Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Jul 2017

Vol. 957 No. 1

Rugby World Cup 2023 Bill 2017: Committee and Remaining Stages

On an issue of process, I have just received a list of the amendments. My amendment No. 3 on the issue of free-to-air television has been ruled out and is no longer on the schedule. The Minister heard the arguments on the part of just about everyone who spoke that this was a critical issue and that some of them would support it. Will he outline why that amendment has not been accepted? Perhaps it is the Clerk who decided this. Why has this been ruled out? I think television rights are central to the issue and I am astounded it has not been accepted as an amendment.

I understand the Deputy got a note today confirming the amendment could impose a charge on the Exchequer and must be ruled out in accordance with Standing Order 179(3).

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

I have no intention of delaying the Bill as I would like it passed. First, given this is the section dealing with the tournament company, I find it odd there was no answer as to why the company would be registered in the Isle of Man. Is that contrary to what is proposed, namely, that this be formed and registered under the Companies Act, which I presume relates to Ireland? Nonetheless, the Explanatory Memorandum states it will be registered in the Isle of Man, which I find odd.

Second, there is nothing in the Bill about the profits. How will the profits be divided? Obviously, there will be three shareholders but we do not yet know what the proportion is between the Executive and the IRFU. What determines how that company works that out? How many people will be working for that company?

There are questions to be answered. I will not delay the Bill but the Minister might reassure us as to the logic behind some of it. I understand the aspect mentioned by the Minister earlier concerning the need to have company secrecy while the bidding is going on. However, I see other amendments which propose that the Minister would come before the committees of the Oireachtas on a regular basis to fill in the blanks we will not get to today or on which the Minister cannot give an answer today.

On a related question, will the Minister confirm whether the company, Rugby World Cup Limited, which was granted a tax exemption on 9 May, is likely to be the company set up for the purpose of managing any successful bid?

I assure the Deputy we have no indication it is. The world rugby company is registered in the Isle of Man but not the tournament company, which will not be registered in the Isle of Man.

On the division of the profits, the shareholders will be the IRFU, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The tournament company is likely to be divided and an agreement will have to be reached between the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government, but it is likely to be divided 88:12 in terms of distribution of profits. The IRFU may also share in the profits but that remains to be decided; it will have to have an input in order to share in the profits.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, line 7, after “Finance” to insert “and subject to approval by vote of Dáil Éireann”.

The amendment is designed to introduce accountability to the Bill given it is seriously lacking, in fact non-existent, in the original draft. Thus far, the detail is lacking. It is taxpayers' money but yet again a blank cheque is being handed over to a private company. This will happen over a number of years and we are pretty much saying the company can use as much taxpayers' money as it sees fit. Given all of that, it is only right that the Dáil should have oversight and approval of exactly what the decision is going to be and what moneys are spent. There are no checks and balances at all, no accountability and nothing to stop spiralling charges or spurious spending. Perhaps the Minister will contradict what I am saying but, to my mind, those questions have not been answered satisfactorily.

I put down amendment No. 2 to try to get some clarity and also to cover potential risk. As the Minister said, we are contributing €138 million no matter what, if we win the bid. We potentially have a liability of up to €200 million beyond that and there is possibly another commercial transaction in which we may be involved. Will the Minister provide clarity on one of his comments?

He said we would start to recover some of our money as soon as we got ticket sales. Is this the only source of revenue that would accrue to the State? Would the revenue from other licensing, television, sponsorship, hospitality and all those other arrangements accrue to the State as well or is getting money back for the State or not having to provide for that indemnity dependent solely on ticket sales? Is all the revenue of the event likely to accrue to the one pot? Is it possible that Rugby World Cup Limited would hold onto some of the commercial rights and not see them go to the joint company between the IRFU, the State and the Northern Ireland Executive? I want this clarified before we sign up to €348 million without knowing what the risk is or where is the actual exposure.

The Minister might be somewhat surprised that I do not support these amendments. I do not believe we as a Parliament should tie the Government's hands behind its back in terms of what it can underwrite to win this venture. We have to be conscious of the fact an unbelievable amount of work has been done on the bid, going back to November 2012 when Deloitte sports business group conducted a feasibility study on it. I met the IRFU in my capacity as party spokesperson. I understand Deputy Ryan's frustration on the need for greater interaction between Members of the Oireachtas and the IRFU, and he is right. The IRFU was due to come before the Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport to speak specifically on this issue but as many of our committee meetings were taken up with the strike in Bus Éireann, the meeting with the IRFU was deferred on a number of occasions and it is regrettable it did not have an opportunity to come before the committee.

I have a suggestion for the Minister, which may be helpful and beneficial. Will the Minister quantify the benefits and how we as a country can stand to gain from hosting the Rugby World Cup? He has alluded to our tickets being at a reduced rate compared with what was charged in the UK, and because of this, he believes we would get a greater number of visitors. He needs to quantify the spending power of the visitors and the research that has been conducted on it. This might help alleviate some of the fears of my colleagues. I ask the Minister to correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that each of the three remaining countries that have put forward a bid would have to stump up €120 million if it won the bid.

That is right.

That is the fee we would have to pay to hold the Rugby World Cup here. It is after this we must ensure we underwrite the costs associated with running it. The Minister is right. I do not believe we can clearly specify what we are prepared to spend at a time we are engaging in a competitive tender. Effectively, everything we say here this evening is a matter of public record. It would not take an Albert Einstein from the French or South African bids to look at the record of the Dáil to see what the Irish Government is prepared to spend to host the Rugby World Cup. I agree with the Minister on this. To be helpful for colleagues who do not have the benefit of the information we do, the Minister should quantify the benefits of holding the Rugby World Cup here, in terms of increased employment, revenue and tax take. Will the Minister clarify the situation with regard to the Northern Ireland Executive? Will it cross-guarantee this? Are we guaranteeing the full amount in the absence of the Assembly being in operation?

I acknowledge the various amendments but my question to the Minister is on financial support and not about either of the amendments. I am 100% behind Ireland's bid for the Rugby World Cup because I recognise it will open up a whole load of opportunities, particularly longer lasting opportunities in tourism. As well as the bid itself, infrastructure will be needed to back it and support for this will be necessary. For example, we will have the new stadium in Páirc Uí Chaoimh and we have Fitzgerald Stadium in Killarney, and people would be going back and forth between them. Right in the middle, a glaring piece of infrastructure is needed on the N22 at the Macroom bypass. It is essential that this be built and funding be committed to it. The capital mid-term review will be undertaken in coming weeks and months. It is absolutely essential that the Minister commits funding for the bypass in order that people can move through Macroom. We need to put our best foot forward to strengthen our bid and show we are doing the best thing for the area and for the bid. Will the Minister ensure funding will be made available for that Macroom bypass-----

Sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, we are discussing the amendments.

-----because it is so important to the bid?

This does not relate to the amendments.

It does, because the timing is essential because of 2023.

It is important to be able to fund the infrastructure that will support the bid as well as the bid itself. Will the Minister prioritise it?

On the Macroom bypass the answer is "No". I will not give such an assurance under the heading of this Bill. At another time I would speak to the Deputy about that issue, but under the heading of this Bill I have no intention of giving such an assurance, and the Deputy does himself no favours by raising such an issue under this Bill, quite honestly. It is not helpful.

On the issue raised by Deputy Troy with regard to Northern Ireland, as he is aware it is slightly complicated by the situation there because there is no Executive. There will be a deal with Northern Ireland, and it is a question of exactly how it will be arranged in the absence of a Government there. The Government here is prepared and we will probably do a deal with Northern Ireland that will mean we are the people who actually take primary responsibility. Talks are ongoing in Belfast to reform the Northern Ireland Executive. However, the Executive has been supporting the bid since 2014, in conjunction with the Government, and is co-funding the bid. All five main parties in Northern Ireland have expressed their support in writing for hosting the tournament. Despite the fact they are out of power they wrote a letter stating they are fully behind the tournament at present. I am confident when the Executive is reformed, we will come to a mutual agreement on staging the tournament across the island, and the Secretary of the State is supportive of the Bill. The arrangement that will be made will depend on the political and Government situation up there but an arrangement will be made and we are absolutely certain it will be binding.

I will speak about the benefits of hosting in response to Deputy Troy. It is difficult to quantify it in monetary terms because we do not know what the revenue would be. The tourism potential would be considerable. It would take place during Ireland's shoulder season for overseas tourism, which would be a great advantage, as it is a time when tourism begins to flag a bit. It will take place in the autumn, between mid-September and October, when tourism is not at its highest point. It will be an added benefit.

The direct economic return of hosting the tournament here would be primarily derived from spending by overseas visitors. Based on the travel patterns relating to the 2015 Rugby World Cup in England, there would be an estimated 445,000 overseas visitors with a total direct spend across the island of €760 million - in 2023 prices - and a tax return to the Irish Exchequer of €138 million. These are conservative projections. However, we are talking a really serious benefit which is not reflected immediately in the tournament budget or fee.

Hosting Rugby World Cup 2023 would also generate many other benefits such as community pride and engagement, capacity-building of volunteers, an activation programme of festivals and cultural events, business networking and opportunities, promotion and participation in sport, as well as increased physical activity with consequent health benefits. Rugby, and sport in general, will benefit from the tournament’s domestic legacy, including in the form of investment in the enhancement of existing stadia.

There are also the intangibles. How much benefit will this be to the nation as a whole over a long period? The branding of the country will improve. How many repeat visitors will we get? Based on a response to a survey in the UK, the figures for the likelihood of people paying return visits to the country after they had been there increased. The long-term benefits will be enormous.

Deputy Eamon Ryan asked about the other forms of income. We can bid for commercial rights. Rugby World Cup does not have to sell them to us, but we can bid for them. This is a sensitive area and perhaps the Deputy will understand that. I did not mean to be too hard on the Deputy about commercial rights. However, it is difficult to say whether we are involved in it because it is open to bidding from all three nations. Several rights held by Rugby World Cup, such as selected sponsorship categories and hospitality licensing, are on offer for potential hosts to bid. We will only be bidding for them if we believe they make commercial sense and we can get more revenue from them. That is open to us. Negotiations are ongoing and rival bidders are also expected to bid. No figures have been agreed. Rugby World Cup will examine the bids. If it chooses to accept the offers, subject to bidder being awarded the hosting rights, then the details will have to be finalised by the middle of September. Rugby World Cup may decide not to sell any of these rights. The provisions of sections 3 and 4 grant the Minister all potential options to support any purchase of these rights and to structure it in such a way that would be of best advantage to the State and the tournament. We cannot reveal our hand to competitors and weaken our chances of winning the bid.

Deputy Munster spoke about the need for controls. I take her point about it being a blank cheque. The Deputy is correct that it is a large figure in anybody’s terms. The likelihood of the cheque ever being cashed is pretty small. What we are providing is a guarantee. We are still talking about a €300 million plus figure but only in the event of no tickets being sold. It is a fair comment to pluck that figure out and claim it is the ultimate liability. The likelihood of that happening is small. The projections, which are conservative, suggest, on the basis of the past record, that we should make a surplus of some sort. That would be tremendous. That is a straightforward profit not taking into account the intangibles which I have also spoken about such as tourism and tax benefits.

The governance framework is important. The IRFU will be the contracting party and signatory to the hosting agreement as required by Rugby World Cup. A local organising committee will be established as a designated activity company to deliver the tournament. There will be a shareholders’ agreement between all parties which sets out the reporting arrangements, governance structures, reserved matters, step-in rights and the treatment of any tournament surplus and shortfall. Robust controls and monitoring processes adopting best practice principles will be put in place for the local organising committee's operations and recognising the support to be provided by the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. Experienced major events personnel will be appointed by the local organising committee and empowered with day-to-day operational responsibility. An agreement will be put in place between the Governments in regard to the tournament fee and budget guarantee. Those are strict and stringent corporate governance requirements.

The House is due to rise at 10:15 p.m. I want to clarify for Members that the order of the House is that, if not previously concluded, a question on Committee and Remaining Stages would be put in two hours. That is from the commencement of Committee Stage, which was at 9:33 p.m. We will have debated this for 42 minutes until 10:15 p.m., which will leave one hour and 18 minutes before the question is put.

My colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, has advised me that spending for the Rugby World Cup bid will be a line item in the Department's budget each year. Will the Minister confirm if that will be the case? If so, I would be happy to withdraw my amendment.

It certainly will be. I understand the Deputy’s amendment because she wants more accountability and for the Dáil to approve these provisions. The purpose of the Bill is to seek Dáil approval to enable the Minister give the guarantees required by 31 July. The first amendment undermines the purpose of the legislation. It would not be possible to revert to the Dáil in that time because it would be in recess.

I have no real difficulty at all about reporting to anybody what I can commercially report at any time. I do not want to come back to an Oireachtas committee every week to say the same thing. That is pointless. However, I have absolutely no problem in being as open as possible about this with anyone. Despite what was said by several Members today, we are all on the same side. There is a huge national effort. We spoke about the GAA and others, but it is also a North-South, all-party and all-group effort. Deputy Eamon Ryan was the only Member to vote against it tonight. Good luck to him, and that is fine. However, there is a willingness on my part to be as open as possible. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked questions to which I do not know the answers. I deliberately do not want to know those answers. It is better that I do not know them because they relate to competitive issues about which I do not need to know.

I want to respond to the Minister. He has accused us of not treating this bid fairly. We all knew this bid was coming down the tracks for several years. It is because of the Minister that we are here tonight asking questions. He did not afford us the chance to have pre-legislative scrutiny of this legislation in the respective committee. It annoys me when the Minister throws the buck back at us. It is not our fault. We are just trying to be honest Teachtaí Dála and be seen to be working on behalf of the electorate as much as the sporting organisations in question.

Will the Minister be seeking to take out an insurance bond in the financial markets to safeguard our Exchequer funding relating to the underwriting of the tournament? Will the issue of clean stadiums arise?

Obviously, as one can see, many existing stadiums have sponsorship and hoarding. Will all the stadiums have to be stripped clean so the world rugby union will be able to get its own advertisers onto all the sites at the expense of companies such as SuperValu, which advertise in Croke Park, for example?

To make it abundantly clear, section 3 deals with financial support. Deputy Munster has an amendment to insert "and subject to approval by vote of Dáil Éireann" after "Finance". Deputy Ryan's amendment is to insert ", up to a limit of €100 million," after "support". Let us focus on those.

I voted against proceeding to Committee Stage because I do not like the process. I was not voting against the Bill per se but I was certainly voting against the process. I was shocked to hear the Minister say he did not want to know details of this scheme, for whatever reason. If I were in his job, I would want to know every single detail and aspect. His job is to represent the public interest in this. I am concerned about that.

The Minister said in his last contribution that the estimated tax return is €138 million. Is he misreading that? That is the exact same figure as the estimated bid cost. That is just a small technical issue.

With regard to the company in respect of which we are connecting with the IRFU and Rugby World Cup Limited, in addition to the indemnity we have, the only revenue source we know we have to cover the costs - we are covering all the costs — is ticket sales. If we buy the commercial rights and sell them on, we might have some other revenue but that comes with another cost. I want to check that my interpretation of the Minister's statement is correct in this regard. Let me outline the problem I have. Everyone would agree that the real benefit of this tournament is that the eyes of the world will be upon us in the sense that Ireland is a welcoming place where it is expected a really good time will be had by all. We have to be careful to ensure the ticket prices remain really low. The Minister said they will be lower than in the UK. In the UK, prices at football matches are typically a scandal. We should be doing what the GAA is doing in this regard. One can bring one's child to a stadium for €15 and have a really good day out at minimal cost. What I propose is particularly necessary if we are making all the money upfront and taking all the risk. We do not want visitors coming here and feeling stung. I am slightly concerned that we are covering all the costs while the only revenue protection we have is through ticket sales. Based on this, there might be a perverse incentive for us to set high ticket prices to cover the risk because no one wants us to make a loss.

Last but not least, my reference to €100 million in my amendment concerns the additional liability. It recognises what Deputy Troy said earlier. Everyone knows about the upfront fee. I believe it is very high. That is accepted. It is a question of a guarantee. With my reference to €100 million, I was trying to impose a limit. Why is the limit to which the Minister refers €200 million? What if there were a problem with one of the stadiums, for example? If there were a structural problem and an obligation to hold the event, we might have to reconfigure the stadium in some way through engineering works. This could easily run up a significant bill. Is there potential to go above €200 million in respect of the additional indemnity to cover the cost? Have we capped our risk at €200 million? If the Minister does not agree with the figure of €100, which I have mentioned, does he have any limit in respect of the risk? I acknowledge that we could insure against a problem with a stadium or an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, for example, but I am interested in knowing whether there is a limit. Why is the Minister quoting the figure of €200 million as the additional contribution we might have to make?

I can understand the Deputy's concern. The figure of €100 million that he mentioned is very small in terms of what it could be required for. We have capped the figure. I cannot tell where we have capped it, for reasons he can understand. If he wants me to tell him, he will just sabotage the Bill. He cannot have it both ways. If he wants me to tell him things like that, he will tell the opposition. If he wants me to do that, he should say so. Otherwise, he should tell me to keep my mouth shut. I am keeping my mouth shut on that. We have a cap but I will not tell the Deputy what it is, as he will understand. For him to demand that I tell him is unrealistic. It is absolutely out of the question.

Ticket sales are our only source of revenue at the moment. That is definitely the case.

With regard to the statements of Deputy O'Keeffe, we either have or will be taking out cancellation insurance. That is part of the budget, for obvious reasons. It is quite normal for it to happen in this case. Insurance is taken out to mitigate the risk of a disaster of one sort or another. I do not want to mention what it might be but the Deputy can imagine it himself. Therefore, I dare say we will probably take out cancellation insurance. It is a commitment we have made. It is in the budget also.

I shall address the two amendments at this stage, if that is in order.

It is in the interest of the Minister.

If the bid were successful and the first amendment were accepted, I would not be in a position to provide any support to the bid company without first putting it to a vote in the Oireachtas. The amendment would, therefore, fundamentally undermine the guarantees as World Rugby would have no certainty that the Government could deliver on its commitments. The proposed first amendment would completely undermine Ireland's bid and create the very uncertainty the legislation is designed to resolve. I am grateful to Deputy Munster for indicating she will withdraw it.

The second amendment places a limit on the amount of the guarantee. The limit falls short of the tournament budget that the State must underwrite. Accepting the amendment would totally undermine the bid.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, line 8, after “support” to insert ", up to a limit of €100 million,".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

This section relates in some way to section 3. We just supported the Minister in respect of providing support for a person who will make a bid for commercial rights, with the result that the State could purchase those commercial rights. It is slightly strange. Is the State going to bid for the commercial rights and then sell them on or sub-let them to others? At the same time, because of subsection 3(c), one has to support the person to bid for those commercial rights. I am slightly confused by this aspect. If the State has the commercial right to sell the tickets, it might then say it does not have the expertise. As we have seen from Brazil, we definitely do not have the expertise to sell tickets and prevent ticket gouging, or even to prevent ticket-----

That is out of order.

I am not speaking about an amendment but about the section.

This section is about commercial rights.

It deals with commercial rights.

He condemned ticket selling.

It could do because the State has the right to gain the commercial rights, and those commercial rights include rights to selling tickets, spaces or other things. All I am asking about is what the State, under section 4, is going to do. The Minister already mentioned that the State is subject to commercial sensitivity requirements so I am not asking him to divulge any information in this regard, but in the event of the State winning some of the commercial rights, will it sub-let them and give them to a private company to do with them what it may? Since we already know the State has the right regarding ticket sales - that is the key commercial right it will have, without going any further, if it wins the bid - is this an area where we can influence the Minister once the bid is won to have him put in place specific restrictions?

We are not looking for it in the Bill because we do not know which commercial rights the Minister has. However, in that event, will the Minister give a commitment that the House will have some discussion with the Minister before those rights are sold on or let to another company? That is just to make sure some of the debacles in ticket sales in other tournaments we have seen where tickets have been sold twice or stadiums have not been full do not happen here. There might be franchising rights to do with who supplies food in the venues. I am not sure. All I am asking is that the Minister would have that discussion prior to a bidding process for commercial rights that the State may engage in in the future.

Before I call Deputy Ryan, I repeat that section 4 deals with commercial rights.

We are in a slightly impossible position because there is a natural instinct as part of our scrutiny process to ask questions. We are told in response that we would be selling out to the French if the Minister were to answer. It is tricky. I will try again. This issue of commercial rights is important. Given that we already have risk on the downside of €338 million or possibly more, as the Minister has recognised, although he will not declare what the final exposure we might have could be, why would we take on further risk to buy commercial rights that we do not necessarily have expertise in? Why would we buy, for example, the television rights with a view to selling them on to television companies? What gain would we have on that other than taking all the risk again? We might make a few bob. In those circumstances, we might need to do it to ensure there is a free-to-air aspect to the television broadcasting in Ireland for fear that someone else selling the rights might mean we would not have that control over it. Why would the State take further risk? Are there specific things the State wants to have control over in terms of hospitality, sponsorship or commercial television rights? I would be surprised if there are.

I do not see how this breaches the confidentiality of our bid versus the French or the South Africans. Does the GAA get anything from this process and from the revenue, commercial or otherwise, coming in? Does the IRFU get any revenue? Is it doing this pro bono on an altruistic basis for the good of the State? If it is, that is fine. I do not need to know the figure, but is the GAA getting anything out of it, for example? I do not think that impinges on our bid against the French or the South Africans, but it would be good for GAA supporters to know what the GAA is doing.

The Minister has about two minutes to respond.

Okay. In response to Deputy Ó Snodaigh's question about the commercial rights, we can decide to keep them outside the company to get the best return. The option to keep it outside the company is available if we think there could be a better return. However, I am not making any judgments on that. I suppose that answers Deputy Ryan's question as well. I am not making any judgments on what decision will be made. For good reason, we have got the option to bid for the rights. We do not have to take it if we do not want the risk. It is going to be a purely commercial decision taken by people who will be in a position to judge whether it is to our advantage. It may be right or wrong like all commercial decisions, but at least we have got that particular option. That is probably all.

Are the television rights part of the commercial bid or are they locked in with Rugby World Cup Limited?

No, they are not. I forgot to answer that. I am sorry. Deputy Ó Snodaigh also asked whether I would report to the House on that. I am going to make a change to the Bill slightly later on Committee Stage to make sure that I or my successor reports regularly to the House. I certainly think that would be part of that report.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.

It is now 10.15 p.m. In compliance with the order of the House this morning, I suggest the adjournment of the House.

Are we debating this at 10 a.m. tomorrow?

No. That is not the order of the House.

When do we resume this debate?

It is not ordered.

Will we keep going?

Can we keep it going?

If the Deputy makes a proposal.

On a point of order, I would be happy to keep it going because there is only one more amendment.

Yes. We will keep going.

It will take us ten minutes to finish it.

It is now 10.15 p.m. We cannot go on indefinitely.

We will not take long.

We could go until 10.30 p.m.

We will extend to 10.30 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Minister owes us one now.

SECTION 6

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, line 23, to delete “provide undertakings” and substitute “make reasonable endeavour”.

I will be brief because I know we are pushed for time. Again, these amendments were designed to protect the State from a blanket guarantee of the use of State services. As I said before, this section is open ended and extremely vague. For example, it gives a blanket guarantee that we will provide all such services when anything could happen in the interim or at that time for which we could not guarantee the provision of services. Would that leave the State liable to World Rugby? Would it leave us exposed to that? What mechanisms do we have, such as insurance, to ensure that if such a scenario arose, the State would be protected?

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are tied together and are designed to protect the interests of the State. What protections do we have there? The information was not forthcoming in either the Minister's response or in any questions answered thus far.

I asked on Second Stage about the guarantee of the public services element of the bid. It is regrettable that the Minister took a potshot at my colleague, Deputy Moynihan, who perhaps raised a slightly lenient point. He does not have the 34 years' Oireachtas experience the Minister has to know where to raise a genuine concern. The Minister will have to invest in infrastructural improvements, I assume, in support of this bid. Will the Minister indicate what infrastructural improvements and investments we are talking about? Is it broadband, increased public transport, investment in road infrastructure or what?

In response to Deputy Munster, we very carefully drafted our undertakings to reflect the services we are confident we can deliver. I am reluctant to accept these amendments because of the dilutive effect they would have by inserting "whilst taking the needs of the State into consideration" into the Bill.

Deputy Troy asked about the broad areas of public sector involvement.

That is what the Deputy wants to know about. I am sorry if I was rude or in any way abrupt with Deputy Moynihan. I apologise for that. I did not mean to be. I was just somewhat irritated by the time being taken on a local issue but I know the Deputy has to do what he has to do and I have to do what I have to do. I will apologise to him when I meet him. It relates to a guaranteed payment for the tournament fee, security matters, Garda resources for matches and fan zones, Garda escorts for teams, protection of commercial rights, including trademark and intellectual property protection, which was already referred to, clean zones around match venues that are free from non-tournament branding and sponsors, measures to tackle ambush marketing and unauthorised ticket sales, transportation capacity both internal and external, which is what Deputy Troy is referring to, communications capacity involving the broadcasting and broadband infrastructure as well as use of radio frequencies, anti-doping controls, visas for players, officials and spectators, tourism, the promotion of the tournament, accommodation, supporting parallel festivals and events, local authority assistance with local activation, involving the setting up of fan zones and traffic management-----

If it is helpful, I will withdraw amendments Nos. 4 and 5.

That is fine but I am still trying to find out what that covers.

-----and maintaining North-South cohesion and co-operation. That is all I have there. I thank Deputy Munster for that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:

"(b) The Minister shall make a public report to the Oireachtas on any arrangements that were made with the IRFU and World Cup Limited and further, the Minister shall make an annual presentation to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport on tournament proceedings until the project is complete.".

The Minister indicated that he would move an amendment looking to provide a reporting mechanism similar to the one I have, so before I decide whether to press the amendment, will the Minister share his amendment with us in order that we might be able to proceed in a timely fashion? The Minister is looking to have six-monthly intervals in his subsequent amendment so I will withdraw my amendment. However, I would make the point that this issue of transparency and the role of this House in overseeing, invigilating and scrutinising these kind of bids and this kind of process is something we should stand by and with. I expect absolute and utter transparency. I expect the IRFU and Rugby World Cup Limited to come in next week and, if not then, as soon as possible after they return from New Zealand or wherever they are. They need to come in to answer questions. We have an absolute right in this regard. If they have to say it is commercially sensitive or someone must step in and say that we cannot ask a question, that is fine, but this House has a role in scrutinising legislation on behalf of the public. We need to do that. The Minister's amendment seems to cater for what I was looking for in the Bill so I will withdraw my amendment on that basis.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
NEW SECTION

I move amendment No. 6a:

In page 4, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:

"Report of Minister

7. If the bid to host the tournament is successful, the Minister shall, during each period of 6 months thereafter until the conclusion of the tournament, report on preparation for and the staging of the tournament to the committee appointed by either House of the Oireachtas or jointly by both Houses to examine matters and make recommendations in relation to tourism and sport.".

I am very pleased to move this amendment. It is in direct response to some of the amendments that have been moved by Deputy Munster and the co-operation and genuine desire I have to respond to the kind of constructive suggestions that have been made this evening. I am very anxious to ensure this is transparent, and to demonstrate that willingness, I have to come forward and report regularly on whatever Deputies want to hear about what is ongoing. I do realise that this is not just a project which everyone is supporting willy-nilly and we are not just doing it without accountability. I do realise that it is certainly my job and that of my successor to report to this House.

While I welcome this, I question the need for it. I understand that because this is a line spend in the Department, when the Minister comes before the Oireachtas committee on a quarterly basis, as he does anyway, we could investigate and question him about this. I understand that because it is part of the Department's spend, it comes under the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General and it also comes under the scrutiny of the Committee of Public Accounts. While it is the Minister's prerogative to put forward an amendment to address amendments moved by two Deputies on this side of the House, I ask him to clarify that this expenditure is under the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General and that the Committee of Public Accounts can investigate it if there is any issue. As members of the Oireachtas committee, we have the opportunity to raise it on a quarterly basis with the Minister anyway regardless of this amendment.

I thank the Minister for his amendment. I presume this amendment is about giving us progress updates as well as financial reporting and will include any queries we might have regarding the finances surrounding it and any obstructions. I want confirmation that it will include financial spending, expenses and overruns.

As Vice Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport , I reiterate that we have written to the IRFU asking it to attend the next week. More importantly, will the Minister assure us that should he be in situ during the oral presentation stage, he will attend that oral presentation and will not be missing?

It is a matter for the Minister to answer.

I give Deputy O'Keeffe that assurance. I have never let him down yet.

What about my question? It concerned the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts.

I accept what the Deputy said.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 6 July 2017.
Top
Share