The Cabinet this afternoon signed off on the deal for the new national maternity hospital. Instead of securing a clean-cut transaction where the site will come into public ownership, the deal ensures the hospital will have a private landlord under a very convoluted ownership model. This is the wrong decision. It falls short of protecting the State's proposed investment of between €800 million and €1 billion of taxpayers' money. It is obvious that the best way to safeguard this investment and allay public concern is for the Government to secure the transfer of the land into State ownership by means of a clear and explicit agreement that ensures we get a publicly built national maternity hospital on publicly owned land. I asked the Taoiseach several times, together with the Tánaiste and the Minister for Health, Deputy Donnelly, to get around the table with the St. Vincent's Healthcare Group in order to convince it to agree to that transfer. I am of the view that such a high-level Government initiative would have yielded success.

Yesterday, at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Health, the St. Vincent's Healthcare Group confirmed the Sisters of Charity transferred the land to the group without precondition. This means that there is no legal barrier to the land transfer. It is entirely within the gift of the group. Yet it transpires that far from proactively seeking the best outcome, the Taoiseach and the Government made no real effort to secure State ownership of that land. Last week, the Minister for Health told the Dáil he had formally requested the land be transferred to the State. However, what the chair of the St. Vincent's Healthcare Group told the committee yesterday directly contradicts the Minister. Mr. Menton said that the last time the State directly engaged with the group as regards bringing land into public ownership was five years ago. It gets worse because Mr. Menton also said the group has received no correspondence from the Taoiseach requesting the land be transferred to the State. This is something the Taoiseach later confirmed to the media. We know now that neither he nor the Minister for Health made any serious or meaningful effort to bring this land into State ownership.

The Taoiseach came before the House and told us that such a transaction was not possible, but the truth is that he did not even bother to ask. He has now signed off on a deal that fails to provide the best protection for almost €1 billion of taxpayers' money and copper-fastens an ownership model whereby a critical piece of public infrastructure will have a private landlord. Is an socrú a shínigh an Rialtas ar maidin an socrú mícheart don ospidéal náisiúnta máithreachais nua. An bealach is fearr chun infheistíocht an Stáit a chosaint ná má aimsíonn an Rialtas úinéireacht Stáit ar an talamh. Everyone in the House wants this hospital built. We want it built quickly and we want a new departure in maternity care. I absolutely accept the Taoiseach's bona fides in all those regards but what is at issue is the failure of the Government to secure the land in public ownership. This is big stuff. The contract the Government signed locks the State into a deal whereby the State does not have ownership of the site for the national maternity hospital. I ask the Taoiseach to directly explain why neither he nor the Minister for Health made any real or significant effort to secure State ownership of that land.

I will put this point to the Deputy.

It is a good decision today for the women of Ireland and for newborns into the future that we will have a new maternity hospital and a neonatal centre of excellence in public ownership, in State ownership for the next 300 years. When it is built and it is proven to be a good decision I hope that Deputy McDonald and her party will have the good grace to acknowledge that is the case and will not try to erase from the public memory their ongoing downright opposition to it. It is my sincere belief that this will be a hospital that will serve the interests of women in Ireland for decades to come, facilitating all legal and lawful services to be permitted there. It is in State ownership. It is 300 years at a tenner a week. No matter how often the Deputy tries to tell a different story or to spin it or try to present it as not being in State ownership she is wrong by any yardstick. By any legal analysis she is wrong about the ownership. It is precisely what I said to the Minister on the negotiations with the St. Vincent's Hospital Group. It has gone from 99 years with an option of 50 more on the lease to 300 years. In July of last year, the Secretary General of the Department of Health wrote to the chairman of St. Vincent's Holdings Group, Mr. James Menton, making it crystal clear that it was the State's objective and desire to have outright freehold ownership but acknowledged that St. Vincent's was not going to do that, as communicated to the Minister when he had requested that from the chairman in their conversations. There has been an attempt to try to undermine the nature of the freehold lease. Some of it did not last too long. There was an attempt by the Deputy and others to say that it was actually €850,000 not a tenner but when you look a little into the detail it is €850,000 if you do not build a maternity hospital and what we are obliged to do. There is nothing in the lease that is an imposition on the State whatsoever.

Clinically appropriate.

There is nothing in the lease that is an imposition on the State at all despite attempts to muddy the waters and, in my view, deliberately confuse that issue.

On the broader issue, the concerns that were raised after the Mulvey deal and over a year ago have been comprehensively addressed by this Government and by the Minister, first in the constitution of the new national maternity hospital which is absolutely clear in terms of all lawfully and legally permissible services being made available; the operating licence that will be issued by the Health Service Executive to the hospital which will oblige the hospital to provide such services; and also the Minister having the authority, through the golden share, to ensure that all directors fulfil their duties and they must comply - they are obliged to comply.

The overall motivation behind the Government's decision is to provide modern physical facilities that are required now. I am struck by the very strong representations that have been made by all the national directors of midwifery across the country representing every maternity unit who said please get on and build the hospital and by the national director of Holles Street, all the assistant directors of midwifery of Holles Street and the 52 clinicians who wrote a letter to us saying please build the hospital. I accept that the Deputy's concerns were raised. They have been genuinely, comprehensively addressed.

And I am struck that the Taoiseach is in any way surprised that there is widespread clamour, and has been for some time, for proper investment in maternal and neonatal care and women's healthcare more generally. Everyone wants that. I can assure the Taoiseach that I want that. I want to see the speedy delivery of first-class services of excellence for the women of this country that for far too long we were denied. He also ought to be struck that there is no doubt in the mind of the St. Vincent's Healthcare Group as to who owns the land. It is very clear. It is very clear that it is the landowner.

It was also clear in setting out at the committee meeting that there was no meaningful engagement on the part of the Taoiseach or the Minister for Health to secure State ownership of that land. It could have been done by means of a simple transfer, which, bear in mind, had been promised initially. That is the St. Vincent's Healthcare Group's version of events. I would like the Taoiseach to confirm and set out for the Dáil what engagement he had, if he claims he had any, to secure this site into State ownership. When did that happen? Is the Taoiseach saying that the chair of the St. Vincent's Healthcare Group is incorrect or that he has misled an Oireachtas committee?

My understanding is that the chair of the St. Vincent's Healthcare Group is ready to correct the record in respect of that.

Pardon?

The chair is ready to correct the record in respect of what I said earlier. I have made the point. I have the correspondence, which has been published and which was sent to the chairman as well.

Is that correspondence from the Minister?

The Deputy obviously paid close attention to yesterday's deliberations. When doing so, she would have heard the legal representative of the St. Vincent's Healthcare Group making it clear that the State will own the land for the next 300 years. That is the reality.

We will not own it.

We are leasing it.

We have a lease on this site for 300 years at a tenner a year.

A lease.

It is as simple as that. There should be no attempts to cloud the reality of that as ownership. That is effective ownership by any yardstick. I ask the Deputies opposite to stop.

What did the Taoiseach do to secure the site? That is my question.

It is time to wrap this part of it up. The arguments presented by the Government on this have held up robustly, and we have strengthened the position. The original position was 99 years plus-----

What did the Taoiseach do?

-----but it has now gone to 300 years for the maternity hospital.

What did the Taoiseach do?

What did the Taoiseach do?

Answer the question.

What did the Taoiseach do?

Deputy Doherty’s party leader is asking the questions; not him.

The Taoiseach is not answering.

The leader of Fianna Fáil is not answering them; that is the problem.

We have to ask what was the point of the past two weeks. After nearly a decade of negotiations, the legal documents were finally published just two weeks ago. The Taoiseach stated that he wanted the documents to be scrutinised and indicated that he was open to changes being made. It is quite clear that this was a charade. We did not know how much of a sham this whole process was until we heard from Mr. Menton yesterday at the committee. Mr. Menton made it absolutely clear, in reply to a question I asked, that it has been five years since any serious attempt was made to engage with the St. Vincent's Healthcare Group on the possibility of buying the site. Despite repeated claims by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health in recent weeks, we now know there was no meaningful engagement at all. Those are Mr. Menton's words; not mine.

In addition, in recent days we have heard a succession of people who support this deal agree that the phrase "clinically appropriate" is both open to misinterpretation and a cause of public concern. It is clearly ambiguous. Representatives from the National Maternity Hospital, Holles Street and St. Vincent's University Hospital and the Minister for Health all said they would have no problem including a definition of the term in the legal documents. That was yesterday. What did we get today instead? We got a note that the Cabinet has agreed that it knows what the term means. We have been told that a binding legal definition is not required. What is the message to the women of Ireland? Is it that they should calm down and that they do not need legal guarantees because the word of the Cabinet will suffice? Is the Government asking them to trust it? The Taoiseach can forgive the women of Ireland if they are not reassured.

At the press conference earlier, the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O'Gorman, discussed his party's decision to support this deal and break the commitments the Green Party made during the last election campaign. He said that the past two weeks had been useful because people had genuine concerns. He told us, however, that those issues had been teased out and that there is now clarity. Apparently there is clarity because he has decided that there is. Maybe he should ask his colleague, Deputy Hourigan, about that clarity.

The overall attitude of the Government has been incredibly patronising and completely dismissive of good-faith attempts by the Opposition and the public to engage in respect of these documents and improve the deal.

The unseemly rush to ram this decision through the Cabinet is inexplicable. This is especially the case when the Department of Health has not even managed to publish the business case for the deal which it has been negotiating now for almost ten years. Can the Taoiseach explain why the Government never attempted to buy the site and meaningfully address genuine concerns? Why does he think the women of Ireland do not need cast-iron legal guarantees and that somehow the word of the Cabinet is in any way sufficient to address those concerns?

I am not accepting the premise on which the Deputy's first question is based - that we do not have ownership. This State does have ownership of this hospital. The State does have public ownership of this - 300 years at a tenner is effective ownership. That has been well tested over the last two weeks. The purpose of the last two weeks was to have the debate, tease the matter out and have full transparency on the publication of the documents. If you do not mind me saying so, I think many of the arguments against going ahead with the hospital did not hold up under the full scrutiny of the-----

Because you are saying so.

That is my more personal view of the situation. That is the first point.

The second point is that the chairman was in no doubt as to the State's desire to have the entire site. That is communicated again in correspondence dated 26 July 2021 where the Secretary General of the Department of Health stated that the Minister, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, had already reiterated his predecessor's request for St. Vincent's Healthcare Group to transfer ownership of the site to the State.

The chairman of the board had a different view.

He acknowledged the clear response that the group's intention that the site would be neither transferred nor sold to the State. This has been made clear on an ongoing basis by the board. That correspondence referred to a telephone conversation indicating that a long-term lease of 299 years could be considered. That is the Government's position - that the extended lease of 299 years could be considered to address the issue of ownership, and it does by the way. Let us put away all the nonsense. Of course, it does - 300 years at €10 a year is ownership.

The Taoiseach cannot keep saying it as if it makes it that way.

You cannot keep saying the opposite and try to get some credibility attached to it.

The next question that the Deputy asked was that the women of Ireland do not need legal guarantees. They do need-----

The Government promised a definition.

Sorry, I did not interrupt. I would be grateful if you would allow me to answer the questions you asked. You suggested we feel that the women of Ireland do not need guarantees. That is not fair. We have addressed those issues through legal guarantees. The advice to Government is that those legal guarantees are watertight.

How are they legal guarantees? Where are the legal guarantees?

Deputy, please stop interrupting.

Watertight is legal advice that the Government received this morning in respect of the constitution of the hospital in the first instance, in respect of the operating licence that the HSE will be giving to the new hospital, in terms of having to ensure that all lawful services are provided-----

Clinically appropriate.

-----in terms of the ministerial golden share which gives the Minister the power to direct the directors to follow the implementation of the constitution-----

Conditioned by the term "clinically appropriate".

It is not.

-----of the new hospital and also in respect of the overall ownership issue around the hospital itself.

There are no legal guarantees.

There is no way that the lawful legally permitted services will not be provided. They will be provided.

Because you say so.

Because the only motivation-----

Time is up.

It is not because I say so. It is because it is obliged within the legal framework agreed by the three hospitals that it be done.

It is not. Earlier today-----

Just a moment, it would be helpful if the remarks were addressed through the Chair rather than directly to the Deputy because she keeps responding and interrupting the Taoiseach. I wish that would not happen. Would Deputy Shortall please not continue? Would all Deputies not interrupt when a Minister or the Taoiseach is attempting to respond?

Earlier today the Minister said we will own the building and the land for the next 300 years in the same way that anyone who buys an apartment owns their apartment. This is just patent nonsense. The real value of the new asset centres on the licence. Has the Taoiseach read the licence? The freehold ownership of the hospital site plus the 299-year lease plus the 299-year licence adds up to an extraordinarily valuable asset. The HSE cannot unreasonably withhold its consent to the mortgaging of the land underneath the new building nor can it prevent the sale of the lease nor revoke the licence that effectively shuts out the State from the new building.

That is what is in these legal documents. This gives an extraordinarily valuable asset to St. Vincent's Healthcare Group, which it is free to mortgage or sell. The HSE has essentially been shut out of this. It cannot make what is determined to be unreasonable objections to that.

Is the Deputy saying St. Vincent's Healthcare Group can sell the lease?

Yes.

A lease of a tenner per year for 300 years is not too valuable. We need to bring some common sense and reality to this issue. The motivation of everybody here is to provide a modern hospital. That is the only objective here. Co-location was the origin of all of this. The idea is that if we co-locate a maternity hospital with a tertiary hospital, we get the best outcomes for women and newborns. That is the whole idea. We have only done one such major centre, which is the maternity hospital and neonatal centre in Cork.

The Deputy said this has been done in an unseemly rush. This was announced as a Government decision in 2013. Planning permission was secured for this in 2017. People talk of an unseemly rush.

We still have not been able to-----

Please, Deputy.

I am clear in my conscience. As Taoiseach, I am not prepared to prevaricate. I am not prepared to allow this to go on for another couple of years with no decision taken. I know how these things can get dragged on for a variety of reasons. I am determined that we move on and build modern, proper facilities for women in the 21st century.