Sir, – Why does the Government find opposition to the NMH being built on leased land so confusing?
Build publicly owned hospitals on public land, where they can be free from any (however remote) possible religious intervention.
As a State, we’ve entered our second century. It’s time to grow up. – Yours, etc,
CLAIRE BRADLEY,
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
Swords,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – This Government agreed to a firm commitment to providing a public hospital on public land, entirely free of religious or private control, under the established Sláintecare programme. This is obviously well within the remit and the ability of any national administration. Instead, it persisted on a wasteful fool’s errand in precisely the wrong direction, with predictable and humiliating results. It is now both petulantly blaming everyone else for this fiasco and trying to spin it as a success. – Yours, etc,
BEN WALSH,
Glasnevin,
Dublin 11.
Sir, – Eamon Farrell commends the timely and cost-effective manner in which St Vincent’s Private Hospital was built and suggests that perhaps the religious orders could build the National Maternity Hospital (Letters, May 5th).
It’s worth noting that St Vincent’s Healthcare Group (SVHG) used the State-funded hospital as collateral to build the private hospital. This move by SVHG gave the Bank of Ireland and Ulster Bank a claim over the taxpayer-funded public hospital if SVHG defaulted or was sold. The fallout from this was that the HSE then had to negotiate a side deal with the banks to secure an option to buy back the public hospital facilities at full market value in the event of default or closure. Considering how clandestine SVHG were about how they funded the private hospital development, it is alarming that the Government and HSE want to push ahead with building a new maternity hospital at a cost to the taxpayer of €1 billion when the full terms and conditions of the deal have not been released. – Yours, etc,
GRAINNE CONNOR,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – The original 2017 proposal for relocation of the National Maternity Hospital to the St Vincent’s campus explicitly assigned ownership of the new hospital to the Religious Sisters of Charity. Thus was triggered a haemorrhaging of public trust in the project that has never been stemmed.
The then-Master of the NMH, Dr Rhona Mahony, was supportive of that disastrous original proposal.
Instead of Dr Mahony continuing to reproach sceptics with a tone of “You just don’t get it”, perhaps she might reflect upon whether there is something about all of this that she herself doesn’t “get”, and never did? – Yours, etc,
ALAN MURPHY,
Dublin 16.
Sir, – Opponents of the project see the Catholic Church as having the powers to defy reality. The new hospital is being set up under a 299-year lease which contains water-tight covenants guaranteeing the independence of the new maternity hospital. Yet like medieval peasants, the opponents of the hospital implicitly believe in the ability of the Catholic Church to conjure up miraculous forces which empower it to interfere in the running of the hospital. The opponents prefer to trust their own prejudices rather than the assurances of all the legal experts. Is it not time for the opponents of the new hospital to bone up on land law, and to stop believing in old fairy tales? – Yours, etc,
ROBERT DUNNE,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.
Sir, – According to a report by Jennifer Bray (News, May 5th) “some Ministers asked for more time to consider the relocation before giving their approval as they did not want to be rushed”.
Given that this project has been in the pipeline for almost a decade, how much more time do they want? – Yours, etc,
TADHG McCARTHY,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – Perhaps if they renamed it the National Maternity Hospital and Abortion Clinic it might satisfy some of the Opposition politicians. It certainly seems nothing else will. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN DERMODY,
Blessington,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – Those endorsing the current proposed arrangements argue that there is precious little difference between a 299-year lease at €10 per annum and a freehold. Normally such a view would be correct as the lessor’s interest would be valued at the capital sum required to yield €10 yearly from an investment in government stock. However, it appears that the proposed arrangements provide that if legislation were to be introduced allowing for the compulsory acquisition of freeholds by the holders of such long commercial leases, then the acquisition value is to be calculated with reference to a notional rent of a staggering €850,000.
Astonishingly, the same punitive rent would apply if the State saw fit to change the use of or abandon the site at any time in the next 299 years, even were it to be under two metres of seawater. Of course, those agreeing to this preposterous arrangement will not be available to answer for their folly. Surely we owe future generations a better legacy. – Yours, etc,
TERRY GRIFFIN,
Drumcondra,
Dublin 9.
Sir, – If the State doesn’t keep strictly to the new National Maternity Hospital agreement, the taxpayer is on the hook for €850,000 a year for nearly three centuries.
What penalty will apply should the assurances of the Religious Sisters of Charity not be fulfilled? – Yours, etc,
Dr JOHN DOHERTY,
Gaoth Dobhair,
Co Dhún na nGall.