Political opportunism must not trump principles in the dispute over maternity hospitals

The hospital is run “without any religious ethos or ethnic or other distinction” and provides “medical, surgical, nursing, midwifery and other health services”. [without religious ethos or ethnic or other distinction]“ (Section 5.1.1).

Its Directors exercise their powers “independently, without religious ethos or ethnic or other distinctions” to ensure the provision of “every maternity, gynecology, obstetrics and/or neonatal care lawfully available in the State” (Clause 5.2).

The Secretary of Health receives a ‘Golden Share’ specifically to ensure that the Directors fulfill their above obligations (Clause 5.3). This will give the Minister the power to issue directions to the hospital, which the hospital’s directors must follow to “ensure that any maternity, gynaecology, obstetrics or neonatal service permitted by law in the state will be available at the hospital, without religious ethos or ethnic or other distinction” (Constitution, Section 9.1.1 E).

Clause 14.7 of the Charter of Incorporation further states that the Board of Directors of St Vincent’s Hospital Group has confirmed that the new hospital will provide “any clinically appropriate maternity, gynecological, obstetric, neonatal or related service as may be permitted by law in the State “.

On the other hand, Peter Boylan, director of the National Maternity Hospital from 1991 to 1997, has expressed concern that the term “clinically appropriate” could be used as a Trojan horse to impose Catholic values ​​on the hospital. If this were indeed the Sisters of Charity’s secret intent, it would be hard to imagine how such an approach could survive exposure to a staff and patient population prepared to expect the full range of legal services, and those with the under the hospital’s own constitution. Behind them is the Minister of Health, with the authority to give orders to the hospital. Nevertheless, Boylan speaks from his own experience of the belt of the crook.

A personal story is always more telling than a patient explanation, and today’s poll shows Boylan’s story resonates. The challenge for the government is to use this two-week delay to more fully and decisively counter Boylan’s – and the public’s – fears.

This time should also allow for answers to the list of questions posed by Social Democrat Deputy Leader Róisín Shortall, many of which relate to the alleged opacity of the legal arrangements, with suspected Vatican influence and obvious use of offshore entities. Given that the sisters have now transferred their interest to a private company and no terms that the Vatican might have required would have an impact on Irish law, the question of Vatican influence appears moot.

If there is a good reason for offshore companies to be involved in the transaction, this should be explained – in clear English. Still, this seems to be a side issue. That state treaties should follow best practice in transparency and corporate governance, and not just minimum legal standards, is a principle worth striving for – but perhaps not a principle to which a much-needed maternity hospital should be sacrificed.

These questions are all valid – and seem answerable. But another, more fundamental objection has gained prominence, neatly summarized in the hashtag #OurMaternityHospital. Mary Lou McDonald, chairwoman of Sinn Féin, told the Dáil, “We need a publicly built maternity hospital on public land.” Bacik called for the use of a compulsory purchase order (CPO) to acquire the site. Both leaders suggested to the Sisters of Charity that the land be donated to the state.

What this argument has in clarity and simplicity, it lacks in practicality. Its main effect would be to impose significant additional delays and costs on the project to build a new national maternity hospital. Even in the midst of a housing crisis, when our cities and communities are plagued by vacant and derelict lots, forced purchase orders are so cumbersome that they are rarely used. Attempting to use one on a project of this size would be a bureaucratic and legal nightmare and likely to fail.

The courts would probably not look kindly on an attempt to serve a CPO on a site being offered on a 300-year lease at a peppercorn lease. Attempts to do so now, or to pressure the Sisters of Charity to give away the property, would expose the state to credible allegations of bad faith. What kind of state enters into protracted negotiations for a property, only to end up turning back and demanding that it be “donated”?

There is, of course, a valid argument that core public services should be owned and operated by government and that where government invests in services and infrastructure ideally government owns the facilities in which it invests (at least at some level national institutions). Such arguments are among the first principles of leftist philosophy, and both leaders have a right to make them.

But a century of independence has left us a legacy of social services owned and delivered by a unique blend of government, religious institutions, voluntary organizations and the private sector. Unraveling that would be a worthy goal of political politics, and Sinn Féin and Labor have every right to seek a mandate to do so, although history shows that voters would not look kindly on a political party that had such a major upheaval in its name of political ideology proposed (even a worthy ideology).

In the absence of such a mandate, in the context of a process that has survived two general elections, and with no viable prospects of building a national maternity hospital on public land in the foreseeable future, opposition to this deal with the mantra of “public ownership” looks on political opportunism, not on principle.

There is also a broader problem. In a series of recent public controversies, state decision-making processes have fallen into disrepute. The appointment of Katherine Zappone as Special Envoy; the proposed appointment of Tony Holohan to an academic position; the alleged sales ban on peat; and now the National Maternity Hospital (add your own examples). The stakes may vary widely, but they have one thing in common: Critics have tried to undermine or reverse government decisions, accusing them of conspiracy, while the government has accused the critics of opportunistic and cynical opposition. In any case, this has resulted in the government’s ability to act being undermined.

The state must be able to make decisions – and stick to them. Liberal democracy relies on opponents remaining loyal to the democratic decision-making process, even as they oppose the resulting decisions. The effect of the populist surge internationally has been to jeopardize this and bring liberal democracy itself into disrepute.

If opponents of the move of the National Maternity Hospital to St. Vincent manage to block it, it seems to me a wrong decision; not only is a hospital lost, but another level of confidence in government capacity.