NCT Results for 2018

Skoda Yeti has highest pass rate in NCT tests in 2018

A compact SUV manufactured by Skoda had the highest pass rate of any vehicle submitted for a NCT test last year.

An analysis of the results of NCT tests carried out on over 1.34 million vehicles at 47 test centres nationwide in 2018 shows that the Skoda Yeti had a pass rate of 81.3%.

Figures published by the Road Safety Authority show the Czech-manufactured car, which was launched in the Ireland in 2009, was one of only two popular car models to obtain a pass rate in excess of 80%. The other was the Peugeot 208 supermini which had a pass rate of 81%.

Other brands with high pass rates included the Nissan Juke, Volkswagen Tiguan, Dacia Sandero, Hyundai ix35 and Dacia Duster.

In contrast, the model with the lowest pass rate among over 160 leading models was the Hyundai Trajet with just 20% getting a NCT pass rating in the initial test.

Other models where less than a third of vehicles passed the NCT last year included the Vauxhall Vectra, Seat Cordoba, Chevrolet Kalos, Volkswagen Bora, Nissan Primera, Peugeot 206, Volkswagen Sharan, Hyundai Tucson, Opel Vectra, Peugeot 307 and Mazda 323.

“The results of NCT tests are really a reflection of how they are looked after and maintained by their owners rather than the performance of any individual model,” an RSA spokesperson said.

The RSA figures show that more than half of all cars failed the NCT on full inspection last year with lights, suspension, tyres and brakes the main fail items.

Only 49.2% of vehicles passed the initial NCT in 2018 – an unchanged rate on the previous year. The last time a majority of vehicles obtained the NCT on the first test was in 2011.

The RSA spokesperson said it was clear that many motorists were using the NCT to diagnose problems with their vehicles.

“From research we’ve found that around 30% of drivers use the NCT this way by taking faults identified in the test to go their mechanic and say ‘fix these’,” the spokesman said.

“It’s not something we encourage as the NCT is a basic check. It is far better to get your car fully serviced on a regular basis and is something that should save you money in the long term,” he added.

The analysis of the NCT test results shows a strong correlation between pass rates and the age of the vehicle with older makes more liable to fail the NCT.

There was a 77% first-time pass rate for 2010-reg cars and 67% for 2008-reg vehicles last year. However, the pass rate fell to 56% for 2006-reg cars and just 38% for cars registered in 2004 and earlier.

Despite the fact that a majority of cars failed the initial NCT year, almost 92% passed on the re-test. 

The RSA figures show 8.2%  – or 56,085 cars – still failed the re-test  including 1,667 vehicles which were classified as “fail dangerous”.

The most common fail item for over half of the most popular car models was “lighting and electrical” faults, while steering and suspension was the most common problem with a quarter of models.

“Vehicle and safety equipment” was the most common fail item with two Dacia models, the Duster and Sandero, while problems with brakes were the most common issue with a number of models including the Toyota Auris and Corolla and the Mercedes-Benz C and E series.

The oldest vehicle submitted for a NCT last year was a 1932 Rolls Royce which passed the test.

Although not legally required to be tested, a total of 181 cars that were only registered in 2018 had a NCT, with 34 vehicles failing the test.

For the third year in a row, Kilkenny had the highest pass rate of the 47 NCT test centres around the country last year with a 58% pass rate.

The centre in Castlerea had the lowest pass rate at 40.4%.

Naval Service on Imerc

by Seán McCárthaigh
The Department of Defence tried to hide strong criticism by the Irish Naval Service of the decision by UCC and the Cork Institute of Technology to shut down an award-winning maritime research initiative in which it was a co-founder, it has emerged.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show the Naval Service claimed a report used by the two colleges to justify the closure of the Irish Marine and Energy Research Cluster (IMERC) in Ringaskiddy, Co Cork contained “inaccuracies and unsubstantiated assertions.”

 A senior naval officer expressed concern that the flawed report could result in reputational damage for the Naval Service and individual officers.

 The decision to wind down the initiative which was designed to make Ireland a world-leader in the commercialisation of marine research projects was made on foot of a controversial report commissioned by UCC and CIT in 2016 which concluded it was “not fit for purpose.”

 The Naval Service described the decision to close IMERC as “short-sighted” given the time and effort that had been given by everyone involved in the project and “its significant achievements and impacts.”

 It confirmed it had no role in the decision to close the facility despite being a joint partner in its operations.

 The Naval Service’s criticism of the closure of the business incubation hub in Ringaskiddy was contained in a draft media reply which was never issued. Instead, the Department of Defence issued a statement in which it claimed the Naval Service continued to enjoy good relations with UCC and CIT and to collaborate closely with them on research projects.

 Documents now show the Department of Defence informed the Defence Forces that it did not consider it “appropriate” to respond in detail to questions posed by a journalist.

 The department’s head of operations, Clare Tiernan, said she believed that it “would be better to issue a general response to the questions asked rather than an individual response to each question.” 
Ms Tiernan said the responses proposed by the Naval Service “give rise to serious further questions on the governance structure provided by IMERC’s governing authority.”

The senior civil servant also expressed concern that “these issues are now being raised through the media over a year after the independent report has been published.”

Details of the report only become public earlier this year after questions about IMERC were raised by the Dáil Public Accounts Committee.

 In the original draft response, Commodore Hugh Tully, the Flag Officer Commanding the Naval Service, said it was his understanding that inaccuracies in the IMERC review would be addressed in a further report but it did not happen to the satisfaction of the Naval Service.

“There was no apparent financial review carried out as part of the review process and yet the review made some significant unsupported findings” Cmdre Tully said. “The review did not highlight the substantial achievements and impacts of IMERC and this remains an outstanding issue.”

Asked if he believed the Naval Service’s views had been incorporated in the review of IMERC, Cmdre Tully replied: “It wasn’t apparent.”

Records show that Cmdre Tully wanted to answer the questions directly “to accurately reflect his position on IMERC” and “to ensure the list of IMERC achievements were recognised.”

While Cmdre Tully did not insist on his reply being released to the media he asked that any alternative response would be issued by the Department of Defence as it was “not representative of his views.”

Documents also show the Naval Service had no role in setting the terms of reference of the review of IMERC and it was only presented with the report after it had been already been accepted by the presidents of UCC and CIT.

Change in Garda Staffing Levels - 2016 v 2017

Fewer gardaí

Unchanged

More gardaí

Wesley College and Other Grants

Analysis of Appeals in the Sports Capital Programme 

Only sports clubs from Dublin were successful in securing 100 per cent of their requested funding in an appeals system for the Sports Capital Programme authorised by Shane Ross, the sports minister, The Times can reveal.

An analysis of the first-ever appeals process used in awarding grants under the programme highlights an anomaly in the structure of the scheme which rewards Dublin-based applicants – even ones that are rated poorly in a marking scheme devised by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport.

It reveals that only 12 out of 35 successful applicants in the appeal process were awarded the full amount they had requested. All were based in Dublin.

They included Wesley College and Three Rock Rovers Hockey Club, which are based in Mr Ross’s constituency and Loreto Beaufort, which borders the minister’s Dublin Rathdown base, with all securing the maximum grant of €150,000.

All three projects, which related to the development of hockey pitches, scored highly obtaining 57 out of a possible 87 points.  The national average was 44.

In contrast Malahide Golf Club which also secured its requested grant of €150,000 on appeal only scored 33 points, while Sutton Lawn Tennis Club with 31 points was awarded the €134,261 that it had requested.

Slade Valley Golf Club in Brittas obtained its full request for €97,761 with a score of 28 points and Man of War GAA Club got its full request for €67,400 despite only obtaining a score of 24 points.

Cuala GAA, Peamount Football Club and Rathdown School in Glenageary obtained below-average scores but were awarded the full amount they had asked for.        

In contrast Castlecomer Community School in Co Kilkenny was only awarded €90,500 out of the €150,000 it had sought, despite scoring 67 points – the second highest marking among appeal applicants.

Kildangan GAA club in Co Tipperary only received just over half the €100,000 it had sought, notwithstanding having the third highest score nationally with 65 points.

Similarly Killaloe-Ballina Lawn Tennis Club in Co Clare applied for €150,000 but only got €63,000, although it scored 59 points – a score higher than any Dublin applicant.

Almost €59 million was distributed to sports clubs and community groups around the country in the 2017 round of the programme, including €2.7 million during the appeals stage.

A spokeswoman for Mr Ross defended the allocation system claiming grants were awarded to each county on a per capita basis.

She said the appeal process was introduced for the first time ever last year at the initiative of department officials “in the interest of equity and fairness.”

Almost 500 unsuccessful applicants were invited to appeal the decision that their application was invalid.

Only 35 out of 149 sports clubs and community groups which lodged an appeal were successful.

The spokeswoman said all candidates were assessed by the same marking system used in the original round when over 1,700 clubs and groups were awarded funding.

She pointed out that the excess amount which could not be distributed to Dublin was reallocated to other parts of the country.

According to the department, there were applications for every 4,700 people from clubs based in Dublin compared to applications for every 1,700 people for the rest of the country.

Officials claim the proportionately fewer applications from Dublin increases the chances of clubs in the capital obtaining the full amount of funding that they request.

“As the funding for each county is ring-fenced projects were only competing against other projects from the same county,”  one official explained.

Asked if the system was unfair against clubs based outside Dublin whichobtained high scores, Mr Ross’ spokeswoman said the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport was undertaking a review of the recent awards with a view to making recommendations on how to improve the scheme.

“The review will consider any changes required to the eligibility criteria,” she said.

Separately, department officials are also conducting a value for money review of the grants scheme which will examine the impact the programme is having on participation in sport.

Robert Troy, Fianna Fáil spokesman on sport, has called for a refinement on the current rules of the scheme to redress the imbalance between sports clubs in Dublin and the rest of the country.

Earlier this week Mr Ross denied that he had played any role in decisions on which applicants were awarded grants.

The principals of both Wesley College and Loreto Beaufort had publicly thanked the minister for his “support”

Mr Ross expressed regret that he had issued a tweet announcing the €150,000 grant to Wesley College, claiming it was “an error of judgement.”

IMERC

1. The revelation that IMERC had been wound down emerges after the review commissioned by UCC and CIT was provided to the Dáil Public Accounts committee.  Report filed on August 10, 2017

by Seán McCárthaigh
A partnership established by two third-level colleges and the Irish Naval Service to promote the development of commercial maritime research enterprises has been effectively mothballed after being found “not fit for purpose.”
A review carried out last year of the Irish Maritime and Energy Research Cluster which is based in Ringaskiddy, concluded that its operations were “creating difficulties” and, if left unchanged, would damage the original aim of its sponsors.
IMERC was established in 2010 jointly by UCC, Cork Institute of Technology and the Irish Naval Service to promote Ireland as a world-renowned research and development location to unlock the country’s maritime and energy potential.
The review, which was commissioned by UCC and CIT, found the governance structure of IMERC was “inadequate” in providing direction to staff and guidance to key stakeholders at its Ringaskiddy campus which include the National Maritime College of Ireland, a constituent part of CIT, and the Centre for Marine and Renewable Energy (MaREI).
It warned that UCC, CIT and the Irish Naval Service were being unduly exposed to reputational and financial risk by poor public procurement, public relations and financial and human resource management at IMERC.
The report said such deficiencies needed to be rectified “to prevent damage to the reputation of Ireland’s maritime and marine sectors.”
 Details of the report have only become public after the information about the operation of IMERC was sought by the Dáil Public Accounts Committee.
It found there was a lot of confusion about IMERC and its relation to the NMCI and MaREI. A report by the review group found IMERC’s mission and aims were too broad and vague which had facilitated the development of “a widely held sense of mission creep.”
“Key stakeholders expressed concern that the achievements of their distinct entities were often claimed by the institutional IMERC brand to the detriment of their institutions and the potential alienation of their funders,” the report stated.
UCC and CIT provided financial support worth around €750,000 per annum to IMERC while the Irish Naval Service provided some staff and collaboration across a range of activities.
The report said there was no shared understanding on the use of brand identities and the lack of a coherent approach had fostered mistrust.
The authors of the report warned that IMERC was having a potentially detrimental effect on MaREI as it was causing confusion amongst potential collaborative partners. Similarly they believed IMERC’s activities posed a threat to the future success of the NMCI.
Although praising the initial concept of IMERC, the report claimed it had become “real estate-focused with less attention on encouraging participation in research and innovation.”
It found the role of IMERC’s governing authority was unclear and there was no evidence it provided robust oversight.
An expert committee on which the governing authority relied for much of the governance of IMERC had not met in over a year.
The review group recommended that new governance structures needed to be put in place immediately with either UCC or CIT to assume all responsibility for all financial management of IMERC.
While the review group recognised the potential for promoting and developing the wider areas of the Port of Cork and the greater harbour facilities for commercial activity, it did not believe it was a role that suited IMERC.
UCC president, Patrick O’Shea, said that IMERC no longer had any budget or staffing and its incubation facility at Ringaskiddy was now managed jointly by UCC and CIT.


2. The publication of the above story sparked off a wave of anger and sadness among companies and individuals who had benefitted from their association with IMER which led to the following on August 20, 2017


by Seán McCárthaigh
Entrepreneurs and business owners in the marine research sector have sharply criticised the decision of UCC and the Cork Institute of Technology to withdraw funding and staffing from the Irish Maritime and Energy Research Cluster in Ringaskiddy.
They claim the winding down of the facility has deprived Ireland of “a unique, world class facility” that had attracted interest from global leaders in marine research from around the world.
Business owners who worked with IMERC claim the findings of a 2016 report used to justify its winding down were “inaccurate and biased.”
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Simon Coveney and The Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces, Mark Mellett, both signalled their unhappiness with the winding down of IMERC by highlighting social media posts in recent days which described the decision as “crazy.”
IMERC was established jointly by UCC, CIT and the Naval Service in 2010 to facilitate collaboration among its partners including the National Maritime College of Ireland, a constituent part of CIT, and the Centre for Marine and Renewable Energy (MaREI) and to exploit opportunities for commercialisation of their research work.
However, IMERC has been considerably wound down following publication of the review which was commissioned by UCC and CIT last year.
The review, which was carried out by five international experts chaired by Paul Haran, a former secretary general of the Department of Enterprise and Employment, concluded that the set-up of IMERC was “not fit for purpose” and could undermine the work of both the NMCI and MaREI.
It also claimed poor financial management, procurement processes and public relations was exposing UCC and CIT to reputational and financial risk.
Following completion of the Haran report, UCC and CIT decided IMERC would no longer having its own funding or staffing with its incubation facility at Ringaskiddy now managed jointly by the two colleges.
UCC president, Patrick O’Shea, told the Dáil Public Accounts Committee last month that the implementation of IMERC’s ambitious plans going forward would have required it to establish its own corporate or legal entity which would have presented difficulties for the Irish Naval Service.
The decision to remove funding and staffing of IMERC by UCC and CIT has been widely criticised since it was revealed by the Irish Examiner last week.
Andrew Parish, an entrepreneur and business start-up mentor who worked with IMERC on a regular basis, said there was anger and frustration at the decision.
“IMERC should have been celebrated as a shining example of the value of joint industry and academic clusters. We had this unique combination of academic research, vocational training and access to the Irish Naval Service which had the potential to create a world class centre of excellence for marine technology,” said Mr Parish.
He claimed IMERC was successful in attracting both start-up businesses and existing global leaders in the sector who greatly valued the way it facilitated mentoring, networking and collaboration.
Mr Parish criticised the report for failing to reflect the value that IMERC had delivered to businesses and entrepreneurs which had been based in the Ringaskiddy campus in the past seven years
Rory Fitzpatrick, another entrepreneur who had been assisted by IMERC, described the report’s findings as “truly bizarre.”
 Mr Fitzpatrick, said he and other business founders had been interviewed by the review panel and had provided feedback that was positive and supportive of IMERC.
“We were all amazed with the tone and findings of the review,” said Mr Fitzpatrick who described it as “a hatchet job.”
“It’s a sad thing that we’re throwing away an opportunity to develop a genuinely trans-European marine hub,” said Mr Fitzpatrick.
He blamed the decision on “petty institutional politics” which had “thrown a talented team under a bus.”
Mr Fitzpatrick said marine experts from the UK and mainland Europe had visited Ringskiddy to try and copy what was being done at IMERC.
“They clearly saw IMERC as a wonderful example of what could be done with proper cooperation,” he added.
A spokesperson for UCC could not be contacted over the weekend.


 3. The views of the Irish Naval Service on the closure of IMERC was unknown, despite their partnership in the project along with CIT and UCC. Efforts to elicit their views was met with a muted response once the Department of Defence stepped in to field media questions on behalf of the Defence Forces. Written on August 23, 2018

by Seán McCárthaigh

The Irish Naval Service has declined to comment directly on the decision by UCC and Cork Institute of Technology to wind down an award-winning and unique collaborative initiative involving the three parties which was designed to make Ireland a world-leader in the commercialisation of marine research projects.
Entrepreneurs in the sector have sharply criticised the decision by UCC and CIT to withdraw funding and staffing from the Irish Marine and Energy Research Cluster (IMERC) in Ringaskiddy.
The decision was made on foot of a controversial 2016 report commissioned by the two colleges into the operation of IMERC – an initiative which was established jointly by UCC, CIT and the Naval Service in 2010 – which concluded it was “not fit for purpose.”
IMERC was set up to facilitate collaboration among its partners including the National Maritime College of Ireland, a constituent part of CIT, and the Centre for Marine and Renewable Energy (MaREI) which is coordinated by UCC.
 Start-up businesses which benefited from their association with IMERC through its incubation hub on the Ringaskiddy campus have expressed anger and frustration in recent weeks following publication of the report which warned that UCC, CIT and the Irish Naval Service were being unduly exposed to reputational and financial risk by poor public procurement, public relations and financial and human resource management at IMERC.
They claimed its findings were “inaccurate and biased” and failed to reflect their positive view of IMERC’s role in assisting new businesses in the marine research sector.
A number of sources close to IMERC have confirmed that the Irish Naval Service was “very unhappy” with the decision to effectively shut down IMERC.
 In a statement issued through the Department of Defence although questions were submitted directly to the Irish Naval Service, no comment was provided on its attitude to the report’s findings and the related decision by UCC and CIT to withdraw funding and staffing from IMERC.
The Department of Defence also failed to respond directly to a series of questions about the Irish Naval Service’s role in events given its joint partnership in IMERC with UCC and CIT.
A Department of Defence spokesperson said the Irish Naval Service continued to enjoy a good relationship with both colleges.
“The Naval Service also continues to collaborate closely with both institutions in research projects through their constituent research centres and particular academic departments,” the spokesperson said.
In an unreported speech last March, the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces, Mark Mellett, praised the achievements of IMERC in its short history as being “quite remarkable.”
In his profile on the website of the Defence Forces, the Chief of Staff is described as “a founding member and champion” of IMERC.
Addressing the Philip Monahan Memorial Lecture in UCC on the theme of the importance of diversity, Vice Admiral Mellett highlighted the Ringaskiddy campus as a case study in what could be achieved through public-private partnerships.
“It facilitated innovation and diversity by connecting the dots between the main partners and disparate enterprise and civil society players leading to disruptive outcomes,” he remarked. “For us in the Defence Forces initiatives such as IMERC have the potential to change the military from being seen just as a cost centre to being an investment centre, with the potential to be, in some instances, a profit centre.”
The Chief of Staff said the success of IMERC had been referenced in the current Programme for Government as well as the White Paper on Defence.
Noting that IMERC’s future was under review at the time, Vice Admiral Mellett said he believed “with the right leadership the concept has significant potential to move into a new phase.”
He added: “It is important to accept that in driving innovation the status quo will be challenged, cultures will be questioned and there will be little room for egos and off course mistakes will happen.”
The Chief of Staff acknowledged that errors inevitably happened in “complex institutional arrangements.”
Vice Admiral Mellett said the cluster’s collaborative approach had secured over €50m in State funding which had led to the establishment of the largest wave energy research facility in the world in the Beaufort laboratory located at Ringaskiddy as well as MaREI.
He noted IMERC had also stimulated the “Entrepreneurship”, the world’s first maritime energy technology and innovation centre and had contributed to the establishment of the European Space Agency Business Incubation Centre at the Tyndall National Institute in Cork.
Vice Admiral Mellett said IMERC had found solutions to problems identified by the Naval Service across areas such as renewable energy, wireless technology, surveillance, security, firefighting and robotics.
“The research community get a challenging real world problem, the Defence Forces get a new capability or technology solution and the enterprise get new IP (intellectual property) or a job creating opportunity,” he said.
The Chief of Staff pointed out how kite sail technology had major potential in the areas of both energy saving and surveillance.


 4. The ongoing controversy about the closure of IMERC led to a number of a parliamentary questions being put down by Seán Sherlock who had been supportive of IMERC's plan while a Minister of State for Trade Development. The response provided this report from October 11, 2017


 by Seán McCárthaigh
No prior warning was given to the Government by UCC and Cork Institute of Technology about their controversial decision to withdraw funding and staffing from an award-winning start-up business hub in which the Naval Service was a joint partner.
Three Government ministers have confirmed their departments were not consulted by the colleges over the effective shutting down of the Irish Maritime and Energy Research Cluster in Ringaskiddy in March. UCC and CIT decided to cease support for IMERC on foot of a highly critical and controversial report they had commissioned into its operations and governance in 2016.
IMERC was established in 2010 to facilitate a unique collaboration among its partners including the CIT’s National Maritime College of Ireland and UCC’s Centre for Marine and Renewable Energy (MaREI) and the Naval Service. T
he review commissioned concluded that it was “not fit for purpose” and could undermine the work of both the NMCI and MaREI.
However, entrepreneurs and business owners in the marine research sector sharply criticised UCC and CIT for winding down what they described as “a unique, world class facility.”
They expressed both anger and frustration that its incubation hub on the Ringaskiddy campus was closed on the basis of a report whose findings they claimed were “inaccurate and biased.”
The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Frances Fitzgerald, said no funding had been provided by her department to IMERC under the Programme for Research in Third Level Institutions. Ms Fitzgerald said her department was committed to supporting research and innovation in the marine sector to exploit its potential for enterprise development and job creation.
She pointed out it had funded the establishment of MaREI with investment of €18.9m.
The junior Education Minister, Mary Mitchell O’Connor said neither her department nor the Higher Education Authority had been involved in the review of IMERC.
Ms Mitchell O’Connor said she understood the two colleges had decided to segregate the different roles of IMERC and refine and enhance the original Memorandum of Agreement to support collaboration in teaching and research.
In response to a parliamentary question from Cork East TD, Seán Sherlock, she said UCC and CIT were engaging with Cork Co Council as the body already charged with the economic development of Cork Harbour about inward investment opportunities.
“The IMERC start-up incubation facility, the “Entrepreneurship” is now being managed jointly by UCC and CIT through existing structures and the UCC staff members involved in IMERC are working in UCC,” she added.
 Junior defence minister, Paul Kehoe, said key personnel in the Naval Service had been interviewed as part of the review of IMERC.
However, he said neither the Department of Defence nor the Naval Service were consulted on the decision to withdraw staffing and funding from the facility.
Mr Kehoe said the Naval Service was continuing to enjoy a very good working relationship with UCC and CIT and was collaborating closely with both colleges in research projects through their constituent research centres and particular academic departments.
Last week, ISME, the small business group, called for the re-establishment of IMERC before the end of the year.
ISME chief executive, Neil McDonnell expressed regret at what he described as one hugely successful initiative had been closed down due to a "puzzling corporate governance review."
"IMERC was ahead of its time in identifying opportunities in the maritime sector for Ireland," Mr O'Donnell said.
He added: "Whatever the local reasons behind IMERC's demise, we can't afford to dawdle in getting it, or something like it, back in action before the year is out. The size of the prize is too great."
He called for the opportunity not to be lost to use the talent, intellect and corporate memory that still existed in Cork.

 5. Freedom of Information legislation was used to try and establish a true understanding and insight into how the Irish Naval Service felt about the closure of IMERC. It also highlighted how the Department of Defence tried to keep a lid on the controversy leading to this report filed on December 17, 2017


 by Seán McCárthaigh
 The Department of Defence tried to hide strong criticism by the Irish Naval Service of the decision by UCC and the Cork Institute of Technology to shut down an award-winning maritime research initiative in which it was a co-founder, it has emerged.
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show the Naval Service claimed a report used by the two colleges to justify the closure of the Irish Marine and Energy Research Cluster (IMERC) in Ringaskiddy, Co Cork contained “inaccuracies and unsubstantiated assertions.”
A senior naval officer expressed concern that the flawed report could result in reputational damage for the Naval Service and individual officers.
The decision to wind down the initiative which was designed to make Ireland a world-leader in the commercialisation of marine research projects was made on foot of a controversial report commissioned by UCC and CIT in 2016 which concluded it was “not fit for purpose.”
The Naval Service described the decision to close IMERC as “short-sighted” given the time and effort that had been given by everyone involved in the project and “its significant achievements and impacts.”
It confirmed it had no role in the decision to close the facility despite being a joint partner in its operations.
The Naval Service’s criticism of the closure of the business incubation hub in Ringaskiddy was contained in a draft media reply which was never issued.
 Instead, the Department of Defence issued a statement in which it claimed the Naval Service continued to enjoy good relations with UCC and CIT and to collaborate closely with them on research projects.
Documents now show the Department of Defence informed the Defence Forces that it did not consider it “appropriate” to respond in detail to questions posed by a journalist.
The department’s head of operations, Clare Tiernan, said she believed that it “would be better to issue a general response to the questions asked rather than an individual response to each question.”
Ms Tiernan said the responses proposed by the Naval Service “give rise to serious further questions on the governance structure provided by IMERC’s governing authority.”
The senior civil servant also expressed concern that “these issues are now being raised through the media over a year after the independent report has been published.”
Details of the report only become public earlier this year after questions about IMERC were raised by the Dáil Public Accounts Committee.
In the original draft response, Commodore Hugh Tully, the Flag Officer Commanding the Naval Service, said it was his understanding that inaccuracies in the IMERC review would be addressed in a further report but it did not happen to the satisfaction of the Naval Service.
“There was no apparent financial review carried out as part of the review process and yet the review made some significant unsupported findings” Cmdre Tully said.
“The review did not highlight the substantial achievements and impacts of IMERC and this remains an outstanding issue.”
Asked if he believed the Naval Service’s views had been incorporated in the review of IMERC, Cmdre Tully replied: “It wasn’t apparent.”
Records show that Cmdre Tully wanted to answer the questions directly “to accurately reflect his position on IMERC” and “to ensure the list of IMERC achievements were recognised.”
While Cmdre Tully did not insist on his reply being released to the media he asked that any alternative response would be issued by the Department of Defence as it was “not representative of his views.”
Documents also show the Naval Service had no role in setting the terms of reference of the review of IMERC and it was only presented with the report after it had been already been accepted by the presidents of UCC and CIT.

Sports Capital Grants - A Fair System?

Hundreds of highly-rated sports projects around the country are missing out on funding under the government’s Sports Capital Programme because of strict rules that grants are distributed to counties on a per capita basis.

An analysis by The Times of how €56 million was distributed under the 2017 Sports Capital Programme by Shane Ross, the minister for transport, tourism and sport, in November highlights how Dublin-based sports clubs were the major beneficiaries of the scheme.

Sports clubs based in the capital received substantially bigger grants and higher percentages of their requested funding than organisations in other parts of the country, despite frequently scoring lower marks in a rating system designed to establish the merits of individual projects.

Robert Troy, the Fianna Fáil transport, tourism and sports spokesman, has called for refinement of the current rules on the scheme to redress the imbalance between sports clubs in Dublin and outside the capital.

“While there is an element of fairness in allocating funds on a per capita basis, it can act against some clubs who can make top class applications but only get a portion of the money they need,” Mr Troy said. “Under the existing rules, Dublin will always benefit. In many cases, clubs in the rest of Ireland need to be provided with additional funding to be able to catch up. They’re also likely to have fewer people to help with fundraising.”

Only two out of 33 of clubs awarded the maximum amount of €150,000 came from outside Dublin.  A total of 150 applicants had sought grants of €150,000.

Only three of the 31 clubs based in Dublin which secured the maximum grant would have made it into the top 30 of applicants seeking €150,000 if judged solely on merit.

The analysis reveals applicants from Dublin received an average grant of €61,365 or 95 per cent of their requested funding compared to an average of €28,371 or 46 per cent of requested funding for clubs in the rest of the country.

Unlike previous years, the 2017 Sports Capital Programme awarded some level of funding to all applicants who met minimum eligibility criteria.

Mr Troy accused the government of “trying to spread the butter to please everyone.”  He added: “It might look well. However, there’s little point in giving a club only a fraction of what they need as it just puts greater pressure on them to raise funds.”

The Longford-Westmeath TD cited how one of his local clubs, Rosemount GAA club near Moate, was only awarded €6,500 out of its application for over €120,000. “It’s not going to make much of a difference,” he said.

A total of 1,726 clubs and organisations received over €55.8 million in funding. Applications were assessed using a scoring system which had a maximum of 87 points.

Marks are awarded under a weighting system designed to favour projects that will increase participation, are from disadvantaged areas, are from organisations that have not received significant funding in the past and that are most likely to proceed quickly.

Marks are also awarded for sports clubs that will share their facilities with other groups, their ability to provide some of their own funding and the technical merits of a project.

Two sports clubs – St Oliver Plunkett/Eoghan Ruadh GAA club and Castleknock Celtic football club which are both located in the Dublin West constituency of Leo Varadkar, the taoiseach – received the full amount they requested of €80.000 and €23,295 respectively despite only scoring 20 points – the third joint lowest score in the entire country.

In contrast, Knockanure GAA club in Co Kerry had the joint highest score of all 1,726 applicants with 82 points but received only €56,000 out of its requested sum of €100,865 to fund the drainage and resurfacing of its pitch.

The analysis shows applicants from Dublin scored on average 40 points – the lowest average of any of the 26 counties – but still received the highest level of requested funding.

Sports bodies from Co Meath – which has the highest average score of almost 50 points – were only granted 48 per cent of the money they had requested.

On average, clubs based in Cavan and Monaghan only received 29 per cent of the amount of funding they had sought – the lowest of any region.

The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport said funding under the Sports Capital Programme was allocated to each county on a per capita basis with each applications subject to “a rigorous assessment process.”

“Given the high population and relatively low number of applications from Dublin, Dublin applications did receive higher levels of amount sought,” it said.

While grants were distributed fairly on a per capita basis to each county, a spokesman for Mr Ross said there were insufficient valid projects in Dublin to absorb all the funding to which the county was entitled.

As a result, a surplus of €2.9 million that should have been allocated to Dublin was redistributed to other counties.

“As the funding for each county was ring-fenced, projects were only competing against other projects from the same county,” he added.

Out of over 50 different sports to benefit from the programme GAA clubs secured €23.6 million followed by soccer clubs with €7.3 million and rugby clubs with €3.2 million. Sports bodies including council and community groups offering multiple sports facilities were granted €8.7 million in funding.

A spokesman for Mr Ross said it was originally envisaged that only €30 million would be available to allocate when the 2017 scheme was launched. Due to the record number of applicants, however, additional funding was secured.

“It was decided that every valid local application should receive the offer of some funding with the aim of advancing the maximum number of projects and helping to alleviate a backlog of projects looking for assistance under the Sports Capital Programme,” the spokesman said.

The spokesman said neither Mr Ross nor Brendan Griffin, his junior minister, made any changes to the recommended allocations proposed by their officials.

Sean Sherlock, Labour’s spokesman on children and youth affairs, said he would like to see a change to the rule to allow further marks in favour of clubs from “socially deprived areas.”

ANALYSIS

On face value the allocation by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport of millions of euro in sports grants to each county on a per capita basis would seem very fair.

In most circumstances, the distribution of government funds based strictly on the population of each of the 26 counties would seem eminently equitable.

However, an analysis by The Times of how €56 million was distributed in the latest round of the Sports Capital Programme last November highlights an anomaly that arises out of a rigid adherence to rules stipulating allocations must are made on a per capita basis.

It revealed that sports clubs in Dublin receive bigger grants than any of their rural counterparts.  On average, applicants from Dublin received a grant of €61,365 compared to €28,371 for clubs in the rest of Ireland.

So far, so good. As the most populous county, Dublin is rightly entitled to the highest portion of funding under the terms of the scheme.

But given that many sports clubs in the capital are already highly developed with access to large numbers of members to engage in voluntary fundraising in contrast to clubs in smaller towns and villages, does the scheme only reinforce, even widen, the gap that can exist between urban and rural clubs?

The analysis of how over 1,700 applicants fared also shows that clubs in Dublin received a higher percentage of the money they had sought than their rural counterparts.

Clubs in Dublin were awarded 95 per cent of the allocation they had requested compared to just 46 per cent for clubs in other counties.

In Dublin 182 out of 208 applicants received 100 per cent of the grant they had requested.  Only five other clubs in the rest of Ireland were awarded the full amount they had sought.

The explanation for such an anomaly is the relatively few applications which were submitted from clubs in Dublin.

According to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, there was an application for every 4,700 people in the capital compared to one for every 1,700 people on average for the rest of the country.

Where unfairness emerges is that the department also uses a scoring system to rate the merits of individual projects.  Marks are awarded for a number of criteria including if clubs share their facilities with other organisations, if they increase participation in sports, are from disadvantaged areas and if they’ve not received significant funding in previous rounds of the scheme.

The unfairness of the current system is exposed by the fact that Dublin clubs recorded the lowest average score of any of the 26 counties.

Many applicants in other counties, with well-presented and highly regarded projects, were only given a fraction of the money they needed. In contrast many Dublin clubs, which were not particularly well rated, got full funding for projects.

Furthermore, all applicants who met minimum eligibility criteria last November received some level of funding unlike other years when there was an “all or nothing” approach adopted.

Again while it would seem to be another attempt at fairness, it creates a fresh set of problems.

As Robert Troy, Fianna Fáil sports spokesman, said there is little point handing out a portion of funing sought by clubs as they may not be able to complete a project, while also putting pressure on clubs to engage in further fundraising or risk losing the grant.

“What’s the point in giving €5,000 to a club that is looking for €100,000,” Mr Troy reasoned.

The desire by the government to spread funding for sports clubs as wide as possible is pure politics. The trouble is – it’s just not sport....or fair play.

Crimes by people out on Bail

by Seán McCárthaigh

Almost 1 in 8 of all crimes recorded last year were committed by a person on bail for another offence.

Figures obtained by Data Journalism Ireland show the rate of crimes carried out by individuals on bail has been growing steadily in recent years – rising from 9% of all crimes in 2011 to 13% in 2016.

Almost 26,000 crimes including 6,214 thefts and 1,377 burglaries last year were committed by individuals who had been released from custody while awaiting trial for a separate offence.

They equate to 10% of all thefts and 7% of all burglaries over the period.

Individuals on bail were also responsible for two homicides as well as 24 rapes and sexual assaults during 2016.

Figures provided by the Central Statistics Office show 25,543 offences out of 198,634 of all crimes recorded by gardaí last year were carried out by people on bail.

Although overall crime levels have fallen continuously since 2011, including a 1.6% reduction last year, the proportion of offences committed by those on bail has grown over the same period.

Over 144,500 offences by people on bail have now been logged in the past six years

CSO figures show 11% of 442 homicides over the period were by offenders granted bail – a total of 48 violent deaths.

Criminals out on bail are most likely to be involved in robberies and weapons and firearms offences with official figures showing they are responsible for almost a fifth of such crimes.

Bail offenders committed over 2,800 robberies and almost 2,900 firearm offences since 2011 – 18% of the total of both crime categories.

They were also responsible for over 34,000 thefts and more than 10,700 burglaries and a similar number of drug offences over the same period.

People on bail also committed over 27,000 public order offences between 2011 and 2016 – 12% of all such offences.

Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald said she had published the Bail (Amendment) Bill last December as part of the Government’s response to crime in order to provide for stricter bail terms for repeat serious offenders.

Ms Fitzgerald said the proposed legislation would also strengthen Garda powers to deal with breaches of bail conditions.

The minister said the bill, which is currently going through the Oireachtas, would make the law as effective as possible in protecting the public against crimes committed by persons on bail, while also acknowledging that there is a constitutional presumption in favour of bail as people were considered innocent until proven guilty.

“The new bill specifically provides that the courts must have regard to persistent serious offending by an applicant for bail,” said Ms Fitzgerald.

The legislation also allows for electronic monitoring to be imposed as a bail condition.

haron Mitchell, a spokeswoman for Advic, an organisation representing the families of homicide victims, said the latest CSO figures highlighted the need for a tightening of bail laws.

She expressed concern that 11 per cent of all homicides in the past six years were committed by people on bail.

“The rise in the number of people carrying out crime while out on bail as well as those who reoffend after being released from prison goes to show there is a need for harsher sentencing,” Ms Mitchell said.

“The way the criminal justice system operates at present does not seem to provide sufficient deterrent,” she added.

Although Advic has welcomed the proposed new bail legislation, Ms Mitchell said it only meant offenders were less likely to get bail.

“It doesn’t mean they won’t get bail,” she said. “Judges in the past have sometimes been too lenient, but also their hands can be tied by guidelines.”

“The system needs to realise the devastation that is caused to families by such crimes, particularly when they are committed by people who are out on bail. In many cases, these are people who should have been kept away from the public until they go on trial for the original offence,” Ms Mitchell said.

She also called for bail to be refused in future to anyone who had been convicted of a prior offence while on bail.