The reduction of harbour dues in winter and Emeraude Line financial difficulties

1240/5(1966)

QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE HARBOURS AND AIRPORT COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY 21st OCTOBER 2003, BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN

Question 1

With regard to harbour dues, would the President inform members –

1. w h ether the Committeeisconsideringreducingharbourlandingdues for this winter, and, if so, by how much? and,
2. w h ether the Committee intends to approach the Tourism DevelopmentFund to assist inreducing landing dues at the harbour,and, if not, the reasons forthis?

Answer

1. T h e Committee has already considered and agreed to discount harbour dues at 50 per cent onpassengers and private cars for the winter period, 7th November 2003 - 27th March 2004.
2. N o . It would,inmyview,bemore appropriate forferry operators to seeksuch funding formarketing activity.

Question 2

With regard to the current situation regarding Emeraude Lines' financial difficulties, will the President inform members –

1. w h ether the Committee will be working closely with the French Court representative in a manner that will benefit all theEmeraudeemployees, travelling public andHarboursDepartment? and,
2. f o llowing receipt by all membersofanopen letter from a member of the public with reference to harbour dues, would the Presidentadvisewhetherhe has respondedto that letter, and, if so, whetherhe will be copying the responsetomembers and if not, why not?

Answer

1. Y e s, and as part of that process, the Committeeexpecttobe meeting with the AdministrateurJudiciarein the next few days.
2. Y e s, I haverespondedto that letter and copieshavebeendistributedtoMembers. Question 3

With regard to the Jersey-St. Malo ferry route, would the President inform members –

1. o f the Committee's reasons for opening up the route to two operators earlier this year?
2. w h ether it is the Committee's intention of re-instating the Jersey-St.Malo route to a single operator,and, if not,thereasonsfor this? and,
3. w h ether a service levelagreement is to beput in placefor all commercial operators who service the Jersey-St. Malo route,and, if not, the reasons forthis?

Answer

1. I h ave already effectively answered this questionismyresponseto Senator Edward Vibert .
2. T h e ramp permitsfor both Condor and Emeraude expire at the end of2004.

D u r i ng the next twelve months, we shall be consulting with the Economic Development Committee

regarding as to how the ramp permits should be allocated from 1st January 2005.

3. A s part ofourconsultation with theEconomicDevelopmentCommittee,weshallbe considering the desirability ofnegotiating service levelagreements.

Question 4

Will the President inform members –

1. w h ether the HarbourAuthorities,at the time of the seizure of Solidor V,hadbeenholdingmeaningful talks with the FrenchAdministratorappointedbythe Tribunal deCommerce in FrancetorunEmeraude Lines' affairs, and, if not, the reasons why? and,
2. w h ether theFrenchAdministratorwaspresent at discussions with the managementofEmeraudeLines immediately following the seizure of Solidor V, and, if not, at what time during negotiations was the Administrator brought into thediscussions and the reasons for this delay?

Answer

1. A t the time of the arrest of Solidor 5,wewerenotin any talks with the FrenchAdministrateur.

A d d i tionally, and I quote from the legal advice received by the Committee at the time, "in the absence of a

charge or any other form of security, as a practical matter we are unlikely to find relief from an administrateur in France. There would seem to be little benefit in negotiating directly since any claim would be inferior to the principal secured creditors of Emeraude."

T h e C  ommittee had three reasons to effect the Ordre Provisiore and then negotiate:

1 . I t was made clear to me by the Deputy Bailiff that the Ordre Provisiore could not be mentioned in

discussions and that any suggestion of undue influence or duress was to be avoided;

2 . I t was clear that the Committee ranked as an unsecured creditor under French insolvency law and

could expect a polite dismissal if it raised a letter of enquiry. The Committee was not seeking to ride roughshod over the interests of French creditors, but rather to protect Jersey's interests; and,

3 . I t was important that the Committee conducted any discussion when it was in the best possible

position to achieve a result. The procedure followed was consistent with advice by specialist French avocats acting on our behalf.

T h e onus was properly placed upon Emeraude and the Administrateur to enter into talks with the

Committee, as would be the case in any other procedure of this nature.

F o ll o wing the Committee's actions and subsequent discussions, it now has the recognition it required, and

guarantees regarding ongoing dues and comfort in connection with outstanding dues.

2. I h ave nowayofknowing when theAdministrateurstarted any discussions with themanagementof Emeraude.

F o r o ur part, communications commenced on Tuesday 7th October 2003, and negotiations were completed on Wednesday 8th October 2003, after eight hours of talks directly between the Administrateur and myself. On Thursday 9th October 2003, I received a letter from the Administrateur thanking me for the

time, attention and understanding that I had shown.