The organisation has heavily criticised the lack of consultation with the business community before the island’s government signed a 20-year deal giving DFDS exclusive use of the harbour’s vehicle ramps.
Although Chamber has said that the Danish firm has ‘proved to be a professional ferry operator’, it has criticised the selection and tender process and reiterated concerns from its importing and exporting members over the impact on prices of the new agreement.
It made its comments to a Scrutiny panel review on the relationship between the island and the ferry firm.
‘A key concern remains the lack of any meaningful consultation with business leaders and freight logistics experts in Jersey prior to key decisions being taken,’ it said.
‘This absence of engagement meant that decisions were made without in-depth understanding of the operational realities required to service existing retailers and the wider market. By contrast, Guernsey undertook consultation with retailers and business representative organisations as part of its tender process, allowing local operational knowledge to better inform both policy decisions and outcomes.
‘That approach has been notably absent in Jersey.’
Chamber said that exporting and importing members had raised ‘significant dissatisfaction’ with the outcome of the concession process.
‘Much of this dissatisfaction may have been alleviated had meaningful consultation with industry and Chamber occurred prior to, or during, the stages when the concession agreement was being discussed and negotiated.’
Chamber and its members have concerns about several elements of the long-term contract, but notably the increased cost and complexity caused by having two Channel Island ferry operators.
It said that there was a clear link between the lack of ‘meaningful consultation’ and increased costs across the supply chain.
‘Decisions taken without engagement with retailers, freight operators, and business representative bodies have resulted in higher freight charges, missed port costs, weaker service protections, and limited policy mitigation.
‘The cumulative effect of these decisions is borne not by operators or government, but by consumers, particularly through higher food prices.’
You need to be logged in to comment. If you had an account on our previous site, you can migrate your old account and comment profile to this site by visiting this page and entering the email address for your old account. We'll then send you an email with a link to follow to complete the process.