options again because it is a confusing issue for anybody and certainly for somebody coming to this for the first time. If somebody wants to change the option that we keep hearing about, so long as they still live more than 15 miles from Dublin, from Leinster House, the address does not enter into it. In other words, so long as their status remains as a greater-than-15-miles-person, they are not looking to change their address - it does not involve changing their address. It just involves changing as between a daily allowance or an overnight and travel allowance. Am I not right in that?

Yes.

It might be necessary for us just to explain because we are making presumptions here. The difference between a daily allowance and the overnight allowance and travel allowance is what? What are the implications of the difference between A and B?

At the time of those claims the daily rate would have been €61.53. Mileage is whatever it is at the rate set by the Department of Finance - at that time it was approximately €139 for an overnight. It is a significant difference.

Yes. It is €60 or so for A and €139 or €140 or so for B, plus mileage.

Plus mileage. It sets simply the €61 against the mileage and the overnight follows from section 9, I think.

Yes. At one stage Senator Callely told us the last day - and I appreciate that if a Member decides not to make a claim they do not make the claim and you have no further involvement - but he said on the last occasion that the reason why he did not make the claim for a period in 2008 and again in 2009 was that he wished to send a "signal" to your office in relation to his particular situation. I am not quoting him exactly but he definitely used the word "signal". That was why he determined that he would forbear and not claim for the last third of the year, the last few months of 2008 and again in 2009, so that he would send a signal to your office in some respect. Do you have any response to that? Do you regard that as a signal? Do you have any idea what it meant? Did you act on it in any way or did you take any view on it?

I did not take any view on it. A Member is entitled to claim but he did not claim. He chose to enter a nil return, which is immaterial, really. There is no harm to it - at least it lets us know that there are no liabilities accruing for the end of the year so that we can close the book. It is quite useful from that point of view. Ordinarily, Members would not complete a nil return. The reason they would not is that they have up to 365 days to put in a claim for a period they may have forgotten about.

They have a further year.

From the date of the claim, yes.

There is a sort of statute of limitations for a year after the claim arises.

In fact, under-----

In 1997 it was 100 days and there were changes in the following month or two.

Correct. It was changed under SI 173 of 2007 to a further appeal to the Minister of Finance who, if he saw good and sufficient reason, could make the payment as well.

This is my last question in this section. In relation to the question of normal place of residence, a person who, upon his or her election to the Seanad, is asked to fill in a form for the purposes of making their claims-----. Perhaps we should check, as it has only occurred to me in mid-sentence, but a person also signs the register when they become a Member of the Seanad. Has your office any interaction with any other offices in the Oireachtas dealing with addresses? For example, we have to indicate where we want our post sent. As far as I recall, when we signed in first we signed a book and I think we put our address on it but I am not sure.

We sign the roll. There is no address.

There used to be, I think.

There is no address on that. In relation to other matters like where the post is to be sent, or what address is to go on the Oireachtas website for a Member, have you any interaction with that? Does your office-----

It is handled by the Seanad Office and by the Clerk's office for the Dáil.

Do you have any-----

Not to my knowledge.

You do not compare or collate or, in any way, reconcile addresses from different systems?

Can I check that point for you?

Please do.

It might happen on an informal basis but I am not too sure. I do not think there is an official-----

Sorry, there is one question I forgot, which is my last question, on the October 2008 letter that I asked you about earlier on, Ms McCormack's letter. I asked you a minute ago - Senator Callely did not claim for the latter part of 2008. Is there any possibility that Senator Callely indicating that he was not going to claim for the later part of 2008 might have prompted this letter?

No, because I think his nil claim came in after the letter issued.

I thank Mr. Dignam - the information is very, very helpful in confirming and clarifying issues. I want to go back to the normal place of residence. In that letter - the 2008 letter or one of those letters at least - you gave the definition from 1938. It is very important for us to have on the record, because there is a huge issue here about the question of travel. I do not see the relevance at all. If a Senator goes to west Cork every weekend, that is his or her own business, one way or another. It is not like the issue of whether somebody had travelled. If I want to go down to a house in Dingle every weekend or every second weekend, that is my own business. I want to clarify and get onto the record very clearly that that was a situation which was extant from 1938 for the next couple of decades but that was to reflect a different travel time and a different regime. That actual definition does not have any relevance to the claiming regime as is there today. Since 1997, the regime is different. It does not allow a flexible "I have changed my residence" or "I have travelled to the House from here". It is the way it reflected on that occasion. I want to get that completely-----.

A lot of people commenting on this are not clear about this. This is an attendance allowance. It is from your primary residence. It does not matter if you have come from Rome or Dublin or Dingle or Kinsale or wherever it is you might have come in order to travel. The issue of the 1938 definition does not allow for any flexibility in a claiming regime that has been in place for the last 13 years now. I just want to have that absolutely clear on the record.

The overriding provision in the 1938 Act is section 4(1)(c), as we have stated in the letter. Up to the drafting and enactment of SI 101 of 1998, there were arrangements in place for Members to travel during recess periods from holiday homes. I think you alluded to that in part of your questioning last Friday and you referred to anecdotal evidence and that is quite correct. SI 101 of 1998 changed all that so the situation changed definitively after that and Members were asked to opt once a year. That definition that we used in the bottom of that letter in October 2008 is actually from a Department of Finance letter from 1994, where officials over there were struggling with this idea of temporary residence, and that defines the point at which a temporary residence becomes a normal place of residence - where you live there permanently or stay for a considerable period of time. Effectively, 1998 ruled out the holiday home idea.

I just wanted to clarify that so that if somebody did happen to be coming from a temporary residence or another residence or a residence other than the normal residence, that is his or her business. It is not that people were asked since 1998 but they were required since 1998 to commit for a year one way or the other and the other flexibilities are in there. Thank you very much. I am very clear on that. I am going to have to withdraw now, Chairman.

I should add that Senator Callely has declared Kilcrohane as his normal place of residence.

Yes, I know that. I am absolutely aware of that.

So the regulations changed in 1998 and there was not the flexibility that there had been before in relation to holiday homes or whatever.

Correct.

Just to return for a moment to the nil claims for four months in 2008 and 2009, which you have put a value, I think, of around €23,000 on. Was there any discussion between Senator Callely and yourselves in relation to the fact that he was not putting in a claim for those four months and the reasons why? We were trying to get an explanation from him during our discussion with him as to why he had not put in a claim for those four months.

Do you mean me personally?

Or the office, generally?

I have never met or spoken to Senator Callely. I spoke to staff about this issue of nil returns and I cannot find anybody who advised him to do that. That is not to say there was not any misinterpretation of a conversation that it was a thing to do or not to do.

But it happened for two years in 2008 and 2009.

Yes it did.

The explanation that he gave when he was asked about it here was as follows:

I personally decided that I would not make a 12-month claim, albeit that I may have been undertaking travel to and from Dublin and Cork - from Cork to Dublin - and, equally, conscious that at certain times I may have been spending more time in Dublin and I would not have been able to make a claim for Dublin because of the once and once only option. Therefore, in my view, I decided I would not make a claim for west Cork for those four months.

That point goes back to a previous question I asked. Can you clarify - he did not claim for four months in 2008 for the reasons he outlined there but in 2008 he could have changed his option for 2009?

Correct but he chose not to do that.

In relation to the letter you mentioned, could I request that you supply a copy of the Department of Finance letter of December 1994 to the committee? Is it possible that you could send it to the secretary, who will circulate it to the committee members?

I have absolutely no difficulty in giving it to you. It falls outside the time period you are examining but I have no difficulty in supplying it to you.

Can I ask Mr. Dignam to reaffirm an answer I think he gave earlier that, in his recollection, in recent years there has only been one other Member of the Oireachtas that has notified a change of residence from Dublin to outside?

Yes, just one.

I know this is in the area of supposition and human nature being what it is - changing family circumstances - it is fair to assume that there are people who are Members of the Oireachtas who do not live in their normal place of residence because of changing circumstances but who have not notified your office. In fact the opposite is probably happening as well.

If they have not notified us we would not know, that is true.

In terms of other claims that have been made, can I ask you to reaffirm that the nil claim made at the end of 2009 - that means that for that three-month period no subsequent claim can be made? You have closed the book on that now and the 365-day period cannot be used.

That is correct.

The only other question I have in this particular phase is - checking the distance between A and B, what are the procedures you have in the office? The distance listed here is 366 km which sounds about right. Cork city is about 250 km and the distance from there would be at least 60 miles. Is this a category that is taken on trust or is it a rule of thumb that is used in the office when checking the actual distance?

It was taken on trust until the new system came into force in March. The new system requires that Members take the shortest practicable route. We have indicated to Members that we ourselves will be checking the mileage with Google or equivalent mapping. Most Members have attached Google maps, showing their normal place of residence, to mileage claims, so that sets it in stone.

Just for the record, because it has been referred to several times, we should refer to the different rates as the Dublin rate and the non-Dublin rate. Many Members of the Oireachtas would be concerned to have myself described as rural.

I want to conclude with a couple of brief questions. I thank Mr. Dignam for the information he has provided as it has clarified some issues for me. Is it most unusual that any Member of the Oireachtas in recent years would put in a nil claim for seven months over a two-year period?

I think so.

The second issue concerns the A and B option that we are asked to decide around 1 January. A letter sent to Senator Callely dated 2 July 2009 from Ms Bernadette McCormack states that if one opts on, say, 10 January 2010, for option A, one cannot change to option B in that particular year. Would Mr. Dignam consider, perhaps this is a matter for the Department of Finance, that this regime is or was too rigid? For example, in my constituency, places such as Allihies and Kinsale are almost 100 miles away and if one was to move, which is possible, there would be a huge discrepancy. Does Mr. Dignam think that the system as outlined that once one makes a decision in January and one has to change for personal or other reasons either within the constituency or from Dublin to Cork or vice versa, is that particular rule that emanated from the Department of Finance, under SI 108 of 1998, too rigid?

I suppose each Member would take their own view as to whether it is rigid or not, depending on whether or not it restricts them but the fact of the matter is that is the legislation I have to work with.

You must work with that legislation.

I have to work with that legislation, that is what is before me. In relation to Senator Callely, we offered twice to put a special case to the Minister for Finance for him. I think he went to the Minister himself and did not take up our offer but we offered twice.

Is there correspondence in the file on that issue?

There is. You have it before you in Mr. Haran's letter of 15 October, the second last paragraph of which reads:

However, if so desired we could put your case to the Minister for Finance on the basis of the foregoing and ask if it would be possible to set the regulations aside and allow for a change of option.

While we did not have the discretion we were prepared to make a case to the Department of Finance.

I call Senator Glynn to be followed by Senator Alex White.

I wish to return to Bernadette McCormack's letter of 2 October, the first paragraph of which reads:

I refer to your recent claim for the recoupment of expenses for travelling facilities to Leinster House. I note from your letter of December 2007 that you have stated that the house at Kilcrohane, Bantry, County Cork, is your usual "current principal residence". However, for the avoidance of doubt and for absolute certainty 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".

Senator Callely, in his acceptance letter of his nomination by the Taoiseach to Seanad Éireann, gave Kilcrohane house as his normal place of residence. Is that correct?

The Taoiseach's letter was sent to him at that address.

Yes, but he gave his address at that time as Kilcrohane house. What prompted this letter of 2 October making that particular query? Was it as a result of communications, written or otherwise, by Mr. Callely in relation to: (a) the fact that he wanted to change his option, I think that was one of the things; and (b) the fact that he had not cashed some cheques and had made a nil claim for periods outlined by Mr. Dignam?

The non-cashing of cheques and the nil returns occurred well after October 2008 so they are not relevant to that letter. In regard to the first point, I think I said earlier that in doing some statistical work in preparation for the new system, it was noticed by me that Senator Callely was claiming from Kilcrohane and not Dublin. The terminology used in his letter was not aligned with what the declaration should be, which is normal place of residence, and we queried that because we were concerned that their might be some audit implications down the line. That was the driver for that letter.

Yes. So Mr. Dignam was just seeking clarification for his own purposes.

Absolutely. Clarification.

I thank Mr. Dignam.

On page 82 of the transcript Senator Callely told the committee the last day as follows: "Again, I make the point that I addressed these matters over a prolonged period of time, long before they came into the public domain." He certainly gave me the impression the last day that this issue, as far as he was concerned, was a live one for him over a period of many months, in other words, the query he had in relation to how his expenses would be dealt with. Whereas Mr. Dignam fairly said earlier that he never actually met Senator Callely or had any conversation with him, quite clearly people in his office did have some contact with him over this period. Has Mr. Dignam checked as to whether there was extensive contacting of the office on this issue from Senator Callely? I have covered this issue already and I do not want to be repetitious. What was the nature of the contact, what was he on about, what was he looking for and what was he inquiring about? On a related issue, if Mr. Dignam was going to make a case to the Minister for Finance, as his office suggested might be done, what would that case consist of?

On the first question I think said earlier that most of the contact was in the letters. That is extensive enough in the sense that the Member has gone to the trouble to write about the difficulties he is experiencing. He did call into the office several times as well but we would have logged those simply as call-ins by the Member. I do not know the nature of the inquiry, it could have been just to collect a form, but there were several call-ins as well. There was an e-mail to one of the staff as well which was all about the nature of option changes from 4(b)(ii) to 4(b)(i), not to be technical but---

To change from the daily allowance to overnight and travel.

No, the reverse.

The other way around.

I addressed that point earlier that it was not a change of address, it was a change of option.

Yes, you did.

That was the second point. The third point was the case we would make to the Minister for Finance. We simply wrote to Senator Callely asking if he wanted us to make the case as we would then have to discuss with him what the case was. He would have to approve of what we would say or let us know how to go about it or what the special circumstances are for him to want to change.

Just on that point, I would assume if Mr. Dignam went so far as to say to him in a letter that he was prepared to make a case to the Minister for Finance, there must have been some appreciation in the office as to what that would entail. If Senator Callely was contacting and querying the office, is Mr. Dignam saying that whatever Senator Callely wanted that you would then - I do not mean granted. In other words, whatever Senator Callely's issue was, you would put that in a letter to the Minister for Finance. "Dear Minister, Senator Callely is inquiring ..... perhaps he can do the following? Can he do that?" Is that the kind of thing?

Yes, absolutely.

I have one last question on the change from option A to B. If Senator Callely had switched from option B to option A, from the overnight and travel allowance to the daily allowance, without changing address, would that not have had the same effect, actually, as changing address to Dublin?

Yes.

To return to the information you have given us in relation to making a special case to the Minister that that was an option, could you clarify for the committee how many times you offered to Senator Callely that a special case could be made to the Minister? Could you give us the dates on which that was suggested as a possibility?

Twice. We made the offer twice: in the letter of 15 October and-----

In which year?

I beg your pardon, October 2009. There is a note on the file of a conversation dated 15 December 2009.

So both in 2009.

Yes.

A final question, just to clarify the reason you considered putting the option to Senator Callely that a special case could be made to the Minister. Was that in relation to changing the option?

Yes. It was just to be of assistance to the Member. Generally speaking, if a Member has a difficulty to be resolved, we would try to offer some assistance to him or her.

If it had been pursued, it would have had the effect that Senator Callely would then have just claimed the daily rate as opposed to the overnight rate and mileage. Is that correct?

Yes, if it had been allowed by the Department of Finance.

If it had been allowed, could you spell out what the impact would have been?

This is purely hypothetical because I have no idea what way the Department of Finance would have reacted to this.

Yes.

Effectively, it would have meant that without changing address he would have moved from a mileage and overnight system to the Dublin daily allowance.

So less money would have been claimed if he had pursued that option?

Yes.

OK. How did Senator Callely respond to that offer? Did he respond in writing or was it a verbal response? What was your understanding of his response to you?

He wrote back on 30 November to Mr. Haran saying "I refer to your letter of the 15th of October 2009 and I appreciate the content of same." He does not actually refer-----he refers to having himself spoken to the Minister for Finance, but not to our offer. I do not know if he fully reflected on it or not.

So instead of pursuing it with your section, he chose to have a conversation with the Minister for Finance.

He indicates that in his letter, yes.

The Minister for Finance at that time was-----that is, the year was-----

Last year. It was Minister Lenihan.

Yes. Thank you.

I call Senator Boyle. We must move on as the House is-----

I just wanted to ask Mr. Dignam a few questions about the freedom of information request, the process that accompanied it and the chronology. Was it received by you directly or did it go through the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission? When would it have originally been received by someone in the Oireachtas? The policy, I presume, is to act promptly on such requests, and I believe it also involves informing the Member that such a request has been received. Would you have a timeline with regard to when it was received and how it was acted on subsequently?

I do not have that file with me, but I can write to you in response to all those questions. I did not bring the FOI file with me.

Could you give an indication of whether it took weeks or months, or-----

To the best of my memory, the request was dated late April and it was responded to within the regulatory timeframe of four weeks, towards the end of May. The normal procedure in the office is that FOI is centralised in an FOI unit, where requests are received and distributed to the decision makers. The decision makers collate the data. It is normally sent to Members for a first look to see if there are any errors in it that need to be corrected, and then it is issued to the requester.

Is it fair to say that some correspondence we have seen today was subsequent to the freedom of information request being received and the Member being informed of that?

I circulated a number of documents which are on Senator Callely's file which post-date the FOI release and the request period.

I should mention that the document provided by Mr. Dignam that would be circulated to Members will also be circulated to Senator Callely when the meeting concludes. There have been quite an amount of questions, Mr. Dignam, and I thank you for your attendance and help.