Mr. Simon McGarr:

That is what I am saying. The religious orders have moved out. I am saying there is a brand new owner. A brand new owner gives an opportunity to look afresh at the question of a request as to whether the State may either purchase the site, or St. Vincent's Healthcare Group would be in a position to assist by gifting the site. As a secondary proposition, presuming that is not the case and the matter would go ahead on a leasehold basis, my suggestion relates to the lease.

I am not looking at a piece of paper or agreement where nothing can be saved. This lease is almost there. This lease has strong protections in respect of the golden share but, unfortunately, they are made subsidiary and ancillary to the definition of the primary object of the new maternity hospital. It is the case that this lease is almost there. My proposal is to delete the references to the ambiguous phrase of "clinically appropriate" and leave it be that the matter would stand as it states in the lease. These would be services to be delivered in a national maternity, obstetric, gynaecology and neonatal hospital. Everyone supports that. Only the services that are lawfully permissible should go ahead. That is my proposition as the second best option if the land cannot be owned freehold, which everyone else agrees would be preferable if it were possible. If it cannot, and there must be a leasehold, my preference would be that the leasehold would not include an ambiguous phrase that could possibly cause 299 years of litigation.