I thank the various Deputies for raising this important issue. I acknowledge the strong political and public interest in the development of the national maternity hospital, NMH. First, as I have said many times, the Government is fully committed to the development of the new NMH. This is clearly laid out in the programme for Government. The fact that concerns are being raised from some quarters in regard to the ownership and governance of the new national maternity hospital is also recognised by the Government. How…

The letter I have before me is from the midwives and doctors in the National Maternity Hospital. What they are saying is that they are extremely concerned about a combination of misinformation and misunderstanding. They state: "Concerns being raised that the new [national] maternity hospital will be curtailed by any religious ethos are misleading and ill-informed." They go on to say that concerns being raised about the ownership of the hospital, with the suggestion that only under full State ownership can the avoid…

I had a closing speech prepared, but I would prefer to try to address as many of the points raised as I can. I start by thanking colleagues for their time and contributions. It is important to have this debate. It is one of several we have had on this essential issue, including at the Joint Committee on Health. I am struck by the disconnect between the amount of disagreement, which we will always have, given that this is one of the Chambers where we will probe the areas as required, and the overshadowing of the sig…

-----would own the land. I hope we are all in agreement that there is no easy option whereby the State could own the land. In pursuing the alternatives, for example, moving the site to somewhere other than Elm Park-----

-----or using a compulsory purchase order, the advice I have is that all of these options would carry a very significant risk of derailing this project by potentially not having it co-located at Elm Park and, at a minimum, adding many years to it. I think we are in agreement on all of the other pieces above. Given this final piece on the ownership of the land and potentially the governance structures, colleagues are rightly looking for guarantees on the full independence of the hospital. That has been the focus of …

The process is that I have to bring the proposal to the Government. The Government will then form a view and we will debate it. The Deputy and others have asked whether it can be brought to the health committee for detailed interrogation. Absolutely. Not only am I happy to attend, but I propose – the Deputy and I have spoken about this before – that we bring along the Department of Health, the HSE, St. Vincent's and Holles Street as well because they are the signatories to the agreement and how it will work.

Unfortunately, what we have here this evening is a debate that is probably slightly too early. We would love to be able to get into the detail.

On the Deputies' questions about the process, Deputy Shortall has been in government. She is well aware of the process. I have to bring the proposal to the Government for the Government to interrogate.

I imagine we will then have more debates like this, but also at the health committee.

That is the process by which all of these things happen.

It is the process by which they all-----

Deputy O'Reilly rightly pointed out that we need to get moving on this. She referred to how she had attended Holles Street, as had her daughter when giving birth to the Deputy's granddaughter, and that the new hospital had been agreed years ago. Much of the debate this evening and the ongoing debate is on this exact point.

With respect, I am going-----

-----through it Deputy by Deputy. I have taken notes on what everyone has said and I am trying to answer every Deputy.

Deputy Bríd Smith asked about when we might see the legal framework. I would like to have it with colleagues shortly for them to look into it. She also stated that we needed to focus on the speed of delivery, on which I agree. Deputy Alan Farrell made a salient point that went to many of the concerns that are being raised. I agree with his statement that, if we remove religious involvement from ownership, which we are doing, and if we remove religious involvement from governance, which we are doing, then at a simpl…

Deputy Bríd Smith asked whether there was anything to read into the question of undue influence. There is not. One could substitute that for "any" influence. Maybe it was just a badly chosen word. It is not to suggest that there is some religious influence that is okay and some that is not. What is meant by that is any influence whatsoever. Deputy Cronin raised various points around women needing to be able to access maternity services beyond the reach of the crozier, which I believe is the phrase she used. I again…

-----directly or indirectly.

Deputy Cronin rightly praised Holles Street hospital. We need to reflect on the fact we do not own the building on Holles Street or the land it is built on. No one here tonight, or in any contribution I have ever heard in this debate, has suggested there is undue religious influence, for example, in Holles Street.

If we just think about this for a second, what is happening? What are we looking to do? We have a hospital about 400 m from where we are talking this evening, which is staffed by incredible and dedicated clinicians who provide a full range of services. They are signatories to a new agreement whereby they will be moving to a state-of-the-art building at Elm Park. It is they who have signed up to this agreement and it is they who are saying they will have full independence. I believe that the clinicians, midwives and…

Not only-----