The case of Harvey Morrison Sherratt, a child in need of spinal surgery who was left to wait for years in agony and who died on 29 July this year, has been raised many times on the floor of the Dáil, and I raise his name again with the Taoiseach today. In the summer of 2024, Harvey was removed from the spinal surgery waiting list by Children's Health Ireland, CHI. In August of 2024, his parents found out, quite by accident, that he had been removed from the list without their knowledge or consent. They fought really hard to get him back on the list to finally get him the surgery he needed. He had been left to wait for so long that his spinal curve had reached 130 degrees. Harvey suffered, his parents Gillian and Stephen suffered, and now they suffer the worst pain of all, having lost him. He was only nine years old.

Gillian and Stephen have consistently asked how, why and when Harvey was removed from the list and why his agony was extended and his treatment delayed. They got no answers, only spin, lies and deception, until a whistleblower from within CHI came forward with the truth. The answer to Stephen and Gillian's question was sent to the Minister for Health in a protected disclosure on 31 August and to the HSE on 12 September, but it had been known to many senior managers within CHI long before that. The truth is that Harvey was deemed fit for surgery, following an assessment made by an outside consultant from Great Ormond Street Hospital on 17 May 2024. A decision was then taken, just weeks later, by CHI to remove him from the list and describe his future care as palliative. The whistleblower has identified each step of this scandal, which left a small, vulnerable child to suffer and deteriorate. This is just the latest, and I think the most devastating, episode in the failure of children with scoliosis and spina bifida who needed spinal surgery. Successive Ministers for Health, including Simon Harris and the current Minister, have failed these children. Now is the time for accountability.

The Government has failed at every level to get to grips with this scandal, from its failure to keep the first promise that no child would wait longer than four months for surgery, to its failure to deliver care and treatment to these children and its failure to give frank and transparent information. It was widely known that Harvey was deliberately moved from the waiting list despite being fit for surgery. His parents did not know, though. Nobody told them. They were left in the dark despite their pleas and protestations and despite meeting with the Tánaiste and the Minister for Health.

They found out in a Sunday newspaper why Harvey was removed from the list. How can they or any other parent now have any trust in the Taoiseach or anybody else entrusted with the care and treatment of their children? Harvey was wrongly and deliberately removed from the list. Did this happen to other children? Is there now a commitment to deliver a full statutory inquiry to get to the bottom of this case and others? What does the Taoiseach say to the parents of Mikey Henry Benson, a child in Mayo, who were told by CHI that there was no treatment for their child and to simply take him home and make special memories with him?

I thank the Deputy for raising this very serious issue. I have offered my condolences to Harvey Morrison Sherratt's family, to Gillian and Stephen, on previous occasions, as has Deputy McDonald. I respect the Deputy's commitment to the issue. As I have said in this House before, no words of condolence or consolation to Harvey's parents are enough. It is an enormous trauma for any parent to go through but, in these circumstances, it is even more traumatic in terms of the experiences the family and Harvey have had with hospitals and the clinical world. It is unacceptable. The Government is anxious to help the family to find the answers to the questions they have about Harvey's care. The Minister for Health asked for a multidisciplinary report on the chronology from CHI regarding its involvement in Harvey's care and the key milestones, as recorded on CHI hospital records. The HSE CEO received this draft report on 19 August and shared it with Harvey's parents. The HSE CEO and the Minister have made it clear they view this report as a draft until such time as the family have the opportunity to comment on and feed into the chronology and ensure any additional information they have is reflected in the final report.

The Tánaiste and Minister for Health met Harvey's parents on 29 September. At that meeting, there was agreement that there would be an inquiry and that the detail of it would be determined in partnership. Following the meeting, as agreed, the Minister for Health wrote to the parents on 13 October setting out the range of types of inquiries available. The Minister subsequently attended the audiovisual room briefing, which many Members of this House also attended, to listen to the requests being made. There will be a meeting today between the Minister and the Tánaiste following up on this. The objective is to make progress on the nature and format of an inquiry which will be commissioned.

With regard to The Sunday Times report on a protected disclosure being made to the Department of Health, I want to make absolutely clear - I do not think it should be conflated wrongly - that neither I, the Tánaiste nor the Minister for Health had any awareness of this.

That is astonishing.

This is the factual position. It is not right or proper, in my view, that any other construction should be put on it. As we now know, any protected disclosure is investigated by an independent person, not by the Minister or anyone else. The allegations, as the Deputy outlined, are very serious and warrant investigation. That is currently under way in the manner set out in law by the protected disclosure process. There is clear legislation outlining how protected disclosures are dealt with now. I accept and understand fully the serious distress to the family who have been wanting to know for some time why Harvey was removed from the waiting list without any notice or discussion. Indeed, in this House I have said - I think when it was alerted to me by the Deputy next to Deputy McDonald - that it is unacceptable. Every parent should be informed. The Deputy made a point that Harvey was deliberately removed. I do not know the circumstances or why someone would be motivated to deliberately remove the child from a surgical waiting list without telling the parents.

That is what happened.

That is something I cannot comprehend. That needs to be the subject matter of an inquiry.

One of the fundamental problems here is that there has been a strategy or an approach of delay, delay and deceive adopted with these parents in the case of Harvey. He was removed deliberately from the waitlist. That decision was taken despite the fact he had been judged fit for surgery by an outside consultant. That happened. The Minister knows this because the protected disclosure arrived on her desk on 31 August and arrived to the HSE on 12 September.

That is not true.

There is nothing legally to prohibit the Minister or anybody else in receipt of it to study and absorb that protected disclosure.

Yes, there is.

I am very glad there will be a statutory inquiry. I hope the Government gets the terms of reference right but I am deeply troubled by the fact the system can act to deceive and delay, to leave parents entirely in the dark-----

Thank you, Deputy McDonald. I call the Taoiseach to respond.

-----and to leave small children to suffer. There is never accountability for this. As a matter of fact, the great irony is that the only person who has suffered within the system as a result of this is the whistleblower herself.

Hear, hear.

You are way over time, Deputy. I ask the Taoiseach to respond.

I will raise that again on another occasion on the floor of the Dáil.

The Deputy made a comment in respect of the Minister receiving this, which is not correct in the sense that there is a dedicated channel, a secure, dedicated mailbox, set up to receive protected disclosures via the ministerial channel. The Minister does not engage with that. The legislation is very clear on that.

What is very clear on that?

The legislation was passed in the House.

It is not.

The protected disclosure was received in the mailbox on 31 August.

It was addressed to the Minister.

First, the notification was sent from the Department to the reporting person informing them that in accordance with section 8-----

I am aware of all of that.

You are not because you gave an opposite perspective.

No, I am aware of that.

I did not interrupt you. Please.

Please, go ahead.

The commissioner for protected disclosures, who is responsible, acknowledged receipt on 2 September. Once transmitted, the commissioner independently determines the appropriate prescribed person or public body to follow up on the disclosure. The HSE has issued a statement, as the Deputy is aware. Ministers are required to establish dedicated channels to receive protected disclosures and to publish information on how to access and use the reporting channel. A secure dedicated mailbox was set up to receive protected disclosures via the ministerial channels.

Yes, it was addressed to the Minister.

Access to records is strictly limited to ensure the identities of the-----

There was nothing stopping her.

It is the law.

Please do not interrupt, Deputy.

-----reporting person and any persons named in the report are kept confidential to the greatest extent possible.

No, the law does not stop you.

The Taoiseach is over time. Please do not interrupt, Deputy McDonald.

There is an alarming lack of curiosity at a minimum.

All disclosures received by a Minister or Minister of State must be transmitted to the protected disclosures commissioner within ten calendar days of receipt. That is a statutory requirement under the Act.

It does not stop them from breaking it first.

The Taoiseach is well over time.

I am but Deputy McDonald was too. It is not good enough that misleading presentations are being made by the Deputy.

You are misrepresenting the legislative process.