Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
JUST OVER A THIRD of Ireland’s TDs have returned some of their unused expenses from last year – returning a total of over €210,000 to Leinster House authorities.
Records published by the Oireachtas show that 57 of the 166 sitting TDs returned unused expenses, totalling €210,091.27.
The reductions mean a reduction to the original bill, of €6,041,540.76, covering payments made to all TDs to cover their travel and office expenses for 2011.
Several Cabinet ministers are among those making returns – with education minister Ruairí Quinn, whose Dublin South-East constituency includes Leinster House itself, making the highest proportional return.
The minister returned back almost 79 per cent of the €17,543 he received to cover his travel, refunding a total of €13,838.11. Quinn receives lower parliamentary expenses given his status as a minister, given the facilities provided by his government department.
His Labour constituency colleague Kevin Humphreys is the TD with the highest absolute returns, returning €15,471.84 to reduce his expenses bill by 48.5 per cent.
Enterprise minister Richard Bruton (62 per cent), junior health minister Roisín Shortall (52 per cent), and Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore (42 per cent) are also among the members returning the highest proportion of their parliamentary allowances.
Shane Ross returned 38 per cent of his €31,672 allowances; Fine Gael’s Catherine Byrne returned 28.3 per cent of the €31,865 she had received, while Stephen Donnelly gave back just over a quarter of the €45,478 he had been given.
At the lower end, five ministers are among those making the lowest repayments – with environment minister Phil Hogan giving back €11.90, small business minister John Perry returning €12.17 and culture minister Jimmy Deenihan giving back €12.85.
Gaeltacht minister Dinny McGinley returned €13.39, while agriculture minister Simon Coveney gave back €37.74.
The returns mean that a total of 29 TDs received net allowances of over €50,000 for last year, with Cork South-West TD Noel Harrington the highest claimant at €53,714.95.
Just one TD – Labour’s Eamonn Maloney – declined to claim expenses for 2011.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I agree with the sentiment here, but naming a law after a victim is never a good idea.
Absolutely the law in this regard could and probably should be amended, but when it is named after an innocent victim, then anyone who opposes the law will be seen as opposing the victim (Brendan) and being in favour of the offender.
This can lead to a poorly-drafted law being passed because no one wanted to challenge it.
It’s better for laws to be neutral, not try to play on people’s emotions, and they should be fully thought through.
I see what you’re saying and agree.
This is easily one of the best journal comments I’ve ever read. Agree completely. I also think we should be wary of pinning all blame on one thing; most accidents are caused by speeding and poor roads. Drink is a factor in about 1/3 AFAIR, but it’s usually massive amounts over the limit rather than an extra glass or red. Driver fatigue is a much greater risk for example, and there is no law against it…
This happens all the time in America as an emotional argument for bad law. My sympathies to any victims, but it is not appropriate to use their name as a legal argument.
James, thank you for your comment. The idea of naming the campaign has achieved its objective. We wanted a name/theme that would resonate and generate debate much like Megan’s Law and Sarah’s law in other jurisdictions and for hideous offences. We strive to ensure that Brendan’s Law seeks justice, not vengeance for all victims of drunk drivers and we are navigating our way through due process and democracy. If the proposals are flawed they will be challenged. As a communications professional I remain objective and as Christina knows and accepts myself and the team must approach this campaign objectively if anything is to be achieved and not allow emotion to influence our decisions. We do not want bad law. We want a just, fair and pro active bill to go through each and every examination it will face. I hope this clarifies the name theme and thank you once again for your comment. Dr. Nick Flynn.
In the states it would be vehicular manslaughter, here it’s just a traffic violation!
Hello Mike, its actually a summary offence, Cases are dealt with by Administrative Law in other jurisdictions. Here its Common Law. Speaking to non nationals there is a perception (right or wrong) we are soft on I suppose what can best be described in general as “white collar” crime.
That makes complete sense.
This won’t happen. The drink driving legislation in this country is very complex and cases are fought tooth and nail by defendants. The reason being is there have been Judges, Barristers, TD’s, Senators, Gardai charged with same and the loopholes won’t be closed. Plus theres the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
TD’s, Judges, Guards & Senators!?! Where did you pull that little nugget from!?! The reason there are loopholes is because there’s a lucrative market for defence Barristers to find same & save their clients driving licences!! Losing your right to drive & the consequences that follow; ie. job, family, lifestyle is often too much for most & they fight it tooth & nail to keep on the road! Drink Driving legislation is some of the most scrutinised in this country for loopholes!! There’s money to be made in the defending of these charges, loopholes will always be found, closed with amendments, but new ones found!! Nothing to do with drink driving TD’s, Judges & Guards!
Members of all the aforementioned have appeared in court in the last few years for drink driving and they were highly publicised. And you are backing up my point ib relation to the legal loopholes.
Hello, may I say there is anecdotal evidence that suggests those with deeper pockets can afford to hire the very best. I do not mean this as an insult to any legal professional but the safe, sure way to eliminate the huge variance in sentencing is to bring in mandatory sentencing. From our research a very high percentage of killer drivers are appearing before the court for the first time. A defendant is entitled to put forward mitigation arguments but at this point in time discretionary sentencing can a d does result in added stress to an already traumatized family. The criminal who killed Brendan and Lee will serve 18 months for each life. I would not like to be the person to explain the logic behind that sentence to the little girl who will never see her father – Lee’s daughter. Setting aside without prejudice the licence of a charged defendant will not negate the presumption of innocence. In this specific instance it will be a matter for the court to decide the appropriate penalty. Very few cases actually go to trial. An early guilty plea is considered beneficial to the defendant.
James. I absolutely agree with you.
Laws based on emotion don’t work and that is why they should never be considered.
I am not aware of any law based on emotions. Laws are triggered by necessity, fiscal governance and occasionally as a result of a public outcry. The process may result from an emotional response but in the end there are many, many layers to navigate until a law or an amendment is placed on the statute books and the original emotion is long forgotten, as it should be.
It’s called due process. People are entitled to the presumption of innocence. We already have enough draconian drunken driving laws due to successful lobbying by sectional interest groups. It won’t change the behaviour of the tiny minority of drivers who endanger others by driving drunk however, it will be oppressive for the rest of motorists. If we treated other forms of crime (e.g. assault and burglary) in Ireland as seriously as we treat driving offences, we would be living in a fascist state.
I respectfully disagree with your point. The innocent majority of drivers have nothing to fear from well debated good law Barry. Drink driving is a crime. You forfeit your rights when you knowingly break the law and I do not consider this comment to be fascist in nature or content Barry.
Nick, I would respectfully suggest you peruse the provisions of the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2011. The legislation already contains a number of statutory presumptions which reverse the burden of proof in the subsequent criminal trial forcing the defendant to effectively prove his innocence. Notwithstanding these right wing provisions, the law reports are littered with examples of Garda incompetence and, occasionally, more sinister behaviour. No democratic criminal justice system should confer upon the Executive arm of government, namely the Gardaí, the potential of falsely imprisoning a citizen without proper due process (i.e. a trial where the prosecution bears the burden of proof, not the defendant). This proposal is an affront to the presumption of innocence and seek to usurp the role of the Courts by imposing a penal sanction, through the deprivation of the use of one’s car, until such time at that person proves his innocence. Are you, as a taxpayer, prepared to fund the cost of the losses associated with the loss of one’s car in circumstances where the prosecution is dismissed?
Nuffsaid, nobody in this country has a right to drive. they are given a licence to drive. it is a privilege not a right. Maybe people need to realise that.
Patsyjoe as a truck driver I disagree. It is a necessity for me. Also agree with the due process comment. Anyone that has not been proven not guilty of a crime should not be punished. You are assuming that the law always get it right. My view is the law doesnt get it right 50% of the time & should be challenged. In particular speed camera vans are not correct most of the time & my research suggests that when these cases are defended properly the cases are thrown out most of the time. This is starting to become the norm in the UK as police forces are abusing their power over motorists. Police abusing power is a worse crime than drink driving & its accuring everwhere.
Michael I appreciate your position on a number of points of law and I agree justice is not always best served. However this campaign seeks to close loopholes where they exist relating to those who willfully turn their cars into lethal weapons once they get behind the wheel under the influence. We are not taking a high moral ground stance on this and no person in authority should abuse the power vested in them. Our campaign seeks justice for the families of the dead, a death that is completely avoidable. God knows accidents will occur but these deaths and the maiming of survivors are preventable providing a fair, balanced law is enacted. Thank you.
Whilst I fully understand the feelings of the poor woman for her loss I am totally opposed to the proposed change she calls for . Indeed I am opposed to even the draconian laws against the enforcement of drink-driving laws such as roadside testing! What I want to see is severe penalties swiftly applied. And in the case of injury or death as a result of any toxic substance found in anyone involved immediate custodial sentences equal to those for murder, driving life ban on release, right of insurance reclaim against any of the perpetrators assets. The law is at the moment a money spinner and in cases like the death of this poor woman’s son too slow to provide resolution both for her and those like her and the perpetrators as well.
And should equally those caught texting while driving, which has been proven to be more dangerous than DUI.
To Brehon Law, what you propose is not possible hence the need for change. To do as you suggest could provoke a Constitutional Rights debate as it would mean the introduction of an Administrative Law system rather than the Common Law we employ. Even in Europe the law is way stricter than here. Immediate confiscation of a car and a subsequent auction is one example. However Inote the Gardai can impound an uninsured vehicle so maybe we are heading the right way.
To Brehon Law, what you propose is not possible hence the need for change. To do as you suggest could provoke a Constitutional Rights debate as it would mean the introduction of an Administrative Law system rather than the Common Law we employ. Even in Europe the law is way stricter than here. Immediate confiscation of a car and a subsequent auction is one example. However I note the Gardai can impound an uninsured vehicle so maybe we are heading the right way.
The basic problem is alcohol, and it’s misuse, and getting it into people’s that alcohol and driving is a no no.
What about setting the alcohol limit for drivers at zero, as they have in some European countries.
Your argument is based on the idea that every human is a rational being. Sadly we aren’t especially while under the influence. That’s why education will not fully solve the problem. Closing ridiculous loopholes in the law like this one and bringing in more than mickey mouse sentences for people who kill others on the road is needed alongside education.
Michael there was talk a few years ago of zero drink limit, and I think it can’t be brought in because of the likes me cough bottles have alcohol in them and other things to
the likes of cough bottles.
pely u won’t then u don’t know and can’t genuinely comment!
Brendan and lee so dearly missed 100% agree with this law should be mandatory…
totally agree with the law ppl know the limit and know they want to anywhere they should abide to the limit if not don’t bother your arse driving get a designated driver and get a taxi home. thinking saves lives until u know someone(which hop
I am very familiar with the R T A and subsequent amendments and though not an expert by any means if I understand you properly you are referring to points of law that transcend the entire legal system, not just the R T A Just today there is a suspect held in custody in connection with a fatal shooting. It appears to be a family member. He will be released on bail, probably on a Section 4 holding charge, pending further serious charges at a later date. Specifically in traffic cases where offences are committed and if serious enough a person is charged pending the trial. I agree there are grey areas where perhaps more thought should have been given but the defendant has the right of appeal to the highest court in Ireland and beyond. Garda incompetence can result in aquittal. However, we are not campaigning for across the board reform. We want one proposed change – i.e. the setting aside of the drivers licence without prejudice once charged. If this is unconstitutional then so be it. The remaining elements of Brendan’s Law are contained within existing legislation apart from the mandatory element. I am delighted to say we now have the offer of assistance from an experienced Barrister, for which we are very grateful. Your point is well made yet the amendments you refer to passed through the Dail without any problems. There are areas that need re-visiting but that is outside the scope of the campaign. We will not pursue anything that is not universally accepted as good and just law.
Thanks to all who posted comment. We genuinely seek two way communication. We are learning as we go on therefore your comments and constructive criticisms are welcome.
have your say