As luck would have it, I bumped into Tom Nighy as I was leaving. Tom had joined (and subsequently succeeded) Harry Lincoln back in the 1980s as the BMF's technical consultant and it was on Tom's head that the full weight and workload of the emerging RCD descended in those early days. If anyone has the full inside story of how the RCD arrived in the UK, it's Tom.

And - despite the fact that I fear I had once given him a very hard time (because, as a small boatbuilder, the last thing I then wanted was the cost and hassle of yet more red tape) Tom kindly agreed to sit down over a coffee and revisit those early days of the RCD.

'The RCD was inevitable,' Tom recalled. 'The BMF realised it was essential to talk to people and support new legislation that would encompass all boats sold into the European Community (EC). If not, there was a risk that something like the existing French Marine Marchande regulations might be foisted on us all.

'The initial running was made by the International Council of Marine Industry Associations (ICOMIA) and its Technical Committee. This included experienced people from such organisations as the BMF, Norske Veritas, the French Federation of Nautical Industries (FIN), other European federations and of course the Americans. And the Department of Trade & Industry (DTI) was extremely helpful. It knew about European Union (EU) legislation and taught us a lot.

Outline plan
'Brussels provided an outline plan and the ICOMIA Technical Committee set about identifying such things as Essential Safety Requirements (ESRs). The British Standards Group (BSI) was also involved and existing international standards (ISOs) were used as a basis where available and suitable. Andrew Blyth, an experienced naval architect, came up with stability formulae and helped sort out such problems as the typical crew weight. And the DTI lobbed in £100,000 that was paid to the BSI to fund the expenses incurred in developing the stability standard and covering the costs of meetings, delegates' travelling expenses and the convener's costs and charges.' 

'How did the Americans take all this?' I asked innocently. 'We had many battles with them,' Tom replied. 'They did not like the idea of a European initiative. Their attitude was that since they then had around 80% of the worldwide market, we should use their regulations such as those formulated by the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) and the US Coastguard. But our argument was that ISOs and European Norms (ENs) could also be used worldwide.'

Anyway, to cut a long and convoluted (not to mention political) story short, ICOMIA got its way and in June 1998 Directive 94/25/EC duly became law. Even though some bodies such as the RYA thought it was not in its members' interest and resisted it (with one prominent officer allegedly saying: 'Theres no such thing as good legislation.'), the RCD had arrived and a new era was born.

Like most European legislation, it has of course since been extended. And will probably continue to be so until time immemorial. It now includes personal watercraft (PWCs), separately sold marine equipment and engine noise and emissions. Its construction standards now number 88, and there are over 30 more still in the pipeline. Plenty more jobs for the boys, even if the marine trade as a whole crunches into the credit buffers.

At the time of the RCDs inauguration, many small boatbuilders (myself included) were decidedly unimpressed by the reams of paperwork, box ticking and expense involved.

Big companies probably had staff with spare time who could fill in as RCD operatives. But small companies either had to take on extra staff or waste the otherwise productive time of existing staff who were already fully occupied elsewhere. It was a pain.

'Ah, but now you will be able to sell into France and Italy without being stymied by their national regulations that are little more then non-tariff barriers' we were told.

Effective barrier
True, the French Marine Marchande used to constitute a very effective barrier. But by and large these markets normally bought home-made boats anyway (rather than imported stuff) as a matter of deeply ingrained nationalistic instinct; especially in the small to medium end of the market. And this did not change with the RCD.

Selling our small (6 to 10m) yachts into Germany, Holland and Scandinavia was as simple pre-RCD as it was post. And selling into France and Italy remained nigh on impossible.

But perhaps the builders of bigger boats did not encounter the same problem, since the UK big three (Fairline, Princess and Sunseeker) had stolen a march on most European competitors who did not as yet build such large production boats. So they had much of the market place to themselves.

One of the most contentious aspects of the RCD was the classification of boats into categories; namely Category A for ocean; Category B for offshore; Category C for coastal and Category D for estuary or inland. Initially, Categories A, B and C had to be assessed and classified (at a not inconsiderable cost in relation to smaller companies overall annual budgets) by a Notified Body, whilst Category D boats could be self certified using ISO stability and buoyancy standards.

But even self certification meant that the builder sometimes felt the need to employ a Notified Body for the stability and buoyancy aspects of the RCD. More recently, self certification has been extended to Category C boats.

The notion ofcategorising boats in terms of stability is in itself most boatbuilders agree - a good thing. But to this day, people argue that the interpretation of a category is not simple for the boat buyer. Some buyers believe, for example, that a boat classified as Category B (offshore) is, by definition, neither safe in, nor suited to, sea conditions or distances from land specified for Category A (ocean) boats. This is palpably not true.

Numerous ocean voyages are successfully accomplished by boats that the RCD deems too small and light to qualify for Category B, let alone Category A. Yet large Category A Ocean rated yachts can some argue be built right down to RCD requirements and thus be less secure in arduous sea conditions than a really well built Category B yacht.

False sense of security
Several builders I spoke to maintain that classification and certification can give the buyer a false sense of security; and that some boat sellers claim a mediocre product is a superior one because its got a Conformité Européene (CE) plaque screwed onto it.

Adrian Jones of Rustler Yachts reckoned the RCD almost dumbs down the standards for a seagoing yacht, whereas Lloyds 100A1 really means something. 'The gap between just compliant and seriously good is getting wider,' he said.

One thing is for sure: the RCD does not imply a stamp of quality assurance (as some buyers believe). It simply states that a boat is designed, built and equipped to minimum specified standards and is deemed fit for specified uses. Of course this is considerably better than nothing; but only so long as a CE mark is not misconstrued (or misrepresented) as an acknowledgement of excellence.

And as for the contention held in some quarters that RCD categorisation could somehow be tied in with boat driving licences or even insurance cover: just dont go there.

But as boats get ever bigger, the RCD starts to fall off the radar screen; because boats over 24m have to comply with the far more onerous Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA) requirements.

The scope and influence of the RCD has extended enormously since its inauguration. Now there are 27 EU member countries. In bygone days, there was concern that sub-standard boats could creep in under the net from countries behind the old Iron Curtain. But now that many of these countries are members of The Club, any boats they build must be RCD compliant to sell on their own home markets, let alone across their borders.

This, in turn, should help reduce the problem of grey imports, whereby non-RCD classified boats wriggle under the radar and get sold into the EU. But there are still stories of boats built on the other side of the Atlantic making their way over here without being RCD compliant.

And even if someone buys one of these grey imports in all innocence, he will have a problem reselling it because responsible brokers will always include RCD and builders' certificates on the must have paperwork list when transferring ownership of a post 1998 boat.

2010 legislation
Hopefully, however, such grey imports will find it even harder to get in once the new 2010 legislation comes in whereby border customs take responsibility for checking product suitability as well as financial importation matters.

There is one sector of the European boat market, however, for which the RCD was effectively a death knell. The self build and kit boat markets.

Many builders (my company included) sold large numbers of boats for home completion. In our case, it was a structurally complete (but largely empty) boat with keel and engine fitted and several large boxes of bits. The DIY inclined owner could save a lot of money and enjoy the satisfaction of finishing his own boat.

The RCD, however, decreed that a self build boat could not be re-sold for five years unless the builder went to the huge expense of paying for his own one-off certification.

True, my company got round this by persuading the ever helpful Ken Kershaw of the RYA that our kit should receive automatic certification if the home builder bought all the same components we used and fitted them in the way we specified.

But most other kit suppliers did not manage to get this concession. And as a result the DIY kit boat market has virtually disappeared. Which is a shame. And as a generalisation the smaller builders have found the RCD to be a bigger problem than their bigger brothers. And this is as true today as it was in 1998.

Another aspect of RCD inconsistency was brought to my attention by Peter Reid, British builder of the long running and successful Hawk 20.

'Our boats are self-certified, but we still use a Notified Body for some aspects. This costs around £1000. But we still see competitors boats with details that do not comply with the RCD bearing CE plaques. How can this be?' How indeed? Maybe it relates to level playing fields.

It is said that some Notified Bodies in some countries are far more casual than others when it comes to checking out (let alone physically inspecting) the boats that they approve. Apparently its something to do with the mysteriously named New Approach directives, which give a Notified Body discretion in applying the ISO standards or not. It has even been suggested horror of horrors that some Notified Bodies are only interested in pocketing the boatbuilders money.

Enforcement
And when it comes to enforcement of the RCD, some countries are draconian and others tend towards the school of the blind eye. Hopefully these are matters to which the BMF, ICOMIA and other such worthy bodies will address themselves. After all like most legislation - the RCD will have loopholes that need filling and new developments that need incorporating.

And speaking of new developments, I did meet one prominent British manufacturer who was unequivocally and deliriously delighted with the RCD: and in particular with its edicts on engine noise and emissions.

Every RCD cloud they say has a silver lining. And this clever chap found it. 'Its done wonders for my business, but please dont name me.' he said. Guess who? A free bottle of Muscadet Sur Lie (courtesy of this scribe) to the sender of the first correct answer to land on The Editors desk, or in his email inbox.

But perhaps I should leave the last word to the BMF. I received an email from technical manager Nigel Saw saying: 'As far as BMF are concerned we remain as busy as ever on RCD courses, with many new people coming into the business and many existing people keen to ensure they are kept up to date. Of particular concern are "grey illegal imports"; however much work is being done by the surveillance authorities to keep this in check and I feel this will become more significant as time goes on. As far as the future is concerned we are in the early stages of discussing comments with the Commission for a review of the RCD and no doubt this will occupy our time for the next couple of years!'

No doubt it will and hopefully BMF members will chip in with ideas and suggestions. This way they might be able to influence the next 10 years of the RCD.