Apologies have been received from Senator Denis O'Donovan, who is unable to attend. Senator Callely has been directed to attend before the committee today. The last time Senator Callely appeared before the committee to give evidence, on 25 June 2010, he affirmed to tell the truth to the committee. I remind Senator Callely that you are still under oath in relation to the evidence you give to the committee during the course of the meeting. I will call on members of the committee to individually ask Senator Callely questions and ask for Senator Callely to respond after each question. So we can proceed from there, Senator O'Toole.

Thank you very much; and thank you very much, Senator Callely. Since the last meeting, a number of things have arisen and a number of issues, also just looking back, that lack clarity from my point of view. It seems to me that first of all, like, you neglected or thought it was irrelevant to tell us at the last meeting that your home in west Cork is actually on the market for sale. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Does this have any connection with the issue that we're talking about?

No, none whatsoever.

Well it just seems, on looking at it, the fact that the home which you're saying is your principal residence is on the market and the home which you're saying is the second residence in Clontarf, it is not on the market. That seems a contradiction there, and also obviously the fact of it being claimed as a principal residence would have serious implications for capital gains tax in the event of the house selling. Are these relevant issues? Is that relevant to the point we're talking about? The reason I ask you this question is that, like we began this talking about an issue of expenses and, but if the outcome were to prove that the principal residence were in Cork and that that house were sold, then we're talking about something up to quarter of a million tax-free difference. There is a significant issue here, and I'd just like to hear your views on that, and particularly in the context of ... you told us on the first meeting that "Contrary to public perception, [you said] I am not currently in receipt of subsistence and travel from Cork", but you've claimed subsistence in, from Cork in 2007, in almost all of 2008 and then you stopped, almost all of 2009 or for the significant period in 2009, and you stopped. We attempted to extract from you at the first meeting why that was the case and we also became aware through our dealings with Mr. Dignam that in fact there was a difficulty about expenses back in 1994, at which stage a similar thing arose about whether or not you were living in Cork or in Dublin; and at that stage the position adopted by the Department of Finance was that the house in Cork was a weekend home, as opposed to a change of residence, even though under those current arrangements at the time people could change. Now you are asking us to say ... you are telling us that the house in Cork is your principal residence. You are not claiming nonetheless for large periods of the year. You are saying, you used the phrase "in order to reflect my [actual situation]", the only way we can look at that is that you are not content to abide by the current regulation and that you are dealing with it in a way that suits you rather than the regulation. So there is three things there - there is the capital gains issue, there is the fact that this was previously considered to be a weekend home, and there is the question that you haven't claimed for long periods of the year. We have asked why this is the case. All you have said is that to "reflect" the position that you are in, and we cannot actually understand that. You're saying to us that you are in west Cork, you're ... in Dublin, you are living in the family home with your family, and west Cork is still your principal residence. There are too many contradictions there, Senator. That is the problem for us.

I think it is important that we should be quite clear. Unless I am misunderstanding, I understand I am before this committee because of two complaints made against me. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct.

So, it is the issue of the complaints made against me. Senator O'Toole seems to be diversifying and going into other areas. He is referring to the fact that the property is for sale in west Cork. That was never put to me. It is not an issue, Senator O'Toole.

Well if it is your principal residence, Senator-----

I have never denied that the property is for sale and I would like to think, as I am tax compliant, that everybody else would be as equally tax compliant and whatever tax issues I have, whether I would have a capital gains tax or not, of course I would pay it; and that matter would arise when the matter would arise, and only then. So in relation to ... let us deal with what's before us. Cathaoirleach if I might .... I will not at the moment, I will come back to it. Capital gains is not an issue here.

In relation to my residence, I think it is fair to say that, when I was appointed to the House ... and the letter in which I received my appointment. It was sent to the address where I was resident. In my first claim, just in case there is an assumption that I was trying to hide anything at any time, and I think in fairness, and I think Members are aware, I was out of the country last week so I really did not get an opportunity to go through some of the documentation that I know has been circulated to me. I know there is a letter, if memory serves me correctly, on file from myself, dated December '07. "I retain my Dublin home. My current principal residence is Kilcrohane. I would appreciate if you can advise how best to proceed." In fairness, Senator O'Toole, that letter of December of '07 and further letters that have also been circulated are quite clear.

In relation to your other question-----

What is clear about it? Sorry, I do not understand what is clear about it.

My residence is west Cork and I have retained my Dublin home, and I have family reasons for doing so. I think Mr. Dignam also answered a similar question that you asked him on the last occasion.

You said that in order to reflect the actual travel, or whatever the word is, that you stopped claiming for a certain period of the year. I am trying to find-----

What page are you talking about?

This is in your first statement. "I advised them that in order to reflect the travel between my Kilcrohane and Dublin abode-----

What page is that on?

I am not sure what page it is on, but that is the quote I am taking from it.

Maybe if we could find it, I would welcome if it could be pointed out.

Here is the point. You seem to think that it is possible to claim subsistence and travel between your home in west Cork and your home in Dublin. This is the point we were trying to get at during the last meeting.

I have it. I would like to know in what context it is being used.

I do not know what context, but you said "I advised them that in order to reflect the travel between my-----

If you tell me the page I will be able to find it.

It is your statement I am quoting back to you.

It was your e-mail of 7 October 2009, your letter of 30 November 2009 and your letter of 2 April 2010. Each of those three documents contains the point that Senator O'Toole made.

I think Senator O'Toole is referring to the question and answer session.

Well, then you can go to page 62 of the transcript, which has one of a number of references to the issue. There are several references, but that is just one that I can find at the moment. We can get the others for you if you want.

It is not from the question and answer session. It is from the statement or the expanded statement. You stated "I advised them that in order to reflect the travel between Kilcrohane and Dublin, that I would claim no further for that year." But then you claimed again the next year. I can only come to a number of conclusions on this. It seems like you're saying that for the rest of the year, you were not in Cork and that it was not your principal abode.

I think in fairness, Senator O'Toole, I answered that on the last occasion.

No you did not. Tell us again.

As I said, I was away all last week and I only came in at midnight last night. I did not have a chance to go over the documentation. If I recall correctly, I did say on the last occasion that there was a once and once only option. When I was spending more time in Dublin, and not, as I would deem, satisfied in myself that I was using west Cork as my residence, I would not make any claim, even albeit, and I think I said something to this effect, if I was travelling up and down to Cork. But because I was using my Dublin home more as my residence, I made a conscientious decision to put in a nil claim. Because, whatever travel I may have undertaken, I would have taken it and deemed it to be more personal than actual from a residence. That is why I made a nil claim for a period of time.

But you are telling us that that was still your principal residence at that time.

And so it is.

But you were not living there.

I was. I was not claiming because I was spending more time in Dublin, and quite simply and clearly, you only have a once and once only option. I felt whatever travel I was doing to west Cork, it was personal, so I did not want to make a claim, nor indeed could I have made a claim for a Dublin only option because my once and once only option applied. You cannot chop and change.

You could have changed it on 1st January.

On 1 January, yes.

You claimed for-----

But, sorry, only for the year.

But you told us that you did not claim for the end of 2008. Then, on 1 January, you claimed west Cork as your residence again. Then, you did not claim towards the end of 2009 and then for this year, you told us last week that west Cork was your principal residence again. You are actually saying that it was not your principal residence at certain times, or else you were not living there and it was. We are faced with a situation of saying you're registered to vote one place, you told the Seanad to write to you about sitting days and when it was meeting, in Dublin. There are various other things and we discussed your website before. You have put us in an impossible situation. Absolutely impossible.

Can I answer your question by saying to you ... I have pointed out on the previous occasion that when in receipt of expenses I was at all times acting correctly. I think I was quite clear in saying that there were personal and political reasons why I chose to reside in west Cork. In fairness to me, I think, in fairness I said that on a couple of occasions and I retained my Dublin home and my constituency office in Killester. I think you asked similar questions to Mr. Dignam. And that I fulfilled my duties to Seanad Éireann from all three locations. I honestly don't think I can be more open than that.

As it happens, you referred to my web. Senator O'Toole, you are an individual who claims to be an independent and totally independent.

No.

You do not? You do not claim you are totally independent?

This is questioning now------

The questions go the other way. We are asking Senator Callely questions.

On your web, Senator O'Toole-----

No, Senator, I want to go to Senator Boyle.

I am answering ... I am sorry, I am entitled to answer the question.

Answer the questions raised, yes.

On Senator O'Toole's web - "Let me confirm that I am a real independent. I have never been a member of any party and never have taken a party whip."

That question was not raised. Senator Callely, that question was not raised.

Senator O'Toole, the public may find it difficult that-----

He raised the questions to you and I want the replies from you. I want to call Senator Boyle then.

The public may find a difficulty in the fact that you receive a leader's allowance as an independent, and that the independent group has a party Whip, and that there is an allowance for the party Whip as well.

Senator Callely-----

This would be what might be deemed a technical issue if you were to tease it out.

Yes.

Am I correct in saying that?

Please, no. We are not going down that road. Senator Callely, the question has been raised by a member of the committee.

If we are talking about technical issues and websites-----

He has raised a question and I would appreciate-----

I am answering the question.

I only want the questions raised by Senator O'Toole answered, and I want to call Senator Boyle.

I am entitled to answer the question in the manner in which I deem appropriate.

Yes, but there was no question raised in relation to anyone else's web.

I am happy to take any questions.

I do not know the relevance to what you have said.

Senator Callely, you would accept that what is clear to you may not be clear to the committee and the whole purpose of these hearings is to establish clarity. Many of the questions we ask today are due to ongoing confusion about how you define your principal residence. We have heard from you in relation to the payment of the non-principal private residence payment to Dublin City Council for your property in Kilcrohane in Cork. That payment was made on 6 November 2009. Now the establishment of the €200 charge was part of the Budget Statement in December 2008 and was followed through by legislation which came through both Houses of the Oireachtas and which he as a Member of the Seanad would have been responsible for overseeing. That would have had the liability date for that charge at 31 July and yet the payment you made was on 6 November, which seems to indicate a degree of uncertainty as to how you were going to define the location of your private residence. This is the same time as you were still registered as a voter in Dublin North-Central, with the same body you were paying the second house levy to, Dublin City Council.

You should understand that the further information that your property in Kilcrohane was on the market, and it seems to have been on the market predating your defining of it as your principal residence from 2007 and onwards, which indicates to members of this committee that you were interested in divesting that property and it would not sit easily with the idea of it being a principal private residence. One of the effects of declaring it a private principal residence is that in the event of it being so, which you actively seem to be engaged in, is it would affect a capital gains tax liability.

They are legitimate questions for this committee to ask because there now seems to be three areas as to how you are defining your principal residence; one to do with the second home levy, one is how you are registered as a voter and the third as to how a possible liability might accrue to you in terms of capital gains tax. They are legitimate means and they are causes of confusion for this committee.

I would like to ask you, in relation to the house being for sale during the period in question, was it open for estate agents or prospective buyers to look at? Was it actively involved in the market? Is it something that you have had to reconsider in terms of the sale price to make it more saleable? Is it something where you are engaged in a process in making sure you were selling it as quickly as possible?

Senator Boyle, in relation to the PPR, that was paid whenever it was due and that is the way I would normally operate.

Not according to the receipt it is not. The receipt is 9 November 2009. The liability night is 31 July 2009.

I will be very happy to check when the cheque was written. I think you may find this was the first time the PPR we are dealing with, taxes of this nature, and I honestly cannot tell you what date it was paid. I know whatever would have been the cut-off date, I would have paid it before then. I cannot answer for the administration and I think we would all recognise that when there are authorities in their infancy, they are not inclined to maybe be as quick as one might like them to be because there are usually some teething problems. I do not know; I am just jumping to a conclusion, but I can certainly check. My understanding would be that whatever date was required to pay, it was paid on it.

In relation to the capital gains I think I have answered that question. It is not a matter that comes under the complaints made against me but I am very happy to indicate to you that the property is for sale and has been for sale for quite a considerable period of time. But, I think whatever you might know of sales in the Cork city region, in the west Cork region - where my colleague beside you would know - there is not an awful lot of activity on the market, so I don't expect that the property will be sold. So it is not actively being pursued, as you asked.

Has anyone who has made an offer visited the house? Have estate agents been involved in the process?

Has which?

Has any prospective buyer visited the House? Have estate agents been involved in the process and assessed the House?

It is for sale via an estate agent, of course. That is how the property-----

Is this an ongoing process? Is this happening updated on a regular basis every six months, every three months?

No. It was given to him three, four, five years ago and I think over that period of time, a number of people have viewed the property; nothing, to my knowledge, in recent times, reflecting the market position.

Can I just ask one other series of questions?

I think it is important that I again make the point, Senator Boyle, in case you did not, because I answered Senator O'Toole on the point. Whatever tax obligations I would have would be met and would be dealt with accordingly and appropriately at the time of that tax obligation.

You understand that establishing the Kilcrohane property as your principal private residence would exempt you from a capital gains tax liability.

Not necessarily; the property in Dublin might be worth more than the property in Kilcrohane, and because of family circumstances and situation, either property could be sold. So you could be quite correct, incorrect, in the manner in which you are thinking.

Can I just ask you this?

Much to my financial disadvantage. You did say something about interpretation and you are right; so often in life it is not what you do, it is not even the way you do it, it is the way people might interpret it. It can seem strange when people have a preconception or a belief of one's position and I suppose we should not lose sight of the fact that I was very heavily involved in Dublin North-Central for a prolonged period of time over 25 or 27 years.

Having said all that there is usually a rational explanation and I think, in fairness to me, I have put a fair, rational explanation to you as to the circumstances, particularly since the loss of my Dáil seat in 2007 and the personal and family situation. So I can't do any more.

That is something for the committee to determine subsequently. Can I just ask one final question in relation to your use of the house in Clontarf? As a Dublin-based Member you are entitled to the daily allowance, which is for your costs in using the offices in Leinster House, your travel to and from and whatever additional expenses you have as a Dublin-based Member. When you were travelling to and from Kilcrohane you have admitted here that you stayed in the House in Clontarf, which entitled you to an accommodation allowance for something that you were not entitled to an accommodation allowance before. Yet you would have received the travel allowance from Kilcrohane and the additional accommodation allowance for staying in a house that you had not claimed accommodation for before. Do you not consider that inconsistent?

Well, you mentioned on the last occasion Senator Boyle that you and I had some things in common. I think we might have something in common in that regard as well. I think when you come to Dublin you stay in a property owned by your family. I do not know what your arrangements are in relation to your claims but what I can say is that my claims, I understand, meet the definition of the Department of Finance. Indeed, the one thing that I was able to do today was, I understand that the definition of the Department of Finance ... again this is going back to Senator O'Toole's point ... was done by the Attorney General in 1987 or 1989, which would have been, more than likely now, the Chief Justice. So I think the authorities have made a definition on this would be significant. Again, I make the point that my claims accurately reflect my position and are within the definition, I presume similar to yourself.

Well, I would argue that, to be honest. I still pay a rent, I will have you know. It is in relation to having, staying in a property, the exact same property, and not claiming for it as a Dublin-based Member and claiming for it while travelling to and from Bantry. You do not consider that inconsistent?

I accurately reflect my residence in Cork and my periods of time that I am in attendance in the House. I do not see any inconsistency with that.

Surely the forms that you sign give the option of having travel and/or accommodation and yet you chose to go travel and accommodation each time.

And I believe that I comply with the regulations in that regard.

Picking up on that point Senator Callely, you have confirmed as recently as in your letter to us last week, if I am not mistaken, that your Clontarf home is your family home. You used that term, "family home", is that right?

That is correct.

You talked about the distinction between the normal place of residence and the family home. You think - you say - they can be different and you are claiming, in fact, that they are different in your case. So Clontarf is your family home, is that right?

That is correct.

Yes. Just coming back to Senator Boyle's point in relation to consistency, I want to suggest this to you. You must be the only person. Let me put it a different way; do you not think that it strange at least, or at least worthy of question, that you are claiming an overnight allowance to stay in your family home? Did you hear the question?

I did.

Do you think it strange, do you not think it strange that you are claiming an overnight allowance to stay at home in your family house?

As I answered the question to the last questioner, and I understand from what Senator Boyle said he pays a rent on the property owned by a----

Forget about Senator Boyle. Just answer the question I ask you. Do you not think it is at least worthy of question that you are claiming and being paid an overnight allowance to stay at home in your family home?

The answer to the question is that I comply with the regulations.

I will ask you for a third time, do you not think it is at least worthy of discussion and question that somebody in a public position, such as you, is claiming an overnight allowance to stay at home?

Senator White, as Paxman would put it, "Oh, come on". I think there is an awful lot of Members of this House own properties in the greater Dublin area who are from outside the region and would comply with the regulations in relation to their expenses. That is a similar position that I am in.

So your answer is that we should look elsewhere.

No, my answer is that I comply-----

You describe Clontarf as your family home, is not that right?

Yes, that is correct.

Can I ask you this, then, in relation to west Cork? Senator Boyle asked you about putting it on the market. The issue has been raised about CGT and I am not necessarily going to pursue the question of capital gains tax but what I do want to ask you is a couple of quick questions about west Cork, if you do not mind. First, when was it placed on the market?

I would think ... probably ... some time around the period of the early 2000s.

Early 2000s ... sorry?

The early 2000s.

It has been for sale for nearly ten years, has it?

No, I would not think ten years but I would say certainly probably '04-'05-ish.

Okay. With a banner outside, "For Sale"? No, but it has been available on lists of properties for sale in west Cork for five or six years, is that what you are saying?

I would not like to mislead you but I would certainly say a number of years.

Was it already for sale in 2007?

It would have been, yes

It was on the market in 2007 and it is your normal place of residence.

That is correct. Is there a problem with that, Senator?

I will ask the questions, please, and you might answer them. We will decide whether we think there is a problem or not when we get down to discussing this issue. In relation to west Cork, when did you last spend the night in the house in Kilcrohane?

I was away last week-----

That is right, we know that.

-----so it was just before I went away, the night before I would have gone away.

When was that? Did you stay there for the night within the last two weeks?

Yes, yes.

That is fine.

Not for a night. I would have stayed for a number of nights.

A couple of nights. In relation to the pattern of your working week-----

Sorry, Senator White, now that I do recall, I went away on Monday, I think it was, of last week and I attended a family function in County Louth on the Saturday so it would have been the previous few days.

It is a very simple question. When did you last stay there for the night? Was it last week, the week before or the week before that again?

A couple of weeks ago.

A couple of weeks - do you mean two weeks ago?

Yes, yes.

Since you seem now to have introduced doubt into your answer, when was the time before that?

There would be no doubt at all-----

When was the time before that?

Three or four days previously. The only time I wouldn't have, would have been when I was committed here, to the House. I think I did mention on the last occasion-----

None of us is at home when we are in the House.

In this House, I am talking about. I think I did mention on the last occasion that since I lost my seat I am not doing my usual mobile information unit on my Saturday walkabouts-----

Yes, I want to come to that.

-----which frees me up a considerable amount.

Since you have raised that, I have a number of questions I want to ask you about it. Senator Glynn asked you, on the last occasion, at page 63 of the transcript, "I am going to ask you one straight question, Senator Callely. Would it be true to say that you spent all your working week in Dublin and at all other times you reside in west Cork?" You answered, "That is a fair reflection, nearly an accurate reflection. That is correct". Okay. You are essentially answering Senator Glynn by saying you spent all your working week in Dublin and then you go home to Cork for the other days. Is that not what you said to him?

By and large.

What do you mean by the working week? When, typically, do you head off to west Cork after the working week and when do you turn up back here from west Cork?

It would vary, and I indicated this on the last occasion as well. It would vary, depending on the time of year, depending on ... projects that I would be undertaking. By and large, it would be either Thursday or Friday - west Cork, and back to Dublin, Sunday, Monday or Tuesday.

There is a lot of latitude there. Sunday, Monday or Tuesday, and you go home Thursday or Friday.

Certainly next week it will probably depend on what commitments I have in Dublin and what committee business.

The House is not sitting now, of course, after this week. What I am trying to get from you is a typical week in terms of your commitments here and in terms of heading back to west Cork.

When my commitments are completed in Seanad Éireann, I would be returning to west Cork.

That would be Thursday afternoons.

Thursday afternoons or Fridays.

Then you would come back up for 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday which is when we typically convene again, is that not right?

Yes. I do have family in Dublin and, depending on what circumstances there would be in a normal family situation, I may have to attend a function or a football match or a graduation or a parent-teacher meeting or whatever it might be.

Exactly. We all have family commitments and social commitments and so on. I understand what you mean by that but I am just trying to get an understanding of where most of them take place. I am suggesting to you that most of those commitments, whether family, social, going to football matches, all the things you have just mentioned now, all happen in Dublin. Is that not right?

No, not correct.

Your children live in Dublin, is that not right?

Not correct at the moment.

I see. Do they live in west Cork?

Yes, that is correct at the moment.

Has your family moved to west Cork?

No, that is not correct.

Well, can you tell us? The difficulty is that this came up on the last occasion and I am going to press you on this. It is a difficult area but it is not really satisfactory from the point of view of this committee that we have really only half dealt with the following issue. You said on the last occasion that there were personal circumstances - Senator O'Donovan suggested to you that maybe this could be explored in a private meeting if you wished that but you said you did not. What exactly do you mean by personal circumstances? Do you want to tell the committee what you mean by personal circumstances that led to this changeabout in terms of your commitment to west Cork versus Dublin?

I did indicate in my opening statement on the last occasion. I believe in matters relating to my public life and matters relating to my private life - there are clearly issues there that while the public may want to have knowledge, I believe I am entitled to have a separate private life. I am glad to note that you acknowledge that.

No question. I am only asking this based on what you said a minute ago. You gave a list of things which were, for example, going to parent-teacher meetings, football games, various other commitments that we would all have, as people with families. You are the one who raised that. I am suggesting to you that most of those commitments in fact would appear to arise for you in Dublin, not in Cork

Sorry, Senator White, did you hear the answer to your question?

I am listening very carefully to you.

You asked me about where my children are at the moment.

At the moment. I see. Okay. Your family home is now in west Cork, is it?

No, it is not, but you asked me a straight question and I answered it honestly.

Okay. Are they in school in west Cork?

No.

No. All right.

I have a daughter who is working and it is not the first time she has been working in west Cork. She is partly in west Cork and my son, who was in school and has just completed his leaving ... is now ... he wanted to join me in west Cork and he has done so. I am not going to go into any much more detail on this other than to say I think that is a fair sample of what I mean-----

A sample. All right.

-----by evolving circumstances.

Your website still talks about clinic times, Senator Callely. Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays - 8.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m., by appointment only, at the constituency office at 191 Howth Road, Killester village, next to the Bank of Ireland. Is that still in play, still in operation?

Well, Senator White, on the last occasion you, I think, alluded to the fact that Senators don't have constituency offices.

I am taking it out of your website. I am putting to you, asking you, whether in fact your availability, as advertised by you of 8.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, is still the case.

Senator White, I could equally say to you, in relation to your website-----

No, no, no. Forget about my website. Answer the question that is being put to you.

Please, Senator we are not getting into any Members' personal websites.

You are advertising constituency, as you call them, availability. Call it what you want. Call it constituency. If you don't want to call it constituency it does not matter what you call it. The fact is that you are advertising your availability, presumably to the people of Dublin North-Central, Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, 8.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. I am simply asking you a question. Is that still there? Is that still the case or not? It is a yes or no answer.

The answer to the question would be I am of the old stock of what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I think the public would really be somewhat amused if they saw some of the people asking questions and where the questions are coming from. What I would-----

There is no difficulty. I can assure you, Chairman, that there is absolutely no difficulty about anything to do with my availability. If Senator Callely wants to know about it he can find out about it. We are asking him-----

Senator Callely, the questions are being asked by the committee. The questions are being asked of you.

Thank you Chairman. A simple question of fact ... I am going to ask you for the third time, the third time - are the weekly clinic times, as you describe them, on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays from 8.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. still in place or are they not?

Are you asking me am I there on those occasions?

If you want to answer it, you can answer it whatever way you want. I am asking the question, you give the answer. Now, Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays from 8.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. and then actually added to that then is Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, 10 o'clock to 12 o'clock. Sorry, there are two sets of them, 8.30 a.m.to 10.30 a.m. and then again 10 a.m. to noon at 191 Howth Road, Killester Village. Are those times and that opportunity for people to go and meet Senator Callely still there?

The manner in which you have now put the question, and put it factually for the third time-----

I do not want to take you short. Do you want me to hand this over to you so you can see what I am reading from?

No. My understanding, and I think you might be wrong in some of what you said, there might be two different sheets there---

There is only one sheet.

Is there? My understanding is that the current web page indicates that the clinic is available from 10 a.m. to noon Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

I printed it out three minutes before I came down here from your website.

Well, to answer your question, albeit that you do not want to answer questions on your website-----

No, I won't be answering questions.

That is irrelevant no, please.

I will not be answering your questions, Senator Callely, in this forum.

All I can say is ... To answer the question about in this forum, I am quite satisfied that I accurately reflect the definition of the Department in relation to my expenses.

I am not getting an answer to my question and I am insisting on an answer to my question. The question is whether these clinic times-----

To answer your question, if you would let me-----

Yes.

To answer your question in the manner in which you put it, you asked if constituents would be able to meet me at these times, I think you would know clearly that on a Wednesday that would certainly not be possible. So you can be assured that I would not be in the clinic on Monday, Wednesday and Friday but there would be somebody who would sub for me to be in attendance and that is what normally happens.

So the office opening hours and the clinic times, therefore, are still in fact in place. Is that right, notwithstanding that you personally may not always be there yourself? Is that the answer?

The answer to your question ... I will answer the question, if you do not mind.

If you would please answer it.

Senator Callely, the question has been put there again.

I am not going to be bullied

No, no, you are not being bullied but this is the about fifth time we asked you the question and you have not answered it.

I want to chair this and I appreciate-----

I think, Senator, you have experience in a professional capacity.

No. The question has been asked by Senator White and he is looking for an answer.

There may be a little bit of unfairness in trying to bully me into answering a question in a professional capacity but I will answer the question in my way and in ordinary layman's terms. It is quite simple. My understanding is that my 191 Howth Road constituency office is advertised as being open Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 10 a.m. to noon. Usually I am not in attendance unless I know that there is a particular person coming to see me specifically. Otherwise, there is a volunteer or a secretary who works for me who would hand over whatever documentation or forms that may be necessary.

I have quite a few more ... I do not mind yielding to my colleagues and you can come back to me later.

I will let Senator Fitzgerald-----

No problem. I will just signal that I need to come back.

Senator Callely, you had a number of discussions with the one stop shop over the time you were considering how to make your claims and you did not claim, as we know, for four months in two years, 2008 and 2009. Now, when Mr. Dignam came to see us here in the committee he did say that he offered twice to put a special case to the Minister for Finance, Mr. Lenihan, at the time but that you did not take up that offer but it was offered to you twice. I want you to explain to the committee, given your concern about the regime that you were claiming, if you like, as evidenced by you not claiming for those four months on two occasions and making inquiries with the office why you did not take up the offer from the office to put a special case for you, if you indeed thought there was a special case. Second, could you explain if you went to the Minister and what happened when you went to the Minister. Was there an outcome? How many times did you discuss it with him and, again, the outcome?

Thank you, Senator Fitzgerald. I think that is dealt with on page 41. Mr. Dignam refers to the first question. I think I said earlier that most of the contact was in the letter which is in the communication which has been circulated. He refers to "that is extensive enough, in the sense that the Member had gone to the trouble to write about the difficulties that he was experiencing. He did call to the office several times as well but we would have logged those simply as call ins. 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 and there was an e-mail to one of the staff as well, which was all about the nature of option changes" and, he went on, "to not be technical".

So, if I remember correctly - I do not have all the documentation in front of me and I apologise for that because but I said I was away last week and we had quite a hectic week of meeting - I think the offer was October 09. I indicated to the one stop shop that I would not be making a claim in October, November and December or that I was not making a claim, I should say, in September or October, whatever it was. In some of my discussions - again it is not top of my priority - there was an initial view that there would be an amendment to the existing scheme. Then there was a view that there was going to be a new scheme. Then the House Commission was considering the matter and then the Minister and the Department of Finance took over the discussions, if I can recall correctly.

I cannot honestly say it was from this person or that person but I know I had the opportunity of speaking to Minister Brian Lenihan in and around the date of that letter of October 09. I think in one of my communications back to the one stop shop I referred to the fact that I had spoken with the Minister and that he had indicated that it would not be retrospective and that a new scheme would be introduced and he hoped to have that introduced for 2010. If I recall correctly that is the honest position.

Are you saying the Minister was telling you he was bringing in a system which would reflect different changes.

No. What I was asking was was there going to be an amendment to the existing system which would deal with some of the anomalies. Clearly, there were anomalies, as far as I was concerned. I think the way I put it was ... I think Senator Boyle or Mr. Dignam - I am not too sure on that occasion - both of them agreed that one of the anomalies of the old system would have been where Members ... It would have been inflexible for those Members who found themselves with a normal place of residence for periods throughout their membership of the Oireachtas separate from their family homes.

Nobody else has agreed that that is an anomaly other than you. Senator Boyle never agreed to that.

Senator Fitzgerald now. I want to see if she has further queries on the questions you asked.

What you call an anomaly was actually a description of your own situation, really, that did not apply to anybody else. Is that not right?

It was the once-a-month-only option that was-----

Annually, not once a month only. You keep saying that. It is every year you have this choice.

Yes. Once-a-month-only on a calendar year basis.

To go back to the point. So if it is was, as you experienced it, an anomaly and if the one-stop-shop offered to make a special case - given that you are saying that it is somewhat of a special case - why did you not take up their request to outline your case and, you know, make a case to the Minister?

Because I had already spoken with the Minister at one of our parliamentary meetings where this discussion ... where this matter of a new expense regime was under discussion. I also had taken the opportunity of speaking to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission because I was referred that it was a matter that the Houses commission was dealing with.

And you understood that no change was going to be made, is that right?

Not until later on actually because I think there was a couple of tops and turns and-----

All right. So if you understood that no change was about to be made, why then did you not change your option for 2010?

Because - I think Senator White referred to that in the last question - I did refer to evolving personal ... change in family circumstances. I have always said that west Cork is my normal place of residence as defined by the Department of Finance definition, and that accurately reflects the use of my residence in west Cork.

Even though .... sorry, do you want to finish?

The normal place of residence, as defined by the Department of Finance ... "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". And certainly, my west Cork residence is not used as a mere shelter of passage.

But you were still dealing, Senator Callely, were you not with the situation which you outlined to us ... I quote from one of your replies "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." So you did tell us there really that you were spending more time in Dublin and yet you did not change your option.

But only for that period of time. There were certain family circumstances and family commitments that I had entered into and for that period of time I was ... attending matters relating to the family in Dublin and, therefore, it was for that purpose - for family reasons.

Okay. So really when you say that you were making certain arrangements for the family, you are talking about 2009 and 2010. Is that what you are saying in that reply?

2008 and 2009.

2008 and 2009. Okay. Thank you.

Senator O'Donovan.

Just one question. A lot of what I am hearing has been rehashed before. Would you be prepared, Senator Callely, to come back before the committee again, maybe next week or the week after, to give further evidence, if you wish?

I accept that maybe the select committee ... I really, genuinely and honestly accept that the committee and I are being challenged in relation to my expenses. And as I alluded to earlier on, the most powerful thing that any one of us can do is look at this without any preconceptions. It is better to garden ... garner the facts of the case. I believe I have presented the facts.

I mentioned earlier it is not maybe what you do or even the way you do it... St. Francis of Assisi comes to mind in his preaching: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference." My situation would be that I cannot change what I have put to you already and indeed I would probably like to change some things in relation to my own family and personal circumstances. But I accept where I am and the position I am in but I have clearly put the facts on the table from my position. I do not believe there is anything else that I need to do other than to ask you to have an understanding... and, of course, I am coming from the position and correct me if I am wrong Senator O'Donovan - again you are legally qualified - but I am coming from the position that I did not act dishonestly. I acted in good faith, I acted within the definition of the Department of Finance.

I have clearly put that ... those facts to you. I understand ... and I think that I am presumed innocent. And the burden is on the complainants to provide the evidence otherwise. I do not believe there has been any legal or evidential evidence produced. And I think we can procrastinate about this for weeks to come.

I have always indicated, Senator O'Donovan, that I am happy to co-operate and I do not want that to be misconceived if I said I do not want to come back. But I am conscious that there is a general public out there who want guys like you and me and people around this table to get on to deal with the business of national importance. There are people losing their jobs, as you and I know. There are people losing their houses. There are financial pressures on people. There are people coming out of college not being able to get job opportunities. And, if anything, the public are looking to us for a certain level of leadership. And there might be questions over the political leadership that is there at present.

And I think what we need to do is we need to make ... I will not say it because it might be deemed unparliamentary but there is a saying about "on the pot". But what I think we need to do is look at what burden of evidence that has been produced about the complaints that have been made against me, if any. And if there is none, we need to make a decision. And I do want to refer, if I can, Cathaoirleach, because I think it is important that I would take the opportunity of putting this on the record ... I did indicate, Senator O'Donovan, that I would co-operate with the committee. And I genuinely and sincerely said that I would do so. But I am not aware of anything fresh or new that is coming to light that indicates or is related to the complaints made against me. And that is what I understand this committee is charged with.

I understand I am under immense scrutiny at the moment and I understand that there has been a lot of paper coverage. And there are a couple of things ... I am not going to take up the media on whatever they are saying about me or about my family. That can be dealt with at another time ... if there are matters of inappropriateness.