We all spent a great deal of time and money sorting it out. There were many "stupidities" in it, with some regulations nigh on impossible to meet on certain craft. Some boatowners spent thousands of pounds, some gave up boating!

BUT, it was certainly necessary, and I am sure has contributed to overall safety on the inland boating scene and to raising the safety standards on all boats to unprecedented levels.

Over the years we have convinced the boatowners that "no, the authorities are not trying to get rid of all petrol engined inboard boats". Now all boats have battery master switches, 7840 piping, 3212 piping, compression fittings, standardised fire extinguishers, sufficient ventilation, gas boxes and so on ad infinitum. All specifically laid down, one of the main reasons being that all surveyors would have common targets, the maintenance staff would know exactly what to do to a boat to get it up to standard, builders helped in their determinations of RCD, BSS "what to use to satisfy everybody".

The BSS has been continually tweaked as lessons have been learned and now it is just about as good as it can get.

I have waded through the consultation document and it would really be a waste of all our time for me to comment on each question because I disagree with the direction of the whole thing.

It is all a totally backward step.

For instance you are suggesting getting rid of specific hose types and saying "suitable". Who decides if it is "suitable"? Every surveyor will have a different opinion!

Getting rid of many regulations because "no longer considered warranted in terms of known risk" - well of course not: the boats haven't blown up because the gas pipes have been fitted as per the regulations!

I do actually agree with some of the detailed proposals. Many are good and should be used in further "tweaking" of the scheme as is necessary in this continually changing world, but your overall proposals are going too far the other way and will only rebound on us in a few years.

The goal has always been to protect boatowners, the general public and the environment from the careless, thoughtless and thrifty action (or inaction) of both boatowners and, it has to be admitted, some in the trade. I get the impression you are trying to "pass the buck" more onto the boatowner to look after himself better. This will not work.

I appreciate that a lot of people have done a lot of work on this consultation document and I think that is probably one of its problems. It is full of "establishment speak" and the latest thoughts from committee men who may spend more time at their desk than on their boats.

Can I suggest your committees should be overweight with more "hands on" users, surveyors and workers.

I would also suggest that you do have the slightest doubts yourselves about the direction you are advocating, in that you have actually put this document out for consultation instead of just unilaterally adjusting the present scheme as necessary.

Yours faithfully, Captain C M Fox Topaz Marine Services