Scandal of New Children's Hospital Spending overrun - will Harris resign? Of course not

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,845
Your comparison is invalid.

The private sector equivalent would be if you and your boss agreed there was no need for a review but you were forced into it by a committee dominated by your business rivals.

You admit you are on drugs, and then you demonstrate their potency by completely misunderstanding the issue under discussion.

Get well soon.
 


Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,746
The fact remains that the only way to make meaningful cuts to the cost of the project is to reduce the scope of work and nobody is willing to advocate that.
The one thing I'll give the politicians credit for is not having called for token cost savings. It would have been easy to demand that and could have resulted in great damage to the project. At least, at this point, we still can expect a top quality result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPN

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,459
The planning system both in this case and that of the shelved Apple plant in Athenry underline the need for a referendum to streamline the planning system for essential infrastructure.

While the Constitution does caveat property rights with the "common good" proviso, that means different things to different judges and invites litigation.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,012
The planning system both in this case and that of the shelved Apple plant in Athenry underline the need for a referendum to streamline the planning system for essential infrastructure.

While the Constitution does caveat property rights with the "common good" proviso, that means different things to different judges and invites litigation.
Common good is whatever you're having yourself.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,034
Twitter
No
There are a few areas where the 'common good' proviso is glaringly applicable. One of them being that the state should use this provision to take control of schools and hospitals where the brick and mortar is owned by increasingly decrepit religious orders.

The Common Good not being served at all by awaiting a time when such properties in the state are once again under the control of foreign absentee landlords in the guise of trusts or even offshore trusts.
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,308
There are a few areas where the 'common good' proviso is glaringly applicable. One of them being that the state should use this provision to take control of schools and hospitals where the brick and mortar is owned by increasingly decrepit religious orders.

The Common Good not being served at all by awaiting a time when such properties in the state are once again under the control of foreign absentee landlords in the guise of trusts or even offshore trusts.
Article 44 could prevent that.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,034
Twitter
No
Article 44 could prevent that.
Far as I am aware the 'Common Good' principle can override the constitution references to the protection of property. It is within the powers of the Minister for Finance to exercise that principle.
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,308
Far as I am aware the 'Common Good' principle can override the constitution references to the protection of property. It is within the powers of the Minister for Finance to exercise that principle.
I suspect not. The inclusion of a specific protection for one class of property could only be logically interpreted as a qualifier of the general 'Common good' principle.

By my layman's thinking, the statutory interpretation principle known as expressio unius est exclusio alterius would apply.
 

Uganda

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
9,555
The one thing I'll give the politicians credit for is not having called for token cost savings. It would have been easy to demand that and could have resulted in great damage to the project. At least, at this point, we still can expect a top quality result.
There is a lot of sh1te being spouted by both politicians and the shallow media on this one.

Yes, the overrun on the hospital of €0.5bn is inexcusable. But this is a one off overspend on a major capital asset.

Unlike the overrun in 2018 of €1bn on the operating budget by hse. This €1bn will now be paid every year ad infinitum.

That's on top of the €0.8bn (?) in 2017, which will also be paid every year into the future.

That's on to of the €0.5bn (?) in 2016. And so on and so forth.

Why the obsession with a one off overspend which will not be repeated, and ignoring over spends every day of the week?
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,034
Twitter
No
If I recall correctly that principle was used by Noonan in the 'night of leigislation' around Anglo-Irish/ShyteBRIC maneouverings by the government some years ago.

The whole point about the 'Common Good' is that it is allowed to the Minister for Finance to overrule or set aside the restrictions around property rights in the constitution.

Same as it would surprise many people to learn that the rights which would appear to be granted to the citizen in the Republic (assembly and free speech) can actually be withdrawn under Ministerial powers.
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,308
If I recall correctly that principle was used by Noonan in the 'night of leigislation' around Anglo-Irish/ShyteBRIC maneouverings by the government some years ago.

The whole point about the 'Common Good' is that it is allowed to the Minister for Finance to overrule or set aside the restrictions around property rights in the constitution.

Same as it would surprise many people to learn that the rights which would appear to be granted to the citizen in the Republic (assembly and free speech) can actually be withdrawn under Ministerial powers.
The property of banks is not specifically protected in the constitution but that of religious orders and educational institutions is.
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,845
There is a lot of sh1te being spouted by both politicians and the shallow media on this one.

Yes, the overrun on the hospital of €0.5bn is inexcusable. But this is a one off overspend on a major capital asset.

Unlike the overrun in 2018 of €1bn on the operating budget by hse. This €1bn will now be paid every year ad infinitum.

That's on top of the €0.8bn (?) in 2017, which will also be paid every year into the future.

That's on to of the €0.5bn (?) in 2016. And so on and so forth.

Why the obsession with a one off overspend which will not be repeated, and ignoring over spends every day of the week?
This wasn't an overspend.

This was an under-estimation.

The number crunchers underestimated the cost of the project, and the suits overseeing the number crunchers were asleep at the wheel.

Other than that, I agree 100% with your point.

We keep having cost over-runs, but the service keeps getting worse.

And it's the same suits overseeing this.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,034
Twitter
No
The property of banks is not specifically protected in the constitution but that of religious orders and educational institutions is.
It would make for an interesting case in the courts. If the constitution can override a specific exemption allowed to the Minister for Finance under the term 'common good' or whether the exemption holds over the specific protections for property anywhere mentioned in the constitution.

It would be a case well taken in order to get a tighter definition and to lend precedence to the term 'common good'.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,880
Why the obsession with a one off overspend which will not be repeated, and ignoring over spends every day of the week?
Easy option, simple headlines, loads of publicity, its what media and politicians do but as has been said, it was a poor initial estimate, not a project overspend.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,880
It would make for an interesting case in the courts.......
It would be a case well taken in order to get a tighter definition and to lend precedence to the term 'common good'.
Go ahead and try it if you have the cash to waste.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,034
Twitter
No
I would agree with what we know now that it is the initial vastly lowballed estimates released that look the more ludicrous set of numbers.

Which is interesting as I find it hard to believe the committee overseeing the bidding process didn't go through any process of checking what exactly the bid prices assumptions were?

With the people on that board one would expect any kind of examination of that initial 'winning bid' shouldhave shaken loose the news that it was a vast under-estimate.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,034
Twitter
No
Then of course there are the awkward comparisons with recent such projects available in Glasgow, Birmingham Liverpool and the East Midlands in varying scale and urban/greenfield sites.

Which actually make the initial estimate figures for the St James's site look reasonable. 1.4 billion is huge when comparing what was delivered against costs in similar urban settings from the examples I specify above.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,880
One of the problems I have with the figures being quoted for the cost of other hospitals is that there are items included in the project scope which have nothing to do with the work to be done at St James. There are works done at Blanchardstown and Tallaght which are included in project scope, staff relocation costs will need to be accounted for no matter where the hospital is built, so saying a hospital was built elsewhere far cheaper is not a valid comparison, in fact, I suspect that may have been the problem with the initial estimate. Regarding the bidding process, my alarm bells would have sounded when I saw the spread in bids, if the scope is well defined there will be a narrow spread if all bidders want the job.
 

Uganda

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
9,555
This wasn't an overspend.

This was an under-estimation.

The number crunchers underestimated the cost of the project, and the suits overseeing the number crunchers were asleep at the wheel.

Other than that, I agree 100% with your point.

We keep having cost over-runs, but the service keeps getting worse.

And it's the same suits overseeing this.
Except vote grabbing politicians will never object to exceeding the health operational spend. Featherbedding is a mutual interest.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top