Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I thank TASC for its very interesting submission. I am interested in the points made in respect of the health service. There was reference to the complexities arising from the two-tier system. I ask the witnesses to elaborate on that. There are certainly complexities and great inequalities as a result of the two-tier system. There is further complexity arising from the fact that much of the health service seems to operate in different silos. There are bits of it run by Bons Secours, with other bits run by the Sisters of Charity, the HSE or other organisations. It is not just a two-tier system; it is hopelessly fragmented. Even within some of the hospital groups, there is no proper integration of computer systems, for example. It has been built on an ad hocbasis and it is deeply dysfunctional. Do the witnesses agree that the approach being taken is to address that in a piecemeal way rather than doing radical surgery - pardon the pun - to address it? Do they agree that, in light of the fact that there are all the silos and the big gap between public and private care, we cannot even begin to resolve the problem if we do not have an integrated one-tier national health service? I take the point in respect of people with private health insurance and the sort of fear factor that drives them to it, as well as the question in respect of what would happen if the subsidies were cut. I am not saying that if all the bits of the health service were added together and properly integrated, we would have the capacity we need. I strongly suspect there is significant under-utilisation of capacity, however, as a result of the fragmented and two-tier nature of the system. I have heard radio advertisements for the Blackrock Clinic which state that persons attending its emergency department will not be waiting on a trolley for two days. It does not have a capacity problem but it is only available to those who can pay, while those who cannot pay will be left waiting on a trolley for two days. I would be interested in the views of the witnesses on those issues.

An interesting point was made in respect of expanding the housing stock and meeting our climate goals. If I heard the witnesses correctly, they were saying we could square that circle if more timber is used in the construction of houses as that can lock up carbon, while the development of timber products and so on could be part of an ecological regeneration that would also help to address climate. Do they have any comment on the intense debate in respect of forestry, the involvement of investment funds in forestry and the type of forestry model that gives? Investment funds that are, in essence, seeking to make money from forestry are not too bothered about developing sustainable forestry that will positively impact on climate or enhance biodiversity. Rather, we will get short-rotation monocultural and industrial forestry that is very bad for the climate and biodiversity. The other side of the debate argue that we need timber products and industrial forestry is what is required to produce them. I do not think such forestry is needed but I would be interested to hear the views of the witnesses in that regard. I think there can be biodiverse and sustainable forestry that is a continuous cover model involving thinning rather than clear-felling and so on but I would be interested to hear the views of the witnesses on that issue.