Tá tuismitheoirí trína chéile mar gheall ar an gcur chuige atá beartaithe don fhiosrú ar Shláinte Leanaí Éireann. Ní mór don Rialtas gníomhú chun dul i ngleic lena gcuid imní agus chun a chinntiú go bhfaigheann an fiosrúchán na freagraí atá de dhíth.

For years, we have heard the harrowing stories of children with scoliosis and spina bifida; children who were failed catastrophically by Children's Health Ireland, CHI, and by the health system prior to the establishment of that organisation, left waiting for operations that could change their lives, living with the fear of becoming inoperable; children who had their hips operated on unnecessarily. They were profoundly failed by the State and successive Governments.

Parents have fought a long and hard battle for answers. They fought for accountability, and yet they were stonewalled at every turn. It took the death of nine-year-old Harvey Morrison Sherratt for the Government to move on an inquiry. Following meetings with Harvey's parents, Gillian and Stephen, the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, and the health Minister, Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, promised an inquiry that would be child centred to provide parents with answers and to deliver accountability.

On Monday, Remy Farrell published his report on CHI and the recommendations for that proposed inquiry and parents feel that they still have not been heard. They are back to square one. They are angry because the period to be covered by the inquiry will have a starting point of 1 January 2019, but the failures of children did not begin on that date. Indeed, they long predated the establishment of CHI.

In fact, Simon Harris made his now infamous promise back in 2017 because at that stage we already had a crisis. He said at that time that no child would wait longer than four months for spinal surgery. Of course, that promise came to nothing and meant nothing as children continued to suffer, so it is not acceptable that an examination of those early years would be excluded from the inquiry because it means that people who are now adults and suffered greatly as children while waiting for treatment before 2019 will be deliberately cut out of that inquiry. That is just wrong.

Parents are also upset that there will not be a detailed investigation into individual circumstances and the treatment of affected children. Instead, the focus will be exclusively on systemic problems. So, the question is: how will this inquiry provide parents with the truth about how their child was failed? For this inquiry to have the confidence of parents, it has to be a process that identifies all failures, including individual failures.

There is also real concern that the majority of the proposed commission of investigation will be held behind closed doors. Of course, some parents will want to give their testimony in private and that has to be respected and accommodated, but remember, many parents are done with closed doors. They were forced to share their children's suffering very publicly, so they want to give their testimony in public, and they want the accountability to be public too.

Does the Taoiseach understand why parents feel so badly let down? Does he recognise and accept that the starting point of 1 January 2019 is totally wrong? Can he tell parents today what he will now do to ensure that this inquiry provides them with the answers they need?

First, I would like to offer my deep condolences and those of the Government and the entire team here at the Oireachtas on last night's very sad passing of our colleague and friend Seamus Carroll, husband of another colleague, Treasa Carroll. Seamus was a very respected member of the usher team and there will be a strong sense of shock and upset among the team throughout the House today. We think of him and pray for him, Treasa and his entire family at this very sad time. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam dílis.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta as an gceist seo a ardú os comhair na Dála inniu. Aontaím léi go bhfuil géarghá ann fiosrú cuimsitheach a chur i bhfeidhm agus a thosú maidir leis an méid a tharla laistigh de CHI chun soiléiriú a fháil ar an gceist iomlán. First, I agree that we need a statutory inquiry in relation to the pediatric services at CHI and particularly following the scoping report, Report on Children’s Health Ireland Inquiry into Spina Bifida and Complex Scoliosis Scoping Exercise, that the Government and the Minister, Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, published on 29 September.

The issues are very serious, and the parents and many others have strongly advocated for an inquiry. My view is that Remy Farrell SC did a comprehensive piece of work in respect of the scoping inquiry. Officials in the Department of Health will now work closely with the Office of the Attorney General on drafting the terms of reference. There will be a call for input from advocacy groups to the terms of reference, and the final terms of reference will then be submitted to the Government for approval.

In respect of a number of issues the Deputy has raised, as she knows, Mr. Farrell recommends a commission of investigation, which is statutory and mandatory and has compellability and all of the core requirements of a statutory public inquiry as per the Act. He has defined four modules: waiting lists, spinal surgery, hip dysplasia and the cohort of children who were not transferred to Temple Street post 2008. There are then two submodules recommended for the module on waiting lists: a personal family statement module and a module on the response of CHI management to waiting list issues.

Mr. Farrell also recommends that the commission inquire into whether the management of CHI was aware of the use or intended use of the non-CE marked springs and surgeries undertaken at Temple Street by consultant A between 2020 and 2022. There is further work in terms of the hip dysplasia and, as I said, children who were not transferred to Temple Street.

One important point is that a commission model can deliver the same core statutory powers as a tribunal and is arguably better suited to the specific subject matter of the inquiry, namely the medical treatment of children. The commission can compel witnesses and the production of documents and will obviously publish a final report.

Mr. Farrell came to his conclusions based on the personal and medical information of children. He feels that this model is the optimum model to handle sensitively the personal and medical information of children. He is concerned, as I would be, about the significant risk that children may be identifiable.

Of course, within a commission of inquiry, there is the capacity for public modules, and that is an area where the chairperson clearly has significant discretion. The chairperson could also have discretion in respect of any issues that arise during the course of the discussion that would have a more historical context, pre-2019. That discretion can be provided expressly to the chairperson to utilise his or her discretion to go back.

I too send our best wishes and solidarity to Treasa and all of Seamus's family on his sad loss. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam dílis.

I spoke to Harvey Morrison Sherratt's mother, Gillian, this morning. This is what she said as regards what is proposed: "It's so far removed from what we were promised and expected that we feel like we're back at day one." That is really worrying and it reflects the reaction of many parents. We need to get to grips with this. I am not questioning the essential model that is proposed. I have questioned the Taoiseach specifically on its point of departure. I have put it to him that 1 January 2019 is not the correct date because these problems, issues and really negative experiences, as well as the promises that were made to parents and children, predate 2019. Why in the name of goodness would the Government take that as its point of departure? In the terms of reference, that needs to be corrected. Second, we need explicit recognition that this will be a public process except where parents choose or wish to give testimony in private. Those are just two core issues, among others, that parents are advocating for. Above all else, this inquiry has to, I am sure the Taoiseach will agree, enjoy the full confidence of those parents and families.

Mr. Farrell has said, and I would agree with this from experience, that inquiries work best when they have a defined scope and time. Any inquiry that is absolutely open-ended or has very broad terms of reference can go on for a very long time and I do not believe that is in the interests of the parents, families or children involved. That is why he suggested 2019 to 2025, inclusive, with 2019 marking the establishment of CHI. It is a six-year period. As I said earlier, discretion will be there for the chairperson if issues arise that predate 2019. The chairperson will have discretion to go back and look at those issues. Again, as I said, there will be a call for public input into this and the Minister will continue to engage. There is an issue here. If it is a statutory public inquiry as per the 1921 Act, there is a danger that some may not participate. Quite a number of parents may not want their children to be publicly identified.

You should conclude, Taoiseach.

I have acknowledged that.

I just-----

That has been acknowledged.

That is why we opted for a commission-----

The year 2019 is the wrong date.

On 2019, what I am saying is that the chairperson will be given sole discretion to go beyond or back from that date as issues arise.

At the outset, on behalf of the Social Democrats, I want to extend our very sincere sympathies to the family and friends of Seamus Carroll and his wife, Treasa. Seamus was someone who, when you met him, you were always left with a smile on your face afterwards. He was a very kind, lovely man and he will be very much missed by all of us.

Ní ceart go mbeadh pinsinéirí na tíre seo i ngreim ag an eagla mar gheall go bhfuil costas ró-ard ar an teas ina dtithe. Ní cóir go mbeadh cúis imní ag pinsinéirí na tíre seo agus iad ag téamh a dtithe nó ag cur bia ar an mbord, go háirithe tar éis an uafáis atá déanta acu don tír seo. We are all beginning to wonder what the point of budget day is given that most of the details have been liberally and very publicly leaked in the media. Throughout this torrent of leaks, one detail has remained notably consistent, that pensioners can only expect to see a €7.50 weekly increase in their pensions. That would be a paltry increase which does not even keep pace with inflation. It would tip a huge number of older people, many of whom are already barely scraping by, into poverty. A €7.50 increase would be a clear betrayal of pensioners by both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. During the last election, Fianna Fáil and its coalition partners made a firm commitment to increase the State pension to €350 per week over the lifetime of the Government. Fianna Fáil went even further and said that it would increase core social welfare payments by at least €12 per week every year. Does the Taoiseach not realise that pensioners are relying on him to keep his word? The Government broke its promise at the first available opportunity when pensions last year were only increased by €10, and now it looks like it will be betraying pensioners again.

I have been contacted by a huge number of pensioners who are very anxious and upset at what has been reported. They are already finding things very hard. The price of their food shop is going up every other week and their energy bills are through the roof. Many are living in fear of the coming winter because they have no idea how they are going to keep themselves warm. Their budgets are already stretched to the limit and now the Government is preparing to deal them another hammer blow. Pensioners who have worked hard all their lives should be enjoying their retirement. They should not be lying awake at night worrying about how to pay their grocery bills. An increase of €7.50 would be a betrayal and an insult. This Government has announced nearly every other measure in the budget. Can the Taoiseach now confirm that the Government will not short-change pensioners and will it increase pensions by at least €15 a week?

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta. Is léir ón méid atá déanta againn go dtí seo an bhliain seo caite agus na blianta roimhe sin go bhfuilimid sásta mar Rialtas an-chuid tacaíocht agus cabhair a thabhairt do phinsinéirí na tíre seo i ngach aon tslí is féidir linn. Táimid chun é sin a dhéanamh arís sa bhuiséad atá le teacht. Tá sé suimiúil go bhfuil an Teachta ag léamh na bpáipéar nuachtáin lá i ndiaidh lae. Caithfidh sé a bheith amhrasach chomh maith. The Deputy should not believe everything he reads in the newspapers or hang his hat on every report. The reports in respect of the old-age pension, I suggest, may not be accurate at all. I worry about the Deputy's decrying of commentary on the budget or briefings and leakage because he was once a person who advocated very strongly for full transparency from the Government in relation to all measures under consideration. I jest.

There will be a lot of briefing, as there always is before budgets, and speculation and so on but the bottom line is that we are conscious of the cost of living. We are conscious of the impact on a whole range of people. If you look at the social protection budget over the last number of years, it has grown exponentially. We are close to a budget of €2 billion. Last year we concentrated on the carer's disregard and the €10 increase in the old-age pension was well above inflation. We also did significant work on child support payments to deal with child poverty. We saw the largest increases on record there, and in the back-to-school clothing allowances. We also extended the free fuel. The Minister is looking at other ways, in addition to the pension, of helping pensioners in the forthcoming budget. He will be bringing forward proposals in that regard on budget day.

What I would say to the Deputy is, do not believe the reports in the newspapers in respect of pensions because they may not turn out to be accurate. Outside of the pensions, other supports that we introduce through social protection, and through taxation for some pensioners, will be very beneficial to them. We believe strongly in a strong social safety network. We believe strongly in supporting pensioners and over the last six years we have demonstrated that in successive budgets the last Government and this Government have introduced. If you compare our social protection budget with those of comparable member states across the European Union, you will find that we are up there in the top tier of social welfare distribution, the GNI co-efficient and so on. We have a good story to tell in respect of that as a country.

The leaks on the budget are not coming from the Opposition. They are coming from the Government. Where does the Taoiseach think they are coming from? Where does he think those headlines came from? They have pensioners worried sick. Is this just some sort of cynical ploy to manage expectations so that if it the increase is more than €7.50, people are meant to be grateful, even though the Government is breaking its promise of €12? Specifically on the promise that Fianna Fáil gave in the last election, I have the election manifesto here. Does the Taoiseach remember it? It gave, in black and white, a commitment to pensioners of at least a €12 increase in their pension every year that Fianna Fáil is in government.

That is the commitment the Taoiseach gave. He broke it last year. Does he understand that pensioners are relying on him to keep his word? It is not a laughing matter. People are worried sick about how they will make ends meet. Is the Taoiseach going to stick to his word and give a €12 increase, or will he do better by doing what the Social Democrats are proposing, which is to give a €15 increase to pensioners, as provided for in our alternative budget?

First, we recognise the enormous pressure on families and pensioners because of the cost-of-living crisis, which was fundamentally brought about by two major wars, namely, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the 2026 Middle East conflict between the United States and Iran, which really has caused ripples across the entire world in terms of energy prices and knock-on effects on the cost of living.

Last year, we took very significant measures in the budget to protect the most vulnerable, including pensioners, and we will do similarly in the forthcoming budget next week. That is across the board in terms of interventions we have made on energy, which benefit pensioners, by the way, just as they do other sectors of the economy, in terms of the core pension itself and in the form of other measures that affect pensioners. We fully understand that they are under pressure, but the entirety of society, particularly low-income groups, is also under a lot of pressure because of the crisis.

Are you going to stick to your word and give a €12 increase?

We will fulfil the programme for Government over the lifetime of this Government. Of that there is no doubt.

Will you stick to your word?

I did not interrupt the Deputy and he should not be interrupting me. There is a very set protocol in here.

The bottom line is this: the Deputy should not be depending on speculation. Budget day will reveal the full intent of the Government's contribution.

Yesterday, the Taoiseach said he was not going to intervene in the Garvaghy Road-Drumcree stand-off, which is potentially set to escalate again this weekend. He dismissed suggestions that he should call on the British Government, the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, indeed, the PSNI to stop a triumphalist sectarian Orange Order march going down the Garvaghy Road. I ask him to reconsider that non-interventionist position. I want him to ask himself what kind of mentality or ideology would lead Orangemen to want to march through a mostly Catholic area, where they are not wanted and where that march is going to evoke the trauma and memories of more than 21 people being killed, including the Quinn children, Robert Hamill, Rosemary Nelson and many more. The answer is that it is an ideology and mentality of supremacism and the dehumanisation of one section of the population based on their religion.

I put it to the Taoiseach that it is a mentality and ideology very similar to the one on display from, and being led by, Yoseph Haddad, the mouthpiece for the Israeli regime, in the football stadium in Hungary, where he encouraged chants for the IDF, the people who are carrying out a genocide against the Palestinians, and taunting Irish players with racist abuse. It is a similar supremacist and dehumanising ideology and it leads to death and destruction. It is no coincidence that when I went up to Drumcree eight or nine days ago, before all this started, the community centre there was covered in banners in solidarity with Palestine. That is because the people of the Garvaghy Road understand the connection between the dehumanisation they suffer and how colonialism was based on dividing people on religious grounds, setting Catholic against Protestant just like the Zionist movement set Muslim against Christian and Jew, with all the horrific violence that has flowed from that.

It seems to me that as the leader of a country that has suffered colonialism, oppression and all of the divide-and-rule tactics that led to terrible things here, including the Penal Laws, the so-called Famine - in actuality, mass starvation of the population - and all of that, the Taoiseach has a responsibility to stand up against supremacism and the dehumanisation of a section of the population and to call for this march to be stopped because it is a sectarian, supremacist march. He might also intervene to stop Ireland's next match against Israel because we should not be playing against a regime guilty of genocide.

First, the Deputy's presentation of what I articulated here yesterday is wrong. I did not say I was not going to intervene in anything. Describing my position as a non-interventionist approach is wrong; it is false. Of course, he has to present his argument in that way to justify his subsequent comments. All political leaders - all of us - have an obligation in terms of this issue to be careful of what we say and how we say it if we want a resolution of it.

I do not accept the Deputy's comparison of what is happening in Gaza to the Northern Ireland of today. The situations are incomparable. The deprivation, the attacks, the killing of 75,000 people in Gaza, the continued stymying of aid going into Gaza - how can he compare that to what is happening in Northern Ireland today? There is no comparison. It is just ridiculous to make that comparison.

Northern Ireland has come a long way since the Good Friday Agreement, in which my party and others were centrally involved. Parity of esteem and respect for different traditions were the hallmark of that agreement. Many parades are held across Northern Ireland without any issues through local agreements and mediation between people who work and live together. The shared island initiative is breaking new ground in terms of connectivity between North and South, joint projects and programmes between different communities in music, biodiversity, climate and prevention of violence against women - the whole range of programmes we are now funding, with buy-in from all communities and all traditions.

What I said yesterday was that one single intervention cannot resolve this issue. We have to resolve it through a broader lens if we are serious about a future where different traditions can live together on this island and share the island in a reconciled way. Deputy Boyd Barrett has never publicly condemned Hamas for what happened on 7 October 2023. That is his view of life. Equally, he has referenced the PSNI in a negative way today. I want to pay tribute to the PSNI and to the Chief Constable, Jon Boutcher, for the manner in which he is managing this and trying to navigate it. The PSNI has been placed in a very difficult position. Part of the reform under the Good Friday Agreement was to have greater cross-community participation in the PSNI. There is a growing sense of "let's attack the PSNI and undermine the Patten reforms". We have to work to enhance the Patten reforms and ensure the PSNI continues on its journey of being truly cross-community in membership and so on. Progress has been made, but what I have witnessed and listened to in the past four or five days from quite a number of interlocutors is an attempt to undermine that process. We need to be very careful about that because it will end up in a very negative spiral into the future.

The Minister for foreign affairs met with the Secretary of State last evening. There was a series of exploratory talks between various groups and so on. Those talks will continue today. We have made very clear our view on the position of the Parades Commission. We do not agree with that decision, which is incomprehensible. However, we must now focus on a resolution, and talks are ongoing in that respect.

The scale of horror visited on the Palestinians certainly is of a different order. I do not have time to go into the history but saying there is no connection means the Taoiseach needs to look back at the history. After subjugating people in Ireland, the leaders of the Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries were sent straight to Palestine. In 1936, the Governor General of Jerusalem, when asked why he was backing Zionism, said it was because he wanted to create "a little loyal Jewish Ulster" in the Middle East. The British exported the model they had used to subjugate and divide Catholic and Protestant in Ireland to do the same in Palestine, with horrific consequences. By the way, it is no coincidence that DUP MP Carla Lockhart was standing out with masked men protesting against a Gaza peace march.

As for Jon Boutcher and the PSNI, how come he had already recruited 200 Scottish police officers last Monday or Tuesday week to come to the Garvaghy Road when, at the same time, he was telling the Parades Commission there would not be a public order consequence if the Orange Order march went down the Garvaghy Road? That suggests that Jon Boutcher misled the Parades Commission, with the consequences we are now facing of a stand-off. The Taoiseach needs to stand up against supremacism and an ideology that is about trying to drag the North back to violent conflict and he should speak up against the genocidal horror of the Israeli regime as well.

I agree with the Deputy that we cannot go into history but the Black and Tan model did not work in Ireland. Coming from the county of Cork I know that too well from my history.

In respect of Jon Boutcher and the PSNI, his primary objective, which he articulated with great clarity, was that no person would be injured as a result of what transpired over the last number of days from the decisions made by the Parades Commission onwards. That should be acknowledged. The Deputy talks about supremacy. If you speak to the victims of 30 years of violence, what happened in 30 years on this island was horrific. The activities of the Provisional IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force and paramilitaries from the loyalist side were horrific. He led an inquiry called Kenova. The victims of all of that violence spoke about his integrity, his inclusiveness and the degree to which he responded to the victims and the families of the victims. The Deputy can try to demonise the individual if he likes but I am not going to do that.

I am just asking a question.

We need a bit of honesty here if we are going to make any way forward and stop retreating always on all sides, including the Deputy's contribution just now. That will not achieve anything into the future. It fits an ideological frame, but it does not deal with the realities of the here and now and how we move forward. If we want a united Ireland in the future, we have to begin to articulate what that looks like and how we include people.

I also extend my sincere condolences to the family, friends and co-workers of the late Seamus Carroll and especially his wife, Treasa.

Last Sunday, a dignified protest was held across all Twenty-six Counties by women and men seeking a transparent, trauma-informed and trustworthy family court system. Those involved walked a mile in solidarity with people affected by ongoing failures in this deeply flawed system to highlight the damage that has been and is currently being done to children in particular. In some cases, children's shoes were left outside courthouses as a symbol of who is affected most. This is not a legacy issue of abuse. It is one that is ongoing and still hurting children and parents, especially but not exclusively women.

The Taoiseach may be aware of this grassroots campaign. It is called Walk in Our Shoes, and today a group is walking peacefully from the Four Courts to outside these Houses of the Oireachtas. They are walking right now, as far as I understand. They are doing it because the system is not fit for purpose, whether it is the in-camera rule, which allows bad decision-making to be brushed aside, or the over-reliance on so-called experts, some of whom appear to act as paid shills or devotees of a cult rather than focusing on putting the voice of the child first. We then have historical failures by Tusla, which are still going on all over the place. Most recently, we had appalling abuses over 12 years where a proper investigation did not take place because of an over-reliance on cultural sensitivities, among other things.

We had a very good debate last April on my Private Members' motion which called on the Government to replace this outdated, blanket in-camera rule with a controlled transparency framework, while implementing strict regulations on court-appointed experts and strengthening statutory oversight of Tusla. I mentioned that the current in-camera rule forces child custody access and childcare proceedings to happen behind closed doors. It creates a culture of silence that disempowers vulnerable parents and also masks the systemic under-resourcing, groupthink and poor decision-making that go on. This lack of scrutiny has led to so many children being exposed to emotional harm. Some who are now over the age of 18 are telling their stories but some are still in the system. While Ireland delays its own 2025 review recommendations, we now have jurisdictions like England and Wales, and the pilot in Northern Ireland, where they have transitioned to controlled transparency. Where the in-camera rule has gone, the assumption is that bloggers and journalists can report while also protecting the anonymity of children. We have had meetings with the Minister for justice. Guidelines have been promised on these so-called experts in the court that judges hugely rely on. However, I am worried that we are not going fast enough and that children are still going to be systemically abused because a light is not being shone on poor decisions and in some cases corrupt ones.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. There is no simple answer or response to this. I would have concerns about removing the in-camera rule in the children's court, which the Deputy has advocated for. We always have to protect children and it has to be our first priority in situations like this. That said, we should also be responsive to concerns parents and families may have about how the court system and the children's court work. We are open to engaging with advocates in that respect. There is a need for regulation around court-appointed experts who make submissions. I am aware of some cases that were very negatively impacted as a result of the inputs of some so-called experts, particularly in child custody cases. There have to be sufficient and effective safeguards for that.

We are improving resourcing of our children's court and will continue to do that. I will bring the issues the Deputy has raised to the attention again of the Minister. I know there was a Private Members' debate earlier this year. It is somewhat complex. The Deputy spoke about what he described as the historical failures of Tusla. I tend to take a different perspective on Tusla. It does not do everything perfectly in some respects but without question, if we take State agencies generally, it has probably one of the most complex, sensitive and difficult breadth of issues on its desk. These are not easily resolved and that should be acknowledged. That does not excuse any bad behaviour or poor performance but we have to look at it overall and we have to recruit more people into Tusla. We have to make sure that people in Tusla can reach their objectives of wanting to contribute to society effectively as professionals. I think the desire of the vast majority of people working in Tusla is to provide a good service to children and young people. It is not an easy area to come down on hard and fast. I am not saying the Deputy is suggesting that sort of methodology or approach to dealing with issues.

The Taoiseach mentioned Tusla. I would be the first to say there are many great people working in Tusla who deserve commendation. Tusla needs to be resourced better and it also needs greater scrutiny, as has been mentioned by other Members of these Houses in various contexts.

I am concerned that the Taoiseach is concerned about the abolition of the in-camera rule because we have to look at best practice. A number of pilot studies were done in the UK. After these, when the abolition was rolled out, it was found that no harm was caused to children and there were no breaches of anonymity. By being able to report, it shines a light on the decision-making process and puts more scrutiny. In any situation where a light is shone on something, it makes people think twice, even in terms of the media reporting on the Houses of the Oireachtas and this debate being televised. Scrutiny is needed at all stages. Groups like the Alliance of Birth Mothers Campaigning for Justice, the Right to Transparency and the Walk in Our Shoes campaign are consistently advocating for this reform because they see every single day in the courts where children are being hurt. We need to review this and look seriously at how the English and Welsh court systems have moved forward.

I will refer the Deputy's comments to the Minister. My instincts are to protect the child at all costs. We should never underestimate the impacts of trauma on a child at an early age in terms of the child's subsequent life journey and that would be my concern. I will be honest with the Deputy and say that I am not aware of the evaluation of the systems in the UK. I am open to looking at that but we need to remember that trauma can have a longer term impact on children. I will discuss this with the Minister for justice and ask him to come back to the Deputy on it.