The NMH at St. Vincents

aloyisious

RTE Radio 1 news will be interviewing Dr Boylan any minute now.

Enda being interviewed: Dr Boylans decision is for him. The Minister has been given the time he requested to examine the situation, that there is no legal agreement yet.

gctest50

Dr. Boylan should be the Minister for Health

Boggy Turf

Wow. Good letter from Boylan.

I am going to write to the Minister of Health now.

simon.harris@oireachtas.ie

Stars and Stripes

So the only person who resigned from the Board of the National Maternity Hospital is someone who stood up for a separation of church and state. Hound the decent just trying to do their job and reward the corrupt, but then isn't it the corrupt and unreformable of FG/FF/LP who run the state.

lawred2

Call me Al wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

I think there were two sections today, I listened to Rhona Mahony and I think it was Nicolas Kearns on Sean O'Rourke (missed some of it so can't confirm exactly what was said though, but it's available to listen back to.) but would Claire Byrne have been at the November meeting, is she on the board too?

Yes she's on the board. I have no reason to think she wasn't present for such an important meeting, but she has a small baby by the sounds of things. She might have not been available at the time. I didn't hear the full interview.
Either way she voted again last night to accept the deal. But it begs the question as to why she didn't know. This type of thing is basic stuff when you're on a board of this profile.

Political appointee.</end>

groovyg

gctest50 wrote: »

Dr. Boylan should be the Minister for Health

Doctors don't really make good politicians - James Reilly found out the hard way, it wasn't a good move.

VinLieger

Dr. Boylan put it very well, do they expect us to believe this hospital is going to be the only one in the world owned and run by the catholic church that wont obey catholic teachings and canon law?

neonsofa

VinLieger wrote: »

Dr. Boylan put it very well, do they expect us to believe this hospital is going to be the only one in the world owned and run by the catholic church that wont obey catholic teachings and canon law?

Considering many Catholics in ireland pick and choose which teachings to obey and don't attend mass to learn of said teachings, I'd well believe many are naive/oblivious to what that actually means in practical terms.

BlinkingLights

If this project has to wait, it has to wait.

It's better this be done right than rushed through in a way that puts assets beyond public control.

BlinkingLights

I assume we can see the tender documents for this and a clear explanation of the process that was gone through before anyone agreed to sign over vast amounts of public funding to a private organisation??

BlinkingLights

BlinkingLights wrote: »

If this project has to wait, it has to wait.

It's better this be done right than rushed through in a way that puts assets beyond public control.

More than that, it's high time the state wrested control of public, state-funded medicine and education from private, vested-interest groups.

The reason this situation has arisen in the first place is because the maternity hospital is inextricably linked to the university hospital.

People need to realise that a large part of the budget for health and education is handed to these groups yet the institutions are largely outside of the control of the state.

gctest50

It'd seem the government want them involved in the site so if it all goes wrong they will have someone to
bounce blame back n forth with

oppenheimer1

BlinkingLights wrote: »

This is basically corruption.

It's state assets and public services being handed over to another unaccountable, private organisation because they have influence. It's going ahead with sheer arrogance even though everyone is screaming STOP.

Rotten little island we live on!

Absolutely bloody rotten to the core.

They might add well just unceremoniously rip up the proclamation for all the good it did.
We're all talk about being a republic and about being equal, open, fair and decent yet, when push comes to shove, the powerful organisations run the place, not the people.

Centenary of 1916 could have been about maybe making a move towards being a real republic but instead, here we go again - might as well just admit : Ireland has a state religion. At least most other theocracies are upfront about it.

No, its going ahead in this way because the SoC own the land the state wants to build it on.

Yes we are a republic, and an important part of that is property rights.

VinLieger

BlinkingLights wrote: »

I assume we can see the tender documents for this and a clear explanation of the process that was gone through before anyone agreed to sign over vast amounts of public funding to a private organisation??

Its got nothing to do with tendering, the hospital was offered to them as they have the land and adjoining university hospital required for it to be built on.

It should definitely be built where has been suggested however it needs to be void of any religious interference, control or ownership.

lawred2

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

BlinkingLights wrote: »

This is basically corruption.

It's state assets and public services being handed over to another unaccountable, private organisation because they have influence. It's going ahead with sheer arrogance even though everyone is screaming STOP.

Rotten little island we live on!

Absolutely bloody rotten to the core.

They might add well just unceremoniously rip up the proclamation for all the good it did.
We're all talk about being a republic and about being equal, open, fair and decent yet, when push comes to shove, the powerful organisations run the place, not the people.

Centenary of 1916 could have been about maybe making a move towards being a real republic but instead, here we go again - might as well just admit : Ireland has a state religion. At least most other theocracies are upfront about it.

No, its going ahead in this way because the SoC own the land the state wants to build it on.

Yes we are a republic, and an important part of that is property rights.

CPO the land.

aloyisious

The Joe show is interviewing one of the previous members of the board on how she was appointed to the NMH board and how she was treated. Another guest is a son of a former Comptroller and Auditor-general, who went into the nitty-gritty of deals between the state (Govt) and various non-govt bodies and groups. It seems the nuns ran rings around the govt when it approved the building of St Vincent's at Elm Park in the early 70's, that the deal worked out with Noel Browne was NOT the one as stated by Erskine Childers MOH at the time. The son related to Joe how a senior civil servant from the Dept of Finance (a catholic) came to his dad (also a catholic) in a state of disbelief on how the nuns were behaving towards fulfilling (NOT) their part of the deal.

The nuns were supposed to hand over their Stephens Green hospital property in exchange for the new Elm Park hospital which was funded by the Govt (£1.25 million) from Irish Sweepstakes monies, but eventually didn't hand the property over as per the deal then. A court case ensued later between the Govt and the nuns over the nuns attempt to sell the Stephens Green property. The nuns won that case.

The new hospital at Elm Park was blessed by JC McQuaid, who made clear in his speech that day that all the people who worked there would have to follow the ethos of the RC Church (sic: would have therefore to be of catholic belief)

It seems that history is repeating itself again.

VinLieger

lawred2 wrote: »

CPO the land.

Exactly by all accounts the nuns arent even allowed sell it due to their rules about profiting from the sale of their belongings

oppenheimer1

lawred2 wrote: »

CPO the land.

How much should the state pay for a prime site in Dublin 4? Is acquiring land the best use of public resources when it can be available for nothing.

We are not talking about an inconsequential sum of money here, ?75m easily. Where does that ?75m come from? The budget to build the hospital?

VinLieger

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

How much should the state pay for a prime site in Dublin 4? Is acquiring land the best use of public resources when it can be available for nothing.

We are not talking about an inconsequential sum of money here, ?75m easily. Where does that ?75m come from? The budget to build the hospital?

The nuns cannot profit from a sale of the land under their own rules, we don't need to pay a cent

lawred2

VinLieger wrote: »

lawred2 wrote: »

CPO the land.

Exactly by all accounts the nuns arent even allowed sell it due to their rules about profiting from the sale of their belongings

Buy it for a cent then

oppenheimer1

VinLieger wrote: »

The nuns cannot profit from a sale of the land under their own rules, we don't need to pay a cent

No. The state cannot confiscate property from a religious institution. It would have to give open market rate even if internal rules of the SoC prevent them from making a profit.

I would even question whether a CPO would be possible as an alternative arrangement exists, it's just that it's not politically palatable.

lawred2

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

lawred2 wrote: »

CPO the land.

How much should the state pay for a prime site in Dublin 4? Is acquiring land the best use of public resources when it can be available for nothing.

We are not talking about an inconsequential sum of money here, ?75m easily. Where does that ?75m come from? The budget to build the hospital?

It is quite clear that it is not available for nothing

pilly

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

How much should the state pay for a prime site in Dublin 4? Is acquiring land the best use of public resources when it can be available for nothing.

We are not talking about an inconsequential sum of money here, ?75m easily. Where does that ?75m come from? The budget to build the hospital?

It's a capital expenditure. Spend 75m, get hospital worth 425m.

Spend nothing get 75m land free, give away 350m.

I know which deal sounds better to me.

Glenster

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

No. The state cannot confiscate property from a religious institution. It would have to give open market rate even if internal rules of the SoC prevent them from making a profit.

I would even question whether a CPO would be possible as an alternative arrangement exists, it's just that it's not politically palatable.

Lets not hide behind the "CPO's are state tyranny" line, what about the dozens of CPOs that have been served since 1990 to facilitate the NTA infrastructure programme?

jmayo

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

No, its going ahead in this way because the SoC own the land the state wants to build it on.

Yes we are a republic, and an important part of that is property rights.

So is the protection of children supposedly, but that never stopped this republic or this sadistic organisation from doing the opposite.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

No. The state cannot confiscate property from a religious institution. It would have to give open market rate even if internal rules of the SoC prevent them from making a profit.

I would even question whether a CPO would be possible as an alternative arrangement exists, it's just that it's not politically palatable.

Actually oppenheimer1 the sisters of charity owe the state or an arm of the state, the government redress scheme for victims of child abuse carried out by religious run institutions.

The sisters of charity promised to contribute ?5m to the government?s ?1.25bn redress scheme for victims of child abuse.

To date they have contributed ?2m of the ?5m they promised in 2009.
They can hand over the land right now as part of that payment.

And they have contributed nothing towards their share of the ?128m Catholic institutions agreed to pay to abuse victims in 2002.

Actually ?5m is a paltry contribution of the amount of hurt that disgusting organisation did to untold hundreds of innocent children in industrial schools and young women in their slave labour magdalene laundries.

aloyisious

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

No. The state cannot confiscate property from a religious institution. It would have to give open market rate even if internal rules of the SoC prevent them from making a profit.

I would even question whether a CPO would be possible as an alternative arrangement exists, it's just that it's not politically palatable.

The question may be opening as to whether the behaviour of the religious is stampeding the political herd towards a change in position on what's politically palatable, ala what the/ir voters think. Enda's upbringing as a kid and as a politician didn't stop him making a telling statement diplomatically to church HQ recently.

It'd (probably) be dream-like to think the nuns might be charitable & complete a deal which would keep everyone happy, ensure they could have a peaceful retirement and make donations or fund transfers to their sisters abroad. God working in mysterious ways and final judgement etc.

Walter H Price

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

How much should the state pay for a prime site in Dublin 4? Is acquiring land the best use of public resources when it can be available for nothing.

We are not talking about an inconsequential sum of money here, ?75m easily. Where does that ?75m come from? The budget to build the hospital?

How much is land on the site of a hospital not zoned for housing worth ? i know from working with CPO's land is only as valuable as what it can be used for , not zoned for housing in Dublin regardless of the post code the could afford the cost of CPO which is the route that should have been taken with the overall cost deducted from what that vile order owe for the crimes the committed against women and children over decades.

Tbh id rather pay more tax for secular hospitals then the tax i currently pay for religious controlled institutions , ffs the Archbishop is the chairman of NMH its an utter utter disgrace.

seamus

Glenster wrote: »

Lets not hide behind the "CPO's are state tyranny" line, what about the dozens of CPOs that have been served since 1990 to facilitate the NTA infrastructure programme?

I don't think oppenheimer is opposing a CPO, just the notion that the site could be CPO'd for nothing or "for a cent".

The rules around CPOs would still require that a market price is paid for the land, regardless of what the landowner is willing to accept. Even if the SoC said, "give us a tenner", someone could (and probably would) bring a case against the state accusing it of breaking the law. In order to satisfy the law, the state would have to hand over the market rate in consideration for the property, or the SoC voluntarily donate it to the state.

In any case "no profit" can easily be interpreted to require the SoC to give the proceeds to charitable funds, use it to pay down their compensation liability, or allow them to place it in a retirement fund.

gctest50

And will there be babies with unexplained injuries at this new hospital ?

Other serious issues raised related to ..... unexplained injuries and understaffing

Surprise surprise:

“was operated by a company established by the Sisters of Charity"




https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/sisters-of-charity-run-facilities-heavily-criticised-in-hiqa-reports-1.3057123?mode=amp

Call me Al

jmayo wrote: »

So is the protection of children supposedly, but that never stopped this republic or this sadistic organisation from doing the opposite.



Actually oppenheimer1 the sisters of charity owe the state or an arm of the state, the government redress scheme for victims of child abuse carried out by religious run institutions.

The sisters of charity promised to contribute ?5m to the government?s ?1.25bn redress scheme for victims of child abuse.

To date they have contributed ?2m of the ?5m they promised in 2009.
They can hand over the land right now as part of that payment.

And they have contributed nothing towards their share of the ?128m Catholic institutions agreed to pay to abuse victims in 2002.

Actually ?5m is a paltry contribution of the amount of hurt that disgusting organisation did to untold hundreds of innocent children in industrial schools and young women in their slave labour magdalene laundries.

Actually that account has been squared. They now owe nothing.
This €3m was offset against their legal fees on this hospital transfer...