Mayo housing official apologises for ‘distress' caused by holiday home boycott proposal
Mayo County Council
housing official has apologised for 'any concern or distress' caused by his proposal to boycott holiday homeowners.
In a statement released by the council on Thursday, Tom Gilligan, director of services with responsibility for housing, said he is 'deeply committed to addressing the complex housing challenges facing Mayo and to working collaboratively with councillors, stakeholders, and the community in doing so'.
He said he circulated an email to 'prompt internal discussion on a sensitive but relevant issue' and he did not anticipate it would be released publicly before members of the council's strategic policy committee had a chance to consider it.
His proposal was circulated to the committee after it met last week and its members asked the council to examine ways to activate vacant homes for use.
READ MORE
Mayo County Council provided a statement on the issue on Wednesday. However, it released an updated statement on Thursday saying it wanted to highlight its 'sincere regret' for 'upset' caused to local elected members, the public and, 'in particular, owners of second homes in Co Mayo'.
A council spokeswoman said the proposals were not intended for publication but were 'exclusively intended as an internal discussion document'.
Despite the council's earlier statement seeking to clarify the issue, she said, 'a lot of confusion and disquiet remains evident'.
She said the local authority is 'not aware how this email found its way to the media'.
'Had the correspondence not been released to the media prematurely, the matter would have been considered by the members of the [strategic policy committee] in the normal way and evidently would not have progressed any further,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Heather Humphreys races ahead in FG nomination battle as Ministers and TDs endorse her
Heather Humphreys appears certain to become Fine Gael's new candidate for the presidential election, having secured the support of the majority of the party's parliamentary party. Almost 40 ministers, TDs and senators had declared their support for the former minister within hours of her announcing her intention to seek the Fine Gael nomination on Tuesday. MEP Seán Kelly , who also announced his intention to become the Fine Gael presidential candidate on Tuesday, had secured the backing of at least six politicians, which left him 14 short of the nominations he requires. Including Fine Gael politicians who are understood to be backing Ms Humphreys but have not yet declared, it does not now seem possible for Mr Kelly to attract the 20 nominations required. READ MORE The parliamentary party members publicly backing Ms Humphreys so far include ministers Peter Burke, Helen McEntee and Patrick O'Donovan and junior ministers Neale Richmond, Hildegarde Naughton, Colm Brophy, John Cummins and Emer Higgins. Also among her backers were TDs Emer Currie, John Paul O'Shea, David Maxwell, Jerry Buttimer, Paula Butterly, Grace Boland, Frank Feighan, Naoise O'Muirí, Catherine Callaghan, Alan Dillon, Keira Keogh, Maeve O'Connell, Pete Roche, James Geoghegan, Colm Burke, John Clendennan and Micheal Carrigy and Barry Ward. Senators Seán Kyne, Maria Byrne, Nikki Bradley, Joe O'Reilly, Mark Duffy, Gareth Scahill, PJ Murphy, Cathal Byrne, Manus Boyle, Linda Nelson Murray and Noel O'Donovan also supported her. Mr Kelly has the support of TDs Michael Murphy, Joe Cooney, Brian Brennan and Noel McCarthy, and senators Garret Ahearn and Michael Kennelly. [ In Heather Humphreys, Fine Gael faithful think they've found their first president Opens in new window ] Setting out her campaign on Tuesday morning, Ms Humphreys said that she has 'never felt as good about taking on a challenge.' 'We're living in an increasingly divisive world, and I believe that the President can be a unifying force in this country that really brings people together and throughout my political career, I have always sought to break down barriers and reach out that hand of friendship,' she said.
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on the European dash to Washington: pulling the emergency cord
Three days after Donald Trump's calamitous encounter with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, the sight of a hastily assembled delegation of European political heavyweights arriving at the White House underlined how grave the consequences could be. Rarely has a single presidential performance so unsettled allies while emboldening an adversary. The Americans may have intended the summit to signal progress towards ending the war in Ukraine. Instead, it left Europe scrambling to limit the damage. The source of alarm is obvious. Trump reversed his recent insistence that any peace process must begin with a ceasefire. He also appeared willing to entertain Putin's demand that Kyiv surrender territory it currently controls. To many, this looked like capitulation to Russian aggression and a betrayal of Ukraine. Monday's emergency transatlantic mission brought Volodymyr Zelenskiy to Washington flanked by some of the most senior figures in European politics. Their presence was designed both to bolster the Ukrainian president and press Trump to reaffirm positions that had been cast aside in Anchorage. Chief among these was the need for credible and durable security guarantees for Ukraine, without which any settlement would simply invite future Russian aggression. European leaders who reconvened again yesterday will have been aware that the vague Anerican assurances they received are not worth very much. But they will have been somewhat reassured that principles so recklessly discarded were at least partially restored. The price for this modest success was an unedifying spectacle of European politicians flattering and fawning over a president who appears to relish the rituals of deference more than the responsibilities of leadership. READ MORE All the same concerns remain, though. Trump had, in recent months, inched towards a more considered stance on Ukraine. That he could be swayed so abruptly by Putin confirms European fears about his longstanding admiration – bordering on obsequiousness – for the Russian leader. The path ahead is now uncertain. The Kremlin responded to the Washington meeting with a position paper that repeated the aggressive demands that accompanied the full-scale invasion in 2022. Trump believes he can engineer a direct meeting between Putin and Zelenskiy. Perhaps he can, though it is far from clear that the Russian would countenance such optics with a man he has so persistently sought to delegitimise. For now, the war grinds on with contining airstrikes on civilian targets, and Kyiv's stretched resources facing a slow but relentless Russian advance in the east. By drawing Trump into his worldview, Putin has deflected pressure for harsher sanctions, unsetttled European capitals and undermined Ukrainian morale. He has reason to view the week's work as a strategic success.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Kneecap trial spotlights challenges for Irish speakers in British and Irish courts
When the case of Kneecap 's Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh was before Westminster Magistrates Court earlier this summer, Ó hAnnaidh's legal team indicated that he might require an Irish-language interpreter for his trial. That trial, if it proceeds to hearing later this year, would be the most high-profile case involving testimony given through Irish in recent history. It is also likely to highlight at least some of the difficulties faced by Irish speakers in courtrooms both in the UK and Ireland. Perhaps the most basic difficulty is securing a right to use Irish at all. Had Ó hAnnaidh been prosecuted in Northern Ireland prior to February, 2024, a 1737 Act of Parliament would have prohibited the use of Irish in court. Even now, following the introduction of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act, there are no procedures in place to protect a right to use Irish in Northern Irish courtrooms. It will be for Northern Ireland 's Justice Minister, Naomi Long, to introduce the guidelines which will give effect to the new Act there. At present, the primary concern is how any procedures would define necessity. Will a person need to demonstrate a certain level of fluency, or that they will suffer a particular degree of prejudice in order to prove it is 'necessary' for them to use Irish during a hearing? Beyond the six counties, the position in Ireland is, on paper, more favourable, with statutory and constitutional protections of the right to speak Irish in court. Yet, even here, the practical challenges and negative impacts of speaking Irish can often deter parties from using it. The most basic obstacle facing Irish speakers across all the UK and Ireland was mentioned by the judge during Ó hAnnaidh's last appearance in court – it can often be difficult to locate an interpreter. In the UK, there is, at least, a National Register of Public Service Interpreters. The register determines who is qualified to interpret court proceedings. It requires interpreters to prove they have an approved qualification, while they must undertake training to act in courtroom settings. READ MORE Yet even with that infrastructure in place, an interpreter was still proving hard to find when Ó hAnnaidh was last in court. No such register is maintained in Ireland and there is no central registration or regulation of interpreters, let alone those sufficiently qualified to act in courtroom settings. As a result, although there is a constitutional and statutory right to speak Irish in court in Ireland, it may be harder to locate a qualified interpreter in Ireland than in the UK – where no such right exists. Even where an interpreter is located, judges and lawyers who are not familiar with interpretation may fail to grasp the potential for crossed wires and bias that result from linguistic differences and the process of interpretation itself. An Irish speaker will not, for example, be able to give the same monosyllabic yes or no answer that an English-speaking witness would. The potential impression of being evasive, vague or contradictory where small differences in language and meaning have tangible legal outcomes is real. In cases where interpreters lack specific courtroom experience, and legal proceedings lack guidelines for how to deal with interpreters, those risks can be realised all too easily. In Australia and the US, researchers have established that linguistic differences and small changes introduced by interpreters, such as hesitating words like 'ah' or 'um', can cause witnesses to appear untrustworthy or evasive. Negative perceptions of those who choose to speak a minority language, including Irish, can also have very real impacts on the choice to use a language in court. The choice to use a language, including Irish, is often seen as political - aligning the speaker (whether rightly or wrongly) with a particular ideology or political group. In such cases, the choice to speak (or refuse to speak) a particular language can be read as a rejection of institutions which operate through another tongue, or as an effort to shame non-speakers. Hardly the note to strike when appealing to a judge or a jury. It is likely Ó hAnnaidh will have to contend with at least some of these negative tropes if his hearing proceeds using an Irish interpreter Minority language speakers can be perceived as difficult; seeking to gain an advantage by inconveniencing the other parties in a trial. Similarly, they can be considered untrustworthy - using the delay interpretation requires to more carefully consider their answers, or to deliberately misunderstand a question to buy time. In Ireland, these perceptions are often based on the assumption that there is no such thing as a person who is more comfortable speaking Irish than English. Yet while English may be dominant in terms of the number of daily users, there are still those who – in the face of the formalities and consequences of the legal process – would rather have the security of the language they know best when they must answer questions on which their liberty or livelihood depend. It is likely Ó hAnnaidh will have to contend with at least some of these negative tropes if his hearing proceeds using an Irish interpreter. In being tried in the UK he will, at least, have the benefit of a system in which interpretation is regulated. On this side of the Irish sea, the case is an opportunity to reflect on why negative tropes concerning Irish speakers persist - inside and outside our justice system. It also presents an opportunity to give practical effect to the official status of Irish in courtrooms across the island. Furthermore, it presents an opening to recognise that the issues impacting Irish speakers are ones which reach through our society – and our justice systems - more broadly. Poor standards of interpretation, as well as the legal profession's lack of training on how to conduct a hearing in which interpreters are involved, are barriers to accessing justice and securing a fair trial. They profoundly impact all our minority language communities – including those navigating the international protection system. Irish speakers, Irish citizens, Irish residents and those seeking to make a life here all deserve a justice system in which the language they speak does not determine the reach of their voice, or the reception of their testimony. Dr Róisín Á Costello is an Assistant Professor at the School of Law, Trinity College Dublin and a practicing barrister.
