In effect, Ms Justice Laffoy was told not to concern herself with wasting public money. When she pursued the matter, however, she was told in July of this year that it was manifestly in the public interest that costs did not continue to be incurred in respect of matters that might not ultimately be investigated. Is that not confusing? Is it not a contradiction? These events led to the frustration about which we know. Which advice should she have taken? She had no option but to seek legal advice on how to proceed. She received clear advice from a senior counsel who said that there was a strong case to the effect that the committee would be acting ultra vires in making any further discovery or production orders under one statutory remit in the knowledge that the results thereof would be likely to be used only in a significantly different statutory regime. He went on to state that this could be argued to be an improper purpose. The advice of the senior counsel is still valid and will have to be considered by the new chairperson of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse.