Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I was due to share with Deputy Dillon, but I understand he was not able to make it here. I will not speak for the full nine minutes, as he was due to have four or five of these. I can waffle if my colleagues wish but I would prefer to get straight to the point.

Was there any discussion at the EU Council meeting on state aid rules and EU funding and how this funding is spent, in particular, by local authorities? This relates not just to how it is spent but also to how it is applied for. If there was not such a discussion at the EU Council meeting, we very much need to have a discussion in this Chamber about how local authorities, in the first instance, spend EU funding through the different EU schemes. Second, we need to discuss how these schemes are applied for in order that local authorities are better informed and there is better communication on how local authorities should apply for schemes so that they are not, as in the case I am about to explain to the House, applying for schemes when the works are outside the remit of the scheme.

The case in point is that of Keelbeg Pier in the beautiful seaside village of Union Hall, which is a very famous village in west Cork. In that instance, the council submitted an application under the Brexit Adjustment Local Authority Marine Infrastructure scheme, which is known as the BALAMI fund. What the local authority applied for was clearly outside the remit of the scheme and the application was turned down for that reason. In the first instance, the authority applied for a barrier to be erected on the old pier in Union Hall. In Union Hall, there is a commercial pier which is used by the commercial fishing sector and an old pier which is used for leisure purposes. The old pier is used by some small fishing boats, by the local rowing club, by the yacht club and for numerous leisure purposes. It is used by families young and old, who just want to go for a swim in spring, summer and autumn. It is a very popular amenity but Cork County Council, despite resistance from the local community, are insisting on erecting a 2.4 m high palisade fence to stop any further use of this pier.

The local authority applied under the BALAMI fund for the erection of a barrier and for a feasibility study which is clearly outside the remit of the fund. What the authority should have applied for, and what is within the remit of the BALAMI fund, an EU fund, was repair works. These are exactly the kinds of works that the BALAMI funding has been used for elsewhere. In places like Hare Island and Laheratanvally Pier, this funding is for repair works and not for the erection of a barrier. Despite the wishes of the local people and the fact that they protested in very significant numbers a number of weeks ago, and despite the fact that the representatives of the west Cork municipal district - which is the local council membership there - put a motion to the full council to suspend the works, the works are still going ahead and Cork County Council is insisting upon such works proceeding.

There is a bigger question here in respect of a discussion to be had on the erosion of local democracy. That is clearly what is happening here. The desires and wishes of the people of Union Hall, of west Cork and of the surrounding area are being ignored. I would like to see that in respect of EU funding, and funding which comes from schemes such as the BALAMI fund, a clear outline is given to local authorities on what works can and cannot be applied for, and what repair works can be applied for under BALAMI. I urge Cork County Council, even at this last minute, to abandon its plan to put in place a barrier at Keelbeg Pier in Union Hall and to apply for funding instead to the BALAMI fund, or to whatever fund is applicable, to repair and restore the old pier at Keelbeg, to give it back to the people and to let the people use it. That is a last-minute plea.

On the EU nitrates directive, was a discussion had at the EU Council about the new decision to reduce the stocking rates from 250 kg of organic nitrates to 220 kg and the impact this will have on Irish farms? There are unintended consequences. The notion behind the reduction concerns river quality, water quality and the state and health of our waterways. We all want cleaner, more healthy waterways but my fear is the decision to reduce the stocking rate will have an unintended impact on the environment. Smaller farm holds with maybe 70 cows will come under pressure. There are farms with bigger herd numbers and larger stocks. It is happening already. There will be pressure on land. Land will be bought up that could otherwise be used for tillage, forestry, afforestation or biodiversity, for example. Huge pressure will be put on land around Ireland to adhere to these new stocking rates. I have serious concerns about that. There has to be balance regarding the impact this move will have on smaller family farms. I am thinking of my cousin, who lives in west Cork. He has a herd of approximately 70 cows. Under the directive, because he does not have the option to increase, lease or buy land, he will have to reduce his herd to approximately 40, which will make it unviable.

Farmers throughout Ireland are putting in place measures that are clearly having a positive impact on water quality. I see it in the Timoleague catchment area, where measures such as greater storage, methods of spreading manure and protected urea are having a positive impact on the volume of nitrates getting into our waterways. They are the type of measures we should follow, not this blanket blunt instrument that could have a negative impact on farms, farm incomes and, importantly, the environment. That issue should be examined further before we do something that has unintended consequences.

See this speech in context