Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

First, this has been an interesting debate. What has struck me are the attempts to sort of reverse the truth or to rename the truth and to make a declaration, which the Deputy has been making consistently, in the hope that it becomes the truth and develops into a new truism, which is that 300 years of a lease at €10 per year is somehow not ownership. It is ownership; it is public ownership. The Deputy is endeavouring to create the premise that somehow it is not full ownership. It is, and it is for most sensible people dealing with this area historically. That emerged in the committee, by the way. All the legal people with experience in the area of leasing, conveyancing and so forth accept that 300 years at €10 per year is ownership. The Deputy has created this false idea that there is some dramatic difference between 300 years of a lease for €10 per year and full outright ownership of the site. In my view, it is very false. The Deputy asked that we all accept each other's bona fides, although she then said that we are deliberately sowing confusion and doubt, which we are not doing. This deal represents a strengthening of the deal that was agreed through the mediation of Mr. Kieran Mulvey in 2017. This enhances it because what we sought was a strengthening and extension of the lease, which was originally 99 years with an option of 50 years in the Mulvey deal. It is now 300 years, so there is no issue with ownership. That is the first point.

The State's interest is guaranteed, and there is value for money in that.

No matter how long we think a hospital would last, it is safe enough to say if it has a lifespan of 300 years, it would be some hospital in terms of how it is going to get built. I want to nail this idea. In my view too, a lot of fog and confusion are being created around this. It does not hold water, and it has not held up to robust argument in the committee or throughout the past two weeks.

The other key issue among the range of issues that were raised relates to what services will be provided in the new hospital and if there would be any religious ethos influencing the provision of such services. Again, there are cast-iron, watertight guarantees contained in the new hospital's constitution, in the operating licence from the HSE to the new hospital, in the Minister's golden share, which empowers the Minister to direct the directors of the new hospital to make sure that all legally permissible services are provided, with which they must legally comply. Those were legitimate concerns that were raised last year and prior to that in terms of whether there would be any potential to undermine the provision of such services through some religious influence or other. There are cast-iron, watertight legal guarantees provided in that respect. The guarantees are multilayered in terms of the various documents that underpin both the constitution of the hospital, the operating licence, and the activities.

The most powerful voice of all has been the voice of women involved in maternity care in this country. The national directors of midwifery across the length and breadth of the country have pleaded with the Government to get this hospital built. The director of midwifery at Holles Street and the assistant directors of midwifery have all pleaded with the Government to get this hospital built. The clinicians at Holles Street have all asked that we would now take the decision to build the new hospital. It was decided to build this hospital in 2013 and it is now 2022. We genuinely need to commence the construction phase of this hospital given all of the guarantees that are now in place.

See this speech in context