Victor Boyhan
Agricultural Panel · Independent · Ireland
“It also mentions the agrifood sector and the importance of diversification in agriculture, the maritime sector, coastal communities and fishing communities in terms of rural policy.”
“I know from my engagement with both the Department and the Minister that over 900 submissions to the consultation process were received. No Member or parliamentarian will have had the opportunity to consider the anonymised version of these consultations, which contain many good suggestions in favour of the regulations and many concerns in…”
“I welcome the Minister and the official to the Seanad. This is particularly important Private Members' business. I thank Senators Collins and Tully for setting out the background and the rationale behind their Private Members' motion. I acknowledge the Minister's exceptional commitment to rural Ireland and his Ministry.”
“I am conscious of the Minister's public consultation, and I acknowledge it and thank them for it, in relation to the Our Rural Future work programme in 2025. In fairness to him, he did not stop at that. I received a further update when I requested it from his office very recently.”
“This will come about through that process. It is for the Minister to decide. Maybe he will do so tomorrow when the regulations are dealt with. However, when Senators are in this Chamber discussing these regulations tomorrow, they will have no sight of any constituent who made a submission. That is my first item.”
“I am pleased to see Senator Byrne in the Leader’s chair. I wish him well in that job. I also wish him well in his new position as Government Whip. There are three items I wish to discuss today. First is the exempt development regulations, which are being covered extensively in the media.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,616 lines we hold for Victor Boyhan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 33.
“We await the next report. What I am trying to say is that the Minister of State has huge powers and she needs to use those powers. Many of these are classified as being of critical concern. Each of them has critical concerns so there are two flags against each of these.”
“We proposed something but we did not get support from the Minister or the Government if that was the case. The Minister of State was sympathetic but sympathetic is no good. She will move on, I will move on and we all move on. If we could enshrine it in the legislation, there would be some comfort that people could rely on the primary legislation and this is our primary function here today. Where the commission highlights serious shortcomings, as it has in its report on these seven organisations, some of which are not too far away from where we are standing, we have to have a system and the Minister of State and her officials have to fully exercise their powers to follow up and track them. Pointing them out is one thing but doing them is another. I have spoken to three of these seven institutions and have discovered there are still issues.”
“As she considers the annual report every year, which I am sure she does in detail, if things are flagged I want to be able to track them. The 2025 report will be out this year and I want to be able to come back in here and ask the Minister of State what she is doing about a report that was being prepared as we were speaking. That is about vigilance. That is our job and function. I do not want to be negative about this legislation in a year's time and say we pointed all this out, but like the two inspection staff, we suddenly could not find a legislative way of overcoming issues. If something happens in six months' time and we are told, sure we only have to do it every three years, that is not good for the patients that were intimidated and threatened in a particular service. What did we do about it? Not very much.”
“The more I speak to them, the more confidence I have, not in the legislation, but in their ability to use the whistleblower legislation or to pick up the phone to any TD or Senator. I would encourage anyone listening here today to do so if there is any form of abuse or question about the quality of care. They must reach out to the people involved. I want to put that on the record. We will be concluding our debate at 2 o'clock. That is important. This area deals with the regulation of the registration. There are also corporate governance policies in place for these providers of services. It is important that we somehow have a facility to capture the shortcomings. The Minister of State has powers in this legislation herself. This is why I brought it up.”
“That has been a recurring theme of our debates in recent weeks in the sessions where we have been dealing with the Mental Health Bill. It must be person-centred, human-rights based, fundamentally 100% about quality, independence and accountability, dignity and respect, and of course at all times applying expertise. That is an important point to make. There are serious shortcomings in service providers. It is not good enough to suggest that we are all whistleblowers who are going to complain about the client services. I have spoken to a number of staff. I again give a call-out to the psychiatric nurses and all the allied professions and service providers in the mental health sector who do tremendous work.”
“In fairness, it is not appropriate for me to name them because a lot of good work goes on in these organisations. There is also a lot of failure, however. We cannot rely on complaints; we must be vigilant. We have the Mental Health Commission. I will not go back over all the failures of the Mental Health Commission. I put on record my support generally for the Mental Health Commission. It does really good work. Its responsibilities are regulation, inspection, compliance, monitoring and enforcement. That is central to supporting the service users and the people who work in the service. That is an important role. It is part of the regulatory process. It also has an obligation under its vision, mission and value statement, which it publishes on its website.”
“I want to follow on from what Senator Black was saying. This was a very important amendment and this is a very important section. It deals with the regulations and registration, operation and management of mental health services. The section deals with a very important area. We have talked about complaints but there are also observations and investigations into the non-compliance rate. It will take a few minutes for me to illustrate my point. If we look at the Mental Health Commission report, I came in here today with the intention of naming the seven organisations that have very serious cases against them, which relate to issues of non-compliance, including critical issues. Then I thought about it. There are two categories and they amount to seven organisations in the mental health sector. I reached out to two of them.”
“I think it is a pity we are not able to put that into legislation when the Minister of State agrees, the commission is supportive and, I suggest, everyone in the House is supportive of the concept. I thank the Minister of State for her engagement.”
“The commission refers in its report to inspections happening every year, although the report is from 2024, which is its most recently published report. Inspections every year would be fantastic, but I recognise that can present difficulty given the number of approved centres. Can I leave it with the Minister of State to see if there is any way that we can do this in primary legislation? It is only twice in every three-year registration period. It is only twice - I do not think it is too much to ask. It would be great if we could put it in primary legislation or some other form of regulation. It would give comfort to people. The Minister of State agrees with it.”
“Therefore, is it not an awful pity we cannot find some creative, imaginative way through the parliamentary process and legislation to put in what I put forward, which the Minister of State supports? I believe it is a good idea and I have spoken to others who believe it is a good idea. Is it not an awful shame that here we are, making primary legislation in the Seanad, the Upper House, and somehow we are currently precluded from making that proposal? That shows a weakness and anomaly in the parliamentary process. I do not know if this is the case, but the Minister of State might outline whether it is open to her to consider that such that when she comes back on Report Stage, there would be some way of putting this in? She is in agreement and it makes sense.”
“He might not always have the capacity and he may to decide to carry out an inspection after 14 months. I understand that. No one in the approved centres should necessarily know the movements of the inspector. He can come unannounced or when he thinks it is appropriate. That is a good thing. While my proposal was for twice a year, if the statement I quoted is correct, that gives me reassurance. I am not sure if that has changed or whether the Minister of State has received assurances on that.”
“Each approved centre is given an opportunity to review and comment on any content or findings prior to publication. In a funny way, I am scratching my head about that. If that is the case, that is good, but will that continue to be the case? Sometimes, we draw a distinction between primary legislation and secondary legislation to suit our own agenda. That is not necessarily to say the Minister of State is doing that. However, this is primary legislation and the body of all our debates here has concerned this issue of protecting the people and securing appropriate care for the people involved in the services. Is that still the Minister of State's understanding? Can we have that assurance that the inspector will do it every year? He is doing it every year now, or at least he has the ability to do it.”
“All I was attempting to do was move that from once to twice. I do not think that was an unreasonable request but the Minister of State's hands are tied in that it is not a live amendment on the floor and I respect that. I just wanted to flag that to her in light of the various inspectorates' reports and their concerns. This morning, I had another look at the Mental Health Commission and I do not want to spend too much time on this. Nevertheless, I want to check that a statement in the Mental Health Commission Annual Report 2024 is consistent with the Minster of State's understanding. Page 49 of that report states: The Inspector of Mental Health Services visits and inspects every approved centre at least once each year. The Inspector prepares a report on their findings following the inspection.”
“I thank the Minister of State and her staff for coming to the House. She has given this a lot of time and I want to acknowledge that. It is important. I received a letter and communication from An Cathaoirleach informing me with regret that amendments Nos. 314a and 314b have been disallowed on account of a potential cost to the Exchequer. I will not get into the process of that today other than to say it is disappointing. It highlights significantly what is the importance of the commission. Section 128 states that the functions of the chief inspector shall be to visit and inspect every registered acute mental health centre at least once in each registration period of three years and every registered community mental health centre at least once in each registration period of five years.”
“It is in the interest of Irish farmers, producers and, ultimately, suppliers and the continuous food chain that we have a good, professional and working relationship with Bord Bia. I hope that common sense will prevail in the coming days and we can iron out the difficulties with Bord Bia. I just want to flag here today that we have issues and concerns. The CSO has confirmed the drop in the processing and slaughtering of animals, which has to be of concern. I ask that we continue to monitor the situation.”
“That is profound. That is an impact that is measured by the CSO and was published yesterday. It clearly sets out an area where we have to have concerns. It is important that we keep as many of our jobs in slaughtering and processing on the island of Ireland as possible, as opposed to the live export of cattle. I have a strong view on that, but the report is an indication of the ongoing challenges in promoting Irish agrifood and the Irish agrifood sector. I commend Bord Bia on its work. Its remit and responsibility are to promote agriculture, food and the drinks industry. We have a reputation all over the world. It is an amazing organisation. Yes, it is an expensive organisation to run and it may face some setbacks currently, but we have to get beyond that.”
“I will raise the issue of Bord Bia without touching on the current controversies in Bord Bia, given that they are well rehearsed and well documented, both in these Houses and the media. Currently, our Minister of State, Deputy Grealish, is on a trade mission and may be due back today or tomorrow. The Minister for agriculture, Deputy Heydon, is as well. This is important. The Seanad had a very good session yesterday regarding the nitrates directive. We touched on all the positive things going on in agriculture. Yesterday, the CSO published some figures, and figures do not lie. It is always important we look at the data when we are examining policy. The CSO told us yesterday, in the published report, that there had been an annual decrease of 17.2% in the number of sheep slaughtered in 2025 and a drop of 12% in cattle slaughtering.”
“Any concern has to be validated. There is a strong case for it. I am pleasantly surprised this amendment got in. I would have thought it might have been suggested it would incur a cost to the State. I have been told I could not have a report because it is a cost on the State and I stand up in here saying we are all in here on the payroll and we are all a cost to the State. It seems to be different arrangements for different days. I will leave it at that.”
“I have written to a few TDs today asking them to post their responses when they get them and to engage. It is important that we have oversight and that we look in. I do not like to see a situation evolve in any parliamentary process where suddenly it is all watered down and Ministers are feeling they have to tell us, from all these quangos we have around the country now, that they will write to us directly. It bypasses the parliamentary scrutiny and questioning. However, that is another day's work. Based on Bloomfield Hospital alone, there is a very strong case for an independent complaints process so that the workers at all levels within the provision of the service and the people who have had direct experience will have the confidence externally of the other processes. It is not to have to invalidate them.”
“There were whistleblowers in there who told the story and who engaged with the journalists, particularly Shauna Bowers. That is how that story evolved but she then went on to investigate it further. There is no dispute about what happened there. I think there is to be an investigation; I will keep pressing for it. I was considering drafting some parliamentary questions but I will not bother because I feel I can now talk to the Minister of State directly. Some people will give the usual response to questions. If it is a HSE thing, they will send it out. One of the shames now when we look at our Dáil reporting is that we see comments such as "the HSE will write to you directly". This cuts out and short-changes the public who want to look in and see the responses.”
“I will be brief because I have mentioned this before. Senator Black has touched on it there again. We should have an independent commission, an independent process and a complaints procedure. We all know what happened in Bloomfield Hospital. I give a call-out to Shauna Bowers, the health correspondent in The Irish Times , who covered this story extensively over the Christmas period on the litany of abuse that took place in the Bloomfield supposed care centre. It is all documented. We have discussed it here with the Minister of State in every session since Christmas. The commission gave the hospital a 94% clearance rating three times in a row. There is no dispute about that. It is shockingly scary what has happened there. We need this independent complaints procedure.”
“I thank the Minister of State for reading that into the record. It shares some of the echoing concerns we have been talking about. There are those cases and, quite frankly, that is the sad reality of it. There are cases in many spheres where no one has an advocate and the Minister of State has identified that. She has provided a good rationale in support of it and that is important. We have not lost sight of it, and I thank the Minister of State for reading that into the record.”
“We are not lawyers in here but I think that would give comfort and is what people would be concerned about. I ask her to consider the matter.”
“In light of all the sensitivities and about one's current state of mind and who is recommending the options or care plans, it would be of comfort if the Minister of State might at least take it away, consider it and come back with some amendment or change to strengthen the legislation to put safeguarding in place. People move and Ministers come and go with the best will and intention. I do not have the wherewithal, but between the Minister of State, the Parliamentary Counsel and her legal advisers, I respectfully suggest that she take it away and ask how we could strengthen this so that there would be no situation of a child being treated outside the State, particularly involuntarily. The Minister of State has said herself she does not want unintended consequences.”
“267, which concerns a request for an application for transfer of a child and reads "a request may be made to the clinical director of the registered acute mental health centre for the transfer of an involuntarily admitted child detained in that centre to another acute mental health centre". I hear what the Minister of State is saying, that it will never be outside the State, but perhaps we could strengthen the legislation. Could we look at saying under no circumstances - let us be clear about it - will it be provided for a child, particularly involuntarily? I understand people can opt for care for other services, but in relation to this, this is Mental Health Bill. We are not talking about the National Treatment Purchase Fund or cross-border dental treatment or other interventions where you nominate to or seek a referral to by choice.”
“I will follow on from that and talk about amendment No. 267, which is also in this grouping and is the request for the application of the transfer of a child. Amendment No. 267 is a Government amendment. I think there may be a case here for the Minister of State to consider. There is some ambiguity about the approved centre and another place. It sounds like a terrible Walt Disney thing; another place, another story. We may have put our finger on something here, and it is about improving legislation. Maybe there is potential for strengthening safeguards around this area. This is, after all, primary legislation we are talking about. We want to put in place a robust new Mental Health Act that has time and will withstand many challenges but will put in place strong safeguards. Again, I reference the Minister of State's amendment No.”
“There is a concern, particularly in the area of mental health, that people would possible be transferred outside the jurisdiction of the State. I do know not if the Minister of State has statistics, detail or anecdotal stuff on that. It is an area of concern because they are now in another jurisdiction and that has knock-on effects. We talked about unintended consequences. We are certainly leaving ourselves open for unintended consequences if that was to happen. I do not have any hard evidence on it. There are suggestions that this has happened, may happen or there has been the threat of it happening. That in itself is not satisfactory. The Minister of State might share with us. I thank the Senator for raising that particular issue of concern.”
“I share some concerns. The point Senator Ryan made on clarity is a good point in relation to abroad. I do not think this is anecdotal but there are concerns. I was going to raise this later. There will be another relevant section later on but I will talk about it now and I may talk about it again. Can we categorically say that nobody, be they children or adults, is involuntarily or cared for outside the State in terms of mental health? I do not know what the statistics or the arrangements are. We do know in the past that a number of children, through Tusla or previously the HSE, were transferred to Scotland and places under special care orders for what was termed specialist care. The Senator has triggered that point there.”
“Is the Minister of State generally happy with the amendment? I do not want to get into specifics, but did the Minister of State took on the ombudsman's concerns? He has issues with children being treated in adult facilities but is the Minister of State happy that he got a good hearing?”
“We are here not to complicate things but to highlight that people’s care plans are critical. More important, a care plan must be seen through. Those affected are children. I am happy with the Minister of State’s explanation. There is no distinction in terms of the pathway, as she has made clear. The pathway is open for everyone. However, we know that when you are vulnerable and no one has that much interest in you, you do not necessarily have an advocate or guardian pushing things along and supporting you in your care plan. That is just part of the system. We have a good understanding of what we are about on this particular section. Did the Ombudsman for Children have any commentary about this? Maybe he did not. I do not know. Maybe the Minister of State will share it.”
“If anyone has time to go to the District Court, he or she will sometimes note cases where there is no one present to represent the most vulnerable. There are many great Government-funded charities engaged in outreach and there are many good pastoral ministries, but these are very low-key operations. Everyone, most importantly the child, must know there is a plan. The person must have as much input into it as possible, given his or her circumstances, although this is not always possible. The provision in this regard is one of the most critical in the Bill. I say to people all the time – sometimes it has to be made very simple – that Johnny or Mary on the street outside today, or anyone who is vulnerable, is someone’s son, daughter, brother or sister. That is how you have got to bring it home.”
“They all have to run their course and all do. We have had too many cases where people either lost their way or lost their lives through mental illness. Some, but not all, were in the care of Tusla. They are the most vulnerable of vulnerable people. The really scary aspect is the number of children, particularly teenagers, about whom no one seems to care, or who themselves feel no one seems to care about them. There is not a night when walking home on the streets around Leinster House that you do not meet young people who are so vulnerable and who may have become involved in drugs or prostitution. They are seeking affirmation, support or someone who expresses remotely any interest in them. They are broken, and they are broken through a system. No one here is denying it but we have got to reach out to them and to the agencies.”
“I thank the Minister of State for clarifying some of the points I raised. My concern is really about the importance of the care plan that is to be prepared, which she has acknowledged and is in her amendment. Ensuring all the stakeholders involved in children's care are engaged with the plan is important. That might be their social worker or advocate because, in many cases, the parent or guardian does not enjoy a good, healthy relationship with the child, or vice versa , because there is so much historical trauma or even, in some cases, abuse. I am not here to demonise Tusla but we all know what happened to some children in its care. As I said, I am fully aware of those cases but it is not appropriate for me to name the children involved. There are processes, coroners' courts, investigations, tribunals and ongoing inquiries.”
“I am saying there must be stronger continuity in the engagement in the various processes in order that no child falls through the lines and that all stakeholders involved are aware of, and fully versed in, the care plan. That is the point I am making.”
“It is very complex and particularly so when children have had many moves as part of their care. We know it is an area where children have fallen through the cracks historically. I do not particularly want to mention individual names or cases here, because that is not appropriate, but those cases are known to us. Some of those children died under terrible circumstances. When we look back at the evidence, including the coroner's reports, we see issues in terms of mental health and who was responsible for and taking care of the child. I do not want to place blame on anyone in respect of historical cases. What I want to know is whether there is any way, through this legislation, to strengthen that element.”
“I do not know whether she had any engagement with the Ombudsman for Children on this particular amendment but I know he is highly sensitive to issues to do with all children, which is his remit, up to the age of 18. There must be an emphasis on the importance of the multidisciplinary integration of care orders and ensuring that the children and their parents or guardians are fully versed in that and there is that engagement. I would like greater clarification - if not today, then by way of a simple memorandum - on how all of that relates to the various State agencies. We have Tusla, residential institutions, children committed for various reasons through the courts, children in either short-term or long-term foster care, adoption, placement orders and so on.”
“On page 31, it states: "Where a child the subject of a care order, a voluntary care arrangement, an emergency care order or an interim care order is discharged under this section, he or she shall be released into the care of the Agency." This is an issue I would like to get a better handle on because we hear of so many cases where there is not quite that ease of transition in respect of a care order. As we said earlier, it is about empowering the individual concerned in relation to these matters. When considering a child in State care or another form of detention, and bearing in mind there are many forms of care and many places other than the home place, the Minister of State has reassured us by saying she has talked to the Department of children and that it is on board, which is interesting.”
“On page 30, the amendment refers to "where the child is the subject of a care order, a voluntary care arrangement, an emergency care order, an interim care order or a supervision order". We have talked about these different orders. It is quite complex and there are a number of options. The amendment goes on to talk about the importance of a care plan. That is all perfect if everyone is on the same page regarding the care plan and if the child's parent or guardian is fully aware of the care plan and is briefed fully in relation to it. This is a very long amendment.”
“Yes, I am talking about amendment No. 234, which is on page 29 in the list of amendments. It relates to the section dealing with the discharge of involuntarily admitted children. We are talking about the role of a parent, guardian or representative of a child, there being various degrees of involvement depending on sets of circumstances. I note the Minister of State's comment that in drawing up many of these amendments, she engaged extensively with the Department of children. The amendment refers to "[providing] the child with all relevant information from the child's care plan prepared in accordance with section 180 " and information regarding same. I would like some clarity on that.”
“We are dealing with a large block of amendments. I draw the Minister of State's attention to amendment No. 234 to section 70. We are dealing predominantly with children here and this is specifically to do with the discharge of involuntarily admitted children. This is a ministerial amendment and what drew my attention to it was-----”
“There were not that many people involved in the mental health debate. Even within the Chambers in both Houses I see there is not a huge amount of engagement on it. That is not to pass judgment, as Members have other areas of expertise and, as we speak, they are at committee meetings. There is a need to be vigilant about post-incident reviews. They are needed from time to time. With the best will in the world, they are required. The Minister of State has outlined her position and I accept it.”
“I thank the Minister of State. I hear what she says. She has set out her stall on the record of the House and she is confident. Inspections are difficult. We will talk about that later in terms of access by the Mental Health Commission to facilities and resources. In some cases we are talking about once every three years. I accept it still has the right to go in. I am familiar with that too. I will leave it at that. I hear what the Minister of State says. I ask her to keep an open book on it. The measure should be reviewed from time to time. Even the fact that we are having this debate is improving standards. It is shining a light on this issue. I have spoken to three journalists this week who contacted me about the Bill. That is all to be welcomed because we are now shining a light on issues that were not always vented.”
“With the best will in the world and the best intentions of people who are directly working in mental health care and people who have lived experience of these services, we must put it in place because we are now developing primary legislation on mental health care that hopefully will serve the country and the mental health sector for the next ten to 20 years. There may be a case but I would be interested in hearing the Minister of State's response.”
“How will the Minister of State ensure that the rights of the child, including the rights of those involved, will be heard and respected? That is the question. Would the Minister of State consider it? I am not saying the Minister of State needs to give me her response instantly; she will be back, of course, with this Bill. Are there any further reassurances the Minister of State can given in terms of the role for the commission to review such practices? If that is possible - the Minister of State may need to consider that with her officials and her medical mental health experts who would advise her from time to time and with her own knowledge of the event - there is a strong case there.”
“If the commission would review all such cases, such reviews would help monitor patterns, ensure compliance and identify systemic issues. We have seen already, without going back into it, the case of Bloomfield where the Mental Health Commission had statutory responsibility and gave a 94% approval rate for three consecutive years. The Minister of State and I know, and the public knows, and the Dáil knows and this House knows what happened there without me going into all again. Would the Minister of State consider introducing some sort of statutory requirement for post-incident reviews involving the children and their families and their independent advocates to assess the necessity and the impact of such an intervention?”
“Having looked at the Bill again today, I note it requires that the registered proprietor of an acute mental health centre must notify the commission in each application of restrictive practice in respect of a child in that registered acute mental health centre or mental health facility and I suppose the real question is whether the commission will review all such cases. As the Minister of State said, there are not many, but there are a sizeable number. I also have had a look at some of the parliamentary questions. I note it is a different practice, but I am not going to comment about the Dáil. I am not a Member of Dáil Éireann. Many of the parliamentary questions now are referred directly to the HSE for a response. I have a copy of the HSE responses but I am not going to go into all of that here.”
“I am only going to share this concern; I am not asking the Minister of State to get into a long, protracted debate. I merely want to bring to Deputy Butler, as Minister of State, the concerns of the public and people involved who are working in this area. This Bill will continue to allow for mechanical restraint, physical restraint and seclusion of a child and states that the restraint used must be determined "after the age, size and physical vulnerability of the child has been assessed and considered by the person ordering the restrictive practice".”
“I will be brief because, in fairness, taking an overall assessment of all our work to date, we have covered off on a lot of stuff, and once we move away from this section, the sections up to section 91 all deal with children. I have some thoughts and I want to share them with the Minister of State rather than adding additional amendments to today's proceedings. It is vital that the children in involuntary care or subject to restrictive practice have access to an independent complaints mechanism. I have said that. The Minister of State knows where I stand on that and she knows her position on that as well. I have spoken to a number of people who have observed the proceedings here and there remains a concern in relation to the administration of restrictive practices against children. This is all sort of covered off in the Bill.”
“There is an onus to further upskill people, engage in knowledge transfer and keep the focus. Despite what some people say, the EPA is not the bogeyman. It has a job to do. It has statutory functions. It has responsibilities in relation to water quality. It is important that we work with the EPA. Farmers want to work with the EPA but we need to grant assist and support, because if we can address this issue we are going to protect the future sustainability of rural communities, farmers and farming communities, and that is important. It is about sustainable agriculture, food production and income for rural families. That is important. I thank the Minister and wish him well on what is going to be a long journey to keep this momentum going.”
“It was not a fait accompli . It went to the wire; it went to the end. In the Minister’s final speech, he talked about two points. He said the Government is providing financial support for farmers, going beyond the registered requirements to improve water quality. That is important. It is an incentive that will encourage people. I would like to hear a little bit more about that or how he wants the timeline to run in that. He stated it is vital that we now use the next three years wisely to drive the improvements we need to see in our water quality, by maintaining a further building of the momentum that now exists across the sector and that securing the derogation has given us an opportunity and we must embrace the opportunity. I concur 100%. We cannot take our eye off the ball. Time will run fast.”