Councillors demand meeting over Youghal Courthouse closure
The letter to Cork County Council from the private secretary of Justice Minister Jim O'Callaghan said that on the second Friday of each month from June 1, cases from Youghal are being heard in Dungarvan in a sitting intended for child and family law cases.
The letter went on to state that the judge assigned to the district has issued a direction transferring the District Court business currently listed at Youghal to Dungarvan Courthouse with effect from November 1 this year.
The Courts Service is engaging and consulting with all relevant stakeholders, including An Garda Síochána, 'in relation to the impacts and any possible unintended consequences of these changes,' the letter added.
The Councillors blasted the lack of engagement with them in the stakeholder consultation and outlined the detrimental effect that the decision will have on the East Cork town and the surrounding locality.
'The direct impact over the division of East Cork, where we could be losing staffing levels from Cobh, Midleton, Carrigtwohill, Killeagh and all the sub-villages to go to Youghal on days when An Garda Síochána will have to go to Dungarvan is not acceptable,' said Cllr Ann Marie Ahern.
'The Garda presence will be out of the town for numbers of hours if they have to travel to Dungarvan, which is in another county, which to me shouldn't be allowed at all. As well as that, you've family courts and you've people on the margins that won't be able to afford to attend courts financially,' said Cllr Mary Linehan Foley.
Cllr Linehan Foley rejected the suggestion that the current court building, the Mall House, is draughty, which has been reported as one of the reasons behind moving the court sittings to Dungarvan.
'We have heaters, they can be used, and at the end of the day, we [East Cork Municipal District] used the courthouse during COVID ourselves and we were never cold, far from it, inside there.' She pointed out that the current building has been used as a courthouse for over twenty years.
Cllr Michael Hegarty said the Youghal Courthouse district 'represents and covers a vast area. There are people on the margins who would need to use those facilities and expecting or requesting them to go to Dungarvan, it's not on.
'And as well as that, the Gardai are very disappointed and annoyed as well to be taken out of their normal jurisdiction. If it happens, you'll see an awful lot of cases being deferred, adjourned, and it will lead just to a major backlog in dealing with the court services.'
Cork County Council is now going to send a letter to the Department of Justice calling for a meeting with the minister or a department official.
'I think it's actually very frustrating to get a response like this without any engagement with the public reps of the area. I'm very nervous that this is a fait accompli, that it's done and dusted at this stage. And that's why the letter we got back from the department is kind of brushing us aside. But we're not going to be brushed aside on this," said Councillor Linehan Foley.
Funded by the Local Democracy Reporting Scheme.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
7 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Fiosrú taking no further action in Carlow gunman case
The Police Ombudsman, Fiosrú, has said it has decided to take no further action in relation to the case of Evan Fitzgerald, who fired shots in the air in a Co Carlow shopping centre before taking his own life. Garda Commissioner Drew Harris said this week that he had referred "serious allegations" made about the garda handling of the case to the ombudsman. Questions were raised in the Oireachtas about the way in which gardaí conducted their investigation into Mr Fitzgerald, who, prior to his death, was awaiting trial for possession of illegal weapons. The weapons had been supplied to him by gardaí as part of an undercover operation after they became aware that the 22-year-old tried to buy guns on the dark web. The weapon he used at the Carlow shopping centre was not one supplied to him by gardaí. Independent Senator Michael McDowell and Labour TD Alan Kelly raised concerns about the techniques deployed by gardaí in the case. In the Seanad, Senator McDowell said the case was one of "entrapment" and also claimed that "untruths" were told to a District Court judge when he was deciding whether to grant Mr Fitzgerald bail. On RTÉ's This Week programme, Senator McDowell suggested it may have been "premature" of Fiosrú not to take any further action. He said he did not know if the police ombudsman's office listened to the digital audio recording from the District Court. He said if they have not, it was premature of them not to take further action in relation to what he described as "a serious issue". Mr McDowell said he asked the Department of Justice to arrange for the matter to be fully investigated. The senator said there were other options available to the gardaí, including confronting Mr Fitzgerald and his family about what he had done. Commissioner Harris told the Oireachtas Public Accounts Committee this week that he took note of the comments made in the Seanad by Mr McDowell and referred them to Fiosrú for consideration. Fiosrú told RTÉ's This Week programme that Mr Harris has no authority to ask the ombudsman to investigate any matter. It added that after considering the two notifications of concern from An Garda Síochána in relation to this case, it decided that no further action was required by the police ombudsman. At the Oireachtas Public Accounts Committee, Commissioner Harris described the garda investigation as "a very successful operation in which we made sure that a threat to the public did not arise from the circumstances we were dealing with". "Subsequent events, tragic as they were on 1 June, were obviously very tragic, but they did not arise from our operation that we conducted," he said.
The Journal
12 hours ago
- The Journal
Ireland's €550m hospitality VAT cut seems based on little evidence
PICTURE THIS – YOU'RE a politician. 'Hey, hey!' says you. 'Don't threaten me with a good time!' But wait – it gets better. Because you're a senior politician. A cabinet minister. You have a say in how the government spends billions of euros every year. With that in mind, how should you make decisions? 1: Make evidence-based calls using the best data available 2: Make vibes-based calls using personal testimony / lobbying 3: A mix – evidence a fair bit of the time, but vibes when it suits If you chose Number 3 – congratulations, you have what it takes to be a minister! You see, the government recently made a 'solemn pledge' to cut the VAT rate for the hospitality sector. The move would cost the state at least €550 million in foregone tax revenue, if only applied to food businesses. As it means losing out on a lot of tax money, you would think the government would have a good reason for the move. But as we'll discover – the rationale seems murky at best. Billions at stake — but based on what evidence? Let's take a look. First of all, a quick reminder on what the hospitality VAT rate is. A VAT rate of 13.5% applies to businesses working in 'hospitality' – restaurants, cafes, hotels, etc. Restaurants say they're in crisis — but the numbers tell a different story. However, for much of the last decade or so, the rate was set at a lower 9%. This lower rate was introduced after the financial crisis, to help businesses lower prices. The state collects VAT on all products sold by hospitality firms. If the rate is lowered from 13.5% to 9%, in theory this means profitable companies can lower their prices without impacting their bottom line. So, this would make the services sold by hospitality businesses more affordable. Then, people would be more likely to, say, eat out in a restaurant. In turn, this would get people more confident about spending money, at a time when the economy desperately needed a boost. As explored previously, that original idea has now been lost . More recently, the lower VAT rate has essentially functioned as a support to the sector. For example, during Covid the rate was dropped as many restaurants could not operate. Instead of lowering prices, the idea was the lower rate would boost the profits of struggling businesses. The rate was increased from 9% back to the normal 13.5% in 2023 as the economy returned to normal. But last week, Tánaiste Simon Harris made a 'solemn promise' to once again reduce the VAT rate for the hospitality sector. He acknowledged the move would cost the state a 'significant amount of money'. However, he argued 'it's not about a tax cut for businesses'. 'It's about recognising that in every town and every village there are small businesses creating employment that want to be able to keep going and need to be supported,' he said. So the Tánaiste argued that hospitality firms are struggling and need financial support from the state. Where did he get that idea? Restaurants are closing — or are they? The most obvious source for the claim is lobbying from the likes of the Restaurants Association of Ireland (RAI). Advertisement Ever since the hospitality VAT rate was put back to 13.5% in 2022, the RAI has waged an exceptionally effective campaign to bring it back down to 9%. It has also made it clear the lower VAT rate won't be used to lower prices. Food businesses will take the extra money from paying less tax. At the core of the RAI's argument is its claim that a slew of restaurants across Ireland are closing due to high trading costs. It argues lowering VAT will reduce costs and help these firms survive. The key evidence it provides for this claim is closure statistics, which the RAI compiles itself. For the last year and a half or so, this survey has claimed about 600 restaurants are closing every year in Ireland . This statistics has been the basis for countless articles about the 'crisis' facing Irish hospitality. See examples here , here , here , here … you get the idea. What almost all of these share in common is citing the RAI figures. It's something I've done myself . But we should consider – do these figures reflect reality? As noted previously, the RAI only tracks restaurant closures – not openings. It's a shortcoming the group has previously acknowledged , saying: 'We don't have all the data'. But that caveat rarely appears in media reporting. In fact, the most recent data from the CSO (Central Statistics Office) found that openings were very strong in the sector . While the figures are from 2022 and possibly Covid-influenced, they certainly give no indication of a crisis. This leads onto the next point – you would expect huge numbers of food businesses closing to lead to a drop in the number of people employed in the sector. But that's not happening. But employment in this sector rose by 7% over the last year to 186,000 . By most metrics, the sector looks fine. More than that – it looks like it's doing well. What the numbers actually say The CSO tracks the number of people employed per industry. 'Accommodation and food services' is the one which is relevant for hospitality food businesses – the type the RAI claims are closing en masse. For instance, in November the CSO reported 'Accommodation & Food Services' recorded the largest increase in hours worked of any sector in the country . This simply doesn't match up with the claims of a supposed closure crisis. We even have a perfect, recent reference point for a closure crisis in the industry. In 2020, employment in 'Accommodation & Food Services' plunged to 139,000. There's no question that was a disaster, and the lower VAT rate was needed. But the same evidence is not there right now. The Department of Finance has also staunchly opposed reducing the hospitality VAT rate. It pointed out that 14 EU countries have a VAT rate of 12% or higher on food services – meaning Ireland's current 13.5% rate is fairly typical. The OECD, an intergovernmental group of wealthy countries, also recently pointed out that reducing hospitality VAT will likely 'disproportionately benefit' people on higher incomes . What cutting VAT really means Finally, it's worth considering the impact reducing the VAT rate will have more broadly. Reducing the rate and foregoing €550 million per year means the government has less money to spend in other areas. Cutting the VAT rate to 9% would make it much less likely for the government to adjust income tax bands for inflation – meaning workers will lose more money in tax. This is exactly what the Department of Finance has warned against, saying the lower VAT rate will mean an 'enormous fiscal transfer of taxpayer's money to the sector, which the evidence available at present does not support.' Given all of this – what is the evidence for reducing hospitality VAT? The Journal asked representatives for Simon Harris the studies or data he cited to decide on cutting the VAT rate. In response, a spokesperson said: 'The Programme for Government commits to bring forward measures to support SMEs. In particular, the retail and hospitality sectors, acknowledging the increased cost pressures on these sectors.' Asked again what evidence the Tánaiste's decision was based on, there was no response. Now, look – we all know most restaurants and cafes operate on fine margins. That's not in question. What is in doubt is whether this very specific measure – which will cost taxpayers a lot of money – is needed. To date, the government has not provided good evidence to indicate why it is choosing to forgo hundreds of millions of euros. When politicians are playing with so much taxpayer money, the least they can do is explain their decisions. So far, the government has completely failed to do that. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
The Journal
a day ago
- The Journal
EU may end up cutting services and asking Ireland for more cash to settle a €30bn Covid bill
Muiris O'Cearbhaill CUTS TO GRANT schemes and increases in the amount of money given to the EU each year by Ireland may be considered in order to pay back an annual €30bn bill which was racked up following Europe's Covid response plan. €732bn was made available to member states during the Covid-19 pandemic, aimed at protecting the European economy. The annual cost to repay that debt for the EU could reach up to €30bn every year from 2028. The figure is a fifth of the EU's current five-year budgetary plan. A new spending plan is currently being developed and will give politicians a clear picture on how member states can afford to pay the bill back. Fianna Fáil MEP Billy Kelleher, who is a member of the European Parliament's taxation committee, believes services like grant schemes may be cut and contributions from member states may be increased to raise the funds needed to repay Europe's debts. The budget plan – what's called the multiannual financial framework – is due to be announced on 16 July. Currently, the EU spends €160bn every year on schemes such as grant programmes for local authorities and infrastructure investments. The budget could be cut back in order to make more funds available to repay the debts. This could come at the cost of local community groups, who may rely on funding from European programmes to keep service hubs open or pay operating costs for community centres. Another option for the EU is to instead increase the amount that its members pay in each year. In 2023, Ireland paid €3.69bn in EU contribution fees for the annual budget . Ireland currently pays more money into the EU's budget than it receives each year . Kelleher told The Journal : 'We're going to either have to increase the budget through contributions [from member states] or find additional resources.' He added the issue will be a 'key debate' in the coming years. Advertisement It could involve tense discussions if member states, like Ireland, must foot the annual bill in order to keep services for groups that rely on the EU's funding schemes active. Asked how the debate might be settled, the Ireland South MEP said he believes the EU may 'fall a little bit between the two'. He added that there might be 'just a small' increase in contributions from member states, including Ireland. Potential increases come at a time when Ireland is experiencing significant uncertainty around the economy, with the looming threat of tariffs by US President Trump. There is a significant level of unpredictability felt in Brussels over the pending deadline. Taoiseach Micheál Martin has said that potential tariffs by the US on the Irish economy could impact the domestic budget . Analysis from the Central Bank suggests US tariffs could lead to slower economic growth and a fall in the creation of new jobs . Corporation tax receipts – a massive earner for the state - fell in May and companies in Ireland with business in the US, such as Guinness maker Diageo, are projecting the tariffs to cost them millions of euro this year . Kelleher said: 'A lot of member states who are making contributions are, financially, in very stringent times. If you look at France and Germany, for example. I mean, their two economies are really struggling.' Asked if it would be difficult to justify an increase in Irish contributions in the scenario that US tariffs have a major impact on the economy, the MEP told The Journal that the amount of contributions is based on economic growth. Current forecasts suggest, even if US tariffs have an impact on Ireland, the economy will continue to grow. Speaking in Brussels this week, justice commissioner Michael McGrath said there are no forecasts predicting any major impacts to the European economy. RRF repayments will begin in 2028 and continue into the long-term. A minimum of 37% of the funds were allocated to climate-related investments, while 20% were dedicated to the digital transition plan for member states. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
