I outlined yesterday the ongoing concerns the Labour Party has regarding the ownership, governance and control of the proposed new national maternity hospital. We welcomed the publication of certain relevant documents on the HSE website and the Government delaying the decision in this regard. Having listened to the exchanges this morning, however, it seems the Government is not proposing to make any changes. Yet we are still lacking some crucial information. We have still not seen the details of any correspondence there may have been between the Vatican and the Religious Sisters of Charity concerning the transfer of ownership. We understand that permission from the Vatican was required to transfer ownership, but we do not know if the Minister has seen that correspondence or if the Government has sought it. The Government may say it is not relevant, but it is deeply relevant because it may answer the question of why the hospital site cannot simply be gifted to the State. If this new hospital is to be public in all but name and if a 299-year lease amounts to a public site in all but name, then why not put this matter beyond doubt and make it public? Let us see why the Religious Sisters of Charity cannot simply gift this site to the State.

The parties to that correspondence are probably following our debate here. It is up to them to decide whether they make public what is private correspondence. We must be careful regarding basic fundamental rights. There are rules around freedom of information and provisions governing which information by statute can be directed to be made publicly available. Private correspondence, however, is not included in that. Should the parties concerned wish to do so, I would welcome them releasing the correspondence. It would be a dangerous and difficult precedent, though, if we went down the road of governments forcing private correspondence to be made public. That has legal consequences, and it would be very risky.