Legal right of the state to religious-owned schools?

I suspect they don't have much, but that they have rights of some sort to state-funded buildings built upon religious-owned school land?

However, over on the Peggy McCarthy thread posters are contending that the state would have some right to seize religious-owned schools or use CPOs to buy the schools at a nominal value. Would the whole abuse stuff have any bearing on the price the state could pay?

Given that public donations were usually the source of the funding for these schools, does the state have any right to them legally? Is there any legal way they could finally purchase all these schools for below the value the schools might get from selling them to a property developer, for instance? Has anybody put a value on how much it would cost for the state to bring all the schools into state ownership?

Peregrinus

It would cost a lot. And that would represent a massive transfer of state resources into the trouser pockets of the bishops. So we might question whether this would be a wise policy.

The position here is:

1. SFAIK, national school sites are mostly owned by (trustees for) Catholic dioceses.

2. The construction of schools on them is state-funded. This doesn't mean that the state owns the school buildings, though. In general, the ownership of buildings erected on land is not separate from the ownership of the land. So if I own a plot of land, and you spend money improving that land by putting up a building on it, the upshot is that I own a much-improved plot of land, thanks very much.

3. Why would the state spend money improving church land? What do they get in return, if not ownership of the buildings? What they get is that the land is made available, at no cost, for the running of a national school. The state doesn't own the buildings, but it pays no rent for the use of the land or the buildings, and it gets a commitment that the buildings (and the land) will be used for the purpose of a national school. So, while the state contributes significant costs towards building, the church contributes a plot of land which it could otherwise sell or rent on commercial terms but from which, under this arrangement, it will get no money at all.

4. I'm open to correction here, but I think that in recent years the arrangements have included a commitment that, if the building ceases to be used as a school, the buildiings grant is repayable. Previously this wasn't included because nobody really contemplated that schools might become disused, or they reckoned that if and when that happened, ownership issues could be addressed in the arrangements for the replacement school.

People talk about CPOing church-owned national schools, but I think this would be very difficult. Constitutionally, schools (whether religious or not) can only be CPO'd for "necessary works of public utility". While running a national school is arguably a work of public utility, it's obviously not "necessary" for the state to acquire the buildings so that a national school can be run in them if, in fact, a national school is already running in them.

If you could CPO a school you'd have to pay full market value. There's room for argument about whether there should be some abatement to reflect the contribution already made by financing the erection of the building, or the limitation in value that results from the fact that the land can only be used for a school. It would end up in the courts but, on any view, it would represent a substantial transfer of funds from the state to the bishops.

On edit: Oh, and as for the "whole abuse stuff", I don't think it has much bearing on this issue. Contributions to the redress compensation aren't owed by the Catholic church as an amorphous entity; they're owed by the (I think) 18 religious orders who entered into an indemnity agreement with the State in respect of abuse claims arising in relation to the various institutions that they operated - orphanages, industrial schools, secondary schools, etc. A couple of these religious orders might own and be patrons of a couple of national schools and, in those cases, the question of setting CPO compensation off against redress contributions outstanding might arise. But most national schools are owned/patronised by the various dioceses, not by religious orders, and the dioceses have no redress contribution obligations, since they weren't part of the redress scheme and have no indemnity from the state.

Victor

I'll answer these out of sequence.

Deleted User wrote: »

Given that public donations were usually the source of the funding for these schools, does the state have any right to them legally?

Public donations usually only provided a modest proportion of the funds when providing education. The main costs - construction and teaching salaries are covered by the state (likely since the founding of the national school system in the 19th century). Admittedly, free education past age 15 only came about in the 1960s.

In the 1990s, the local funding element (public donations and funds from school patrons) were typically expected to provide €25,000-50,000 (sometimes waived) for a school that might have cost several million to build.

The Department of Education & Skills provides capitation grants towards other expenses, which are supplemented by 'contributions', donations and in some schools, fees. In the overall scheme of funding for education, these are modest. I would worry however as to the transparency of some of these funds, e.g. patrons that have operations in more than one country spreading funds across those countries.

Deleted User wrote: »

I suspect they don't have much, but that they have rights of some sort to state-funded buildings built upon religious-owned school land?

The Department was meant to secure liens on grant-aided schools buildings, but often did not.

Deleted User wrote: »

However, over on the Peggy McCarthy thread posters are contending that the state would have some right to seize religious-owned schools

There are constitutional protection against the state seizing private property. The state would need to declare an emergency to bypass this protection. Such a declaration would be unlikely to survive a court challenge.

Deleted User wrote: »

... posters are contending that the state would have some right ... use CPOs to buy the schools at a nominal value.

See previous paragraph. Note that some people take "nominal value" to mean something like €1, others take it to mean 'full value less profit'.

Deleted User wrote: »

Would the whole abuse stuff have any bearing on the price the state could pay?

No, although any moneys owed could be offset.

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there any legal way they could finally purchase all these schools for below the value the schools might get from selling them to a property developer, for instance?

The state could seek agreement for lower value, but this may be difficult to achieve - charities are obliges to protect their assets.

Some schools, based on size or location, may have almost no value to a developer.

Has anybody put a value on how much it would cost for the state to bring all the schools into state ownership?

3,000+ schools at an average of a few million a piece (yes, there are some very small schools).

Peregrinus wrote: »

1. SFAIK, national school sites are mostly owned by (trustees for) Catholic dioceses.

I strongly suspect that in many cases, this land was obtained for less than market price and may have been grant-aided as well.

Peregrinus wrote: »

3. Why would the state spend money improving church land? What do they get in return, if not ownership of the buildings? What they get is that the land is made available, at no cost, for the running of a national school. The state doesn't own the buildings, but it pays no rent for the use of the land or the buildings, and it gets a commitment that the buildings (and the land) will be used for the purpose of a national school. So, while the state contributes significant costs towards building, the church contributes a plot of land which it could otherwise sell or rent on commercial terms but from which, under this arrangement, it will get no money at all.

This may be an overly-benign way of looking at things. State endowment of religion through negligence and willfulness might be another.

Peregrinus wrote: »

4. I'm open to correction here, but I think that in recent years the arrangements have included a commitment that, if the building ceases to be used as a school, the buildiings grant is repayable.

It may be more nuanced than that, but yes.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Previously this wasn't included because nobody really contemplated that schools might become disused, or they reckoned that if and when that happened, ownership issues could be addressed in the arrangements for the replacement school.

An alternative explanation may be that ministers and taoisigh were inclined to kiss the bishops' rings.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

. . . I strongly suspect that in many cases, this land was obtained for less than market price and may have been grant-aided as well.

Yeah, but so what? Remember, the trusts are charitable trusts, and charitable trusts regularly get property given to them for free or on preferential terms, and they regularly get various forms of state support. Nothing inherently sinister in either of those things. The fact is that, regardless of how they came by it, the charitable trusts are now obliged to use the property for their charitable purposes, which they do by making it available, at no charge, for the running of a national school.

Victor wrote: »

This may be an overly-benign way of looking at things. State endowment of religion through negligence and willfulness might be another.

Or a bit of both, of course. This needn't be a simple binary.

But, remember, the "endowment of religion" that's at work here wasn't giving money to churches. The churches in fact got no money out of this; while property they owned was substantially enhanced they couldn't sell that property, rent it out, or indeed do anything with it except allow the Dept of Ed to run a national school in it for free so they didn't derive, or expect to derive, any financial benefit from the enhancement of their property. They may have put very little money into it, but they got absolutely none out of it so, in purely financial terms, it was not a good deal for the church.

No, what they got out of it was involvement in the running of the primary school system - initially as managers but more recently as "patrons". What they got was involvement, and a fair degree of control, in an activity that they wanted to be involved in, and to be influential in.

That's why analysing this problem in terms of the enhancement of church property assets is probably unhelpful. It was never really about that. And, if people have a problem with the current arrangements, I don't think their problem is really with the ownership of school assets, or the enhancement of their value, or where that enhancement ultimately accrues; it's with the patronage arrangments. Unwind the patronage arrangements, and I think the property issues become a lot easier (and probably cheaper) to solve.

Victor wrote: »

An alternative explanation may be that ministers and taoisigh were inclined to kiss the bishops' rings.

Well, again, could be a bit of both. But, remember, the bishops weren't really about enriching themselves with a long-term scheme to acquire redundant but hopefully still valuable school buildings; they were all about influencing the schools while they were still running. If you really wanted to kiss the bishop's ring you wouldn't do it by not bothering about the lien; you'd do it by maximising the patronage role. The bishops would always prefer the latter to the former.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, remember, the "endowment of religion" that's at work here wasn't giving money to churches. The churches in fact got no money out of this;

I wouldn't be confident that there was no creative accounting.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

I wouldn't be confident that there was no creative accounting.

I would. The Dept of Education spends all the money, remember; it doesn't pass through through churchy hands at any point. And if the Dept was paying money to the bishops for the provision of school property it would be hard to conceal that from the auditors.

hullaballoo

I don't think it's quite as economically black and white as you say, Peregrinus.

The RCC and or religious orders (used interchangeably here) who provided these sites for national schools stood and do stand to gain an awful lot financially as a result of their control over national schools. It may seem like a bum deal from the perspective of obtaining poor value for their property at the outset (and indeed, tying its own hands wrt those properties).

But the main business of the church is evangelism and early indoctrination is clearly very beneficial to the church in terms of its own financial future.

Of course, it didn't play the long game very well because it completely failed to recognise that abusing and raping children would be damaging to its purposes in the long term and failed to respond in any way appropriately to this problem (or at all in a way that might allow some face to be saved).

But leaving the abuses behind for a minute, the church would but for its own wrongdoings have continued to have a large flock of faithful regularly contributing their tithes to its coffers for generations as a result of having "given up" swathes of land for national schools.

Undoubtedly science and reason would have had an impact on religion in any event but imo, nothing like the effect that the abuses have had.

Mr. Incognito

I'd levy a tax on them until the money was repaid at a 35% rate.

Simple as that.

Charties that owe the state money should not be tax exempt.

Under His Eye

Or strip them of their charity status.

Marcusm

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I'd levy a tax on them until the money was repaid at a 35% rate.

Simple as that.

Charties that owe the state money should not be tax exempt.

The issue is that in many cases the relevant religious orders have in recent decades transferred the relevant property into trusts and especially the Edmund arcs Schools Trust which holds a lot more than former CBS property. Incredibly difficult to set those transfers aside at this stage. Look at the position via a vis Clonkeen College and the financing arrangements for St Vincent’s Private Hospital to see how public funds have been used as security or indirectly to generate benefits not solely for the common good.

Carawaystick

Peregrinus wrote: »

I would. The Dept of Education spends all the money, remember; it doesn't pass through through churchy hands at any point. And if the Dept was paying money to the bishops for the provision of school property it would be hard to conceal that from the auditors.

The money does get transferred to churchy hands, the capitation grant gets paid to the school's BoM, which is controlled by the bish

I'm less certain how salaries are paid in churchy schools, but in VEC run schools the VEC got the money and paid the teachers,
I'd imagine the same happens for churchy schools, but I have no direct experience of that.

Manach

As well the ECHR has various aspects that would block any quick seizure of assets, especially as it relates to education assets. Given a whole scale devestiment would run afoul of Article 2 / Protocol 11 for parents wishing to keep religious schooling, then this would likely be escalated to Strasbourg.

Just wondering did the British state fund the purchase of the land that any of these schools were built upon before 1922? If so, could the Irish state as the inheritor state have rights to that land?

Also, Diarmaid Ferriter makes the following point about state ownership of St Vincent's Hospital:

But how was the modern St Vincent’s built? From 1930, hospital sweepstakes were authorised by the State to raise funds by means of sweeps held on major English horse races. In 1933 the hospitals commission was set up to advise the minister for health on the administration of these funds. The sweep on the 1931 derby was the first one in which St Vincent’s participated and it received just under £21,000; from the first four sweepstakes it participated in it received a total of just over £94,000.

According to F.O.C Meenan, in his history of St Vincent’s Hospital, “Up to 1969, St Vincent’s, Stephen’s Green [the original site of the hospital] received a total of £2.1 million and St Vincent’s hospital, Elm Park, received £3.1 million” from the sweepstake funds. The nuns bought the 50-acre Elm Park site, where the hospital now is, in 1934 for £24,000. Contemporary newspapers reported that the plan was “to erect a huge new hospital on the site” with the nuns “negotiating with the hospitals commission for an allocation of the sweepstake proceeds”. It was to be a long road before that hospital was ready; with the first patients not admitted until January 1970.

With the state, via the state-regulated lottery, giving millions to St Vincent's it seems stunningly negligent of the Irish state to put all those millions on to land which cost the comparatively small figure of £24,000 for a private religious organisation to buy in 1934. How could this ever have been considered a good deal to use state money to develop land owned by a private enterprise?
Presumably, the exact same thing was happening under British rule, and the Irish state merely continued using state money to fund these private religious schools (and hospitals)? Or what, if any, was the change in state funding of religious schools post-1922?

Even in this thread, somebody is saying the state failed to assert state ownership over parts of the school property via liens. In a society where money wasn't plentiful how on earth was this negligence by senior civil servants and politicians acceptable? Has any commission of inquiry investigated this? Could this failure to assert state funding for large parts of the property be used to reduce the price the state would pay to bring these schools into state ownership? Or is there a statute of limitation on recording such state financing of religious schools? Lastly, if somebody had an accident on religious-owned schools, has the state ever been sued? If so, could this be used as a record of some sort of ownership in that they are liable enough for the property to be sued?

Victor

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'm less certain how salaries are paid in churchy schools, but in VEC run schools the VEC got the money and paid the teachers, I'd imagine the same happens for churchy schools, but I have no direct experience of that.

Most teachers are employed by and paid directly by the Department. Exceptions would be ETB teachers and teachers in excess of teacher:pupil ratios.

Under His Eye

Under His Eye wrote: »

Or strip them of their charity status.

That state subsidy of property-rich religious orders could be reviewed for sure. Also, legislators could surely ensure the price of the land does not get too expensive by refusing to rezone school lands as development land for housing? If the religious institutions can only sell the schools as educational facilities they're going to have a very restricted market, and thus get a lower price. Would refusing to rezone school lands to residential lands infringe any property rights the religious institutions might claim?

Somebody mentioned Clonkeen College already. I sense there would definitely be extensive political support in legislating so schools cannot be sold off like that to property developers. The larger fee-charging schools in south Dublin would have a combined value of a couple of billion euro - St Michael's College in Ailesbury Road alone would be worth a crazy price - even though the vast majority of their costs are borne by the state (e.g. most teachers in those fee-charging schools are paid by the taxpayer).

Victor

Deleted User wrote: »

That state subsidy of property-rich religious orders could be reviewed for sure. Also, legislators could surely ensure the price of the land does not get too expensive by refusing to rezone school lands as development land for housing? If the religious institutions can only sell the schools as educational facilities they're going to have a very restricted market, and thus get a lower price. Would refusing to rezone school lands to residential lands infringe any property rights the religious institutions might claim?

Dublin City Council tried to do something like this. If I'm correct, it was held to infringe on property rights, as it was done selectively.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

Dublin City Council tried to do something like this. If I'm correct, it was held to infringe on property rights, as it was done selectively.

Refusing to rezone lands in order to devalue them so that you could compulsorily acquire them more cheaply would certainly be legally very problematic, to put it no higher.

However, refusing to rezone them because you want them to remain in their current use so as to continue meeting the community's educational needs would be much easier to defend.

But, as already mentioned, if the object is to run a school on the site, it's going to be very hard to CPO the property on the grounds of "necessity", since there's already a school running on the site. But if you close the school, or announce that the school is closing, so that you can try to CPO the site, a refusal to rezone the land on the basis that it needs to remain in educational use begins to look oppressive. If it needs to remain in educational use why are you closing the school?

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Just wondering did the British state fund the purchase of the land that any of these schools were built upon before 1922? If so, could the Irish state as the inheritor state have rights to that land?

Also, Diarmaid Ferriter makes the following point about state ownership of St Vincent's Hospital:



With the state, via the state-regulated lottery, giving millions to St Vincent's it seems stunningly negligent of the Irish state to put all those millions on to land which cost the comparatively small figure of £24,000 for a private religious organisation to buy in 1934. How could this ever have been considered a good deal to use state money to develop land owned by a private enterprise?
Presumably, the exact same thing was happening under British rule, and the Irish state merely continued using state money to fund these private religious schools (and hospitals)? Or what, if any, was the change in state funding of religious schools post-1922?

Even in this thread, somebody is saying the state failed to assert state ownership over parts of the school property via liens. In a society where money wasn't plentiful how on earth was this negligence by senior civil servants and politicians acceptable? Has any commission of inquiry investigated this? Could this failure to assert state funding for large parts of the property be used to reduce the price the state would pay to bring these schools into state ownership? Or is there a statute of limitation on recording such state financing of religious schools? Lastly, if somebody had an accident on religious-owned schools, has the state ever been sued? If so, could this be used as a record of some sort of ownership in that they are liable enough for the property to be sued?

£24,000 was not a "comparatively small figure" in 1934. And if, as you say, the nuns bought the property and yet, after the purchase, were still in negotiation "for an allocation of the sweepstakes proceeds", there seems no reason to think that the purchase of the site was publicly funded. Elm Park served as the order's novitiate for about 35 years until the hospital was opened. Construction of a hospital on the site didn't even begin unil 1956, mroe than 20 years after the purchase.