Politicians’ expenses - Callely can’t tell right from wrong

FIANNA FÁIL Senator Ivor Callely is lucky that none of the 6,600 people who joined doles queues in April are members of the Oireachtas committee he wants to arbitrate on his decision to claim travel expenses from his west Cork holiday home to the Seanad.

Even if they were it must be assumed that Taoiseach Brian Cowen will resolve the matter long before it becomes an issue for a committee of politicians ruling on the behaviour of a political, and in some instances a party, colleague. Mr Callely’s statement to the Seanad – all 160 seconds of it – was so unsatisfactory, so evasive and insensitive to the needs of the day that it renewed lingering suspicions about Mr Callely’s fitness for political office of any kind. Not only was the statement a water-off-a-duck’s-back shrug towards any idea of propriety in public life, it was a clear rebuff to Mr Cowen who had ordered an explanation.

Mr Callely has claimed €81,015 since his nomination to the Seanad in 2007. Though his website, just yesterday afternoon, said he “continues to live in Dublin North Central” a proportion of that figure was based on travel expenses incurred travelling from a holiday home in west Cork.

How fortunate we are that he chose Kilcrohane and not Tuscany or Barcelona.

Mr Callely’s performance underlined the decision of the electorate of Dublin North Central to reject him. It may also show why he subsequently failed to be elected to the Seanad and is only a senator because Bertie Ahern nominated him. By so doing Mr Ahern over- ruled the democratically expressed wishes of the electorate – councillors in one instance – who had twice rejected Mr Callely. That was an abuse of the spirit of the legislation and suggests we need a measure that precludes those who have been rejected by the electorate more than once in a single electoral cycle from being nominated to the Seanad.

Yesterday’s haughtiness was an occasion to recall Mr Callely’s earlier struggles. He had to resign his long-sought junior ministry after it was revealed that a builder involved in public contracts had painted his house for nothing. In 1987, when he was vice chairman of the Eastern Health Board, his wife, a hairdresser, won the licence to operate a hairdressing salon at Dublin’s Beaumont Hospital.

In December 2005, he came to the attention of the Standards in Public Office when it was alleged that he had an undeclared half-share in a house in Artane, along with his wife, Jennifer. At the time his wife owned six other houses. He later sought a ruling on whether he was obliged to list his wife’s interests on the register. In west Cork, he fell foul of planning authorities when he converted a garage into a house.

Because of the nature of their business, politicians enjoy expenses that virtually no other workers can expect. We may quibble with the extent but we all realise that a generous regime best serves the public interest.

If Mr Callely, or any other politician, imagines that this generosity stretches to covering travel expenses to and from holiday destinations they must be disabused of the idea.

Considerable progress has been made in this area but that an experienced politician seeks a ruling from his peers to tell right from wrong is just another manifestation of the greed and self-serving ambiguity that has all but destroyed this country. Hopefully, Mr Cowen is in a position to act with the directness and speed that the situation demands.