Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

I offer my congratulations to the team on an amazing achievement. It is the first Irish team to reach a world cup final. I watched the final, as most members probably did, or at least the highlights thereof. It was a significant boost for women and women's sport as well as for hockey. Women's participation in sport is the overarching theme of this meeting. Some of the greatest figures in sport in Ireland currently are women. I refer to Katie Taylor and Kelly Harrington who have reached the top of their sport, as well as Ellen Keane who competes in swimming in the Paralympics. Without question, women who participate in sport can achieve at the highest level internationally. The Irish women's cricket team has also performed very well.

The issue of television rights and coverage has been raised. A survey carried out in the past year or two indicates that 12% of sports coverage comprises women's sport. I was surprised the figure was that high. Coverage online is between 3% and 4%. The survey found that 58% of men and 64% thought there should be more coverage of women's sport. Obviously, far more men than women think there is enough coverage of women's sport. The standard argument is that if there is audience demand, the coverage will be offered. It is a case of putting the cart before the horse. The argument about audience and achievement is rendered meaningless by the US women's soccer team, which is more successful and draws bigger crowds than the US men's soccer team. As members will be aware, chants demanding equal pay broke out throughout the stadium at the final of the women's soccer world cup. They are pioneers on equal pay. Usually, women in sport just look for something a bit better. For example,the Irish women's soccer team was not looking for equal pay but, rather, for the players to be given tracksuits of their own. The Irish women's hockey team has definitely added to the empowerment of women in sport.

I was interested in Ms Jacob's comment on hockey not being expensive. I totally agree that one can play hockey without too much expense. However, there is a class element to hockey relating to the schools in which it is played. For example, I went to an all-girls school where one could play basketball but not hockey, whereas the boarding school next door offered hockey. What is the reason for that class element? Why does it persist? It should be examined because the more people who play a sport, the better it will be. I do not blame anyone involved in hockey for the class element but, rather, point out that we should examine it because there would be a higher participation rate if it was offered more widely. Similarly, it is not expensive to study ballet. It is less expensive to take ballet lessons than Irish dancing lessons but there is a certain elitism that persists in that regard.

I again congratulate the team on its achievement.