Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Oct 2024

I want to discuss the importance of sick leave. I genuinely thought I had done a good job convincing the Government how important sick leave is, but after reading the budget, it turns out that I have a little more work to do. During the pandemic, we spent hours discussing the importance of sick leave and of workers being able to safely and affordably stay out of work when they were not feeling well. I thought we all agreed that sick leave is an important and very powerful instrument of public health.

Following on from that and as a result of pressure from the trade union movement and ourselves on the Opposition benches, a limited amount of paid sick leave was introduced. It was limited to 70% of a person's wages, but also in terms of the number of days. For workers on low incomes, there is already a barrier. I had a discussion back and forth with the Minister at the time about having to pay for the services of a doctor. We live in a country where the cost of going to see a GP can often be prohibitively expensive, particularly for those workers who are on low incomes. Those workers have to get over that hurdle. They have to get medical certificates, which I argued at the time would act as a barrier. Notwithstanding that, there was no appetite on the part of the Government to back down. There was, however, a roadmap in place to ensure that the entitlement to sick leave entitlement would be increased - not to an astronomical level - to ten days in 2026.

I note from the budget that it is the Government's intention to postpone the sick leave entitlement increase that was due on 1 January 2025. That is incredibly mean-spirited. I do not think it is what Government should be doing. A signal was sent to workers that the Government had finally understood what we were telling it about the importance of sick leave. If the Minister of State visits the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, website, he will still see that the intention is there because everybody thought the sick leave entitlement was going to increase.

I was very disappointed to see Government parties, or at least one of them, put this on a leaflet and hand it to people. It is as if deferring the increase in the sick leave entitlement for workers is something to be proud of. If there is a pressing economic reason for doing it, I would love to hear it. Clearly, employers are struggling with the cost of doing business. We know that, but a range of measures can be undertaken to support those employers. It does not have to hit workers in that way. It is really disturbing to hear the Government repeatedly pit worker against business and business against worker. There is nothing wrong with workers expecting that when the Government lays out a roadmap, that roadmap will be adhered to. It is the minimum that can be expected. We already had a great deal of back and forth with regard to the barriers the Government has put in place. However, my understanding was that we had all agreed that sick leave entitlements are an important instrument of public health. I would like to hear from the Minister of State that this deferral of the increase in sick leave entitlement will not be going ahead.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta as ucht an deis labhairt faoi seo. I am taking this on behalf of the Minister of State, Deputy Higgins, and the Minister, Deputy Peter Burke. I know the House will join with me in expressing our sympathies to the Minister on the passing of his mother.

As the Deputy indicated, statutory sick leave is a valuable public health intervention. It reduces the risk of workplace accidents and curtails infectious disease transmission. It is one of a number of measures this Government has introduced to protect workers. The phased introduction of the scheme was designed to achieve a balance between responding to the cost concerns of employers by giving them time to adjust and plan for the new responsibility, while offering workers, often those in low-paid, precarious roles and disproportionately younger people and women, as Deputy O'Reilly said, certainty about their rights.

It is important to recognise, however, that providing new employment rights protections involves increased costs for employers. Members of the business community, including many SMEs, have shared their concerns about the cumulative costs of providing new rights for workers, including statutory sick leave. To respond to these concerns and assess as fully as possible the impact of any potential further increases to sick leave, research is being conducted on the impact of sick leave to date. My Department worked with the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, on the first phase of this research, which is now completed. This work resulted in the identification of certain informational and data gaps, including data required to identify workers and firms who are currently covered by a company sick pay policy. To bridge some of these gaps, my Department commissioned a specialist market research company to conduct a firm-level survey, representative of the sectoral and size distribution of Irish companies. The results of the survey have now been received and that data is currently being analysed by officials from the Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service.

In addition, officials in my Department are also working on qualitative research, including conducting one-to-one interviews with employers across a wide range of company types and sectors as well as employee representatives. This qualitative work will be used to provide more in-depth insights into the impact of the Sick Leave Act 2022. Furthermore, a stakeholder workshop was held at the end of September with regard to this. It is expected that the findings from this research, both quantitative and qualitative, along with an assessment of the wider factors enumerated in section 6 of the Sick Leave Act, including the state of the economy and society generally, will be made available for the Minister's to consider in the coming weeks.

It is important to note that this is a relatively new form of research. The Sick Leave Act itself has only been in operation since January 2023 and a comprehensive analysis of the sick pay landscape has not been undertaken to date in Ireland.

Once the Department and the Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, have received this evidence, he will give appropriate consideration to a decision on the further roll-out of the statutory sick leave scheme. We are cognisant in the Department that businesses and workers need certainty. It is worth noting, however, that, as per section 6(2) of the Act, we cannot make a regulation to vary the statutory sick leave entitlements before 1 January 2025.

The Minister tells me research is being conducted into the impact of paid sick leave. I could have saved the Department a fortune: the impact of paid sick leave being available to workers is that people who are sick can afford to not go to work. Hopefully they can afford to stay at home and get better and not bring whatever it is they have into their workplace and potentially infect other people there.

The Minister says the data is being analysed. Perhaps it is, but he has already announced that he is not going ahead with the proposed increase. Even at the slow pace of the Minister's timetable, he has already announced that it will not go ahead, so it does not matter what the data tells him. The announcement has been made. It has been put on a leaflet that they are going around handing to people. They are celebrating the fact that workers will not get the very modest increase in their entitlement to paid sick leave. The Minister of State acknowledged that in his contribution, and I did too. It is a very valuable tool of public health. It is an essential public health instrument. The Minister of State should not play with it in that way. It took a long time for workers to achieve access to paid sick leave and now that they have it, all of a sudden it is a burden and a cost. It is an instrument of public health and it should be regarded as such. Shame on the Minister of State for celebrating that workers are not going to get the modest increase in their sick leave entitlement. I was very disappointed, but not a little bit surprised, to see that being celebrated in that way. I do not think it is something that should be put on a leaflet, celebrated and shared in that way.

With the permission of the Chair, I very briefly add my own words of condolence to the Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, and his family at this very sad time.

The introduction of statutory sick leave marked a key policy development for this country. It was introduced by this Government. For the first time, employees have a statutory right to employer-paid sick leave. That was done without us having carried out any comprehensive analysis of the sick pay landscape in the country. The data being collected now will be valuable in bridging the gaps within the scheme. The qualitative study being undertaken by our officials will give us additional insight into existing sick leave policies and the gaps within it, and also the impacts on businesses and employees. We have to look at it on both frames. The research will be very clear in terms of existing company sick pay provisions and it will set out the landscape properly, which was not done previously.

I assure Deputy O'Reilly there is no intention to celebrate anything here. The information will be led by the data, as opposed to the current lack of information. I also assure her that there will be consultation before any final decisions are made.

I apologise for my late entry. I assumed my matter was No. 4 but it is No. 1. I tabled this matter on the basis of a few experiences I have had in recent times. The first relates to a person who has serious health problems, who is not and will never be fit to work again. The person made an application for a disability allowance, which takes forever of course, as we all know. In the meantime, an application was made for an interim payment - a basic supplementary welfare payment, which takes as long as the application for disability allowance, so nothing happened.

In the meantime, the person concerned has accumulated substantial rent arrears in a council house. The person's electricity has been cut off. Various hardships have been imposed by virtue of the fact that the person was not fit enough to deal with the system. The system was so convoluted and had so many obstacles in it that the situation just got worse.

I complained to the area concerned and I am not happy with the response I got because there was no intention on the part of the person at the other end of the telephone to do anything about it, other than to say that I can take it up with whoever I like but that is the way it is. I am taking it up now. I honestly cannot understand how people with that attitude are on the front line in the delivery of services to the general public. The public are supposed to be treated properly and not to be in any way condemned because of their age, colour, race or any other consideration. The process is in place to be operated fairly and unequivocally and not at the behest of somebody who decides they want to teach a person a lesson. That is one case.

I had another complaint recently from somebody who entered a public office operated by the State, who wanted to use the toilet. The person was told there was no toilet. It so happens that the person was suffering from a particular illness, which caused a serious problem. I reported the issue the day before I had to go to hospital myself because I thought it was urgent.

A public office should be able to treat members of the public with respect for a start. In a public office, there are certain procedures that have to be followed, just as in a filling station, a State office or a private office. Such facilities are supposed to be available but they were not available. I do not know the reason for the facilities not being available. I made a phone call to the individuals concerned and I asked that they make contact with the person, who was deeply distressed. I do not know if anything was said by the person that contributed to the situation but the fact of the matter is that sufficient time has now elapsed for something to happen. What happened? Nothing.

That indicates a certain amount of contempt for public representatives. I do not mind being held in contempt, but there is a price to be paid for it. We should never forget the fact that we are all in the service of the public. Some 99.9% of civil servants and public servants are conscious of that and exercise that in the spirit in which it was intended they would, on a daily basis. Unfortunately, there are one or two exceptions. We must deal with that satisfactorily and quickly. Two or three months is sufficient time to deal with it and I hope a resolution will emerge.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta. I have a different topic. It is in the social protection area but it relates to obtaining payments. We can shoehorn it into what the Deputy has just said. I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Humphreys. In my time I have not had any such experience. I have been fortunate in that we have had an excellent relationship with the Department of Social Protection right across the country. It has given excellent service.

The delivery of crucial and locally based community welfare services to meet the challenges and needs of citizens is a priority for me and for the Minister, Deputy Humphreys. The community welfare service, CWS, continues to provide a flexible service to meet the different needs of clients, who may suddenly find themselves in a financially difficult or vulnerable situation. I agree with the Deputy that it is important that this service is easily accessible and responsive to a client's needs at a particular time.

The basic supplementary welfare allowance, additional needs payments and other supplements are administered by designated persons in the community welfare service who consider the requirements of the legislation and all the particular circumstances of the case.

Typically, as the Deputy is well aware, a person has applied for another social welfare payment to which they may be entitled. Basic supplementary welfare allowance, SWA, may be provided on a temporary basis while other claims are being processed.

There is a full-time community welfare officer presence in more than 50 Intreo centres nationwide from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday to Friday. Intreo centres and branch offices are open five days per week. There is also a CWS national phone line. Complex queries or requests to speak with a CWO are escalated within minutes to a dedicated team of CWOs who speak to the customer and progress the query by phone. In all instances where it appears that the customer’s need is urgent, the query is referred to the local CWO for immediate follow-up on the ground, as referred to by the Deputy. Any person who needs to access the CWS can attend an office or call the phone line to make an appointment for a consultation on the same day with a CWO.

When considering an application for a basic SWA payment, the Department may ask for a number of supporting documents to ensure the person receives the correct level of payment. There are not intended to be any delays in processing applications. There are no backlogs and work on hand currently is within the normal CWS processing levels. Where the required claim application forms and documentation are supplied, claims are with the local CWOs for decision on the same day. Complete basic SWA applications, which are accompanied by the necessary supporting documentation, are finalised within one week of receipt in the Minister's Department. Where it has been identified that a person has an urgent or immediate need, as we are all familiar in dealing with, regardless of whether they have provided all of the required documentation, these claims are referred immediately to a CWO. Some 19% of all payments are made on the day of application. I thank the Deputy for the opportunity to clarify this situation. I will refer his remarks to the Minister, Deputy Humphreys. I can only say that my own experience has been universally positive.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply, which is exactly accurate. That is what the supplementary welfare payment is supposed to be. It is supposed to be a short-term interim payment while investigations are taking place. I was previously a Minister of State in that Department, so I am fairly familiar with it. I have never had that experience before either. Somebody obviously felt that the time was ripe to tell the Government backbenchers to so-and-so off with themselves and so on. It is noted, but it is not accepted. I will pursue that to hell and back because when we are dealing with the public, the first contact we have creates an impression. I got two complaints from two genuine people. I have two more as well, but I do not propose to go into them today because I resolved them at the time. Maybe I got different officials dealing with the situation. I do not want to be part and parcel of a continuous complaint and whinge about anything, but I take exception to any situation where the State is in the delivery of services to vulnerable members of the public in particular. I know there are people in this House who in the past have had to stick their hand in their own pocket to address the immediate situation. I have to say there are no such circumstances I am aware of. We should revert to form in the sense that in the case of a disability allowance application the basic payment should be paid in lieu of that on an interim basis. If the person is not entitled to the disability allowance it is ceased, but care should be taken of the fact that the person does not apply for these things for the fun of it. I again thank the Minister of State.

That is a given. If somebody is in a vulnerable or emergency situation, payment can be made on the day. In 19% of cases, payment is made on the day. I genuinely assert that in my experience, the CWOs my office and I deal with have always been attuned to the urgency of any particular circumstance. I will ensure the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, is aware of Deputy Durkan's contribution.

I thank Deputy Durkan for taking the Chair to facilitate me in speaking on this matter.

We are into open season on hedgerows again with hedgerow trimming or cutting, however we want to term it. It is also about hedgerow removal, which obviously has far more long-term consequences and a greater environmental impact. During the closed season, the Department of agriculture engaged in a review of the environmental impact screening thresholds, which essentially was about how much hedgerow you are allowed to remove without applying for an environmental impact screening assessment. That currently stands at 500 m. That means, as it currently stands, a farmer is allowed to remove up to half a kilometre of hedgerow without implying any environmental impact at all.

Removing hedgerows has a huge environmental impact and a huge heritage impact. We know that hedgerows discharge many functions within the Irish landscape. First, they are incredibly important biodiversity corridors. Our bird species, in particular, are hugely dependent on the berries and fruits produced particularly at this time of year. There are obviously our insect species and pollinators. They are hugely important for the beautiful whitethorn hedges we see in the springtime. Our insect life also supports so much else in the food web, be it bird life tracking through into the mammals that use these hedgerows as wildlife corridors that crisscross the entirety of our landscape. They have an important role in carbon sequestration. Unfortunately, Ireland remains one of the countries in Europe with the lowest forest cover. There are all sorts of historical reasons for that, such as reasons of colonisation. That is not important in this conversation because we are where we find ourselves. However, for that reason our hedgerows are all the more important. They really are the extant tree cover in our landscape. For that reason, they play an important role in carbon sequestration

. Another role they discharge is in regard to the retention of water in our landscape. As we remove more and more of these natural features, and as our weather changes, we are increasingly seeing flooding events. We are coming up on the first anniversary of the terrible flooding in east Cork and in my own constituency in west Waterford. Hedgerows within a landscape prevent water from travelling across a landscape. They prevent flooding. We are particular in allowing quite so much removal without environmental impact assessment. I understand that in Wales it is closer to 20 m. In my own piece of Private Member's business, which has passed First Stage in this House, I talk about reducing it to a lower level without that environmental impact assessment. That is not to be oblivious to the needs of modern farming. I understand the tillage sector, for example, needs larger spaces. However, if hedgerow is to be removed, an appropriate environmental impact assessment must be performed to show whether that is appropriate.

The Department of agriculture has had a long time to conclude this review. I do not have sight of the results of this review, and I worry that we are waiting until the Green Party is no longer in government before we proceed on this review. It is important to our biodiversity, our wildlife, our carbon sequestration and our flooding. If we are indeed in a biodiversity emergency, as this House acknowledged in 2019, we should act like we are.

I am taking this on behalf of the Minister, Deputy McConalogue. The Minister believes that hedgerows are a significant component of the Irish landscape. We are fortunate in Ireland to have retained an extensive hedgerow network, with an estimated length of 689,000 km according to Teagasc research. As Deputy Ó Cathasaigh has said, hedgerows are multifunctional, acting not only as stock-proof fencing and boundary markers, but also providing invaluable ecosystem services such as crucial wildlife corridors, carbon storage, flood prevention and mitigation of fertiliser run-off.

Any removal of hedgerows can have a detrimental effect on the ecosystem service they specifically provide, such as biodiversity and climate resilience. It reduces how well connected the hedgerow network is for birds, bats, butterflies and other wildlife that use hedges for habitats. It removes valuable carbon sequestration facilities and contributes to soil erosion and excessive nutrient run-off. That is why the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has for the past 30 years, through various agri-environment schemes, facilitated the planting of more than 11,000 km of new, native species hedgerows and the rejuvenation of over 6,000 km more hedgerows through traditional hedgerow maintenance with the aim of protecting that valuable resource.

The Department has strengthened the level of protection hedgerows receive with the EU basic payment scheme identifying hedgerows as landscape features, protecting hedgerows under good agricultural and environmental condition, GAEC, standards and cross-compliance. This has been further strengthened under conditionality, which is part of the CAP strategic plan 2023 to 2027. GAEC 8 sets out the exceptional circumstances where the removal of hedgerow is allowed. These are building work, road safety issues, which are a major issue in this area, and farm safety issues. Where this is allowed it must be replaced in advance by twice the length in a like-for-like fashion. It is important to remember that removing a hedgerow between two fields is not considered an exceptional circumstance.

The new voluntary eco-scheme also aims to reward farmers for undertaking actions benefiting the climate, the environment, water quality and biodiversity, which includes the planting of hedgerows or trees on the farm.

The Department of Agriculture introduced the EIA (Agriculture) Regulations (SI 456 of 2011, as amended) in 2011. The objective is to assess the effects of certain projects or works on the environment with the aim of allowing works to take place where there is no environmental impact and ensuring works do not take place where there would be an impact on the environment. These regulations cover, among other items, the removal of field boundaries. When a farmer intends to remove hedgerow and the proposed works exceed the size threshold for screening, he or she must make an application to the Department for screening or consent, giving details of the works. If the Department officers consider the works are likely to have a significant effect on the environment, permission will be refused.

The Minister, Deputy McConalogue, has committed to reviewing and updating this regulation, as outlined in the programme for Government. As part of that review process, referred to by Deputy Ó Cathasaigh, a public consultation was conducted in 2023. A total of 64 submissions were received and reviewed in response to that consultation. Submissions were received from statutory agencies, NGOs, farming organisations, farmers and members of the public. The Department is continuing to review the outcome of that public consultation in tandem with its legal team. Departmental guidance documents on the EIA agriculture regulations are also being updated.

It is interesting to note what is omitted from the answer the Minister of State was given by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It talks about the size threshold for screening and chooses to neglect to mention that up to 500 m can be removed without any application for screening or any application to the Department. I also find interesting the figure of 11,000 km given for the new native species hedgerows. I could raise the issue of imported hawthorne and the issue of fireblight but I will not go into that because time is limited. However, the Minister of State knows that a new hedgerow is not nearly as rich or valuable as an ancient hedgerow in all sorts of ways related to the ecosystem services he referenced. Large tracts of ancient hedgerow are often removed from the landscape and replaced by whips. That is not like for like replacement and simply does not discharge the same function within the landscape.

It is also interesting that the answer did not give a timeline for when this review is to be completed. This public consultation detailed by the Minister of State was conducted in 2023. It is now October 2024. It is not credible that the Department concluded a consultation in 2023 and sat on it for over a year. I do not believe that a review of a public consultation by a legal team takes over 12 months to complete. I am worried we are removing from our landscape something that is incredibly valuable in all sorts of respects. Our screening and the thresholds we have in place simply do not have the strictness to stop that happening. I would like to see the review concluded and what the new screening thresholds will be before the end of the Government’s term.

I assure the Deputy that the Department is very much committed to the protection of our hedgerows. It strengthened the level of protection they receive within the basic payment scheme. They are identified as landscape features, as I said. Hedgerows are protected under good agricultural environmental conditions standards, through cross-compliance, and further strengthened with the current capital strategic plan. If a farmer in receipt of CAP payments removes a hedge, he or she has to plant double the length that was removed. Also, that hedgerows can only be removed for exceptional reasons.

I will brief the Minister on the Deputy's concerns regarding the review.

I thank the Minister for coming in. Women's football is booming and has huge potential. The difficulty is the number of leagues for young girls to play in. These leagues are creating barriers for participation in football by young women. We cannot allow legacy issues around leagues and policies to deny girls opportunities to play sport and football. Sport for girls and everybody else is important, not just for physical but also for mental health. It is important to acknowledge that on mental health day. Sport and football are an important avenue for positive development for families and communities because stronger communities make stronger societies. Legacy issues should not impede girls from playing in football.

It is important that the Football Association of Ireland, FAI, finds a solution to this. As Deputy Andrews said, 400 girls across Dublin and Meath have been left high and dry following the collapse of the Metropolitan Girls League. In my area, three clubs, St. Columbans SYC, Darndale FC and Artane Beaumont FC, have been directly impacted and dragged into this. At the end of the day, it is our young girls who are suffering. They all want to be able to play football in a league that is competitive. The social aspect of these girls being involved in these clubs is equally important. The coaches, the volunteers and the young girls in the clubs need answers. I acknowledge that the Minister said last week that funding may be withheld. Has the FAI responded? Is it working on a solution?

In my area Tyrrelstown FC has been trying to resolve this issue for a number of weeks. Up to 50 girls are affected by this debacle. They have been offered the opportunity to play in the north Louth league. However, with a cost-of-living crisis how will teams travel up to Louth from Tyrrelstown every week? I heard today there is a possibility of the issue being resolved in January with a league being opened up. Does the Minister of State have any information on that? This goes to a fundamental issue, namely, that there is an explosion in the number of girls getting involved in sport. This is brilliant news because, whether it is soccer, GAA or cricket, all the sports across the board involve a huge number of young people. We need to make sure they are kept involved.

I thank the Minister of State for being here in person to take this Topical Issue. He is familiar with the teams in our area as we share a constituency, which include Balrath Girls and Boys Football Club, East Meath United and Laytown United. Balrath Girls and Boys Football Club alone has around 120 players affected by this issue. When I speak to coaches, they all talk about keeping the girls involved. Many of them are going through a lot in their own lives but there is such a benefit of team sport and giving them consistent quality football. I am interested in what leverage the Minister of State has to influence this. It feels like a bureaucratic, "computer says no" decision. There needs to be a resolution.

I welcome the opportunity to talk about this matter because as the Deputies acknowledged, it is an issue with which I am familiar and about which I have spoken out strongly in public. I fully appreciate the frustrations of children - we are talking about children - their parents, coaches and neighbours. I knocked on doors in some of these areas - there is an election some way away - and neighbours are talking about this issue. It is not confined to individual teams. It is a big issue in east Meath and north and west Dublin. The people involved in this issue need to know it is breaking through to the general public. From the outset of my appointment as Minister of State with responsibility for sport, women's and girls' participation in sport has been a priority for me. No child who wants to play a sport should be denied the opportunity to participate.

I met the FAI this week on this issue. It offered to brief me after I spoke out about the issue and called on it to proffer a solution. I recognise that governing bodies are independent. It is not right that on every single issue politicians should be jumping in on sports bodies. Ultimately, the FAI, not the Government, is responsible for its own sport, including matters relating to the leagues. I welcomed the opportunity to hear directly from the FAI on the issue at our meeting. I conveyed the serious concerns expressed to me by children, parents, coaches and members of the community. The staff in the FAI have been working with the different stakeholders to try to come to a solution, find a pathway for clubs that have fallen out of this league through no fault of their own and get them affiliated with particular leagues. Some of the teams have found another league. It is not a position any team should be in in underage sport that it should have to find a league. The pathway should be there. Some have done it through their own efforts. I was not aware, for example, that Tyrrelstown is joining the Louth league. I know some in east Meath, which is slightly more logical, although not ideal, have found that path themselves. I encourage the FAI to continue its work to make sure this issue is solved and give people the opportunity to progress into the league, which in this case in the DDSL which has operated in Dublin, east Meath and all of the areas affected for many years.

Two weeks ago, football was a big winner in the round of the community sports facilities fund with more than €45 million going to projects involving football alone. There were other projects that also involved football as well on top of that. We have given priority to projects that increase female participation. It is the case that clubs must comply with the Equal Status Act. There is also a new condition called the similar access policy which ensures there is no public funding for any capital facility unless men and women have similar access. The soon-to-be-announced large-scale fund will have similar requirements. Last year, as a top up to its normal funding we gave the FAI €500,000 to support women's and girls' football. This was given through Sport Ireland and has been invested in coaching, grassroots and female leadership.

On Deputy Mitchell's specific query in relation to funding, the FAI is currently in negotiations with the Government in respect of a renewed memorandum of understanding. The last memorandum of understanding concentrated mainly on governance issues. I must say that the FAI has gone from zero to almost 100 on governance issues. It has done a good job. I have no doubt but that improvement on the football side will follow from those transformations on the governance side. If we agree a future memorandum of understanding, we will require a review of the leagues and the various affiliates under the FAI to ensure it delivers stable and geographically logical leagues for girls and boys. The challenge is that these leagues have grown up almost separately over a long time involving a lot of volunteers. We must acknowledge that they are mostly run by volunteers. In the modern age, they do not offer, as we can see, a logical provision of football for children in particular and for adults - children are more of a priority. That will be a requirement for the memorandum of understanding. It makes sense for everybody and will make sense for football. I will continue to engage with the FAI to make sure this is resolved, in particular, on the commitment that this should be fully resolved early next year, which I think we have all been told by the FAI.

Deputy Donnelly and I will take a minute each. I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I welcome the commitment regarding the memorandum of understanding. Those girls, their coaches, parents and communities are looking for a timeline in respect of what will happen now and how soon all of this can happen. I played in the DDSL 25 years ago. It is a huge league; there are tens of thousands of kids. We are talking about 400 in this case. Surely, there is a way to get this resolved as soon as possible. It is really needed. It is about providing football for girls, which has such a benefit for them in terms of development. It has to happen.

As part of his answer, the Minister of State said more than half the clubs affected now have a resolution, which means the other half does not. It is a disappointing answer. I find it strange that the adults around table are not looking at solutions to ensure that children can play the sport they want to play. Those adults volunteer their time; it is not a criticism because I have been involved in sport and know the time it takes. The volunteerism is phenomenal. We are renowned for volunteerism. However, when you take on a role, you also take on a responsibility. The responsibility of those adults is to ensure that the other half of those children who have not got a league to play in at the moment have a league as soon as possible. We need to revisit this issue if it is not resolved by January. Heads need to be knocked to make sure every single child has a league to play in.

It is important that these leagues have women at the top of their structures because it seems the common denominator is that men run these leagues and they do not facilitate or support women and young girls playing football. There has to be some mechanism to allow women to take positions at the top of the particular leagues.

We are in the run-up to an election. I hope the FAI, DDSL and the SFAI are listening. One issue has brought the Opposition and the Government together, speaking with one voice, which is girls' access to the DDSL. I hope the message goes out loud and clear that Dáil Éireann was united today and that every girl deserves a chance to participate. People in committees should not decide that some girls' team cannot go into the league to which other clubs in the area belong. I met the FAI representatives. I will praise it where praise is due and I praise the staff of the FAI, who work within very old structures. I agree with what was said about the leagues.

Volunteers run the leagues but accommodation needs to be made for the small number of teams left out. Some would say, on one side of the argument, it is their own fault because they were too late, but the reality is these are volunteer clubs and are not expected to know they have to apply to a league when their former league collapses. Let us have common sense and get the word out that the Opposition and Government have come together on this. It is too important an issue. Some journalists have dismissed this as a local constituency issue but it is much wider, as seen in the constituencies represented here today. It cannot be allowed to happen and will not be allowed to happen in future.

On leadership in affiliates to sporting organisations, we insisted there would be a minimum of 40% women on the board of every sporting body. Some of the largest sporting organisations were last to the table on that but all have come to the table. All of them have that. One of the things not achieved under the previous memorandum of understanding was that they were supposed to get a minimum number of women on committees below the top. I think having 40% of women on the main board will lead to that happening anyway but I can confirm it is something the Government will request in renewing the MOU. We all support football in this House and support the work done to increase participation. We all work with football clubs around the country to make sure they maximise their grants under the community sports facilities fund. We welcome that and want that but this has to be resolved. I thank the Deputies for raising it.