Ms Alice Murphy:

I will answer the Senator in reverse order as that is the clearest. We missed a portion of the earlier session because we were in transit, so if I am not in the right domain the Senator is free to correct me.

The right of first refusal clause in the lease means that, and this is a very unlikely scenario but we have included it for absolute clarity and to protect the State, if St. Vincent's proposed to dispose of the land and wanted to transfer its freehold ownership to a third party it convenants, which means it promises or undertakes, to offer the HSE the first refusal. St. Vincent's deciding to exit healthcare is extremely unlikely territory, but we wanted to have all bases covered. If that event occurs the option agreement is triggered, and the content of the option agreement is to allow the HSE the right to be the first person. Now, the HSE might say it does not want it either, but if the HSE wants to become the freehold owner it has the first refusal right.

The mortgage is slightly earlier at clause 6.4. There are two steps to this analysis. I do not think we got into this yesterday so the Senator is free to tell me if I am not in the right domain. The first question is: does the landlord have an ability to secure a mortgage over the site? The second question, and for me it is the much more pertinent question, is: what would that mean for the HSE, the tenant? There is an ability, a technical one, for the landlord to mortgage the site, but the landlord has no real interest so I do not believe it could or would ever practically occur, but the ability is there to mortgage the site. The mortgage, if there is one, can have no effect on the rights given to the HSE. The HSE's right to own the building for the 299 years is a superior right and, effectively, would trump any right. Any mortgagor could only get an interest that would have no impact on this, which is why-----