Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I voted against proceeding to Committee Stage because I do not like the process. I was not voting against the Bill per sebut 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?

See this speech in context