Yesterday, I again raised with the Taoiseach the importance of the Government securing public ownership of the site on which the new national maternity hospital will be built. I also expressed my astonishment that neither the Taoiseach nor the Minister for Health had made any substantial effort to convince St. Vincent's Healthcare Group to transfer that land to the State. Furthermore, I proposed that the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Health, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, should meet urgently with the board of that group to negotiate such a transfer. This clean, clear transaction would be the best outcome as it would ensure that we would have a public maternity hospital built on public land. That is what the Sinn Féin motion, which is to be voted on by the Dáil tonight, calls for. The Taoiseach stated that the Government will not oppose the motion, so can I take it that the Government's position is to secure State ownership of the land and that it will now engage in that high-level negotiation with St. Vincent's Healthcare Group to achieve this? That will be the position of the Dáil after tonight's vote and the Government should act on its instruction.

The public wants clarity, but the truth is that the Government has sown confusion, distrust and unease about its plan. We have had two weeks of a consultation that was not really a consultation at all. The Taoiseach said that he was open to changes and suggestions, but he ignored and pushed back all suggestions and went ahead with the original deal. He and the Minister, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, said they engaged with St. Vincent's Healthcare Group to secure State ownership of the land, but St. Vincent's Healthcare Group said they did not and the Taoiseach responded by saying that he did. The Sinn Féin motion articulates a clear call for public ownership of the site and it is now clear that the Government will, in effect, support that motion. Let us get the clarity that people want. State ownership of the site is the best way to safeguard an investment of almost €1 billion of taxpayers' money. It is also the best way to end conclusively any fear of residual religious dogma compromising the delivery of health services for women. I do not have to rehearse again the harrowing history that gives rise to such anxieties.

Everybody in the Dáil and beyond wants the new hospital built. We want and need a new era in maternity care for women in Ireland, and we should accept and acknowledge each other's bona fides in that regard. However, we must get this right. We have to get the best deal and the best arrangement to achieve that ambition. Ba cheart don Rialtas an rud ceart a dhéanamh anois. Ba cheart dóibh dul i dteagmháil le Grúpa Sláinte Naomh Uinseann chun an suíomh seo a fháil faoi úinéireacht an Stáit. The Sinn Féin motion this evening presents an opportunity for everyone to vote for the best approach. Given that the Taoiseach is not opposing the motion, will he commit to leading the Government in an engagement with St Vincent's Healthcare Group to secure this site in State ownership?

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.

Indeed it is time. That is nine long years. For a very long time women in midwifery, and all concerned in obstetrics and the care and provision of services for women, have been calling for proper investment in maternity services and health services for women. There is no great surprise in that. We all share that ambition. The hospital has to get built.

The only fog and confusion are what is generated by the Taoiseach. I asked him a question. We have a motion coming before the Dáil this evening, which is crystal clear. It sets out very clearly a call from the Oireachtas for full public ownership of the land. To be clear, by that I mean a clean transfer of ownership in perpetuity to the State of that site. I understand that the Government will support the motion, or at least it does not propose to vote against it. Therefore, I can only surmise that the Government accepts that the best outcome is full ownership in that manner. Given that the Government will support the motion, or at least will not oppose it, I ask the Taoiseach if he will act on the will of the Dáil and if he will engage with St. Vincent's Healthcare Group-----

I call on the Taoiseach to respond. We are over time.

-----to secure the ambition of that motion and the expressed will of the Dáil.

We have secured public ownership of the hospital. That is the point.

So why are-----

I understand the politics of the motion. I have been around now for a bit to understand the motivation behind Private Members' motions and the need to keep the Government under pressure. I fully understand that. We will deal with the motion in the manner that we as a Government see fit-----

By sitting on the fence.

-----just as you, equally, will put forward motions with a very clear political agenda behind them. We did not all come down on the last cloud. I am fully comfortable with what is happening this evening in respect of the Private Members' motion on this issue.

With sitting on the fence and not standing up for itself.

The Taoiseach should be allowed to speak without interruption.

The more important point is that the fundamental issue of ownership has been dealt with-----

The Government is a laughing stock. It will not back itself tonight.

-----in terms of the 300-year-----

The Government is the laughing stock of the country.

With the greatest respect to Deputy Healy-Rae, when I spoke to him before the formation of the Government, his main request was that we would last five years and make no intention to undermine it in any shape or form.

I know that rankles. The biggest thing upsetting the Taoiseach now is that he knows I am right.

I am not a bit worried about Deputy Healy-Rae's faux bravado.

The Government is a laughing stock. It will not support its own stance tonight inside in the Dáil. It is ridiculous.

Deputy Healy-Rae knows where his bread is buttered at the end of the day when it comes to the longevity and lifespan of this particular Dáil.

Táimid thar am. Táim ag bogadh ar aghaidh go dtí-----

The more important point is the ownership issue has been dealt with and the guarantees are there.

Táimid thar am. Táim ag bogadh ar aghaidh go dtí an chéad cheist eile.