IVOR CALLELY has claimed vindication following a High Court judgment that struck down the findings by an all-party Seanad committee that he deliberately misrepresented his normal place of residence for the purpose of claiming travelling expenses. In legal and technical terms, that is so. But which political colleague would defend his behaviour on ethical grounds? The case has reflected the unsatisfactory nature of Oireachtas expenses and changing public attitudes.
Once Mr Justice Iarflaith O’Neill concluded he had the power to review a “political judgment” made by members of a Seanad committee concerning the long- distance travelling expenses claimed by Ivor Callely, it was all over. Political judgments, in the absence of established facts, have no validity and the committee was found to have overstepped its powers. Worse than that, it was found to have ignored the defence offered by Mr Callely.
In considering the situation under the Ethics Act, the Seanad committee may have taken the view that “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck”. But few things are that simple. From the very beginning, Mr Callely had defended his actions in claiming travelling expenses from a home in west Cork, rather than from Clontarf in Dublin, on the grounds that there were “anomalies in the expenses regime”. So there were. Oireachtas members are expected to claim travel expenses from where they live in their constituencies. But they were advised in 1994 that a “normal place of residence” – for the purpose of claiming expenses – was “not necessarily one’s permanent or principal abode”. It amounted to an invitation to pad expenses. Some senators and TDs, including Mr Callely, took advantage of it.
Rather than address this grubby aspect of their expenses system and open up a wider investigation into other potential abuses, the Seanad committee chose to ignore it. As a result, in the words of Mr Justice O’Neill, they misdirected themselves in law and breached Mr Callely’s right to fair procedure and natural justice. In taking this action, they made a political judgment in respect of standards they expected of a politician in a climate of public disillusionment and extensive government cutbacks.
Two matters arise from this development. The expenses system that operates within the Oireachtas requires further definition and reform. Changes were introduced last year. But a system of untaxed allowances and unvouched expenses still persists and is wide open to abuse. The other issue concerns breaches of the law. It was Mr Callely who asked that public complaints about his expenses be referred to the Seanad committee, rather than to the Garda, presumably because his colleagues would have a greater understanding of the “anomalies” involved. Judges and politicians jealously guard their separation of powers. But, if a politician or a judge breaks the law or if a formal complaint is made, then the Garda should immediately take charge. It is back to the drawing board again on the investigative powers of Oireachtas committees.