THE Department of the Marine has denied that it was "in collusion" with Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM) to produce an unsafe fishing vessel.
The boat, built as a crabber, and modified due to instability, was sold recently to a fish farm for £62,000 at a net loss of £230,000 to the taxpayer, BIM told the Dail Committee of Public Accounts yesterday.
The vessel was repossessed due to non payment of loans and was sold again by tender in September, 1994, for £120,000, with the buyer receiving a BIM loan of £115,000. The new owner was dissatisfied with its capabilities, and asked the board to take it back. When BIM refused, the new owner initiated legal proceedings in 1995, and the case was settled last December, with BIM paying £25,000 and £28,584 in legal costs.
Experts had differed over the boat's stability, and BIM had stated that the grant application had been carried out with due diligence, and the proper procedures had been adhered to.
Asked by the committee chairman, Mr Denis Foley (FF), if the procedures had been followed, the BIM chief executive, Mr Tony Gannon, said one of BIM's naval architects had felt the boat was unstable before it was completed. However, the owner's marine surveyor felt it was stable. BIM consulted the Department of the Marine's survey office, which is equipped with special computer facilities, and "the answer given" was to the effect that the vessel was stable with certain modifications.
BIM's procedures relating to its fleet investment committee had been revised, he said.
Mr Brendan Cahill, for the Department of the Marine, said the modifications had included reducing the fuel capacity of the boat by half. Instructions for the operation of the craft were also issued. Mr Gannon said all the recommended modifications were not incorporated in the boat's plans, but were incorporated in the craft before commissioning in November, 1992.
Mr Cahill said there was no difference in view" between the Department of the Marine and BIM. The boat was not unsafe, as it could operate under certain conditions, he emphasised.
Mr Eric Byrne (DL) said that it would appear that the reputation of the Dutch architect who designed the boat had been damaged. Mr Gannon said he could not comment; the architect was still operating within the industry. There was an "insinuation" that both the Department and BIM had colluded to bring out an unsafe vessel, he said, and this was not so.
