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.
