Sisters of Charity purportedly gift land to the State

David Quinn was just on RTE Drive-time news, saying the question of whom owned the site the new NMH is proposed to be built on should be put to James Menton and one other director of the SVHG he named so people can know who the actual site owner is: the order or the SVHG. I regret there was only one mention of the name of the woman-director of SVHG and I missed the chance to note and type it here.

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

If they end up CPOing it, it will be an immense failure of the last two governments. A unnecessary massive bill and a massive delay. I don't know who deserves more blame, the opposition for driving this, or the government for a massive failure in communication or the protest groups who should have thought this through.

If it was sold for agricultural prices through CPO (I guess half a million) it is the time delay that is a killer. Takes at least a year.

The protest groups should have thought this through?
I do sometimes wonder what lens you view the world through.

Protests groups - as you term them though it does include political parties like the Soc Dems - did think this through. And from day one explained why it was a very very bad idea.
But, as usual, when the strength of feeling becomes blinding obvious LV's FG party discover they are concerned.

The govt who agreed this deal either didn't think it through or are so out of touch with the zeitgeist they seriously miscalculated how the majority of the Irish electorate have had enough of roseries anywhere next or near ovaries in our publicly funded healthcare system..
The Sisters of Charity have form and their M.O. suggests they knew exactly what they were doing.

Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: »

It has been reported widely that the commercial value of the land is in the region of 100/200 million. CPO must pay the market value of the site, and anyway can only be done if it can be established that it is necessary and proportionate. Good luck proving that in an instance where free use of the land is being offered.

I would also suggest that "proving" that prime land in D4 is worth zero will be an uphill battle also.

If they end up CPOing it, it will be an immense failure of the last two governments. A unnecessary massive bill and a massive delay. I don't know who deserves more blame, the opposition for driving this, or the government for a massive failure in communication or the protest groups who should have thought this through.

UOTE=Hotblack Desiato;117473938]You continue to state this but it is groundless. The site has zero development value.[/QUOTE]

If it was sold for agricultural prices through CPO (I guess half a million) it is the time delay that is a killer. Takes at least a year.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You continue to state this but it is groundless. The site has zero development value.

It has been reported widely that the commercial value of the land is in the region of 100/200 million. CPO must pay the market value of the site, and anyway can only be done if it can be established that it is necessary and proportionate. Good luck proving that in an instance where free use of the land is being offered.

I would also suggest that "proving" that prime land in D4 is worth zero will be an uphill battle also.

Hotblack Desiato

Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: »

CPO is probably the only way the state will get the land now. This will be hundreds of millions more

You continue to state this but it is groundless. The site has zero development value.

Hotblack Desiato

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Even if they wanted to make it catholic they wouldn't have the voting power.

So who does have the voting power then?

The whole saga is just charging at windmills for political gain. Sadly there is zero risk of any Catholic management at the new NMH. This is all set in stone in company law years ago.

I think it's apparent that you haven't a clue and are talking through your hat.

And what's with the "sadly"? Haven't the women of Ireland suffered enough through catholic church control of reproductive health services?

I see Varadkar has called the Sisters "selfless" and has called for people to stop "demonising" them. He is right, but I question his sincerity.

Here is my prediction; because it has now been outright stated that abortions will take place at the hospital the sisters will be unable to sell the land, even if they conceivably could have before (doubtful). His Holiness Pope Francis has recently put into place considerable reforms about the alienation of church land in order to address corruption (church land being sold at knockdown prices etc.). The Sisters already knew of the difficulty in getting permission to sell the land, never-mind to "give it away". This was the rationale for the rather convoluted "charity and lease" structure. This would have put enough distance between the sisters and the actions at the hospital for them to have "clean hands" on the matter even though unethical (in their view) procedures would take place. This approach has all but been torpedoed now. CPO is probably the only way the state will get the land now. This will be hundreds of millions more, and it looks like the NMH will now be another omnishambles like the children's hospital. I think it will be "delayed" in order for reports to be done on alternative suitable sites.

Am I naive, or would it not have made more sense to build a massive children's and maternity hospital together?

aloyisious wrote: »

It's seems they are NOT poor [in as far as wealth and being mendicant go] and the order gifted the site to the new SVHG for the purpose of running the new NMH as part of the integrated St Vincent's Hospital operating within the SVHG. The SVHG board, which will include persons appointed by the order, will be in charge of all the hospitals on the St Vincent's site AND St Michaels Hospital in Dun Laoghaire. The wording in the St Vincent's letter from the board of the SVHG to the Dep't of Health [IMO] were not carelessly chosen words where it comes to the group's plans on governance at the whole hospital inclusive of the planned new on-site NMH.

They have no wealth that would make them wealthy. Everything they own is held in common. The new SVHG board is heavily influenced by the current Vincent board whom the sisters originally built of course but it is not Catholic and its not going to be controlled by the sisters. The make of the different boards is online. You can see their credentials. Even if they wanted to make it catholic they wouldn't have the voting power. The whole saga is just charging at windmills for political gain. Sadly there is zero risk of any Catholic management at the new NMH. This is all set in stone in company law years ago.

It is your namesakes patron day today, patron saint of plague victims.

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

On an aside, if the tubal ligation was refused on ethical and not medical grounds, I suppose vasectomies would be on the ethical NO list as well at St Vincent's public [whatever about the Private] hospital.

Catholic hospitals generally don't perform vasectomies (at least, as a contraceptive technique) for the same reason that they don't perform sterilisations on women.

In practice this is less of an issue since the procedure is a much simpler one, routinely performed at specialist clinics. Someone looking for a vasectomy generally doesn't head off to a hospital in the first place, so the reluctance of some hospitals to provide the service doesn't present the same problems as a reluctance to perform female sterilisations.

lazygal wrote: »

If you're in serious trouble as a patient of Holles St you're taken to St Vincent's. I know several friends referred by HS in emergency situations like this. So there is a link there already. I had chosen to have tubal ligation during a section, something St Vincent's won't do.
There has to be some sort of ripping off of the band aid when it comes to the State funding services it doesn't control to the tune of billions of euro every year.

On an aside, if the tubal ligation was refused on ethical and not medical grounds, I suppose vasectomies would be on the ethical NO list as well at St Vincent's public [whatever about the Private] hospital.

Claire Byrne is about to step into the RTE input on the new NMH.

EDIT: listening to the CB show, according to one of the guests, it seems that the order has NOT yet gifted the land to anyone or any body set up at their behest for the purpose of operating the possibly completed new NMH as part of the overall linked together hospitals on the site. Some-one else here wrote that the order had not gifted the site to anyone so that person is right. SVHG apparently does NOT own or control the site per se, yet.

Yareli Helpful Clock wrote: »

It's not a few "edge" cases though. People are routinely gouged for parking (or worse) when attending hospital, more often than not in distressing circumstances. A charge for parking is a barrier in the way of healthcare, which can be very difficult for people to afford.

Lots of people have challenges with paying for transport. The ones who have most challenges don't have cars, and can't afford the expensive running costs associated with cars, so they travel by public transport and bikes. Do you really think it's a good idea to subsidise the transport costs of the better off segments of society at the expense of others?

And btw, as soon as you make parking free, it gets abused and becomes largely unavailable to the intended audience.

lazygal

If you're in serious trouble as a patient of Holles St you're taken to St Vincent's. I know several friends referred by HS in emergency situations like this. So there is a link there already. I had chosen to have tubal ligation during a section, something St Vincent's won't do.
There has to be some sort of ripping off of the band aid when it comes to the State funding services it doesn't control to the tune of billions of euro every year.

FuzzyThinking wrote: »

What I don’t get is that basically the proposed operator appears to be unable to operate the services due to ethos issues. The contracts should be torn up on that basis and a new arrangement made.

Why are we going down the road of basically being shoehorned into yet another religious hospital, against what seems to be the mainstream political will.

Seems the state has Stockholm Syndrome.

From a voter and citizens’ point of view I just constantly see a state that cares about sponsors and powerful vested interests’ needs being satisfied, far more than about delivery of public services.

It seems to be how we do health and education - check what the ‘sponsors’ want, take our taxes and sure what has it got to do with the public - the people actually paying for it?

It’s like we have drifted into running everything in the interests of what are basically outsourcers / service providers, rather than focusing on delivery of public services.

The tail is wagging the dog.

It's the integration with other medical services and procedures available at the main public hospital already on site that seem to be the reason the Dep't chose St Vincent's as the site suitable. It's a direct run down the road [approx 3 miles] from Holles St NMH & south city centre so it may have been presumed the best choice. It's on the N11 [+ access to the M50]. As a stand-alone hospital, Holles St is of uncertain worth as an NMH where facilities are concerned.

It seems everyone thought certain other people would be reasonable where it came to providing decent modern medical care for women in terms of maternity hospital services and didn't pay proper attention to the arguments of the religious-minded where it comes to what Holles St ethos and medical practicalities would transfer with its patients & staff to the proposed new NMH.

What I don’t get is that basically the proposed operator appears to be unable to operate the services due to ethos issues. The contracts should be torn up on that basis and a new arrangement made.

Why are we going down the road of basically being shoehorned into yet another religious hospital, against what seems to be the mainstream political will.

Seems the state has Stockholm Syndrome.

From a voter and citizens’ point of view I just constantly see a state that cares about sponsors and powerful vested interests’ needs being satisfied, far more than about delivery of public services.

It seems to be how we do health and education - check what the ‘sponsors’ want, take our taxes and sure what has it got to do with the public - the people actually paying for it?

It’s like we have drifted into running everything in the interests of what are basically outsourcers / service providers, rather than focusing on delivery of public services.

The tail is wagging the dog.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Well they live by a vow of poverty actually so they are poor although that is not their their title. As far as I understand St Vincent’s Holdings CLG has no sisters on the board, so I dont think they have any power to gift it anymore or wont have the power soon. I suspect even before they only had limited power.

It's seems they are NOT poor [in as far as wealth and being mendicant go] and the order gifted the site to the new SVHG for the purpose of running the new NMH as part of the integrated St Vincent's Hospital operating within the SVHG. The SVHG board, which will include persons appointed by the order, will be in charge of all the hospitals on the St Vincent's site AND St Michaels Hospital in Dun Laoghaire. The wording in the St Vincent's letter from the board of the SVHG to the Dep't of Health [IMO] were not carelessly chosen words where it comes to the group's plans on governance at the whole hospital inclusive of the planned new on-site NMH.

Would it be cheaper and more logical to just build it at a HSE owned site?

I don’t see this fight ending.

If you look at what was done with CUMH in Cork, that should be possible in Dublin, but isn’t due to the dominance of religious hospitals, or at least it isn’t because the Department of Health is engaging with them rather than just building the damn hospital itself.

Why not just put it at Connolly Hospital Blanchardstown? As far as I’m aware that is owned by the HSE.

Or, would Tallaght or Beaumont be more appropriate if ethos is going to be a problem?

Both seem to have much more space?

It looks to me like we’ll have wasted money and prevented services from happening in a timely manner by pursuing this battle at all.

Leo has mentioned the St Vincent's letter in his RTE news interview about the sale of the land, saying he's aware of it but he's open to discussion of buying the site where the new NMH is to be built on from either the order or the SVHG. He said the governance issue is important and [separately] that the Gov't would like to have a director appointed to represent it/the state on the new SVHG board [in different words used by him - go to RTE podcast for the precise wording]. .He also intimated that the new NMH being built on the St Vincent's site is not a certainty. Catherine Murphy is speaking right now on RTE news about the ownership of the new NMH site.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well that's certainly an interesting spin.

"It's not the (not actually poor but quite wealthy) poor sisters who are clinging on to the land originally either donated to them or purchased out of donations it's the management of Vincent's put in place by... who did put them in place? I seem to recall high ranking clerics have some say in that.

But never mind who appointed them, the story is the nuns would gift int tomorrow but the bean pushers won't let them because the books take precedence over charity even for the Sisters of .. um... Charity. "

Not the stunning defence you seem to think it is

Well they live by a vow of poverty actually so they are poor although that is not their their title. As far as I understand St Vincent’s Holdings CLG has no sisters on the board, so I dont think they have any power to gift it anymore or wont have the power soon. I suspect even before they only had limited power.

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Of course they haven't. Because the accountants and doctors who run St Vincent's wouldn't want that. If the land was given directly to the state than they would lose this important new hospital. It is not that the sisters want to have influence, its the management of St Vincent's want to have influence, whether it is logical on health and economics grounds I do not know but it is certainly nothing to do with the poor sisters, who have been unfairly blamed. This was all reported extensively in the press but the press stopped discussing it when far fetched ideas about Catholic conspiracy started to reach a zenith.

Well that's certainly an interesting spin.

"It's not the (not actually poor but quite wealthy) poor sisters who are clinging on to the land originally either donated to them or purchased out of donations it's the management of Vincent's put in place by... who did put them in place? I seem to recall high ranking clerics have some say in that.

But never mind who appointed them, the story is the nuns would gift int tomorrow but the bean pushers won't let them because the books take precedence over charity even for the Sisters of .. um... Charity. "

Not the stunning defence you seem to think it is

aloyisious wrote: »

RTE had it's usual mention of what's in the papers a few minutes ago and mentioned an article on the NMH. According to RTE's mention of the article [which I have not yet seen or read] the nuns say they have never been approached by anyone and asked if they would sell the land to anyone. It seems tomorrows RTE 1's ONE PM news/interview/discussion programme will also have the NMH up for discussion by the people on it's panel.

Of course they haven't. Because the accountants and doctors who run St Vincent's wouldn't want that. If the land was given directly to the state than they would lose this important new hospital. It is not that the sisters want to have influence, its the management of St Vincent's want to have influence, whether it is logical on health and economics grounds I do not know but it is certainly nothing to do with the poor sisters, who have been unfairly blamed. This was all reported extensively in the press but the press stopped discussing it when far fetched ideas about Catholic conspiracy started to reach a zenith.

Considering the absolute mess they made of the National Children’s Hospital planning and development, nothing would surprise me about the level of ability to walk into brick walls and be unaware of impending problems.

However, if the state doesn’t stand strong on this, it will be letting a lot of people down very badly. I don’t think they quite comprehend how fed people are with this church-state corporatism nonsense.

It will definitely impact how I vote.

Varadkar is taking people for fools. How he gets away with pretending to be shocked about something he has know about for years and his government and party was involved in/responsible for is beyond me. He keeps commenting about things as if he was some third party spectator and not a central character. Why does the media let him away with it?

The Irish Times article has the order denying any contact at any point with either the state or the government to discuss the purchase of the site. Separately the St Vincent's Hospital Group [the Co set up in order for the deal between the order and the state to proceed to fruition for a new NMH or the health of Irish Women] said "at no stage was any proposal or approach to sell the land, meaningful or otherwise, received or considered by the board of SVHG.

However the article says the Dep't of Health is in possession of a letter sent from St Vincent's suggests a sale had been broached. A section of the St Vincent's letter of May 2017, states separation of ownership or governance would disrupt care for patients. "this is why St Vincent's Hospital Group cannot countenance any any sale or lease of part of the land on site, or any separate ownership of a hospital on site. It states its concerns on ownership stem from the operation of a "safe, integrated system of governance and medical protocols".

The two separate items in the letter, Governance AND Medical Protocols, are worth keeping in mind seeing as how the order has the right to appoint its own directors to the St Vincent's Hospital Group Board, despite it apparently having taken steps away from the way the new NMH would be operated [which even people debating here from the orders POV have said is the position of the order].

I looked for details of the other hospital on the site [St Vincent's Private Hospital] curious to see if it had separate governance and protocols and found it was founded in '74 by the order and is listed as part of the SVHG. Mention is made of a St Vincent's Healthcare Group as running the main St Vincent's hospital as well as the private hospital. I don't know if this earlier [2002] SVHG is still in existence or has any legal connection with the newer St Vincent's Hospital Group connected with the NMH deal. Acronym's, being similar, can be useful in hiding things.

handlemaster

What of the redress board and compension thst was agreed to be paid by religious orders ... why is this issue still going around in circles. The state the people the tax payers should have this land no strings. I am sure if you look about it was given free initially by the people to the order as was most religious land.

The only thing I can conclude is either the state is shockingly naïve, or wants to give a large donation to the convent.

RTE had it's usual mention of what's in the papers a few minutes ago and mentioned an article on the NMH. According to RTE's mention of the article [which I have not yet seen or read] the nuns say they have never been approached by anyone and asked if they would sell the land to anyone. It seems tomorrows RTE 1's ONE PM news/interview/discussion programme will also have the NMH up for discussion by the people on it's panel.

Hotblack Desiato

Fk sake Leo, campaign groups have only been telling you this for several years now

Brid Smith spoke in the Dail today on the issue of SVHG and claimed that the order can appoint directors to the SVHG, despite their walking away from the running of ST Vincent's. Leo Varadkar replied by saying the handing over of it to a private charity which would lease it to the state for 99 years was not handing it over to the state. Brid replied by repeating her point that the nuns can appoint directors to the new SVHG. Leo replied that the old and new hospitals will be physically linked and that he had not been aware that some women's health procedures might not be provided there as they were provided in other hospitals.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The terms were by the gov. The extent that pushback influenced the findings is highly unclear and is based on a single vague statement.

Was there a commission of inquiry into the SVHG and the deal involving the order or is some other thread topic being referenced above?