Nuns to be given new hospital

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

The nuns have stated that a new company being established as the beneficial owner would run the hospital according to international best practice and the laws of ROI.

If we take that at face value, then there are no restrictions being imposed which would be inconsistent with state policy.

But there are still two problems. Their offer has not been made to the state; only to a private company. The people running this private company are expected to follow "the values" of Mary Aikenhead, in some unspecified way. Mary herself is long dead, so she will not be able to adjudicate.

Well, I think in a situation like that one approach would be to look at control structures. Who will be "the people running this private company"? Who will appoint them? Who will have power to remove them, and in what circumstances? Etc, etc.

Another approach - and these two approaches are not necessarily inconsistent - is for there to be a formal, explicit agreement between the state and the hospital operator setting out what the hospital will and won't do, as a condition of receiving funding. (Arguably as a matter of good governance there should be such an agreement in relation to every voluntary hospital, regardless of whether the hospital operator has a religious character or not.)

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I think in a situation like that one approach would be to look at control structures. Who will be "the people running this private company"? Who will appoint them? Who will have power to remove them, and in what circumstances? Etc, etc.

Another approach - and these two approaches are not necessarily inconsistent - is for there to be a formal, explicit agreement between the state and the hospital operator setting out what the hospital will and won't do, as a condition of receiving funding. (Arguably as a matter of good governance there should be such an agreement in relation to every voluntary hospital, regardless of whether the hospital operator has a religious character or not.)

There are lots of questions alright, but there aren't many answers out there.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/new-national-maternity-hospital-to-be-owned-by-the-state-1.3205261

New National Maternity Hospital to be owned by the State


The National Maternity Hospital (NMH) is to remain in State ownership after it is built on the St Vincent’s hospital campus in south Dublin, under proposals being finalised to resolve the long-running dispute over its move from Holles Street.

While the building will be State-owned, the land on which it is constructed will remain the property of the St Vincent’s Hospital Group (SVHG), which is controlled by the Sisters of Charity.

There is no agreement yet in talks between the Department of Health and SVHG on whether the State would pay a rent to the order for the use of the site, The Irish Times understands.

Under the agreement expected to be finalised within weeks, the State will licence the new hospital for use by the NMH. This will preserve the existing voluntary status of the institution.

"The key piece of this deal is that the hospital building will remain in State ownership and not on the balance sheet of SVHG," according to a source close to the negotiations. "This was the key ask of many who expressed concern about a public asset not being on the State’s book."

Excellent news if it pans out as planned. The State funding a €300 million project and not having ownership of it is simply not acceptable.

recedite

Looks like the concept of "ground rents" is making a comeback.
Not much talk about them since the 1920's.
I still think its messy. CPO is clean.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/new-national-maternity-hospital-to-be-owned-by-the-state-1.3205261



Excellent news if it pans out as planned. The State funding a €300 million project and not having ownership of it is simply not acceptable.

Depends on the terms and this article says that all is still up in the air. If you build a house on somebody elses land, you dont effectively own it.
However if the Nuns dont want a sale a long (say 200yrs) leasehold at nominal rent would be acceptable.

This is not yet in place.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

However if the Nuns dont want a sale a long (say 200yrs) leasehold at nominal rent would be acceptable.

Are you expecting religion to be extinct in 200 years time? :pac:

Does anybody know what happens when a 200 year old lease expires anyway? The original landowner is obviously dead, but would their descendants even be aware of the lease?

There were quite a few houses built around Dublin suburbia with 200 year leases in the 1960's. That was fine then, but if you're a young couple buying it now, that's 143 years left.
Still beyond a human lifespan, but starting to look more like something you would have to consider when thinking about the price. Who owns the house after the 200 years is up?

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Does anybody know what happens when a 200 year old lease expires anyway?

The topic came up in a pub conversation years back and I remember somebody, with some legal experience, saying either that, in Ireland at least, long leases were either banned, or were being considered for banning owing to nobody really knowing what to do with them when they expired. Never followed that one up, so put it down to a "thing I heard in a pub". It would make sense though since the threads of ownership over a 999-year lease would even the most energetically legalistic mind, wilt and turn.

At international level - where the parties maintain at least some respect for international law and precedent - long leases can work, as for example, in the case of the return of Hong Kong in 1997 back to the Chinese mainland government at the expiration of a 99-year lease, agreed following the enactment of previous treaties. So far as I'm aware, the Chinese have broadly adhered to the post-handover arrangements which were agreed prior to 1997 in the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1994.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

..the case of the return of Hong Kong in 1997 back to the Chinese mainland government at the expiration of a 99-year lease

That may have been helped along by the fact that China had become militarily stronger, and Britain was getting out of the empire business anyway.

An interesting thing happened recently; China leased a bit of Sri Lanka for 99 years. I wonder if the Sri Lankans will ever get that back. After all, land belongs to the people who live there IMO, and that particular piece of land will soon be full of Chinese people.

The situation in Ireland I think is complicated by the fact that pre-independence ground rents are generally considered an unenforceable and unjust relic of the foreign oppressor. Whereas the 1960's agreements won't have that particular escape clause.

Peregrinus

Don't quote me on this, but I think the creation of new long leases of residential property is now forbidden by law. Even before it was forbidden, the leaseholder had a right to buy out the freehold for a certain multiple of the annual ground rent, so the likelihood of the vacant freehold ever reverting to the freeholder was remote.

SFAIK there's no legal obstacle to the creation of a long lease of non-residential property. Once you have granted a 200-year lease at a nominal rent, however, the present value of your residual interest in the land is negligible, so you'll usually be receptive to any reasonable offer for the freehold interest. But, in theory, if you sat on the freehold interest, in two hundred years time your descendants would find themselves the proud owners of a vacant, derelict, obsolete hospital. (Unless legislation is passed some time in the next two centuries to give long leases of commercial property the same treatment that long leases of residential property already have.)

I'm guessing, but the issue here may be that the land belongs to a charitable foundation, and the charity's own constitution, or the terms on which the land was acquired by the charity, may forbid sale or disposal. So the long lease may be a way of transferring substantial ownership of the site to the hospital board without violating the terms that bind the charity.

gctest50

Deleted User wrote: »

Depends on the terms and this article says that all is still up in the air. If you build a house on somebody elses land, you dont effectively own it.
However if the Nuns dont want a sale a long (say 200yrs) leasehold at nominal rent would be acceptable.

This is not yet in place.

200 years isn't long

Arthur knew how to do it :

https://www.guinness-storehouse.com/en/faq

Is the 9,000 year lease still valid?

The 9,000 year lease signed in 1759 was for a four-acre brewery site. Today, the brewery has expanded to cover over 50 acres. The 1759 lease is no longer valid as the company purchased the lands outright many years ago. So don't worry, we're not planning on going anywhere.

Granted though :

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

SFAIK there's no legal obstacle to the creation of a long lease of non-residential property. ...
I'm guessing, but the issue here may be that the land belongs to a charitable foundation, and the charity's own constitution, or the terms on which the land was acquired by the charity, may forbid sale or disposal. So the long lease may be a way of transferring substantial ownership of the site to the hospital board without violating the terms that bind the charity.

In that case, it should be possible to set the ground rent at a peppercorn or nominal value, and also to insert a clause into the lease such that the state is entitled to buy out the freehold at the end of the lease, at a multiple of the ground rent, ie 200 peppercorns.

Looking at this from the bright side, it avoids the state having to pay compensation to the order, which would have to equal the full commercial value of the site.
If the religious order are willing to forego that cash, but genuinely intend that the site be passed into state ownership, then they should be commended for their "public spiritedness" and some monument or plaque should be erected in the new hospital to remember them.

MrPudding

The NSS in the UK seems to think they are selling the land to the government now...

MrP

recedite

I think Keith Porteous Wood of the NSS has not quite got all his facts right.
And is a little over-optimistic about this current govt.
He probably saw a photo of Leo and that Canadian guy, Justin, frolicking in the Phoenix Park, and took his cue from that.

After too many unrealised promises of secularisation from previous Irish governments, this latest administration is not just making secular noises but backing them up with tangible action