Defaced Red Ensigns for Jersey Ships.

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made (15/05/2008) regarding: Defaced Red Ensigns for Jersey Ships.

Decision Reference: MD-E-2008-0072
Decision Summary Title :	Defaced Red Ensigns for Jersey Ships		Date of Decision Summary:	04 April 2008
Decision Summary Author:	Piers Baker – Maritime Compliance Manager		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	n/a
Written Report Title :	Defaced Red Ensigns for Jersey Ships		Date of Written Report:	19 March 2008
Written Report Author:	Piers Baker, Maritime Compliance Manager		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Defaced Red Ensigns for Jersey ships & legal anomalies regarding local yacht club ensigns.
Decision(s): The Assistant Minister agreed that the Law Officers Department should be asked to work with the UK’s Ministry of Justice to prepare the necessary Orders in Council whilst the Jersey legislation and States Proposition are prepared so as to introduce a defaced ensign as an option for ships registered in the Island; The Assistant Minister agreed that the proposal to grant the right to fly a defaced ensign should have two basic minimum restrictions imposed, being that of the requirement for full registration and a minimum ship size; The Assistant Minister has indicated his preference for the Jersey Three Leopards crest surmounted by the Plantagenet Crown.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Law officers need a framework in which to work with the UK Ministry of Justice and cannot open discussion on the topic unless there is a clear understanding what it is that the Registry and the Economic Development Department are seeking. The introduction of a defaced ensign will be advantageous to the Island in expressing its unique identity. It will enhance international awareness and help to promote the shipping register.
Resource Implications: There are no new financial, property, ICT or human resources issues arising.
Action required: Following the Ministerial Decision, informal discussion will commence between the UK’s Ministry of Justice and the Law Officers and work will proceed to prepare the relevant Proposition to be put to the States. The resolution of issues regarding other ensigns and the possible anomalies in UK and Jersey law will be dealt with at the same time.
Signature: Deputy A.J.H.Maclean		Position: Assistant Minister
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Defaced Red Ensigns for Jersey Ships.

Economic Development Department

Defaced Red Ensign for Jersey Ships – Options Paper

Background

Ships registered in Jersey are British ships. As such there is an automatic entitlement to fly the Red Ensign and this is recognised in both UK and Jersey legislation.

That right also applies under UK law to ships registered in other Crown Dependencies and the Overseas Territories. However, as part of establishing a separate international identity, a number of these jurisdictions have also authorised the flying of an ensign that has in its fly a recognisable crest or badge associated with that jurisdiction’s history.

Traditionally Jersey has not sought to follow this course and initially the response to a private approach to consider the matter was that change would be unfavourable to the reputation of the register. However, the Registry has been asked to pursue the matter further.

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Undefaced Red Ensign

The immediate advantage of being able to fly an undefaced ensign is that the ship is internationally recognised as British. Associated with that is a sense of security and a recognition that the flag is a flag of quality. Legislative, inspection and compliance standards particularly regarding safety, protection against pollution, employment and security are known to be high.

The disadvantage of an undefaced ensign is that it does nothing to help a small jurisdiction’s desire to express an identity separate from the UK. This is a question of pride and may also achieve greater international awareness for the jurisdiction. Additionally, where a registry develops a reputation for special expertise or efficiency, regarding a particular ship category or size (such as large yachts), then a defaced ensign provides a way of attracting more ship owners to that registry.

Research undertaken during the autumn of 2007 has concluded that merchant ship owners probably tend to prefer the undefaced ensign, whilst yacht owners feel there may be greater prestige in flying a specially defaced one.

This likely difference in preference is easily resolved as it already established in law that a choice between a defaced ensign and an undefaced one can be an option, for each individual owner to decide.

Legal Advice

The Law Officers have provided useful and extremely thorough advice. This has also covered the relationship between UK and Jersey law and the matter of the status of the defacements on the ensigns flown by States vessels and in yachts owned by members of the St Helier Yacht Club and the Royal Channel Island Yacht Club.

The full legal and constitutional background is not discussed here. Suffice to say that it is likely that a new Order in Council, new yacht club warrants and a small amendment to the Shipping Law 2002 may be required. These matters will be the subject both of talks to be held between the Law Officers and the Ministry of Justice as well as being included in a formal Proposition to the States.

Choice of Emblem

Much like the status of any ensign or national flag, the crest chosen to deface an ensign must carry with it a sense of real history, credibility and permanence. Such a crest cannot be seen as a logo or transient symbol if it is to be worthwhile and last perhaps for centuries.

As a result, it is suggested that the only real choice is whether Jersey should adopt, as an optional defacement, the plain three leopards crest so widely used for many years by States departments or the same crest with the Plantagenet Crown surmounting it, as appears in the centre of the Jersey Flag. The latter is the preferred choice of the Bailiff and it of course provides a direct link with the Crown and Jersey’s historic allegiance dating from the time of King John.

Restriction on Use of a Defaced Ensign

Many vessels currently fly a defaced ensign in connexion with a particular yacht club. Other ships may fly the undefaced Blue Ensign, through ownership by a serving or retired naval officer.

These ensigns carry significant status. As a result it is normal for the warrant relating to them to impose some minimum restrictions. In the case of the yacht clubs, this includes, inter alia, that the ship must be formally registered as a British ship and to be either at least 7 metres long or to be measured as over 2 tons gross. There is also a requirement that the vessel is used only as a private pleasure craft and that the owner is a British Citizen.

These latter restrictions concerning the nationality of the owner and the nature of the use of the vessel would clearly defeat the purposes of adopting a defaced ensign for Jersey ships as this would exclude all company owned or commercial vessels. However, a more limited requirement for full registration and a minimum size might act to enhance the status of the defacement and benefit the expansion of the registry.

Recommendations

The Assistant Minister is recommended:

To confirm that the Department and Law Officers should prepare the relevant legislation and States Proposition to introduce a defaced ensign as an option for ships registered in the Island;

to confirm that the right to fly a defaced ensign should have only some basic minimum restrictions imposed, such as the requirement for full registration and a minimum ship size;

to indicate his preference for either the plain Three Leopards crest or the same crest with the Plantagenet Crown.

Next Steps

If the Assistant Minister accepts recommendation 1 above, informal discussion will commence between the UK’s Ministry of Justice and the Law Officers and work will proceed to prepare the relevant Proposition to be put to the States.

The resolution of issues regarding other ensigns and the possible anomalies in UK and Jersey law will be dealt with at the same time.

Maritime Compliance Manager

19 March 2008 (amended 3 Apr 08)