Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
MINISTER FOR HEALTH Simon Harris has said that the State will “pursue solutions that address the issue of the ownership” of the new national maternity hospital.
In a statement last night, Harris said that he had asked for a period of time to explore all potential options before he would report back to the government, Oireachtas and the public at the end of May.
One potential option he referred to was the possibility for public ownership of the hospital.
The minister also reiterated the urgent need for the hospital to be built, and said he would work with both Holles Street and St Vincent’s to “provide further detail on the arrangements which could be put in place to address issues of public concern”.
Controversy
The government has come in for sustained criticism in recent weeks over the new national maternity hospital, which will be located on the grounds of St Vincent’s Hospital and be owned by that group, of which the religious order the Sisters of Charity is a major shareholder.
Numerous assurances have been given by Harris and his department, the board at current maternity hospital Holles Street and the hospital master Dr Rhona Mahony that the new hospital will be run independently from any religious interference.
That has done little to assuage those who believe otherwise, with ex-Holles Street master Dr Peter Boylan resigning his post last week after raising numerous concerns over the proposals.
Opposition parties have called on the government to consider a compulsory purchase order on the hospital site, to ensure the State owns the new maternity hospital.
Speaking yesterday on RTÉ’s The Week in Politics, Sinn Féin’s Mary Lou McDonald said it is her own view that the order should hand over the site.
“I don’t think it’s a done deal. I think the whole discourse, the positioning of the different parties over the last week reflects the fact that this is still a situation in motion. The State needs to acquire the site,” she said.
“Complex process”
In his statement, Harris again reiterated the measures in place to ensure the independent running of the hospital but admitted he would look into solutions that “address the issue of the ownership of the facility” in light of public concerns.
One such solution could be public ownership of the facility.
He said: “The agreement reached between the hospitals recognised that the State will require a “lien” on the new facility in accordance with whatever funding agreements are in place by the State for such capital projects.”
When referring to a lien, Harris is saying that the State sought a legal right to the possess the property if the owners of the hospital don’t fulfill certain obligations that have been agreed upon, such as clinical independence. He added:
Different options have been used in the past in doing this and I believe there is potential to devise creative and acceptable solutions that will provide further reassurance regarding the ownership of these facilities which will be paid for by the State.
Harris added that it was a good thing that a conversation had started around the structure of the health service in Ireland.
He concluded by “respectfully asking” for a short period of time to work with Holles Street and St Vincent’s to provide “further detail on the arrangements which could be put in place to address issues of public concern”.
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
@john Appleseed: State ownership should be the only solution. It is shocking that State ownership was not insisted upon from the outset. That should have been a non negotiable precondition and not within the scope of the Mediation.
They’re building the Children’s Hospital in D8, in a cramped and totally unsuitable site and want to build the new maternity hospital on the other side of the city and not own it.
The two should be built together (that this is not happening is still incredible to me – mums have babies – sick babies need a children’s hospital – sigh) on an adequate site with adequate traffic access and parking – 100% owned by the State and taxpayer.
Perhaps this month of ‘reflection’ could be an opportunity to row back on two stupid decisions instead of one.
@Sinead Mooney: what you say makes sense but the medical consultants are head over heels in favour of the St Vincent’s Location. It is convenient, suits their private practices, is closer to their homes, facilitates an easier combination of public and private practice, better parking for Consultants and proximate to Elm Park Golf Club.
@Tony Daly: that’s not true. Co-locating means access to a high level of recourses, facilities and most importantly expertise. It leads to better outcomes.
@Tony Daly: Spurious waffle where you call peoples’ professional and personal character into question without a shred of evidence to back up your claims. The desire to have the new NMH on the same site as an acute, teaching adult hospital is widely accepted by consultants as best practice, regardless of where they sit on the ownership issue.
@RG Law: access to an acute hospital is necessary.
What was needed was a new and accessible complex comprising an acute hospital, a childrens’ hospital and a National Maternity Hospital, all in State ownership.
It would be silly to deny the human factor of what is personally beneficial to the Consultants. Some of the Consultants in the NMH already have practices in St Vincent’s.
@Sinead Mooney: Spot on Sinead and an obvious proposal when you remove all of the vested interests but unfortunately our glove puppet minister has too many hands up his aras.
@Tony Daly: the Coombe is being co-located with James’s and the Children’s hospital. Are you suggesting amalgamation of Coombe and Holles Steeet to James’s site?
@Tony Daly: You presented it as a fact that these “human factors” played a part in the decision to locate the NMH on the grounds of St Vincent’s. Do you have evidence thst they did? If not, you have no right to call peoples’ integrity into question. If you do, you should present the evidence.
@RG Law: you know there are other sites, you know more appropriate and accommodating to the rest of the country, yeh? Odd that the James’s site was deemed inappropriate for the NMH, but fine for the children’s hospital and a different maternity unit, odd that, but like you agendas are at play.
@Paul Fahey: eh .. you have absolutely no interest in informing yourself about the maternity strategy, about the current services and how we should be looking to looking ahead in the provision of services. This is a joke … a sick political joke on women and babies in 2017
@Sinead Mooney: I think Iarnrod Eireann’s Inchicore works, a huge area, with old unused buildings, would make a perfect site for both hospitals. It already has a train mainline train service, the Luas is very close by, served adequately with bus’s, and has oodles of room for parking. And on top of all that, the property is state owned, so no obligation to any religious order. Now why couldn’t both of these hospital committees, filled with intellects think of that
He needs to come out from behind Enda’s all conquering flower pot and open himself up to scrutiny on this matter, but I suspect he is all too well aware they were trying to sell the public an ecumenical pup.
Ah yeah, why not. I think I’ll go into work tomorrow and ask for another month to decide on how to do what should have been done yesterday, see how it goes.
@Eyepopper: Harris is good at soundbytes learned that at his journalist course. As for running an organisation as big as health, he is out of his depth.
In fairness, he asked for some time on Orkambi and got a very good deal. Reported everywhere when it was a problem, but hardly reported once a good future-proofed deal was done.
@Michael Doyle: Did I miss something? How do we know that Harris didn’t get a terrible deal on Orkambi where we will end up paying extortionate fees?
I support a deal on Orkambi but to say it was a “very good deal” seems bizarre when we don’t know if we’re being ripped off or not – remember the HSE described €160k per patient per year as “exorbitant” – so how much did he knock Vertex down in the end?
@Malachi: the details have not been published much, but to those on the inside, it seems this was possibly the only deal brokered that was future proofed to cover later improvements to the drug within the same deal. Among health professionals this is regarded as a very good result.
If it’s true that the deal is future proofed, I’m glad, but I still want to know if there actually was a significant reduction in the outrageous quote given by Vertex initially. It seems very premature to call it a “very good deal” when we actually haven’t got a clue what’s in it.
The Orkambi deal is irrelevant to the control and ownership of the National Maternity Hospital. Raising this issue at all is simply a pure distraction.
@Tony Daly: the relevance is that Harris has form in asking for time to get a better deal, and actually getting the better deal. I would have more faith in Harris to manage this than eg. Mary Lou who said that it should be done ‘at any cost’ which comes across as incredibly immature negotiation.
@Michael Doyle: ahh, I see. You are taking a major public issue and converting into a party political squabble between third rate politicians huckstering for political edge. That’s not of any interest to me.
That’s just you trying to score political points off the back of an issue which is vastly more important than petty and unworthy party politics between political hucksters on the make.
@Tony Daly: you are probably deliberately misreading, so this is probably pointless.
This is a negotiation. I would rather have it led by someone who needs time to resolve it than by someone who just wants to throw as much of MY tax as it takes to make the problem go away. Maybe because FG aren’t used to receiving billions in subsections from the UK every year in order to balance the books, they recognise the importance of negotiating a financially acceptable deal.
All I am saying is beware of people who think there are always simple solutions to complex problems – they are just playing to the simple audience.
@yildun: Too right Yildun. In fact, seeing as the State was the key enabler in all this, every member of society should denounce their citizenship and start again.
@Thomas McGilly: It is called a new Grundnorm as proposed by Hans Kelsen where civil disobedience leads to a new legitimate legal order and something we must consider.
@yildun: oh right, you mean like organisations that “enable the exploitation of children” by encouraging or “enable” or promote, aborting them to death in the womb (Amnesty, IFPA, UN, Sinn Fein, aaa-pfp, Labour etc)
Nuns don’t do that, actually. They defend unborn life against abortion pushers. They built our health from nothing, without pay, for Irish people, when the State would not.
I’m feeling a little more optimistic. Justified public outrage has caused a Pen ownership and control debacle to turn into a political debacle.
Kieran Mulvey was brought in to mediate on an issue which should not have been a subject of compromise from an ownership and control perspective.
The NMH should and must be a State asset in State ownership, State funded, State controlled and accessible to all patients. It should be run on sound clinical considerations free of the confusion and distraction of religious dogma.
Hey,
No there’s a deadline in place. We should be glad. Government departments don’t get “deadlines” or urgency or costs etc.
Simon, you put a “super negotiator” in place and he failed and in the meantime the costs go up and up.
It’s going to take you and your department a whole month to re hash what you should have done at the start. Just shut up, stop the sound bites and just get the job done…. please!
@Martin Stapleton: He didn’t fail, he just didn’t get a deal that a very vocal section of the public wanted. Mulvey’s remit was to get a good deal in a hugely complex piece of negotiations for a vital piece of public infrastructure which would inevitability have to be situated in private land, not to cater for every expert who gives an opinion on Facebook or the Journal.
@Tony Daly: Easily done. Procure a site elsewhere or enter into discussions with the Sisters of Charity to buy the land. CPO could take years and deny our women and infants a critically needed facility.
@Thomas McGilly: I disagree on the CPO delay point. The payment of compensation coul take many years if the Sisters are unreasonable.
The sensible thing to do is to enter into immediate discussions in the context if the Charitable Trust to acquire the site at OMV on a volunitary basis. If the Sisters refuse to deal, CPO the site and take possession of it.
Pary VIII of the Health Act 1947 as amended by Section 40 of the Health Act 1970 allows the HSE to CPO the site under a clean CPO process which has explicit back of Article 44 of the Constitution.
Either the religious order plays ball or it has the ball taken off it. Get tough.
The Sisters of Charity should not be allowed to hold future Maternity healthcare to ransom over this issue.
The sisters ARE unreasonable. The mere fact that they negotiated to get a free hospital to add to their portfolio shows they have no interest in patient wellbeing, only money.
@Tony Daly: The CPO issue was further complicated by the land in question being used as collateral in an as yet unpaid loan. Further, despite all of the points you made above relating to the Constitution, this is not clear cut. The above articles are tied to subsequent legal interpretations, provisions and conditions. It is not as straightforward as you would like. Further, the Sisters of Charity have given the land over for development at no financial cost. They are not the ones holding the NMH to ransom. The ones using it as a political football are.
Does it take a month to resign minister?The chairman of the new board will be elected by 2 members of st Vincent’s and only 1 member of hollis street thus giving the sisters of charity the controlling vote on the new board and ensuring that the catholic ethos will remain in place. Why can people not understand this obvious fact and that we have been stitched up again by FG just like with Irish water which was due to be privatised and this is another example of governmental ineptitude
@Sean @114: Do you deny that the selection process for the chair is a 2 to 1 process in favour of the nuns thus giving them a 5 to 4 overall majority on the board of nine?
@Paul Lane: the state will have Golden Share and reserved powers. That’s a done deal. The minister of the day will have final say in relation to any contentious issue that may come before the board. Unless Diarmuid Martin runs and is elected in the next GE AND is landed in the cabinet with the health portfolio, you can rest at ease, honestly.
@Sean @114: Sean, the people on here know more about the law and maternity care than Nicholas Kearns, Kieran Mulvey and Rhona Mahony. I don’t get why the State didn’t just go on to the Journal to ascertain how best to proceed on this issue.
@Sean @114: There is no such think as a golden share in Irish company law, it simply does not exist and as an example what happened to our golden share in aer lingus? Read the Company’s Act of 2014
@Paul Lane: yet here it is in black n white on the Irish Corp Law website and I think I read somewhere that the EU were trying regulate against it. Sounds like you know more about it Paul and should probably put your services forward for Dept of Enterprise and Employment.
@Thomas McGilly: a woman referred for tubal ligation to St Vincent’s was turned away because it’s not performed there due to the Catholic ethos of the hospital. These are the same people that would be running our national maternity hospital! I just have no faith their ethos would not interfere with healthcare for Irish women.
@Deborah Behan: One person, one issue does not render any institution incapable of running a service. If it did, no entity in the country would be allowed to provide a service, especially the State.
@Just Me: Nowhere did I mention Simon Harris. I mentioned a former President of the High Court, the Chairperson of the LRC and the Master of the National Maternity Hospital. I was stating that the legal, medical and mediation gurus of the Journal know more about the issues than these plebs.
@Tony Daly: Tony, I don’t know anything about your family but I’ll fill you in a a story of mine. My youngest was born in Holles St ten years ago. The place was in a deplorable state then. Ten years on, we still expect our women to give birth to our children in these Victorian conditions while we ignore clinical best practice, the recommendations of a former High Court President and the Master of Holles St, allow hypocritical politicians to play football with this issue and allow hysteria and misinformation to delay and possibly kill this project.
Simon Harris thought he had this deal in the bag now he is backing tracking another big Phil. He must now realise he has no chance to lead this party at any time he will end up at the back door in Europe for the down and out
How much more worse can this fiasco get?! Everything this inept Harris clown touches turns into shambles just like his fellow FG TDs. Keep up the “good” work you do, Simple Simon!
@John Flanagan: public outrage has halted the attempt to transfer the intended new NMH to the ownership of the Sisters of Charity. A new deal can now be worked out.
@Tony Daly: … so that babies can be aborted to death on demand, and their mothers often hugely psychologically damaged — in a marvellous HSE State run abortion mill facility.
It’s simply nuts. UP has already detailed in a previous Facebook posts, just how ridiculous and devious are the current ongoing agreed antics, stacking the hospital board and more – now the Fine Gael government is attempting to go to a new level of craziness.
Despite 100,000 people in five days alone, signing their total objection to the gifting of a €300+ million hospital to a religious org, Simon Harris is calling for the public to give him time – so that he can STILL give the hospital to the religious org!
…But as said, the craziness even gets worse.
Now the Fine Gael party is floating the mad notion that not only does the modern state go backward with the gifting to the nuns – but that the nuns then will hospital lease their ‘gift’ back to the state – so that it has to pay more money to the nuns – that the state owned in the first place!
.
The state is to seek ownership in a hospital that it already would own, staffed and equipped at great financial cost – before it gifts it away – so it can then be charged even more money for ever, after trying to get it back… (That’s the public purse paying)
You simply couldn’t make this craziness up!
Many suggest that either the nuns do what’s right (for once) or Fine Gael do what’s right.
(A) The nuns give the land back to the state before a CPO is chased – by agreeing that the state take on any present loans tied to the land (the state had previously gifted to the land to them too, by the way) and back total out of the fiasco. So far the nation has seen bugger all charity from them – only complete greed and serious devious antics.
(b) The state instead, does obtain a CPO. Take the land (back!), give one final payment to the nuns – thus allowing them to pay off their loans and maybe even make a profit – then finally get on with building the hospital.
Regardless (but not to be discounted) of the topic of religious interference or not, the fact that we, the state, the people, are giving a €300+ Million Euro asset to anyone – especially when it is still acting board stacking devious (being ignored by FG and media, unwilling to deal with the issue) – as a gift for land that we had already owned, is just pure madness. Sadly, as we now discover, Fine Gael is determined to heap more madness upon already self-made madness.
.
…And all to the cost of the public who will end paying yet again. You can be sure Fine Gael and Co won’t be paying a cent!
@Thomas McGilly: lol would people quit judging the orkambi deal as “very good” before there’s been a single letter of it released to the public? Honestly.
@Malachi: Why do the public get to judge on a commercial deal involving a very complex piece of medication to treat a complex illness? Are we that awash with experts in these fields among the general public?
The objective is to have the new NMH opened and controlled by the State, to secure to the taxpayers who will be paying at least €300million, likely much more for the construction and fit out of this intended 21st century facility.
Although the original site was obtained with the benefit of donations from Irish people, it is subject to the Terms of a Charitable Trust. That Trust needs to be revised and a legal mechanism worked out which enables ownership to be transferred to the State, likely in return for payment of open market value for the site. That cost has not been budgeted for but it now needs to be included in the project cost.
One mechanism, which would not delay construction, is for a put option now to be agreed enabling the State within the next 5 years to put an agreed price to the Trustees who must then sell. If the site is charged, that can be addressed by way of redemption or part redemption of the mortgage.
The mechanism for transfer of ownership can be by transfer of the site or the granting of a long lease with no restrictive covenants. That is a matter of mere optics and mechanics. It is not challenging to work out.
There are real solutions. The 25 page document was a mere fudge, a sleight of hand, which failed to sucker the public.
Watching Harris pleading for another month to get it right, is like watching someone trying to unscramble an egg, clearly out of his depth, mishandled the thing from the start, outmanovered at every turn, now playing catch up.
So if they don’t deliver this hospital for Pope Francis, what are they going to give him when he comes to visit?
And him with a big cheque for 1.3 billion to hand over. We’d better give him something, maybe he’d like another referendum?
@John Mulligan: interesting you say that. There have been Submissions that the MHH would be named after Pope Francis although I suspect he would find that unduly craven.
@Tony Daly: TBH Tony, contrary to aggressive secular belief, I should imagine, I wouldn’t say the vast majority of them give a fiddlers. It’s not like they actively sought this facility and they’re not going to benefit from the sale of it at any point realistically now are they? So better to delay the project and spend millions more of taxpayers money trying to fudge a land deed to appease the secularists. Bizarre.
It seems the biggest concern for the noisy media PC liberal anti catholic brigade when it comes to the new maternity Hospital is the scary thought of perhaps not been able to kill unborn babies in it.
@Stephen: well first the concern was ‘control’ by the SOC with their Roman Catholic ‘dogma’. When it was pointed out to the outraged that control by the state would be guaranteed as outlined in section 2.3.2 in the report, the outraged turned their attention to abortion. The cherry on top of course was Sinn Fein and their sudden concern on human rights issues. I mean really, when the SOC were running laundries what were the shinners doing at the time? The outcome is that the outraged who claim to be so concerned with women’s welfare have now succeeded in delaying the delivery of world class health services to those women, all for the sake of what amounts to a balance sheet entry on a religious group’s accounts, a group who founded and have been running Vincents for two centuries.
@Tony Daly: not true. It will have complete operational independence. Golden share and mastership are guaranteed. I agree that the state should own the hospital but not for the reasons put forward by the outraged. It just simply makes sense for state funded facilities to be owned/part owned by the state. However to follow this through the state must acquire all assets not currently on it’s books, massive cost to the taxpayer. NMH should go ahead immediately with a CVA to allow for state acquisition over a finite time period. Therefore no delays and women’s health remains priority instead of a pawn used by the outraged to force an anti-religious agenda.
The core issue is not dislike of religion although religion has attracted understandable opprobrium because of some truly awful scandals.
It is critically important that the State does not pay over €300 million on developing a State asset which the State does not own and not have absolute control over.
@Tony Daly: you can’t say that the report is a ‘fudge’ when the boards of both hospitals have voted on the back of it and it will be the foundation of the legal framework with clinical independence as the cornerstone. Calling it a ‘fudge’ is just a charge with absolutely no substance. It’s pure scare mongering. Would you like to see Mary Lou or any Sinn Fein member on the board of the new NMH? I ask because they are leading the charge in political circles. And let’s not pretend that your objections are anything other than anti-religion motivated Tony.
@Sean @114: it was a way of glossing over a dilemma, instead of confronting the elephant in the room, the question of ownership by the State of a State funded assets. Short term expediency is often the worst possible approach.
The NMH and the Saint Vincent’s Hospital Group were so so focused on their respective short term interests that they skated over the ownership issue.
Ownership was fundamental and that should have been the first issue to sort out.
Fortunately, it looks like there is a belated political realisation that this was a total debacle so far as ownership is concerned. Now, that issuecwill be confronted and a sensible deal worked out.
The mess was caught just in time, courtesy of Peter Boylan.
Now the focus can turn to a pragmatic solution and an end to the recrimination. That involves sorting out the ownership issue first.
@Sean @114: I suggest leaving party politics and religious devotion or loyalty out of this. The focus needs to be on a solution and the solution requires ownership to be confronted. That is now the focus.
@Tony Daly: well firstly the ownership issue was a fait accompli. There was no need to debate it as it was a natural consequence of siting the hospital there. If the outraged were so outraged by the ownership issue then the superb facility that is SVHG would have come under the spotlight a long time ago. The concern here should always have been operational independence and that has been addressed. The asset matter is just being used now by the lefties to continue their general attack on religious bodies. You cannot debate a political matter without talking politics. Where do you stand on SF’s input on this matter and would you support a SF member on the board? Simple question.
@Tony Daly: and who do you think would have to vote to agree a sale? Yes the board, and only consent from the state would see any proposed sale. So really where is the foundation for all of this faux outrage? It’s clearly anti-religion motivated by the likes of SF (we know they’re champions of human rights) and Labour (I swear it was nothing to do with us) and their cheerleaders. It’s effectively a state asset in that it will never change hands and even if it did the state would have to sanction that.
@Tony Daly: Intolerant aggressive secularism is the new State religion.
Aborting innocent babies to death “on demand” is a principal tenet, with anti Catholic bigotry obligatory.
RTE, Irish Times, media generally is its main pulpit.
The first option should be a resignation letter from the inexperienced boy Harris
for sleeping on the job, wanting to gift 300 million euro’s of state money
to 200 aprox Sisters of Charity ( avarage age 76 ) who I am pretty sure will not avail of the services of the new NMH.
Time to get a new Minister of Health that looks after the health of Women in Ireland
as a priority without the distraction of religious dogma.
Religion mixes very badly with medicine, law, politics and health administration as we all know from our sad history to date with the Catholic Church
@Johnny Merren: I think your third paragraph says everything that needs to be said. In fairness to Harris the damage was done long before this boy arrived on the scene. James Reilly announced this project 4 years ago and was backed by Alex White and Kathleen Lynch of the Labour Party. Yes, can you believe it, the Labour Party…who are now expressing outrage, you know because it’s hip to do that now even if you are seen as a blatant hypocrite. Varadakar also had his hands on it, he a marriage equality advocate and seeming free liberal thinker, yet he championed the cause. All of this of course was initiated on the back of the 2008 KPMG report recommendations. Almost a decade gone and not a sod turned.
@Mick Rick Jones:
Don’t remember saying anything about abortion in my previous comment above.so maybe you should read it again.
I did make the comment that
“religion mixes very badly with medicine, law, politics and health administration in Ireland as we all know from our sad history to date with the Catholic Church.
Do you agree with this comment ?
We really have no interest in learning from the intolerance of the religious in the past.
We’d rather punish today’s women and children. The aggressive secular is as bad as the aggressive religious. If you don’t laugh you’ll cry.
@RG Law: you are right. Unborn babies are poisoned, cut, dismembered and dumped by abortionists. Their abortive mothers often suffer years of loss, pain, regret.
Keep intolerant, aggressive, ideological abortion pushers out of our hospitals and schools..
There are a lot of vested interests involved in this complex project . Ironically the ordinary nuns who have done all the hard work for no pay , their unpaid labour has contributed to the development of The SVHG we see today as a centre of excellence .
The ordinary nuns (as distinct from the Order ) have very little possessions , have no money and do not own any property and most of them work as long as they are physically able .
Yet they are the people who are been demonised and blamed for the inexcusable cruelty of nuns of a different ERA.
If everyone lay or religious were held accountable for the sins of the past , there would not be many left standing .
@Aine O Connor: the gas thing is, Tony or a close relative have probably benefited from their services in an A&E or somewhere at some point. I’d take Vincents in its current form over many of the state run facilities at the moment TBH.
@Aine O Connor: you are right. The nuns selflessly built our services, without pay, for their community.
the abortion pushers attacking them favour aborting babies to death in our hospitals TODAY — some high moral ground, eh?
We will wait a long time before we EVER see our pro abortion journalists, editors, Labour, Sinn Fein, or AAA-PFP pro aborts hand over one cent of THEIR personal or party wealth, salaries, political pensions, houses or property, for the poor of Ireland, as the nuns and religious did, and do.
Hit-and-runs made up almost 10% of serious crashes on Irish roads in last two months
Órla Ryan
2 hrs ago
622
Stealing thunder
Competition for Met Éireann? Social media weather forecasters are more popular than ever
5 hrs ago
8.6k
54
Cavan
Gardaí launch murder investigation into death of woman, 50s, at Cavan home
Updated
9 hrs ago
43.5k
Your Cookies. Your Choice.
Cookies help provide our news service while also enabling the advertising needed to fund this work.
We categorise cookies as Necessary, Performance (used to analyse the site performance) and Targeting (used to target advertising which helps us keep this service free).
We and our 138 partners store and access personal data, like browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device. Selecting Accept All enables tracking technologies to support the purposes shown under we and our partners process data to provide. If trackers are disabled, some content and ads you see may not be as relevant to you. You can resurface this menu to change your choices or withdraw consent at any time by clicking the Cookie Preferences link on the bottom of the webpage .Your choices will have effect within our Website. For more details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
We and our vendors process data for the following purposes:
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
Cookies Preference Centre
We process your data to deliver content or advertisements and measure the delivery of such content or advertisements to extract insights about our website. We share this information with our partners on the basis of consent. You may exercise your right to consent, based on a specific purpose below or at a partner level in the link under each purpose. Some vendors may process your data based on their legitimate interests, which does not require your consent. You cannot object to tracking technologies placed to ensure security, prevent fraud, fix errors, or deliver and present advertising and content, and precise geolocation data and active scanning of device characteristics for identification may be used to support this purpose. This exception does not apply to targeted advertising. These choices will be signaled to our vendors participating in the Transparency and Consent Framework.
Manage Consent Preferences
Necessary Cookies
Always Active
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
Targeting Cookies
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
Functional Cookies
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
Performance Cookies
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Store and/or access information on a device 95 partners can use this purpose
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development 123 partners can use this purpose
Use limited data to select advertising 93 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Create profiles for personalised advertising 68 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Use profiles to select personalised advertising 67 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Create profiles to personalise content 32 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Use profiles to select personalised content 28 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Measure advertising performance 115 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Measure content performance 56 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Understand audiences through statistics or combinations of data from different sources 67 partners can use this purpose
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Develop and improve services 74 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Use limited data to select content 33 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
Use precise geolocation data 39 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Actively scan device characteristics for identification 23 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Ensure security, prevent and detect fraud, and fix errors 77 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Deliver and present advertising and content 87 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Match and combine data from other data sources 64 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Link different devices 46 partners can use this feature
Always Active
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Identify devices based on information transmitted automatically 75 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
Save and communicate privacy choices 54 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say