For eight months now the State has been dealing with the threat posed by Covid-19. We are rightly told to follow the science, but science is empirical and it is based on data. I am concerned by the lack of published data. Peer review and transparency are central to any scientific response. I want to focus in particular on the data on mental health. The National Self-Harm Registry Ireland in Cork ceased functioning for the duration of the first lockdown.

At the end of August, it started to collect data again, both prospectively and retrospectively, but at the time of the second lockdown there were no data available in respect of the first. However, we were told that the national clinical programme for the assessment and management of persons presenting to emergency departments following self-harm - that is quite a mouthful - which is run by the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland and the HSE, was collecting data throughout the duration of the first lockdown. Where are those data? Have they been collated? At the time we were announcing the second lockdown and this Dáil was voting to facilitate it, I was standing where I am now when the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Butler, told me I would be provided with those data. I have not yet been provided with them and I have not managed to obtain them. The collection of those data is publicly funded. It is in the public interest that these HSE and College of Psychiatrists of Ireland programme data be collected. The programme is funded by the public so surely those data should be in the public domain to inform this House and the Government on the measures they take.

Yesterday, the Tánaiste talked about a third lockdown. We cannot go into a third lockdown without at least knowing the impact of the first one on mental health. I do not know whether those data are available. I am told they are but they may not be collated. If they are not collated, they are of no benefit because we cannot consider the impact of data that have not been collated. Will the Taoiseach commit to publishing those data? There is a broader issue regarding publishing the data and evidence available to NPHET to ensure that they are transparent and can be peer reviewed. That is not to undermine NPHET. Peer review, whether regarding the development of a vaccine or any medical or scientific response, is central and we cannot do that without the transparent publication of data, modelling codes and evidence.

Data are extremely important in terms of the entire experience of Covid-19 and learning from the first lockdown, which we did, and then informing the experiences of different phases of Covid. For example, coming out of the first phase when the country reopened and cases began to rise again during the August and September period, we brought in a team from the HSE, commissioning EY, to look at all of that detail with greater analytical tools and to identify where outbreaks happened and what was the correlation, what were the events and what were the combined circumstances that gave rise to spikes across the country. The Health Protection Surveillance Centre, HPSC, the HSE, the Department of Health, the Central Statistics Office and other Departments - the Deputy referenced the Department of Health - including the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, Social Protection and Justice, have all been inputting into the assessment and the impacts Covid has had on the different sectors of society. That will inform how we exit level 5. We are learning all of the time. We will publish those data and make them available to give people some understanding as to why we are arriving at particular decisions in respect of how we exit level 5. I have already identified some areas that have been of concern that emanated from those particular data. For example, in this phase we kept the schools and construction open. In the future, the Deputy can take it that we would do things differently from how we did them even during level 5 and from the first phase. We are learning all the time.

On mental health, there are two sources of figures on self-harm, the hospitals and clinical programmes. Hospitals could not report for a period of time due to Covid but reporting on statistics continued throughout Covid through the clinical programmes. I will qualify what I say here because we need more data and comprehensive research on this, but at the moment the data from the clinical programmes show that there is no evidence of an increase in self-harm as the figures are broadly similar to those for the same period last year. I put a caveat on that until I am satisfied that there is a full, comprehensive analysis of all the data.

With regard to suicides, there is a time lag as it has to be determined by the coroner. However, a real-time local study of suicide incidence in Cork shows no significant increase on the 2019 figures. Interestingly, a study on suicide in England found no evidence of a large national rise in post-lockdown suicide compared with previous lockdown suicides. It is an area that will continue to receive our attention.

I thank the Taoiseach. I greatly welcome his commitment to publishing data. I note that Ernst & Young have been brought in to crunch data. If those data are provided by the State or an organ of the State and collected with public moneys, they should also be made available. The most important point is the evidence and data available to NPHET, and the modelling code. Information about the code has been published but I am told by statisticians, and I am not a statistician, that it is not enough to do a comparison.

To return to the mental health data, I note the Taoiseach says there are data available. Will the Government publish the data that were available to it in the middle of October? The Taoiseach says the data are not complete but what was and was not available? We need to know that in a democracy. Will the Taoiseach commit to publishing that information? I am not asking him to get a lot of information. What information was available to the Government at the time and will he publish it by the end of this week or at least by this day next week? Also, has any study been done on the impact of the mental health tribunals? We have changed how they operate. Has there been any study into the impact of the change in the way they operate on those who are affected, that is, those who are involuntarily detained?

Recently, at a Cabinet sub-committee meeting, the Minister of State with responsibility for mental health, Deputy Mary Butler, presented a comprehensive report on mental health services generally but also in respect of the impact of Covid. Generally speaking, services have been maintained at 90% or 95% throughout the Covid period, which is a great credit to all of the professionals and staff involved. Very significant additional funding has been secured by the Minister of State for the mental health budget. Following that meeting, we briefed the Deputy at a leaders' briefing meeting in respect of the information we had.

I am still waiting for that information.

I am giving it to the Deputy now. The information had come from the National Office for Suicide Prevention, which is located in Cork. We will publish any data we have and send it to the Deputy. I have no difficulty with that. All data should be published. Data are there to inform public policy and public commentary, so I have no issue with that. That was the presentation made by the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, at that Cabinet sub-committee meeting.