""A comparison between petrol and diesel in marine use inevitably revolves around power/weight ratios of engines, and the safety issues of fuel stored onboard and unintentional ignition."

The abandonment of red diesel for leisure boats and the implications of the 300% to 300% rise in fuel price is the issue. The issue does not revolve around power/weight ratios of engines. Hence the response from the Minister does not deal in any manner with the points made to him.

"Despite the removal of the "Red" status of diesel, the relative benefits of diesel as a marine fuel are considered to outweigh the increase in basic cost."

It is incorrect to state that the 'Red' Status of diesel has been removed - it has not. This is the very point at issue which the Minister seems to have pre-judged.

The removal of Red status would mean that petrol and diesel costs are about the same costs - so it is nonsense to claim that the RELATIVE benefits of diesel outweigh the increase in basic cost - there is no alternative cheaper fuel to compare it to.

"Diesel remains cheaper than petrol; is less volatile; can be stored in integral hull tanks; and the vapour, although pungent, is much less dangerous than that of petrol. Diesel is also relatively more environmentally friendly than petrol."

Fully taxed diesel is not cheaper than petrol - that is just factually incorrect.

At no point does the Minister's response deal with the effect of the 300% to 400% price rise in diesel costs. Nor the practical difficulties involved in removing red diesel. Instead the response is a factually incorrect , illogical discussion about the relative merits of petrol V diesel for marine use.

It would be nice to see the Minister's response published in MBY or MBM and the Minister asked to withdraw the unintelligent letter and answer specific questions. Its an election time coming up. I have now written to my MP and asked where he stands on the issue - we should all do the same.

Paul