Naval Architect/Marine Consultant Chris Baker left the Tynwald Select Committee - established to investigate various issues arising from the failure of the scallop dredger FV Suzanna D to pass stability tests – in no doubt if tests had been conducted properly in the UK it should never have passed a ‘twin boom’ stability test since 1975.

Controversy has surrounded this fishing boat ever since it was acquired by local fishermen - the Spadonis in the late 1990’s with a UK stability certificate - culminating in more than one Tynwald debate and allegation, now discredited, it was the new owners’ actions that caused the boat to fail stability tests in the IOM.

Mr Baker who gave the committee a long list of qualifications and experience, including involvement in the designing of super yachts and stability testing ro-ro vessels operating from Heysham port (and to the amusement of committee members and the public, Treasury Minister Allan Bell’s infamous failed ‘Bounty replica’ project when he was Tourism Minister), was quite adamant, in his professional opinion, the boat should not have passed a stability test since the change in regulations in 1975. In fact he went further and said he doubted if was ever truly seaworthy from the moment it was built in Holland; albeit it may have met the Dutch standards of the time.

Mr Baker was taken through the series of tests conducted in the IOM by committee chairman, Dudley Butt MLC; tests in which Mr Baker had played a roll with officers from the IOM Marine Administration (MA).

The first test conducted was a roll test in Port St Mary in 2000, and he said it was fairly straightforward test and it soon became obvious it was a failure – despite it being tested as a pass by the UK Marine & Coastguard Agency (MCA) in 1999.

This was later followed up by full incline tests conducted in Ramsey where it reflected the same figures as the roll test and was also a fail. He explained the reason for the failure was inherent in its design.

Under further questioning by Mr Butt about earlier MCA results, which showed fails or marginal passes, Mr Baker said there had been errors in the calculations; and even when they had spotted errors they still didn’t get the calculations correct.

He added some of the tests had also been based on a single roll, when a minimum of three or preferably five should be performed; and so they were not valid tests.

Committee member, David Cannan MHK put it to Mr Baker the boat must have been “duff” when the Spadonis bought it.

Mr Baker agreed, and added it probably would have been when it was taken on to the UK register; but previous owners had proved very reluctant to provide information to the authorities, sometimes being up to two years late in providing the information.

Mr Butt said there had been allegations figures had been copied from previous tests; to which Mr Baker replied, some one had either made a measurement error, made assumptions (which were wrong) or concrete had gone in to the boat. However, he said it wouldn’t be possible to put 12 tonnes of concrete in the boat and see no difference in the freeboard measurement.

With regard to the adding of concrete in the boat, Mr Baker explained the Douglas tests, with MCA personnel present, had been undertaken, back-to-back, with the concrete in and out and no significant difference was measured.

Mr Butt sought clarification from Mr Baker about the allegation the concrete blocks caused the boat to fail; and Mr Baker replied the allegation was “not correct”.

In his opinion the blocks made little difference as the freeboard measurement had always been the issue.

Asked what he thought of the suggestion the blocks had been added to replace the weight of gear, he said he thought they looked more permanent to him; and wondered if it had been part of a misguided, but understandable, attempt at improving stability.

He added though there had been some more serious issues with the boat than the extra concrete; and he would have hoped any professional person, involved in providing advice, would have picked up the more serious problems.

Mr Butt also asked about what affect the refit by the Spadonis to the Suzanna D would have made to the stability: improve, make worse or about the same.

Mr Baker said it was the latter.

An exchange then took place about the “horrendous” crossing experienced by the Spadonis sailing the boat from the UK back to the IOM; and Mr Baker confirmed in his opinion it was due to a boat design issue and nothing to do with the gearbox.

However, he added he knew of a number of boats that gave a comfortable ride in rough seas but which are far less stable than those which provide an uncomfortable crossing.

It may surprise people who travelled on the IOM Steam Packet boat ‘Lady of Man’ that Mr Baker stated this popular boat may have been ‘comfortable’ but is not as safe as the Ben My Chree.

Discussing the ‘limit’ for stability passes, Mr Baker said it was not a limit to design down to, but in any case the handling and safety of the boat was often more down to the skill of the skipper and the way they handled the boat. In other words you could take a boat that passed the stability test but in the hands of a bad skipper it could still get in to trouble.

Mr Cannan sought further clarification of what Mr Baker was saying; and Mr Baker confirmed if the boat is above minimum standard the crew would “stand a fighting chance”.

Mr Butt turned to the allegation of Ministers being misinformed that the addition of the concrete blocks made the boat unstable and this then being enunciated in Tynwald.

Mr Baker believed this to have been a “very unfortunate remark”.

Mr Butt then asked Mr Baker if he thought there had been a conspiracy to deny the Spadonis their rights; but he didn’t thinks so. He recounted how he had been contracted by the MCA to look at various options to see if the boat could be converted to meet the ‘twin boom’ standards; but they were either impractical or too expensive. This is why he thought they had decided to go down the compensation route, but he had not been involved in those negotiations. He added he guessed all had hoped a small change was all that was need to get the boat to comply; but the reality was it wouldn’t.

Nearly to the end of the questioning, Mr Butt inquired about the 1999 MCA ‘pass’ and wondered if Mr Baker knew how the MCA had arrived at that conclusion but only a few months later it failed in the IOM.

Mr Baker said the MCA results had an 8mm surplus but he arrived at a 2mm fail. However, he had heard, not that he had ever seen it written down, the MCA operated with a 10mm ‘experimental margin’ – not that he could understand why. He referred to this as a “fudge factor” and suggested if they were going to do this it may have been better to alter the criteria used to take the measurements.

Mr Baker couldn’t recall if he had taken the ‘fudge factor’ into account when he did his calculations, but nevertheless he had used the MCA’s original figures to recalculate and it had produced a 2mm fail.

In the final exchanges Mr Baker expressed the opinion there had been a lack of consistency of application of the rules in the UK; and he put this down to a lack of “joined up government” and nobody taking charge of the situation.

Replying to the Lord Bishop, who having listened to Mr Baker’s evidence, wondered whether any naval architect should have been able to see there was a problem with the Suzanna D, Mr Baker said he hoped so.

Mr Butt thanked Mr Baker for his evidence and said if they needed to recall him they would let him know or otherwise they may write to him with further questions.

Mr Baker said he would be happy to help.