Mayo council report on impact of refugees described as 'flawed'
COUNCIL management has been taken to task over a report into the economic impact on County Mayo of housing refugees and asylum seekers.
“Flawed and deficient in the extreme' is how Westport-based Councillor Peter Flynn summed up the response to a motion asking the chief executive to evaluate the impact on the county's ability to support employment, encourage enterprise, deliver critical services and maximise investment.
Mayo has taken in 5,304 refugees, which is just short of 4% of our population, since March last year. The national average is 2.27%.
The report is on the agenda for today's (Monday) monthly meeting of Mayo County Council.
Ahead of the meeting, Councillor Flynn issued a statement where he said the report did not address the impacts on the tourism sector and local businesses.
He hit out: “The report claims that bad weather, holidays abroad and higher costs across lots of categories are contributing to the challenges facing businesses in Mayo. The report completely ignores the point that some of the hotels, guest houses and hostels active in tourism were in a position to maximise rates as supply was at least 29% lower than previous years.
“No reference is made to the loss of income to downstream businesses like restaurants, bars, boutiques, hairdressers, shoe shops, tour operators, taxis, etc., due to 29% plus fewer visitors and the lower disposal income of the tourists due to the higher cost of accommodation.”
Councillor Flynn said he knew of two business owners who are looking to either rent or buy an industrial unit in Mayo but couldn’t find anything remotely suitable. “Yet the council could be involved in converting industrial units in Ballina and Castlebar into refugee accommodation locations.
“Why hasn’t the report addressed the serious shortage of industrial units right across the county and the implications for existing businesses and potential investors?”
The report, he continued, included one paragraph on the delivery of critical services but it was just a generic statement with no specific reference to Mayo.
“The population of Mayo in 2011 was 130,638. It was 137,970 in last year’s census. Therefore, over a 11-year period the population grew by 7,332. Our population has grown by 5,304 in an 18-month period on refugees alone. Where does leave our critical services and housing programmes which are already in turmoil and who are supposed to grow based on normal growth levels?
“The conclusion refers to integrating a large influx of people into Mayo but makes no reference to what steps are being undertaken to address this issue. Based on this statement what are the implications?
“The last paragraph talking about significant opportunities just confirms that a small number of private speculators have made significant gains on the back of this crisis. Where is the evidence that this crisis has generated additional year-round employment and capital investment in vacant/derelict properties? Mayo County Council is the authority tasked with dealing with dereliction, again the council should have the information to hand were any progress made in this regard.”
In response to media queries, council management issued a statement: 'The members of Mayo County Council adopted a resolution requesting that the chief executive undertake a report to evaluate the impact of the number of refugees in Mayo.
'An external consultant was commissioned to provide an external and independent report in this regard.
'The report has been circulated to councillors but has not yet been considered by the full council and therefore comment at this stage would be considered inappropriate.
'However, if the members on consideration of the report require further or more detailed analysis or additional work undertaken then this will be prepared and provided in accordance with any detailed requirements which may be outlined.'