Method of levying Harbour dues and seizing of Emeraude Lines ship Solidor V

1240/5(1980)

QUESTION TO BE ASKED OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE HARBOURS AND AIRPORT COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY, 4th NOVEMBER 2003 BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN

Question

1. In its proposition P.192/2002,adopted by theStateson 22nd October 2002, the Committee stated that the practice inplace at that time of chargingharbourdueson the weightorvolumeof freight importsand exports might becontrarytoEU law. Can the President updatemembersonprogressin amending the relevant legislation and state when the matter will be presented totheStatesfor debate?
2. A s the Committeehas accepted that certain aspects of the methodof levying harbour dues maybe contrary to EUlawandis taking steps to amend the relevant legislation, is the Committee satisfied that it was appropriateto take such strongaction against Emeraude Linesby seizing Solidor V for past debts charged underthe old system?
3. O n 7thOctober2003, in answerto a question from SenatorM.E. Vibert ,thePresident stated that money collected asharbour dues is held in trust for thepeopleofJerseyandshouldbe paid to the Treasurerof the States'. Will thePresident explain whathe meant by this statement?
4. A t a public meeting held in the AlbertTerminalon 9th October 2003, the Vice-President stated that,at the time of theBattleof Britain in September,the Committee had been asked to take steps to seize the Solidor V but had decided not to do so.Wouldthe President inform members of the nature of the documentsubmittedto it by its senior officers at this time which the Committee refused to endorse?
5. W  ould the President inform memberswhetherinsurancecoverwas in place when the Solidor V was seized in accordance with the Ordre Provisoire and, ifso,who insured the craft for the period of its detention? If cover was not in place, will he give details of the consequences of the failure of the Committee to insure the vessel?

Answer

1. L e gislation has been drafted. A minor drafting issue awaits guidance from the LawOfficers' Department.

W  h il st the new Law will be EU compatible, advice is needed as to how Orders made under it can satisfy

both EU compliance and the port user. The commercial port users remain adamant that the only fair and effective way to distribute port charges is through passing them to customers on a per tonne of cargo basis, rather than charging on a per ship basis. The Committee understand this and awaits further advice on the point. The Committee is aware that many other ports charge in the same way as Jersey presently does.

2. Y e s – perfectly satisfied. Solidor V almostexclusively transports passengers and private vehicles, neither of which were subjects oftheadviceaboutEU compatibility.
3. W hen a passengerpurchases a ticket for travel on a ferry, part of the ticket price isin respect ofharbour dues. This moneyis held bythecompany, effectively in trust, and should be paid to the Treasurerof the States in a timelymanner.
4. I d o not recognise the event described in thequestion.On 9th September2003,theCommitteewas advised that a cheque from Emeraude in the sum of £115,866.70 hadbeenreturned unpaid.

T h e Committee decided that if cleared funds in this amount were not received by noon on Friday 12th

September 2003, its legal advisers should be instructed to instigate legal proceedings for an ordre provisiore. In the event cleared funds were provided by the deadline and no further action was taken.

5. T h e insurance of the vessel was the responsibility of the owners,butaswe could notbecertain that the insurance premiumhad been paid and therefore that coverwas in place, the Committee arrangedforour existing port policyto be extended to cover the vessel whileitwasin our care, atno additional premium.