Mayo County Council having knuckles rapped for refugee motion – McDonnell

MAYO County Council will have to revisit its recent controversial motion on housing of refugees in Mayo or face further ‘raps on the knuckles’ with reduced funding.

That is the opinion of veteran Fianna Fáil councillor and Cathaoirleach of Castlebar Municipal District Al McDonnell, who told the monthly meeting of Mayo County Council not to expect any large scale funding until ‘we build our credibility with the Taoiseach again’.

Mayo County Council made national headlines on January 15 when it passed an all-party motion that demanded that ‘all co-operation ceases immediately, between the staff of Mayo County Council and the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth of Ireland, until such time as an agreed strategy is put in place to properly co-ordinate the provision of additional services for the communities hosting refugees and international protection applicants’.

The motion received a negative reaction from Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, who commented that local authorities cannot have an ‘à la carte relationship’ with central government.

During yesterday’s monthly meeting, a number of councillors voiced anger at the reduced funding of €4 million the county received for Active Travel projects in 2024, which was announced during the week. Last year, the council received €4.5 million for such projects.

However, Cllr McDonnell surprised many in the council chamber when he commented that the reduced funding should not have been unexpected given the Taoiseach’s comments.

“Our knuckles were rapped and I have to say... I was expecting that our knuckles would be rapped. Dublin received €199 million [in Active Travel funding], Cork €48 million and Galway €11 million and we got €3.5 million [sic]. The equivalent was €27 per capita in Mayo and Galway got €41. Subsequent to that [Active Travel funding announcement] there was grant assistance [given] for piers and harbours with many millions of euro around the country and Mayo was expecting some. What did we get? Zero,” he told the meeting, adding that he wished to make it clear he was not present when the motion was passed.

No value

CLLR McDonnell insisted the council must restore its credibility with the Taoiseach and with Government departments, saying this should start with revisiting the motion passed in January.

“I think the matter has to be revisited, especially in view that the resolution passed has no statutory value whatsoever, and the only thing it did was to confirm the elected members of this council are biased and, as some people said, afraid. I am not one of them, and we are obliged to rectify the situation,” he said.

“What mechanism that will be, I will leave to others, but we have to build our credibility with the Taoiseach again, who has gone on the public record [with his criticism of the motion] on January 17. That is the reason for the cutbacks in finance. Let’s face up and be honest with each other and acknowledge that, and let’s try to rectify it and build up credibility with the department again,” he concluded.

Reputation ‘in tatters’

CLLR McDonnell’s comments were rubbished by Westport councillor Peter Flynn, who was one of the architects of last month’s motion. He said that the council’s reputation had been in tatters long before the motion was passed and it was ‘daft’ to think the reduced funding for Active Travel was to do with the motion.

“I am stunned by Cllr McDonnell’s comments, and I will go back to the ORIS [Outdoor Recreation Infrastructure Scheme] scenario not so long ago when we had €2.1 million sent back to Dublin and we lost in the region of €10 million in direct grants. The comment from Cllr McDonnell at the time was that every other council was at it and we are doing nothing wrong. Now all of a sudden things are different,” Cllr Flynn said.

“Let’s grow up here, we had 30 members at that meeting last month and they had an opportunity to contribute… and rightly or wrongly that is what we agreed as a council. Mayo County Council’s reputation is in tatters and has been in tatters for a long time. Let’s grow up here. If someone wants to put down an alternative motion they can do so, but the one in place has to remain in situ for a minimum of six months before it can be revoked,” he added.

However, Ballinrobe-based councillor Michael Burke agreed with Cllr McDonnell that the motion they adopted was as ‘useful as a piece of paper thrown out of a car’.

“I think it was the optics that the Government did not like and I can see why. You cannot have an à la carte menu and take what you want and take out what you don’t like,” he commented.