Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)

I thank all the witnesses for being here. It is good to see Ms Costello again. Our paths crossed in a different life a number of years ago.

I had a load of questions about datasets, but Deputy Crowe got pretty forensic on that and used up all my questions. It is fascinating to hear the witnesses' thoughts on this because it is so important. In my previous job in rights and equality, we had a mantra that what you cannot measure, you cannot change. We had real frustrations, particularly in the justice sector, where it seemed at times that the Republic lagged a lot in terms of data collection. At best, it can sometimes be said that it might be State negligence and sometimes it genuinely feels there is no willingness to gather that data because there is no willingness to face up to the barriers and challenges within different areas. I hope that is not the case in the health sector. From the contributions, it sounds like that is not the case. As was said, it is the framework and the direction that are lacking. We have got some really good ideas from the witnesses on how this committee can assist and help them to bridge that and gather meaningful datasets to use in their work.

I will shift my questions slightly. Obviously, we talked a lot about the Good Friday Agreement. I am also very keen to discuss the Windsor Framework and, essentially, the potential for divergence on both sides of the Border in terms of public health, from the IPH's perspective. I will open with a broad question. In what area of public health - I see from its website all the different areas it covers, such as obesity, alcohol, ageing and so on - does the IPH see the biggest divergence at the moment? That is not necessarily in the regulatory or data space. In either the clinical or public health picture, where are we seeing the most difference between the North and the South?