The travails of Senator Ivor Callely continue

When the Select Committee on Members’ Interests of Seanad Éireann found that Senator Ivor Callely had misrepresented his normal place of residence for the purpose of claiming €81,500 in allowances I contacted the Committee.

I asked on 24 July if the Committee could confirm if Senator Callely has honoured the clear undertaking given in his evidence on 25 June 2010 that he would reimburse, or repay, any overpayment of allowances?  If this undertaking has not been honoured, what steps do the Committee propose to take in the light of their own determination and findings on 14 July 2010 to preserve public confidence in the Seanad and its members and within what time frame will this issue be equitably resolved?

I pointed out that there are, according to statistics provided by the Revenue Commissioners, over 900,000 people in our workforce of 1.8 million that earn €20,000,or less, per annum.  It would take the total income tax deductions in a fully year of over 750 of these men and women to fund the allowances that Senator Callely claimed from his second house in County Cork that were the subject of the Committee’s investigation. 

The Clerk of the Committee replied that the repayment of any allowance is now a matter for Senator Callely and the authorities in the House of the Oireachtas Service and the Committee has no further role in this matter.

Senator Eugene Regan, of Fine Gael, is a senior counsel.  He wrote an opinion article on the Callely issue in The Irish Times on Saturday, 21 August titled ‘Callely not out of the woods on suspension’.

Two points caught my eye:

• Section 10 (1a) of Ethics in Public Office Act 1995-2001 gives the Committee the power to refer a matter under investigation to the Director of Public Prosecutions.  The author states that this provision not only empowers the Committee, but obliges it, to refer a matter to the DPP, if the Committee consider an offence may have been committed.
  
• Section 28 (2)(c)(ii) of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, as amended by the Standards in Public Office Act 2001, provides that where a committee reports and a resolution is passed suspending a member for a specified period and where the breach in issue is continuing, then the member is suspended “in addition … until such time after the expiration of the period specified … as he, or she, takes the steps specified … to secure compliance”.

Senator Regan opines that the Seanad is judged by the citizens not merely on the transgressions of individual members but on how it is prepared to deal with transgressions and how prepared it is to exercise the powers available to the full.  His point is well made.

Senator Callely’s defence of expenses lacks substance

Senator Ivor Callely, (Ivor the Driver) must think the public are a gullible posse of morons, as illiterate as himself but with a screw loose.  He announced that the trauma of rejection following his defeat in the last general election prompted him to move to West Cork – hence the justification for dipping his hand in the public purse and taking over €81,000 from it.  Callely’s fall fro grace in 2007 was cushioned by severance payments of €31,754 in 2007 and €17,465 in 2008.  These were based on 75% of his ministerial salary.  He also received a pension of €677 in 2007 and €8,986 in 2008.

Callely’s flaccid statement to Seanad Éireann on 2 June, indicated that the politicians’ expense regime is complex and there are anomalies in the system. If an expenses regime is so lacking in transparency how can the public have a scintilla of confidence in it?  If it is difficult to explain an expenses regime, designed by politicians for the benefit of themselves, in terms that the general public would regard as fair, reasonable and appropriate, that alone is a powerful argument against such a system.

Voters expect politicians to be personally responsible and accountable for the expenses they claim. They expect claims to be based only on the reimbursement of costs which are wholly, exclusively and unavoidably necessary in the performance of parliamentary duties. They also expect a level of integrity and verification that is characterised by high a standard of honesty and probity.

Voters will not tolerate politicians being personally enriched at public expense. Why, for example, should politicians be able to claim travel expenses in respect of journeys when they do not use their own vehicles, or are eligible for free travel on public transport? The concept of claiming travel expenses from a variety of widely dispersed personal addresses is indefensible and unacceptable.

If the Select Committee on Members’ Interests investigation determines that payments have been made on foot of expense claims which ought not to have been admissible they must  insist on the immediate reimbursement of such monies, plus interest, before considering other sanctions. By the end of May the cost of interest on the national debt was equivalent to 44% of all income tax revenues collected to date in 2010. If the Government intend to further penalise taxpayers is it not reasonable that issues, such as inadmissible politicians expenses, are fully and promptly resolved at no burden to the taxpayer?

Senator Callely: Repay exorbitant expenses

The report that Senator Ivor Callely has been paid over €80,000 since 2007 in respect of travel expenses from an address in West Cork to Leinster House is extraordinary, bizarre and one more example of the self-serving, greedy, behaviour that vexes voters' so intensely that it cost Peter Robinson and many other outgoing MP's their parliamentary seat in the recent British general election.

This Oireachtas web site lists Callely's home address as being on St Lawrence Rd, Clontarf, Dublin. The public telephone directory lists his telephone number at this address. His name is also listed on the current Register of Electors at this address, which is within walking distance of Leinster House.  Callely’s political web site states that he maintains constituency office address on Howth Road and he confirms that he lives in the Dáil constituency of Dublin North-Central.  Cork is not mentioned in any context. His role as a Taoiseach's nominee to Seanad Éireann has no connection whatsoever with any town in Ireland.

An individual can only have one domicile, or recognised permanent residence, at a time and the evidence in the public domain indicates that Senator Callely’s chosen domicile is not and has never been in Co. Cork.  How could taxpayers' possibly accept these expenses as being reasonable?  The system of politicians' expenses must not be exploited for personal financial advantage and there ought to be effective and proportionate sanctions for breaches of rules robustly enforced and administered independently of politicians.  It should also provide value for taxpayers' that is not necessarily judged by reference to financial costs alone.

Senator Callely needs to understand that the Celtic Tiger party ended in 2007 as unemployment soared towards half a million, negative equity tore the heart and soul out of tens of thousands of Irish households while the bulk of those in employment coped with swingeing pay and expense cuts.  Will Senator Callely promptly and voluntarily repay this €80,000 which, it would seem, should never have been paid had the controls of the Oireachtas Commission been sufficiently robust and vigilant, or will the Oireachtas Commission be obliged to engage in an adversarial protracted process to extract repayment from him?

Is it also not time for all politicians' expenses to be routinely published each quarter by the Oireachtas Commission to demonstrate some modicum of transparency, equity and good practice, especially with respect to compliance?  It should not be necessary to rely on the Freedom of Information Act to obtain such basic data.  Publication would fulfil a core component of the Commission's mission, the promotion of public understanding of the work of parliament and the cost of providing what it describes as "a world-class parliament".  The operating cost of our 226-member Dáil and Seanad was almost €153 million in 2008.  The salaries and expenses of 650 members' of the Westminster Parliament for the same period was slightly over €197 million. 

If the Oireachtas Commission fails to rectify this matter then, presumably, a precedent is set whereby each member of the Oireachtas and every public sector worker can acquire an accommodation address as remote from Dublin, or the location of their employment, as possible for the purpose of maximising the amount of money that can be gouged from the public purse. This might have the effect of repopulating the islands from Tory to Cape Clear but it would also leave the bond holders who pay the day-to-day expenses of running the country incandescent, perplexed and likely to confuse Ireland with Greece.