Cathal Crowe (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and our other guests. I followed the debate from my office and while here in the committee room. As it was going on, it struck me that Mother Mary Aikenhead passed away 164 years ago or thereabouts. She was a physician. All the way along, we have been debating something that needs to happen. We need advanced modern healthcare for the women of Ireland. I do not believe that physician who has now found her eternal reward, or other such people, would want to put any barriers in front of modern healthcare. If she could somehow communicate to the St. Vincent's Healthcare Group, I do not believe she would say that it is truly representing her beliefs. Quality of healthcare is what her life was all about.

Like the previous speaker, I will get to asking my set of questions. Our time is limited. I have a political question, a legal question and a health question. My first question is for the Minister. I am sure he and his advisers have done a hell of a lot of troubleshooting on this. They have probably modelled different scenarios. If the Cabinet, the Government and the body politic reject all of this, what is the drawing board to which we will go back that ensures State land, co-location and delivery of a modern hospital in a quick timeframe? If we go to that other model, what would be the approximate timeframe? Surely there would be a significant delay. Have the Minister and his advisers carried out troubleshooting on that and modelled it? What delays might we face if we all reject what is on offer and go with a plan B that has yet to be even thought of?

Are there cessation or break-out clauses, as Senator Hoey asked, if the Sisters of Charity cease to exist? A modern building built in the 21st century is unlikely to be still standing in 300 years. It will have to be demolished and rebuilt. There are surely some break-out and cessation clauses. I would like to hear about them.

My next question is for Mr. O'Donoghue and Ms O'Sullivan. There is an unfortunate saying that doctors differ and patients die. I am sure it is the same in their world as well. What do they make of the legal advice that was circulated overnight from the Uplift movement? It is from Stephen Dodd, senior counsel, and relates in particular to the whole compulsory purchase order, CPO, argument.

The Minister has repeatedly met politicians and stated there are layers of protection. A question I have been asked, however, is that if each layer is sufficient, why are there multiple layers of protection, up to and including a golden share? I ask the Minister to explain to those who are tuned in to these proceedings why there are so many levels of legal protection.

My final question is for Dr. Mahony and Professor Higgins. It is a medical question. Are their fellow obstetricians and gynaecologists currently limited by any religious, legal, political or ideological barriers in terms of delivering a full suite of healthcare procedures, up to and including abortion, in the current National Maternity Hospital? Are they limited in any way? They have probably answered my next question already but I will ask it nonetheless. Do they believe that, going forward, if they do move - lock, stock and barrel - to the new national maternity hospital, any of the legal protections or political agreements that have been hammered out will be impediments to them carrying out their work? What do they make of what Dr. Boylan has been saying in recent days?