Yo, ho, ho and a bottle of rum

The problem of those who sail whilst under the influence of alcohol is to be tackled by the Government, as reported in Alert (Issue No.1, 2000). The Home Office issued a Consultation Paper on Possible Legislation to Combat Alcohol Abuse at Sea.

In its submission, the Institute of Alcohol Studies begins by attempting to clear up an immediate source of misunderstanding: "Our assumption is that despite the title of the consultation paper and its referring exclusively to seafarers and seafaring, given the centrality to these issues of the Marchioness disaster, the Government's proposals are in fact intended to apply also to rivers, estuaries and other inland waterways."

This, of course, raises the difficult question of whether any "drink-drive" legislation should apply to those operating private leisure craft. In addition, says the IAS, the task of finding satisfactory answers to the questions posed in the consultation paper has been made more difficult by the Government's refusal to lower the legal blood alcohol limit on the roads.

As to who precisely should be covered by the legislation, the IAS's submission goes on to say: "We support the Government's proposal that [it] should apply to merchant ships, fishing vessels, and to commercial leisure craft. In regard to which members of the crew should be covered and in what circumstances, we recognise that allowance must be made for the fact that a vessel may well be the crew's home as well as their place of work." Such difficulties are not insurmountable. It should be possible to frame the law so that it applies only to crew members in safety-critical positions in the performance of their duties, most obviously those responsible for steering and navigation. It could, on the other hand, be argued that the law should apply to anyone who might have to help in an emergency. This, of course, could be the whole crew at all times, depending on the size and nature of the vessel. The IAS's view is that the blood alcohol levels of non-safety critical and off-duty crew are best left to workplace policies rather than to the law.

One of the problems highlighted by the IAS is the occasional obscurity and ambiguity of the Home Office document. For example, its is not clear from the consultation paper whether the intention is to include pleasure craft in the proposed new law, although there is one paragraph which implies that this might be the case. Curiously, this paragraph appears to refer only to pleasure craft at sea and not those on inland waterways. There is relevant legislation in force in both Norway and Finland. The Norwegian law has only been in force for a year and there is no information as to how it is operating. In Finland, it appears, the law is rarely enforced because of the difficulties in applying it - one of which, presumably, is how to decide who is in charge of the craft at the relevant time in a boat with more than one person on board. The IAS makes the point that "the prospect of enforcing a maximum blood alcohol limit on holiday makers on, say, the Norfolk Broads or in the Solent is not one likely to appeal to the local police".

On the other hand, some pleasure craft such as speedboats and jet skis are so powerful that they represent potentially a major threat to everyone else on the same stretch of water, particularly when driven by someone under the influence of alcohol. It might be sensible "to frame the legislation to apply only to those operating motorised craft above an appropriate threshold related to tonnage, engine capacity or maximum speed."

The consultation paper asks what the alcohol limit should be. It seems entirely reasonable to expect that those in charge of vessels such as car ferries, oil tankers, and commercial ships carrying passengers, which are capable of inflicting substantial damage on people, other vessels, and the environment, should be completely sober. Given "the impossibility of enforcing a literally zero limit," says the IAS, "we favour following the model of civil aviation and setting a maximum blood alcohol level of 20mg per cent."

It would seem sensible that for other craft the limit should be the same as on the roads. "Unfortunately, the Government's refusal to lower the limit on the roads means that there is now a discrepancy between the legal limit and what the scientific evidence shows to be the maximum blood alcohol level compatible with public safety." Since the Home Office asks for an opinion now, the IAS suggests 50mg per cent.

Whilst giving general support to the Government's proposals, the IAS says that the legislation needs to be accompanied by other measures. For example, the industry should be encouraged to adopt workplace alcohol policies. Bye-laws on inland and coastal waterways need to be effectively enforced and hire companies should make sure that all clients are aware of the dangerous mix of alcohol and sailing.

Marchioness Disaster On 20th August 1989 51 people lost their lives when the Bowbelle dredger collided with the Marchioness passenger boat. The average age of those who died was 25. It is believed that alcohol may have been an important factor in the collision, and the inquest jury into the disaster recommended that legislation should be introduced to combat alcohol abuse on board ship.