Kathleen Funchion Questions Four-Year TUSLA Data Gap

Thanks very much, thanks Minister, and apologies for coming in late to your presentation. I have two questions. One is in relation to the fact that they're saying there's no available data of efficiency from 2014 to 2018, and that they say in here that going forward from 2019, it's in the report under conclusions and key findings. Oh, sorry, sorry. So from 2014 to 2018, it says there's insufficient data collected on the level of expenditure and the number of staff at the service programme level for years 2014 to 2018 to allow for an evaluation of the efficiency of the services provided by TUSLA, and that they will try and have more accurate data from 2019 onwards. I just have a concern that we have four full years there where there isn't any information on value for money. What are you voting from, Deputy? This report from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Spend and Review 2019, it's under conclusions and key findings. It's under efficiency. It's just my concern is that any organisation that receives any sort of funding will tell you one thing they have to do is paperwork, red tape, loads of information needed, they have to answer loads of questions, and rightly so, but obviously TUSLA for four years, there seems to be a lack of data available there, and they don't seem to be doing anything to try and rectify that. But they say from 2019 onwards they will have the data, but there are four full years there where we don't know around efficiency. I mean, the report is actually done by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, so I'm surprised if you don't have it or haven't seen it. But I would have a question over why we don't have that information or why TUSLA, in the very least, aren't going to go back through their information for those four years. It's because no other organisation, you can be guaranteed their funding would be stopped immediately and they wouldn't get funding until they had all their ducks in a row as such, so four full years TUSLA are off the hook in terms of providing us with information, which I'd be very concerned about. I appreciate why you're asking the question, Deputy. And it may be the case, but we will have to go to check this, and I'm very happy to come back to you, that it may have had something to do with in terms of the, you know, I think all of you would be aware of that over the last couple of years there's been a major investment in the ICT system and the standardised practices, and that the data has been rolled, is now being collected in that context, but it may be the case that it's not fully integrated in order to provide the analysis that perhaps Deeper was looking for there at the time. They found a lack of data, but the situation has significantly improved through the introduction of the NCCIS, so that's what I can say to you now, but again, I think that we will take a look at that as well as to see if there's any further reason for that, Deputy. I would like that because I think four full years, in fairness, it acknowledges in the report, yeah, it's a long period of time, and fair enough if they're going to improve, but we still need information for that period of time. I don't think it's acceptable for four years of public money for us not to have those answers. Yes, yes, and as I said, and I appreciate that that was prior to, I think, the full integration of the IT system that they developed, that has been developed now, and then that information, as I understand it, is coming on. It will be integrated and it will provide us with that data reflection. I'm sorry. But the report, the report doesn't say that. In order to have further answer to that question, just to find out explicitly what is it that Deeper was referring to there, apart from what I've already offered. Okay. Yeah. So you'll come back to us on that. Because I have lots of, I have lots of data that I could read off to you, but exactly. Okay. Thank you, Deputy. Thank you.