Mrs Spadoni added Mr Downie knew it was wrong, what he was saying, and had not been satisfied with just making an “honourable case” during his speech to Tynwald. She said it had contained a “complete fabrication of lies”; and what he had said had misled Tynwald and the public.

These were more or less the closing words spoken when Dante and Joan Spadoni gave evidence to the Tynwald Select Committee on Wednesday this week (13^th May).

The Committee were nearing the end of a prolonged session of hearing evidence from former government minister, John Rimington, and then the Spadonis - relating to why no investigation was carried out, by the Marine Administration unit (MA) of the Dept. Trade & Industry (DTI), when it was discovered the results of previous stability tests, on a fishing boat the Spadonis had purchased from the UK, had probably been faked – that led to an exchange on comments made, in Tynwald, in November 2003, by Mr Downie.

The Lord Bishop had prompted the exchange by saying the Committee needed evidence to support the assertion the boat, the Suzanna D, from the outset, was unstable.

Mrs Spadoni replied they had got it; and that the only things that tell the truth of the matter are the boat’s original drawings and a memorandum, numbered 437 (a copy of which had been handed to the Committee by Mr Rimington).

Mrs Spadoni went on to state allegations had been made to deliberately discredit her, and her husband, after which Mr Spadoni made the remarks.

Mrs Spadoni added Mr Downie knew it was wrong, what he was saying, and had not been satisfied with just making an “honourable case” during his speech to Tynwald. She said it had contained a “complete fabrication of lies”; and what he had said had misled Tynwald and the public. (Following the publication of a COMIN report in 2008, Mr Downie issued an apology, but only to Tynwald Court, for having made, on the basis of information supplied to him, by the MA, inaccurate statements – Ed.)

Dudley Butt, MLC, chairman of the Committee, asked the Spadonis if they had received a formal apology; to which Mrs Spadoni snapped, “No”, and explained they had been informed the DTI had received legal advice not to, because an apology would leave the DTI open to a claim for damages.

The session had commenced with Mr Spadoni requesting to say a few words before questioning began.

He went on to say, to the Committee, “You don’t know me, but Billy Martin knows me”, explaining they had fished together for many years, and “Billy will tell you safety always comes first”. (Revd W H Martin is the Chaplain of the House of Keys – Ed.)

Committee Chairman, Dudley Butt then took them through the history of their purchase of the boat, and the ‘refurbishment’ works at the Vosper Thornycroft yard in England.

A new engine was fitted and repairs to the wheel house were among the works carried out; and Mrs Spadoni added under the supervision of the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), who were acting on behalf of the MA.

Questions were asked whether plans had been drawn up, or if the work had been managed by a naval architect, but Mrs Spadoni, having said no, stated it was the responsibility of the surveyor to make sure the work satisfied the 1975 regulations.

Clerk to the Committee, Roger Phillips wondered if they had taken the boat for a “test drive” or had been surprised the boat had a seaworthy certificate given its state of repair.

No they had not taken it for a sail, and only the windows in the wheelhouse needed doing, replied Mrs Spadoni.

As an aside, she then went on to say, you don’t have to go far to view IOM boats which would surprise you they have certificates; which caused a quizzical look from a gentleman from the MA sat in the public gallery.

Under further questioning, Mr Spadoni said he hadn’t noticed anything unusual in the way the boat sat in the water; it was a type he knew, it had a certificate, it wasn’t a wreck and with a bit of investment it would make it a good deal.

They were questioned about the new test certificate being issued for only a month; to which they replied, as far they were concerned, it was an issue of the type of test and not the safety of the boat.

Asked about his experience in sailing the boat back to IOM, and an incident that had happened on the way; Mr Spadoni explained they had encountered a force 8 gale and as the boat rolled they encountered problems with the gearbox and a loss of drive. This had caused a lot of concern to them, to the point where, he said, they thought they could lose the boat; which caused the man from the MA to excitedly scribble some more notes on his pad.

Having returned to the IOM, and having reported the problem they were informed to put more oil in the gearbox, pending the fitting of a kit to suck more oil up, and this would cure the problem.

Mr Spadoni was emphatic that at that time, even after the problem in the gale, they thought it was just a gearbox and not a stability problem; although they now know otherwise.

Mr Butt wondered why they had pressed the MA for a four year certificate when there was a question mark over the safety of the boat; but Mrs Spadoni said too much was being made of the gearbox issue and not enough about the testing procedures.

She said a test conducted “strictly in accordance with the 1975 regulations is a very accurate indicator of stability”; so she wanted to know how previous tests had not produced the same result as the later tests.

They couldn’t understand how the boat could be tested and pass in the UK but the same test in the IOM produced a fail.

The Bishop, having suggested they had taken on trust the test certificate given in the UK, wondered whether they had had any doubts after the incident at sea on the way back to the IOM.

Mr Spadoni was adamant, that at the time, he had thought the incident was down to the problem with the gearbox; and, the boat being new to him, needing time to get used to it.

He said if he had thought his or his son’s life was going to be at risk he wouldn’t have done that.

Mr Butt said having two conflicting test results, who did they think was right?

Mrs Spadoni said she wouldn’t go down that route, but emphasized Paul Lucas, who conducted the test in Portsmouth, was a fully qualified naval architect; and, perhaps, naively they had too much trust in authority.

She added they found themselves the “ball in a tennis match” and when they had finally been shown document 437 it made them feel physically sick.

More questioning followed regarding the period the marginal test results were being considered and the issuing of a temporary or full certificate.

The Spadonis explained they had involved advocates because they were experiencing difficulties with insurance, and having expended lots of money, most of it borrowed, they needed the certificate so they could get fishing to pay the bills.

The issue revolved around a 10mm error margin allowed for in the UK test but not the IOM test; although an unanswered question arose, why, if the MCA were supposed to be acting under ‘licence’ to the MA, were they using their own and not the Manx regulations for the test.

It appears the MA, although they had reservations about the stability of the vessel, for ‘commercial reasons’ allowed the Spadonis to have a temporary certificate.

Stating that Mr Butt had heard what Mr Downie had said in Tynwald, Mrs Spadoni inquired what was Mr Butt’s understanding of why the boat failed the stability test; but Mr Phillips said the Spadonis were the witnesses answering questions, not the other way around.

When Mr Spadoni said he didn’t agree with the COMIN report, the Bishop wondered if the same would apply to this Committee’s report.

Mrs Spadoni explained the reasons why they didn’t accept the COMIN report, in that it didn’t, in their opinion, get to the truth, didn’t deal with the allegations made in Tynwald and had no conclusions why the boat had failed the test.

Mr Butt queried this, and Mrs Spadoni referred to Mrs Christian having said certain characters involved had died; but she thought the file, which she expected to be “diligently maintained” should be sufficient to provide the answers.

However, having fought “tough and nail” to get a copy, items were ‘missing’, including the original Dutch technical drawings and papers. She claimed the stability issues relate back to the construction of the boat in Holland and, when it was put on the UK register, in 1980, it should have met the 1975 regulations. However, she believed it was a “massive failure by 40%”.

Asked by Mr Butt if she had any evidence to back up her assertion, she claimed she had a letter and other documents to back her up.

They exchanged views with the committee as to what could cause the stability issues and the different test results. Mrs Spadoni said a computer model by Chris Baker had shown the boat today was 99% the same as when it was built. Explaining two different types of test applied for ‘standard’ or ‘beam’ trawlers, the latter applying to the Suzanna D, then if the regulations were applied correctly then the boat fails the standard test let alone the beam test; which would be a massive failure.

Mrs Spadoni said there is nothing wrong with the test it is the tester which is the problem; as they can manipulate the test and the results.

“We are here because of the MCA, they ruined our lives”, she exclaimed.

She went on to say her son had shook the hand of people in the MA - even after all the falling out originally, and the business being ruined - and didn’t blame the MA for the historic testing.

What they were complaining about was the missing documents, the failure to take action once the situation of the failed tests, and the dodgy UK tests, were known about.

Mrs Spadoni went on to say, there is a wider issue involved, of public safety; in that a boat, certified as safe by the MCA, but wasn’t, went to sea for 19 years. “It’s a crime not a misdemeanour”, she stated.

She ran through the expense they had incurred, £500k with no government money involved, and had a loan and mortgage to pay; but no business to fund payments. They waited 10 months for the MCA to do anything, and paid thousands to have tests undertaken by Mr Baker.

Mrs Spadoni described the experience: “It was like climbing Everest in stocking feet with Vaseline smeared on”. She added it was a five year battle and if it hadn’t been for an understanding bank manager, Brian Walton, they would have lost their home.

It is expected further witnesses will be called in due course.