The NMH at St. Vincents

oppenheimer1

Ger Roe wrote: »

Previous arrangements down the years between church and state have already cost us an awful lot more - and not just in terms of money. Surely justice and principles must be held in higher regard by the state, than money?

Fair enough, but where is the state going to get €50-75m to buy the land at Vincent's?

Facilities or principles, that's the choice.

Anita Blow

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

For the sole use of nuns?

The government cannot simply take land off people so the choice was: continue in the same location, buy a new plot, or negotiate with the SoC to use their land at St. Vincent's.

Some people might find the solution distasteful, but the alternative costs an awful lot more.

For nuns to exert influence on the board. This isn't pie in the sky stuff, it still happens in Ireland today. One need only look at OLOL Drogheda to see how religious influence on the board can negatively influence practice.

I don't think it's just some that find it distasteful, it's most based on the overwhelmingly negative reaction. I'm sure many would accept a higher cost for CPOing the land for a principled action, or accepting the land or a large discount on it as their contribution for the redress scheme etc

evolving_doors

Anita Blow wrote: »

For nuns to exert influence on the board. This isn't pie in the sky stuff, it still happens in Ireland today. One need only look at OLOL Drogheda to see how religious influence on the board can negatively influence practice.

I don't think it's just some that find it distasteful, it's most based on the overwhelmingly negative reaction. I'm sure many would accept a higher cost for CPOing the land for a principled action, or accepting the land or a large discount on it as their contribution for the redress scheme etc

This... I heard today the board would be made up of 4 religious appointees and 5 state. (Open to correction)...
So when it comes to making appointments I'd imagine it would be like most voluntary schools "just to finish off the interview.... do you endeavour to uphold the ethos?".

oppenheimer1

Anita Blow wrote: »

For nuns to exert influence on the board. This isn't pie in the sky stuff, it still happens in Ireland today. One need only look at OLOL Drogheda to see how religious influence on the board can negatively influence practice.

I don't think it's just some that find it distasteful, it's most based on the overwhelmingly negative reaction. I'm sure many would accept a higher cost for CPOing the land for a principled action, or accepting the land or a large discount on it as their contribution for the redress scheme etc

The redress scheme ship has sailed tbf. The government negotiated a terrible deal for the tax payer but the alternative at the time was no redress scheme or a fully government funded one. The government cannot confiscate lands from anyone, and it cannot go back on a legally binding deal it's done no matter how bad.

As far as I know the govt could CPO the land, but they would have to pay market rate, which would be ?50m minimum. So what then gets cut to pay for the land?

gctest50

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Fair enough, but where is the state going to get €50-75m to buy the land at Vincent's?

Facilities or principles, that's the choice.

They still owe the state 100 + million (they agreed to pay - still haven't)

Knock it off that

Ger Roe

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Fair enough, but where is the state going to get €50-75m to buy the land at Vincent's?
/QUOTE]

Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Linkedin.... isn't there a potential few quid in due tax knocking about there? Aren't the government actually paying legal costs to fight an EU ruling instructing that they should chase money due to them/us?

The government was quick to dream up ways of taking money off people to bail out the banks. I might not have minded so much if my future pension fund was raided for a much needed hospital, rather than just keeping bond holders comfortable.

Seriously, raising the money is their job, think outside the box like you were trying to save the banks... at this stage the money could probably be crowd sourced by public appeal if looked like it would stop this injustice in it's tracks.

State assets should not be gifted to anybody. I can see some future minister for health wringing his hands in despair when an issue arises with this arrangement and we are then all told that there is nothing that can be done because the original ownership arrangement was flawed and should never have been allowed - but we are where we are..... etc... etc.

I am old enough to have seen this type of advance excuse setup being put in place before.

Anita Blow

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The redress scheme ship has sailed tbf. The government negotiated a terrible deal for the tax payer but the alternative at the time was no redress scheme or a fully government funded one. The government cannot confiscate lands from anyone, and it cannot go back on a legally binding deal it's done no matter how bad.

As far as I know the govt could CPO the land, but they would have to pay market rate, which would be ?50m minimum. So what then gets cut to pay for the land?

Ensuring the orders pay their share of the redress scheme pays for it. The ship has only sailed on that if we the public let it. It is morally reprehensible to let these orders cede their obligations to the victims and the state and then reward them with lucrative state infrastructure. It's only Irish apathy that would allow such to happen

oppenheimer1

gctest50 wrote: »

They still owe the state 100 + million they agreed to pay

Knock it off that

I don't think the agreement set down a timeline or compellability​ to pay. It was a terrible deal but the alternative was no redress scheme. It was a shockingly bad deal.

The religious orders cannot be forced to pay nor can their land be confiscated. So beyond appealing to morals (ha!) There is no legal mechanism to force them to pay - therefore the negotiated deal over Vincent's was the result.

I'm not saying I like it ( I don't) but at least I understand it.

infogiver

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Yes the health service is of major importance to people as is taxation, housing, water charges etc. Doesn't mean that there isn't a right conservative catholic streak running through a huge percentage of the country's population who wouldn't be too keen on voting for a party headed by a gay.

I'm a conservative right wing Catholic and I'm mad keen to see Varadkar take over as Taoiseach and I don't give a tuppenny damn who he sleeps with.
It makes 0 difference to me.
As minister for DSP he's making good desicions not popular desicions.

oppenheimer1

I suppose there is always another option - why didn't the government use land it already owns and build the new hospital a mere stones throw from Vincent's on RTE land.

Tack a few Euro onto the license fee and everyone is happy.

One eyed Jack

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I suppose there is always another option - why didn't the government use land it already owns and build the new hospital a mere stones throw from Vincent's on RTE land.

Tack a few Euro onto the license fee and everyone is happy.

Because they were following international best practice and decided to tack the maternity block onto the same grounds as an acute hospital instead. They'll be doing the same with the Coombe and the Rotunda too - Coombe will be relocated to St. James, and Rotunda will be relocated to Connolly.

oppenheimer1

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because they were following international best practice and decided to tack the maternity block onto the same grounds as an acute hospital instead. They'll be doing the same with the Coombe and the Rotunda too - Coombe will be relocated to St. James, and Rotunda will be relocated to Connolly.

Vincent's is almost across the road from RTE. Granted they are not co located but it would be almost as good as.

Anita Blow

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I suppose there is always another option - why didn't the government use land it already owns and build the new hospital a mere stones throw from Vincent's on RTE land.

Tack a few Euro onto the license fee and everyone is happy.

It's a bit of a catch 22. Best practice would state that the maternity hospital should be co-located, but AFAIK almost all (apart from Tallaght) major hospitals are voluntary, so we're left with little choice. It's better that we tackle this now though because we'll just come up against the same issues in a couple years when The Coombe relocates to James' which is also a voluntary hospital.

oppenheimer1

Anita Blow wrote: »

It's a bit of a catch 22. Best practice would state that the maternity hospital should be co-located, but AFAIK almost all (apart from Tallaght) major hospitals are voluntary, so we're left with little choice. It's better that we tackle this now though because we'll just come up against the same issues in a couple years when The Coombe relocates to James' which is also a voluntary hospital.

It's not really a catch 22. The state could easily Co locate at Vincent's without building on land belonging to Vincent's. It could build at RTE or it could buy elm park golf course and build on that, which backs onto Vincent's. What it doesn't want to do is pay for the land - hence this deal.

And going on about the redress scheme when it is unrelated in the slightest and appealing to the morals of religious orders won't work. This is a business transaction, as simple as that. I'm not saying it's right, but it is what's legal.

Anita Blow

Fortunately there's more people concerned with doing what's right rather than doing what's legal

oppenheimer1

Anita Blow wrote: »

Fortunately there's more people concerned with doing what's right rather than doing what's legal

If there is no legal way of forcing the matter then it won't happen. Moral pressure carries no weight.

What will happen here is that it will go ahead as planned or the state will buy the land at market rate or the new hospital won't happen. Which is the best outcome for the taxpayer and the patient

Anita Blow

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If there is no legal way of forcing the matter then it won't happen. Moral pressure carries no weight.

What will happen here is that it will go ahead as planned or the state will buy the land at market rate or the new hospital won't happen. Which is the best outcome for the taxpayer and the patient

As has been said, CPOing the site and paying market rate. Paying for land is a standard part of building infrastructure and the state shouldn't be looking for ways to scrimp that compromise patient care.
We have tangible examples in recent history in which the Catholic ethos of publicly-funded hospitals directly compromised patient care. The Lourdes Enquiry found it was a key aspect of unnecessary hysterectomies performed on women in the OLOL maternity unit.

oppenheimer1

Anita Blow wrote: »

As has been said, CPOing the site and paying market rate. Paying for land is a standard part of building infrastructure and the state shouldn't be looking for ways to scrimp that compromise patient care.
We have tangible examples in recent history in which the Catholic ethos of publicly-funded hospitals directly compromised patient care. The Lourdes Enquiry found it was a key aspect of unnecessary hysterectomies performed on women in the OLOL maternity unit.

Fair enough but the government clearly think there are better ways to spend ?50-70m then on land, that could be got for free. ?50-70m which would have to come from somewhere and end up with the SoC and no obligation on them to give any money to the state for redress, wouldn't that be a bigger scandal?

Samaris

Apart from anything else - is it not about time that we as a State started taking responsibility for education and medicine in this country? The Catholic orders stepped in very helpfully to keep running various institutions and expand with more schools and hospitals in the fledgeling Irish State and said State went "yes please". Okay, we all know how things went from there and now it is nearly a century later. Ireland is a wealthy country. We do not need and should not want the Roman Catholic Church to be running the social services so critical to the population. Medical care and education is the collective responsibility of the State and its population. Maybe it's about time Ireland started taking up that responsibility, instead of having the Church do it and just accepting that this means the Catholic ethos holds sway in these areas.

222233

I really don't understand why they would need to own anything, this is not a country governed by religion, why don't they give it to a horticultural society, a men's shed... they are all more active than the Catholic Church.

oppenheimer1

Samaris wrote: »

Apart from anything else - is it not about time that we as a State started taking responsibility for education and medicine in this country? The Catholic orders stepped in very helpfully to keep running various institutions and expand with more schools and hospitals in the fledgeling Irish State and said State went "yes please". Okay, we all know how things went from there and now it is nearly a century later. Ireland is a wealthy country. We do not need and should not want the Roman Catholic Church to be running the social services so critical to the population. Medical care and education is the collective responsibility of the State and its population. Maybe it's about time Ireland started taking up that responsibility, instead of having the Church do it and just accepting that this means the Catholic ethos holds sway in these areas.

How many billion would you be comfortable paying to the church to buy the land the country's hospitals and schools are built on?

GarIT

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

As far as I know the govt could CPO the land, but they would have to pay market rate, which would be ?50m minimum. So what then gets cut to pay for the land?

The tax-free status of the Roman Catholic church should get cut.

Zebra3

GarIT wrote: »

The tax-free status of the Roman Catholic church should get cut.

For all of those cults and their mythical deity worshipping scams.

Neyite

GarIT wrote: »

The tax-free status of the Roman Catholic church should get cut.

Germany's system of paying a portion of income tax to your nominated faith's coffers works very well. Churches pay taxes over there but their revenue stream is confined to those who support and use their churches.

I bet we would see a lot more 'no religion' ticks on the next census if we adopted the German model.

I've no problem with religion - people can worship whoever they want and I will respect their right to do so without ridicule or calling their god a sky fairy or whatever. But I'd like reciprocation from them. I'd like them to understand that I don't want to have to go along with something I don't believe in to maintain a status quo or gain basic services I deserve as a citizen and tax payer.

To me it's like saying to a Catholic, just go along with the Scientology, mumble the prayers and attend their services. You know it's a load of bollocks but just go with it because schools. Just tick the box on your maternity form about Auditing - shure it's only a box ticking thing.

A Catholic would be highly offended to be forced to partake in rituals of a faith that is invented and contrived and steeped in controversy and shady dealings. And nobody would make them partake. So why do people expect me as a non-faith person to suck it up. Where's the respect for my belief?

The state should find the money from somewhere to buy this site and make it wholly state owned. Preferably deduct it off the bill the Order owes the state. There is no reason why the Orders in this country cannot settle their redress bill with payment in kind such as properties and land. Starting with this site.

I think that even if the victims never saw a penny themselves (which lets face it, they never will), they might take some comfort in the fact that the services for the vulnerable are no longer under their influence and that they have paid their redress to the state in full.

pilly

Neyite wrote: »

Germany's system of paying a portion of income tax to your nominated faith's coffers works very well. Churches pay taxes over there but their revenue stream is confined to those who support and use their churches.

I bet we would see a lot more 'no religion' ticks on the next census if we adopted the German model.

I've no problem with religion - people can worship whoever they want and I will respect their right to do so without ridicule or calling their god a sky fairy or whatever. But I'd like reciprocation from them. I'd like them to understand that I don't want to have to go along with something I don't believe in to maintain a status quo or gain basic services I deserve as a citizen and tax payer.

To me it's like saying to a Catholic, just go along with the Scientology, mumble the prayers and attend their services. You know it's a load of bollocks but just go with it because schools. Just tick the box on your maternity form about Auditing - shure it's only a box ticking thing.

A Catholic would be highly offended to be forced to partake in rituals of a faith that is invented and contrived and steeped in controversy and shady dealings. And nobody would make them partake. So why do people expect me as a non-faith person to suck it up. Where's the respect for my belief?

The state should find the money from somewhere to buy this site and make it wholly state owned. Preferably deduct it off the bill the Order owes the state. There is no reason why the Orders in this country cannot settle their redress bill with payment in kind such as properties and land. Starting with this site.

I think that even if the victims never saw a penny themselves (which lets face it, they never will), they might take some comfort in the fact that the services for the vulnerable are no longer under their influence and that they have paid their redress to the state in full.

Very good post. But tbf the victims have had their redress. The issue is the Catholic church haven't paid back the government for it.

Walter H Price

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

For the sole use of nuns?

The government cannot simply take land off people so the choice was: continue in the same location, buy a new plot, or negotiate with the SoC to use their land at St. Vincent's.

Some people might find the solution distasteful, but the alternative costs an awful lot more.

The government can quite literally take land of people for the purpose of capital works via compulsory purchase order. This is done here and all of the world for the purpose of building , roads , train lines , government buildings , reservoirs , schools , hospitals etc....

Which should have been done here, that order owe the in excess of 100 million for the abuses and crimes they committed (against mothers and baby's) a CPO should have been issued , given this land was not zoned for housing it should not have been valued at anywhere near the €100m owed by the order there for it should have been taken directly from what the owe.

Neyite

pilly wrote: »

Very good post. But tbf the victims have had their redress. The issue is the Catholic church haven't paid back the government for it.

True. And isn't this a Divine opportunity to show that the Sisters of Charity are actually charitable and demonstrate their sacred vows of poverty and obedience.

I would actually have a bit of respect for the Order if they donated this tiny portion of their wealth. It would demonstrate their penitence and that they do deeply regret the practices their order followed in the past.

pilly

Here's the way I see it in very simplistic terms. Where does the Catholic Church (or any church for that matter) get their money from?

They get if from their followers charitable donations. Therefore they are a charity who should be using this money to do good.

It always amazes me how people kick off murder (rightly so) about the likes of Paul Kelly spending charitable donations for his own good and yet don't apply the same standards to the church.

Catholics should be the ones standing up on this issue and saying "we want to gift that land to the state to build a maternity hospital all that will serve the whole nation".

If we maybe believe that the various institutes don't have the cash to pay over then this is an ideal solution.

One eyed Jack

Walter H Price wrote: »

The government can quite literally take land of people for the purpose of capital works via compulsory purchase order. This is done here and all of the world for the purpose of building , roads , train lines , government buildings , reservoirs , schools , hospitals etc....

Which should have been done here, that order owe the in excess of 100 million for the abuses and crimes they committed (against mothers and baby's) a CPO should have been issued , given this land was not zoned for housing it should not have been valued at anywhere near the €100m owed by the order there for it should have been taken directly from what the owe.

Why do you keep talking about CPO's when the State didn't have to pay a cent for the site in the first place? If you're talking about the State purchasing the whole of SVHG sites and the properties on them lock, stock and barrel, you'd still have to deal with Article 44, and it would cost quite a bit more than the E500m the Government of the day agreed with the religious orders in the redress scheme. Now multiply that figure by the number of sites and properties the State would have to compensate the religious orders for if they were to take them all, and very quickly you begin to see why the State knows which side it's bread is buttered - they simply couldn't afford a principled stance like that without bankrupting the State for future generations to come. People still complain about the USC and having to pay for water, and how much do you think they'd have to raise taxes by in order to cover the cost of compensation to the religious orders?

Like I said, I personally would have no problem paying a Church tax, if it meant that I didn't have to pay tax for the education, healthcare and welfare of other people and their children either. That would mean I would then have more money to give voluntarily to support the healthcare, education and welfare of other people and their children as I saw fit, rather than being forced to pay to provide services for people and their children which I didn't agree to. It'd also mean I wouldn't have the State dipping into my private pension fund. You might have an initial increase in people ticking no religion on the census, but if they declare to the State that they aren't religious, then the various religious communities can also deny them services as they aren't members of that religious community. That means no baptisms, marriage ceremonies or burials. I'm not sure Ireland is really all that serious about getting religion out of education and healthcare and standing by their principles, if it means they get hit in the pockets for it.

Stars and Stripes

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Headed by a what?

There isn't any conservative catholic streak running through a percentage of the population, let alone a huge one, outside of the walls of the Iona Institute... and remind me, where are they based again?

If that's the case why have successive govts for decades been foot dragging on changing the 8th Amendment on abortion ?