John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

In direct answer to Senator Ó Domhnaill's question, I do have sympathy with the county council, which expended considerable funding on the Blarney Tower part of the potentially expanded Cork city, because that money was spent at least partly in the belief that it would generate income from development contributions in the future. It is a limited sympathy in that one of the functions of local authorities is to draw up local area plans anyway, but I do understand that the boundary extension was not high on the political agenda when that process was initiated however many years ago. The issue I have with the amendment is that, if we try to unpick the line on the map which the group has drawn, the whole line will be up for discussion again. I do not know enough about the intricacies of Senator Colm Burke's home parish or of Blarney itself to know where the line should be drawn if not here. The oversight group settled on this for good reasons. Part of the logic behind it is that Monard is to remain in the county area. There was a lot of discussion, primarily about Ballincollig, but also about Blarney and Tower to an extent. The idea of this boundary change is to have a Cork city fit for the next 50 years or more. I do not think anyone could have envisaged the way Cork has developed. Effectively Ballincollig has been developed into the city. Equally, in recent years Blarney has seen a massive expansion, much of which has come from people from the north side of Cork city, which is just on Blarney's doorstep anyway. That is the logic behind the decision which was made. The line was drawn where it was. That is why I will not be in a position to accept amendment No. 9.