We accept all of that. I will get to what St. Vincent's Healthcare Group may want later. I am just establishing facts here. The Minister came into office and made it clearly known to St. Vincent's Healthcare Group that it was his preference for the land to be transferred into public ownership. That was his preference and he has just explained the reason. However, over recent days, particularly in the meeting of the Joint Committee on Health yesterday, the Minister and many others were telling me and others who have…

Why would the Minister prefer public ownership? This goes to the heart of the matter.

I am asking the Minister why he made those arguments for all of those years. I will not go back and quote what he and others said because that would just waste everybody's time. It is accepted. Why did he have that position before he himself was involved in talks? Why did he initially carry that position into the talks and request public ownership? What was the reason?

We will get to how clear and clean it is in a few minutes because that gets to the substance of my concerns. I will move on to the issue of potential ambiguity in respect of phrases in the text of the lease and the constitution. I refer to the term "clinically appropriate". We have been through this an awful lot. Yesterday, the Minister offered to write a letter of comfort and express his interpretation of that phrase. He made that offer yesterday. Does he accept that such a letter would have no legal standing, how…

The Minister would in principle accept that interpretation of law will not happen on the floor of the Chamber and interpretation of law does not happen in an operating theatre; interpretation of law happens in a courtroom by judges. That is why it is important that we get this right. There are concerns. Whether the Minister agrees with those concerns or not, given there are concerns about phrases, and we will hear in the health committee today from a number of legal people, is the Minister open to any changes of th…

I have only five minutes left. That is not the question I asked.

The Minister will forgive me for wanting a bit more than that. The Minister says he is not ruling anything out but, equally, that is not ruling anything in. Let us have a little of the facts here and let us be a bit more up-front. Either the Minister is open to changes to the text of the legal framework or he is not. The other related question is if the St. Vincent's Healthcare Group is open to any changes of the text.

The Minister is telling us today on the floor of the Dáil that it is possible, before next week, before anything goes to Cabinet, that we will see the Minister in fresh talks with St. Vincent's Healthcare Group potentially to change the text of the legal framework. That is a live possibility.

I did not ask about major changes. I am asking if it is possible-----

I think the Minister understands what I am saying to him. If he is open to change, he has to go back and have conversations. He cannot unilaterally change it as it would have to be accepted. Is that correct?

Is that going to happen?

Not really, because a clock is ticking very quickly. On Tuesday, we are told, the Cabinet will make a decision. The Minister has said this is going on for nine years and he is sitting here telling us there could be changes to an agreement that took nine years to get this point, but when? Is it maybe over the weekend or on Monday?

It is, but the clock is ticking.

Is the Minister seriously telling me there is the potential for talks between him and the St. Vincent's Healthcare Group between now and next Tuesday?

Obviously, people will make up their own mind as to what to take from the Minister's response. To go back to what we talked about over the last few minutes, the Minister had exactly the same position that I had from the get-go on this. We have a very complicated healthcare system in this State, which we agree on, I imagine. It is a two-tier system with a mix of public and private, which is not ideal. We have voluntary hospitals, independent hospitals and HSE hospitals. We have section 38 organisations and section 3…

It is a private company that is being established. The National Maternity Hospital at Elm Park DAC is a company.

It is still a company.

I will phrase it differently. It is not a HSE hospital.

Exactly. Rather than what we all should have in place, which is a public hospital.

That is my point. It is all very complicated. We are writing a cheque, or the HSE will write the cheque on our behalf, as taxpayers, for up to €1 billion. This is why I am concerned. It is the reason we are in the position we are in. The Minister himself used the words “complex” and “complexities”. We are establishing this company, which is a charity, yes, but it is still a company, the National Maternity Hospital at Elm Park DAC. That will have directors coming from three different sources - from the State, from t…