EX-engineering officer Hugh Cleverly failed to understand my letter. I would in no way condone a drunk in charge of a ship.

What I was trying to put across was the difference between a drunk driver at the wheel of a car, and the master of a ship.

Under maritime law, the captain is always held responsible. Captain Smith of Titanic was not on the bridge when the watch keeper failed to take the correction action to avoid the iceberg (helm over port astern starboard ahead) but like a masters of that age he chose to go down with his ship.

On a modern liner there is often a senior captain, first officer, and others who are qualified to take command on the bridge.

The captain is not on duty 24/7. He often has the duty to socialise with his passengers and under the present limit would never be incapable. Yet the new lower limit means even a sherry and a glass of wine would leave him liable to arrest and loss of his master's ticket. Under maritime law he is always in command.

With a pleasure boat with a family onboard who is reponsible? The only qualified person might be a son. Yet it will be the nominal skipper who would not be allowed a social drink.

What about position of a party in a marina berth or at anchor? It's afloat but not on passage.

In regards to motorists, it is the driver who is held responsible, and not the owner who might be sitting beside him.

The law in regards to shipping and pleasure craft has not been well thought out and the reduction of the limit which puts at risk somebody who had a social drink of a bottle of wine or a couple of beers the evening before and is perfectly capable or driving at risk. I regard this as a another attack by the Labour Left on our social life. Or prohibition by stealth.

PHILIP PEARCE-SMITH, Holbury.