Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Senator Darragh O'Brien is right in assuming that we have expectations from this process and clear views on the valuation. I am sure the Senator will appreciate that it would not be prudent for any Minister or the Government as a whole to place that assessment in the public domain in advance of the competitive tender. I was told that when the previous Government had decided on decentralisation, property prices in the proposed locations for decentralisation mushroomed by one third on the evening of the decision. The way to proceed is to first seek support from the Houses of the Oireachtas for the legislative base and then run the competitive tender. The third step is to see what exactly is in place. We have an open mind on this. The Senator is correct in assuming we have clear indicative valuations which are predicated on an expert report and analysis submitted to the Government in advance of the process. I understand Davy was the company in question. This is in the public domain. Based on the potential valuation, the Government has embarked on the process. It would not help the process, however, if a Minister was to state in public what he or she believed the valuation was. We have a firm view on what we want to obtain from the process. Let us just see whether we do obtain it.

With regard to the issue the Senator Byrne and others raised about ring-fencing, I have some sympathy for the argument. If the objective is to get the up-front payment to build a hospital, it is not unfair of parliamentarians on both sides of the House to seek guarantees if there are to be risks later in the year, as EU officials tell us. The Senator is correct in highlighting this issue. To get over the problem, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform made a firm commitment to Deputy Tom Fleming on Committee and Report Stages that when we concluded the process at the end of the competitive tendering and valuation process, he would return to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform to discuss the arrangements for the up-front sum payable to the successful bidder. Deputy Tom Fleming acknowledged the Minister's bona fides is in that regard. We want to involve colleagues because, if they choose to do so, they will give us the power to embark on the process. Therefore, it is only right and proper that a committee of the House examine this issue in detail with a Minister at the end of the process. Our firm view is that Parliament, in all its manifestations, needs to be kept abreast of this issue. The way in which we believe this should be done is through informing a committee of the House.

Senator Marie Louise O'Donnell asked why we had chosen to go this route as against the one-off dedicated draw for the purpose of obtaining funds for the new national children's hospital. She correctly cited the example from the United Kingdom of where a series of draws had been established for the purpose of funding the bid. To be honest, I am not very competent on this issue, but my understanding from the debate thus far is that the Government examined the matter. The view of the Government is that if we were to do as proposed, it would represent a significant drawing away from other good causes up and down the country to which people were already committed. The Senator will make the point that this is a once-off project based on getting behind the campaign to build a hospital as part of one great initiative, but, given the scale and the number of organisations at the pin of their collar trying to raise funds, one would have to ask whether it would be an undue burden on them in circumstances where we want to keep all of the voluntary bodies and NGOs in place in communities. From my limited understanding of this issue, there was an assessment in this regard made by the Government which concluded that the best route forward was through the one suggested. I hope I have answered all of the questions.