Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST UPDATE | 16 May 2022
THE CHAIR OF the St. Vincent’s Healthcare Group has said in his estimation it would be possible to remove or define the term “clinically appropriate” in the framework of the new National Maternity Hospital (NMH) before the plan goes to Cabinet tomorrow.
James Menton told an Oireachtas Committee today that this would require the engagement of all stakeholders in the project but that “it wouldn’t take a huge amount”.
The phrase is one of several issues that has caused concern among opponents of the plan, with former NMH master Dr Peter Boylan telling the same committee last week that the phrase was “a major red flag”.
The relocation of the NMH to a site on the grounds of St Vincent’s Hospital in Dublin has proved highly controversial and a previous decision on the plans two weeks ago was delayed to allow time for greater scrutiny by politicians.
A number of committee hearings took place last week in addition to today’s hearing but it is expected that a decision will be made by Cabinet tomorrow.
Speaking today in response to questions from Sinn Féin’s David Cullinane TD, Menton indicated that he felt it would be possible to remove the phrase or add an addendum to the text before it returns to Cabinet tomorrow.
“We believe so yes, I think we’ve had due consideration to the legal impact,” he said.
Any change seems unlikely however, with Taoiseach Micheál Martin telling reporters this afternoon that “we haven’t made changes to the legal documents.”
Martin said the legal documents that were agreed between the three parties – the HSE, the NMH and St Vincent’s Healthcare Group – are “very clear” and set out that all lawfully permitted services will be provided.
“Of that there can be no question,” he said.
The Taoiseach said the documents are very clear, adding that the Attorney General is “very, very clear” also.
People Before Profit TD told the committee today that a further delay should be made to allow for engagement between the parties.
‘Six years’
Menton also said today that SVHG held discussions with the Department of Health about selling the land earmarked for the NMH “five or six years ago” but not during the lifetime of the current government.
The entire controversy arises from the fact that the site of the new NMH was until recently owned by the Religious Sisters of Charity.
The religious congregation has now transferred its ownership and if the relocation plan goes ahead the State would lease the land from St. Vincent’s Healthcare Group for 299 years.
An Taoiseach has said the 299-year lease for the State is “effective ownership” but opponents of the current plan have said that the State should have full ownership of the site.
Hundreds of protesters gathered outside Leinster House on Saturday to call on the government to ensure the site of the new NMH is fully publicly owned.
Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly has said SVHG were not willing to transfer the land to the State and members of the committee therefore wrote to the group last week asking that they attend the committee.
In the Dáil last week, Donnelly was asked by Cullinane if he had asked since coming into office (in June 2020) for the land to be brought into public ownership.
Donnelly said that he had, adding that he would “prefer public ownership”.
Under intense questioning today from Social Democrats TD Róisín Shortall, the chair of SVHG said that the current government had not made such a request.
“We had discussions five or six years ago with Jim Breslin, the former Secretary General of the Department of Health,” Menton said.
Shortall: They haven’t asked you currently in the recent weeks or months? Menton: No, they haven’t.
At the Health Committee the Chair of SVHG said that the last request from the state to transfer ownership of the land to the state to build NMH was 5 years ago & by a former Sec Gen at Dept of Health. Last week the current Minister informed me that he did. Which is correct? pic.twitter.com/GEDSreZvEw
— David Cullinane T.D. (@davidcullinane) May 16, 2022
Opposition politicians have now sought clarity over when the department had most recently sought ownership of the land, with The Journal also seeking a comment from the Department of Health today.
An Taoiseach has said that it is “my understanding” that the Minister for Health had sought ownership of the land.
“It is my understanding that the Minister had gone to Vincent’s about that. Vincent’s were never of a mind to sell the entire site because of the fact that it’s a broader campus,” he said.
‘Essential’
Regardless of when such a request was made, Menton argued today that SVHG maintaining ownership of the land was “essential for best possible care”.
Menton told the that having two landowners on the same wider campus would be “very difficult, if not impossible, to manage” and that it would ”present significant risks to patient care”.
He said that this decision that ownership should be retained “goes back 10 years” and was made so there would be “no impediment that would adversely affect care”.
Alongside Menton, SVHG was also represented by a number of other board members, medical consultants and a legal advisor.
Menton told the committee that the transfer of the shareholding by the Sisters of Charity was “without any conditions” and achieved SVHG’s objective of being “truly secular”.
“SVHG is now embarked on a new course. It is lay. It is secular,” he told the committee.
The reasoning for the co-location of the new NMH alongside the existing St. Vincent’s University Hospital (SVUH) is that it would allow women and patients of the NMH to be provided with additional care if required.
It was argued by proponents of the plan last week that a full transfer of site ownership to the State would breakdown the partnership between the State, the NMH and SVHG.
Mention said today that the plan as proposed is “essential” for patient care:
The new NMH facility will be located in the centre of the campus and will be physically integrated with SVUH to ensure the best and seamless care for high risk and pregnant women. This seamless care to NMH patients will be provided by ready access to over 250 Consultants covering over 50 healthcare specialities. The lands at the Elm Park campus have been owned outright by SVHG for 20 years.
Ownership of the Elm Park campus lands is essential to ensure the ongoing provision of the best possible care for all patients attending the Elm Park campus either in SVUH, SVPH or in the new NMH at Elm Park.The SVHG campus is large and complex with many different health and related services on its site. Two landowners and thus two separate independent hospitals would make it very difficult, if not impossible, to manage the Elm park campus and would also present significant risks to patient care.
An Taoiseach also said this afternoon that there had been a “good debate over the last two weeks:
“There’s a lot of strength and substance to the agreement, which originated because of the necessity of co-location to be the best way to ensure better outcomes for women and their babies. That’s the only motivation here. I mean, there’s no other agenda than to make sure that we have a modern facility that could provide the best of care.”
Committee members
Speaking ahead of today’s hearing, committee member Róisín Shortall of the Social Democrats said earlier that tomorrow’s Cabinet decision must be deferred as “a number of significant questions remain outstanding”.
“This deal has taken nearly a decade to get to this point – and the legal documents, which underpin this 300-year deal, were published less than two weeks ago,” Shortall said.
Why is the cabinet so determined to rush this through, without proper scrutiny, in the face of all of these outstanding questions? It must defer the decision to allow this scrutiny to take place.
During a hearing of the Oireachtas Health Committee last week, both current Master of the NMH Professor Shane Higgins and former Master Dr Peter Boylan shared their differing views.
Dr Boylan told TDs and Senators that the term “clinically appropriate” as part of the framework for the new NMH “is a major red flag”.
Professor Higgins said the discussion around the phrase ‘clinically appropriate’ has led to a “misplaced fear” that it will allow the Vatican to stop certain procedures.
However he has also said he would have no problem with the removal of this term or the inclusion of a clarification to ease concerns.
- With reporting by Christina Finn and Michelle Hennessy
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
My first time getting it from tomorrow and I’m so thankful it’s available, the workplace were originally going to pay us only 50% of our contracted hours which was just not something some staff on 8 hour contracts could live on, especially when they work a lot more than 8 hours a week. Retail, even as management, is precarious!
@Whatever: I was on it from the middle of March last year until the end of December as my job is still closed but thankfully got a college placement co-op position for the next 8 months so I am off it now. Was very grateful to receive the PUP, glad it’s there for ye now being laid off again
@Whatever: As self employed I applied last year and was told NO. Now I eat beans, no heat, food or help. No one cares.
@Paul Somers: why was that? I know a few self employed people that got it. My brother and husband included
@Paul Somers: had you a tax return completed and paid for the previous financial year? If you completed a return in October/November 2019 for the 2018 tax year you should have got it. If you only started your business in 2019 you should qualify once you submitted a return for that year.
@Laura Clayton: I honestly don’t know, I pay tax and the vat. Got scared, and now sitting in the house with thermals and a wooly hat. I would love a cuppa
@Derdaly: yes I did
@Paul Somers: you should be entitled to it keep contacting your local social welfare office they will get it sorted for you. I was waiting 5 weeks for mine to come through but I got it eventually with persistence
@Brian Byrne: gave up but thank you
@Paul Somers: honestly don’t give up Paul keep at them daily until they sort it for you. I sent in the postal application and applied online through the social services portal. It was all sorted eventually.
@Paul Somers: That might be why you never got it. If you want it it’s there for you as long as you provide what’s required of you.
@Seán O’Loughlin: it’s embarrassing
@Paul Somers: You were told lies. I’m self employed and on the full PUP.
@Paul Somers: paul I’m self employed and I’m on it since March last year. I had to apply 3 times because it never went through online. The last time I posted it in and was eventually back dated to the 1st time I applied. You are 100% entitled to it. Hope thing get better for you soon.
Heard of some people being denied loans because they claimed pup. Thought it wasn’t meant to affect your credit rating?
@Brian Dunne: yeah that is true. Iv heard of people having their mortgage application rejected because one of the joint applicants were on PUP. Even with employer letters saying their job is secure and available for the person to return to. I don’t know if it effects your actual credit rating, but banks will not lend to people on social welfare and PUP is social welfare no matter what way you break it down. Its a joke
@Eoin Jackson: and before people start blasting the banks as the big bad wolves for that strategy, that is mandated by the CBI, which in other words, is basically mandated by the government.
@Eoin Jackson: yup – that was the case for me and my husband last April. We were both on Pup and both had letters confirming future employment and BoI pulled our approval. They’d issued it in February and we were sale agreed on a house and everything. That all fell through.
Ended up going to the credit union. Their deal isn’t great and you’ve to have a 30% down payment (Christ) but they signed off on it for us while both on Pup. In our own house now since November and I’m still on pup. Husband back at work but laid off on the wage subsidy scheme. We are well able to afford the mortgage repayments but there’s not a chance we could have afforded to rent a place
@Brian Dunne: it affects affordability not credit rating, so no surprises that people were refused a loan due to a lower income
Cash nixer bonanza
@MickN: Mor on. It’s keeping the wolf from the door for so many people.
@Seán Óg: Aye right…
@Mike: Dead on
Where do I sign up?
Went on the PUP in November because of redundancy.. started a new job today. Happy days!
Banks are very hard to deal with this lockdown. I tried to get a 2 month freeze on the mortgage as it’s going to be 2 months until I’m back up and running. Spent an hour filling in the online form. Looking now for last years earnings. Accountant letters etc. etc. What’s last years accounts got to do with being out of work this year due to a pandemic. I think the government should be doing more with the banks like last lockdown.
Serious question: Do people living in Northern Ireland, if working in the south, get paid PUP from the Irish Government?
@David Connell: only available to people with pps /prsi no. You have to supply details in order to qualify
And the reports of the country bouncing back later this year and the housing market being strong.
What a load of bs
@billy bound: I’m in construction and I’m up the walls. That includes every construction friend I know. Covid has made things busier not quieter.
If you get OAP and out of work you don’t qualify, even if you pay taxes
@Margaret Deacon: why should you get pup if you weren’t working in the first place.
When do they transfer to jobseekers (aka regular dole)?
And still you’ll get another tax demand at the end of this year like most people did in the last 2 weeks
when the chickens come home to roost this place will be worse than 2008.
If you are getting OAP but still working before Covid hit and were paid on PAYE basis, as far as I know, you are entitled to PUP. However if OAP and self employed and NOT on PAYE system, (just taxed at end of year when returns are made)then no PUP. Anyway this is what happened 2 of my friends who were in each situation as described
have your say