If I may finish, I am open to correction but I do not believe that I ever asked why the Deputy was asking his questions. We have been having a very open debate. The Deputy and many of our colleagues here are asking the exact same questions I asked. I acknowledge the questions he is asking are absolutely legitimate.

This probably goes back to something we were discussing at the committee meeting yesterday. For historical reasons, there is a very understandable and deep mistrust in our country. Any complexity in a proposal such as this can therefore add to the concerns people have. We want this to be as clear and as clean as possible. For the reasons we have all been debating for the past two weeks, having the site in leasehold ownership requires additional engagement beyond that required for freehold ownership.

I am not a lawyer. The advice I have received previously is that Oireachtas debate does have some legal standing and that, when the courts are seeking to interpret things, people can refer back to the Oireachtas debate. I am not a lawyer, so I would prefer not to make a definitive statement on this.

As we discussed yesterday, first, what we can take as a given is that it has been clearly established through Oireachtas debate that the term “clinically appropriate” will absolutely not apply to healthcare services being withheld from women, and I think that is the genuine concern people have. Second, I do not know if the health committee accepts it, but I am absolutely willing to write to the health committee-----

I am answering it. Third, as per yesterday, I am not ruling anything out. I really want to listen to and be involved in the entire debate and to reflect on that.

I do not speak for it, obviously, only for myself. It is clear. When any of us say we are not ruling anything out, I think that is-----

We are not foreseeing any major changes in terms of documents that would-----

Can I answer the question, please? We are not foreseeing any major changes but, at this point, and including, as the Deputy said, the constitution, I would not rule anything out. However, the debate has not finished. We are still in the middle of it, so we are still very much in listening mode and then we need to reflect on the totality of it.

Yes.

At this point, I cannot say either way. We are still in the middle of these debates.

The debate is going on.

I do not know about the Deputy but I found the health committee genuinely very useful yesterday so-----

What I am saying is that I think it is highly unlikely there would be talks requiring substantive change to the legal documents but, at this point, we are still listening to the debate and I am not ruling anything out.

It is-----

It is a charitable company.

It is a not-for-profit charitable company, and that is what matters.

It is not. It is a voluntary hospital.

If I can interrupt, for the purposes of people who are listening, it is important that we are very clear that we have HSE public hospitals, we have voluntary public hospitals, like Holles Street today, and then we have the private hospitals.

I cannot speak for my predecessors but I can tell the Deputy that I did seek the Attorney General's advice on a CPO for the reason Deputy Cullinane and I were just discussing. I asked exactly the very reasonable and correct questions that Deputy Smith is asking.

I would be very surprised if I was.