I mostly want to focus on some specifics and some particular questions. I will start with some general points that shape the particulars. The most obvious general point made by many is that this is a heartbreaking scandal. It is awful that so many children have been failed in this way, Harvey, along with his family, among them. It is a horrendous failure by the State. Now we have a process of various reviews, reports and lookbacks into the various medical failures at CHI. What should shape those reviews? What will be the general overall approach? Two things are key. First, I emphasise again and again that it should be patient-centred, child-centred and family-centred. It needs to have their voices at the heart of it. They need to shape the process in order to have confidence in it. Secondly, when a decision is to be made about going broad or narrow, we need to go broad in terms of being expansive and covering all potential issues. Otherwise, there is real danger that these various reviews will not fully get to the bottom of the problems and then they will have to be repeated again. The guiding principle should be to take in more patients as opposed to trying to exclude patients. I will move on to my particular questions. I will start with the lookback which flows from the Nayagam report. The Nayagam report looked at a surgeon's cases and said that we needed to review two thirds of the cases he was involved in. It is the same surgeon who was responsible for inserting non-medical grade springs, which he had got himself, into children. These are some very serious red flags. There is currently a Medical Council investigation into him. Why, then, is the lookback quite narrow, and contrary to the request of the orthopaedic surgeons? The lookback is on surgeries between 2016 and 2023, and it includes all spinal, limb reconstruction, and surgical dislocation of the hip surgeries, but not surgeries in the area of trauma and general orthopaedics. As I understand it, many orthopaedic surgeons have made a request that this should be expanded to cover all surgeries and this has been denied with this narrower review. If we have a number of red flags about a surgeon - the term "red flags" understates what they are - why do we have an approach that limits it to some areas of speciality? Linked to that, why are we excluding adults? I have been raising this for years now. I was contacted by an adult about this. I will not give any of the details because it would reveal their identity. This adult is convinced that they were wrongly pressurised to have a surgery by Connor Green, which was a disaster. That may or may not be accurate, but you can go and have a lookback. I do not understand why adults have been excluded. I do not understand why other specialties have been excluded. If we have someone acting in this way as a rogue surgeon, why do we assume it is only happening in these areas of speciality as opposed to others? I have raised a related point in parliamentary questions over the past months. I raised it in a question to the Taoiseach a few weeks ago. The Minister is absolutely aware of it. How come this surgeon is registered to practise in Maryland? As I understand it, in order to get registered in another country one would need to have a fitness to practise certificate. I understand from a reply to a parliamentary question that there is no fitness to practice certificate and none has been issued. How is this surgeon potentially operating on patients in America? Has the Government contacted the Maryland Board of Physicians to say that there is some very important information that it should be aware of? Do we not have a duty of care in relation to that? With regard to the Nayagam report, will the Minister confirm that an injunction has been sought? Presumably this is still going through the courts. On the scoping exercise for the Farrell review, is it going to be broad?

Sentiment score: -0.09

Will it include general practice? Will it include the method for this? Will it include the waiting lists, which then were used to pressurise, or were part of the pressure on surgeons to do operations, and so on?

Sentiment score: -0.14

Will it also consider the points made by Deputy Coppinger about all of the information being made available to the families? Otherwise it is a very unfair playing field.

Sentiment score: -0.16