Critical Infrastructure Resilience – Transport Links (R.129/2025): executive response

Recommendations

Risk of non-implementation

Risk profile (E,  H, M, L)

Other  considerations  in prioritisation

Is  the recommendation agreed?

Improvement theme (If applicable)

R1 Agree a definition of Island critical infrastructure.  This  should  include critical transport infrastructure for sea, air and on-Island transport and the routes which fall within this definition.

Failure to define Island critical infrastructure,  particularly transport routes by sea, air, and land,  may  create  a  risk  of inconsistent  planning, preparedness  and  prioritisation across  government  and emergency  services.  Without  a shared understanding, key assets may be overlooked in resilience strategies,  leading  to  potential gaps  in  protection,  misaligned investment,  and  reduced coordination and increased risk associated  with  resilience  of infrastructure operators.

High

The  complexity  of  inter-agency coordination increases the likelihood of this risk materialising, although can be  managed  through  regular  and collaborative engagement. The risk of failing  to  define  Jersey's  critical infrastructure  is  a  foundational concern that affects nearly all aspects of resilience planning. It has a high score  due  to  its  potential  to  cause fragmented emergency preparedness, misaligned  investment,  and  gaps in protection.  Prioritising  this  risk  is essential  because  it  underpins  risk management across government and emergency services.

Agreed.

Critical  Island Infrastructure definition  to  support appropriate protection strategies

R2  Ensure  that  Ministers  and  (as relevant)  other  States  Members  are invited  to  participate  in  training  and exercises  for  emergency  response,

If  there  are  less  informed decisions during crises, there is a risk  of  poor  coordination, reduced effective, there may be

Medium

The possible lack of opportunities for structured engagement from Ministers and  States  Members  in  emergency exercises poses a risk to leadership

Agreed. Emergencies Council  will  be

Leadership capability and  awareness  for emergency situations

Recommendations

Risk of non-implementation

Risk profile (E,  H, M, L)

Other  considerations  in prioritisation

Is  the recommendation agreed?

Improvement theme (If applicable)

covering  both  their  decision-making roles but also, for example, as users of IT in relation to cyber security exercises. Log participation.

an  impact  on  public  trust,  and missed  opportunities  to strengthen  inter-agency collaboration  and  strategic oversight.

effectiveness  during  crises. Implementing  this  recommendation will be prioritised to reflect the need to  embed  emergency  preparedness into  political  culture,  supported  by officers,  and  ensure  that  senior decision-makers are equipped to act decisively.

included  in emergency planning  10-  year training  exercising plan. Inclusion will be  based  on  their involvement as key stakeholders  in  an emergency.

R3 Update the Jersey Emergency Risk Register (JERR) to ensure it is:

• relevant  to  Jersey's  capability  and

capacity to respond locally

• complete, by carrying out an exercise requiring  all  JERR  risk  owners  to confirm completeness of all entries in the JERR by the end of 2025; and

• informed by and continuous with the management  of  chronic'  risks, including through an understanding and  ownership  by  the  Executive Leadership  Team  of  links  to departmental  Business  Continuity Plans and Emergency Preparedness Plans.

An outdated or incomplete Jersey Emergency Risk Register could weaken  Jersey's  ability  to identify,  assess,  mitigate,  plan, train and exercise to ensure we have proportionate capability to respond  effectively  to  major incidents or emergencies. Whilst not all risks cannot be foreseen, planned response activity to risks identified  on  the  JERR  may become  assumed  and aspirational,  and  unachievable. This  can  lead  to  delays  in responsiveness  at  the  point  of crisis, misallocation of resources, and  reduced  resilience  across departments,  which  could ultimately  impact  public confidence  in  government preparedness.

Medium

Whilst Jersey already has appropriate emergency  response  preparations in place,  there  is  always  room  for improvement.

Agreed.

Jersey  Emergency Risk Register

R4  Agree  a  timeline  and  publication process for developing a public facing Jersey Emergency Risk Register, so that

If  not  implemented,  the  JERR may  not  be  accessible  to  the community,  which  could  limit

Low

Without  public  awareness  of  local risks,  individuals  and  communities may be less prepared, and the warning

Agreed.

Jersey  Emergency Risk Register

Recommendations

Risk of non-implementation

Risk profile (E,  H, M, L)

Other  considerations  in prioritisation

Is  the recommendation agreed?

Improvement theme (If applicable)

all  Islanders  are  informed  about emergency  risk  preparedness  and management  and  also  understand  how they can act to improve individual and community resilience.

individual  and  community resilience,  reduce  public engagement,  and  may  hinder confidence  in  emergency preparedness  and  effective communication  during  major incidents or emergencies.

and informing preparedness strategy may  be  less  effective.  Given  that publication  is  already  planned alongside the Household Emergency Plan,  public  engagement  strategies will  be  put  in  place  to  maximise impact.

R5  Make  a  clear  decision  about progressing work to draft a Resilience Law,  including  a  timetable  and  action plan. As part of this, take steps, through for  example  a  proper  stakeholder consultation exercise, to understand what might make the Resilience Standards a better fit for Jersey.

The current Law will continue to be  in  effect  and  provides  an effective  framework  in  the interim. If not implemented there may be an opportunity missed to clarify roles and responsibilities and  delays  in  formalising resilience standards, which may have governance or reputational impact on Government.

High

This legal framework is necessary to formalise  resilience  standards  and clarify  roles  and  responsibilities. Whilst  it  is  anticipated  that  the drafting of a Resilience Law will be prioritised  in  2026,  reflecting  its strategic importance to Jersey's future preparedness, the prioritisation of the legislative programme is a matter for the Council of Ministers.

Agreed  but Deferred.

No action at this time.

R6 In line with the introduction of a new Resilience Law and further development of Resilience Standards, ensure there is a mechanism  to  integrate  the  Resilience Standards into contracts with owners and operators  of  critical  infrastructure, including for transport links.

If not implemented in a timely way,  there  may  be  a  missed opportunity  to  strengthen infrastructure  resilience  and enforceable  standards,  the impact  of  which  may  be  the ability  to  potentially  delay  the consistent inclusion of resilience in  infrastructure  delivery,  the development  of  guidance materials,  and  encourage consistent  practice  across departments.

Medium

This  recommendation  is  supported, and there is a clear recognition of the value  in  embedding  Resilience Standards  within  infrastructure contracts.  However,  the  ability  to mandate these standards is currently limited by the absence of a formal legal  framework.  As  such,  full integration will be carefully timed to align  with  the  development  of  the Resilience  Law.  Once  the  legal framework is in place, this area can be revisited  with  greater  clarity  and confidence  to  ensure  resilience  is embedded effectively in infrastructure delivery.

Agreed  but Deferred.

No action at this time.

Recommendations

Risk of non-implementation

Risk profile (E,  H, M, L)

Other  considerations  in prioritisation

Is  the recommendation agreed?

Improvement theme (If applicable)

R7 Develop a formal process for post- implementation review of new air route trials  involving  Government,  Ports  of Jersey and Visit Jersey. To commence with a detailed review of the impact of the  new  Paris  route  served  by  Blue Islands.

If a formal post-implementation review process for new air route trials  is  not implemented,  then Government, Ports of Jersey, and Visit  Jersey  may  lack  the necessary insights to assess the strategic, economic, and tourism- related  impacts  of  new  routes, resulting in missed opportunities for  route  optimisation,  reduced stakeholder  alignment,  and diminished  ability  to  respond effectively to market changes or future  connectivity  needs,  but will have no impact on Jersey's critical  infrastructure  resilience as these routes are not critical.

Low

New air route trials, such as the cited example of Paris / Blue Islands, are discretionary and accretive: they are not  critical  infrastructure,  and  we consider  such  arrangements  outside the scope of this work. In any event, existing  processes  include mechanisms  for  monitoring  and evaluating transport connectivity and tourism impact with our ALBs. These are  considered  sufficient  for  the current scope and scale of new route introductions. Formalising a separate review process would duplicate effort and risk misalignment with broader strategic  objectives  at  a  time  of capacity constraints.

Not agreed

No action at this time.

R8  Introduce  a  structured  process  for reporting the identified Key Performance Indicators in respect of the Blue Islands loan so that achievement of the desired outcome can be evidenced or corrective action taken.

If  a  structured  process  for reporting the identified KPIs is not  implemented,  achievement of the desired outcomes cannot be  evidenced,  and  corrective action may not be taken. It is important to remember that the loan was made at a time of crisis and that the outcomes themselves were not a specific objective at that time. The specific objective was to safeguard a critical travel corridor  during  the  pandemic. The  loan  has  been  made therefore  adding  a  structured

Low

Whilst the business case for the loan identified a range of KPIs that would support  the  GoJ  in  assessing  the success  and  impact  of  the  loan, outside of a crisis situation, the KPIs were  not  the  rationale  for  the  loan which  was  to  secure  the  Island's critical connectivity, particularly for medical  flights,  during  the  Covid pandemic and when BA and easyJet had grounded their fleet.

Agreed  and ongoing.  A periodic,  structured reporting arrangement  is  in place to ensure that the  Minister  for Treasury  and Resource  remains up to date.

No  additional  action at this time.

Recommendations

Risk of non-implementation

Risk profile (E,  H, M, L)

Other  considerations  in prioritisation

Is  the recommendation agreed?

Improvement theme (If applicable)

reporting  mechanism  does  not impact the inherent existing risk.

R9 For patients whose travel to overseas appointments is organised by Health and Care Jersey, capture, analyse and report data  about  delayed  and  missed appointments.  This  should  include  the consequences in terms of patient health and wellbeing and cost and be used to assess risk and potential mitigations.

If not implemented, then senior managers  will  have  limited visibility of the impact of travel disruptions  on  patient appointments  off-island.  This may lead to missed opportunities to further improve resilience.

Low

Data  on  missed  appointments  is already collected by the Travel Office. This includes appointments that are cancelled by the hospital and by the patient, as well as those impacted by travel disruptions.

The  Travel  Office  have  well- embedded  processes  for  mitigating the  risks  of  appointments  being missed due to travel disruptions.

An escalation process is  already in place,  for  cancellations  which  have not been re-booked; most patients are offered a viable alternative.

Agreed  and ongoing.

No  additional  action at this time.

R10  Urgently  review  oversight arrangements for the Jersey Emergency Transfer Service's current and proposed future contract, including to make sure processes are in place to:

• fully  understand  and  address  the impact of current weaknesses in the service, including by:

• taking a patient outcome perspective; and

• actively addressing the risks already logged  and  those  that  should  be logged

If  not  implemented,  then  the service  may  be  sub-optimal, leading  to  instances  of  non- availability  where  alternative transport  arrangements  need  to be  made. In  addition,  if  not implemented,  additional resources  may  continue  to  be utilised (people and financial) in dynamically risk managing any availability issues.

Low

The  work  to  address  this recommendation  is  already  being progressed;  the  elements  identified are  already  included  in  the procurement  strategy,  which  was agreed in June 2025.

Agreed  and ongoing.

Governance – Jersey Emergency Transport Service

Recommendations

Risk of non-implementation

Risk profile (E,  H, M, L)

Other  considerations  in prioritisation

Is  the recommendation agreed?

Improvement theme (If applicable)

• align Key Performance Indicators to monitor  all  weaknesses  identified, even if these are not yet contractual

• develop  routine  reporting  and escalation arrangements; and

• establish  joined  up  Business Continuity Plans.

R11  Implement  a  robust  procurement strategy  to  support  a  November  2025 decision  on  the  award  of  the  JETS contract, informed by views on how well the current service provision meets the States of Jersey's desired outcomes, and how well risks can be managed within the States' risk appetite for this service.

If a robust procurement strategy is  not  implemented,  other providers are available and have been  engaged  through  the procurement  process,  therefore the likelihood of there being no emergency  transport  service  is minimised.

Medium

The procurement strategy, which was agreed in June 2025, is robust and is being delivered. The current service contract  expires  in  May  2026;  the procurement strategy timescales align with this.

Agreed in part – the current  service expires  in  May 2026;  the  timeline for decision-making has  been  agreed accordingly, and is expected to be in Q1 2026,  as  current service expires May 2026..

Governance – Jersey Emergency Transport Service

R12  In  procurement  processes  where changes  to  stated  criteria  or  terms  of contracts  are  proposed,  and  in  post- contractual  variations,  document  a comprehensive  impact  assessment,  to include evaluation of value for money, the contribution to the States' strategic and operational priorities, an evaluation of whether the funding sources continue to be used appropriately, and the updated risk profile against risk appetite.

If  not  implemented  then  there may  be  poor  return  on investment,  poor  value  for money  or  non-alignment  with States  strategic  priorities. However, in general we would not  change  criteria  during  a procurement  process  or  where we  have  issued  standard terms once they have been published.

Low

In some cases, Terms and Conditions may  be  updated  during  the  final negotiation  and  these  should  be documented, impact assessed and be included  in  a  recommendation  to award report. In terms of post-award variations, a contract variation should be prepared documenting the change, including impact, in line with the Best Practice Toolkit. This is not currently a requirement of the PFM unless the value of the contract is varied by 10% or  100,000.  Under  these

Agreed in principle. The requirement for an  impact assessment  will  be considered  as  part of  the  regular review cycle of the PFM  and  Best Practice  Toolkit, which  is  currently under  way. This review  cycle  is undertaken  as  part of business as usual

No  additional  action at this time, as will be implemented  as  part of  business  as  usual cycle of review.

Recommendations

Risk of non-implementation

Risk profile (E,  H, M, L)

Other  considerations  in prioritisation

Is  the recommendation agreed?

Improvement theme (If applicable)

circumstances, an exemption must be prepared for approval.

and  will  be informed  by  this recommendation.

R13 Ensure that the evaluation of the piloted East to West bus route includes an emphasis  on  value  for  money  and contribution to the States' key priorities.

If not implemented, any decision to  continue  or  pause  this  or similar  schemes  may  not  be informed by data that supports an effective  cost-benefit  decision, which could have a financial or reputational  impact  by  not necessarily  aligning  with  CSP outcomes.

Low

Evaluation activity is planned and can be  delivered  by  the  Transport Planning  team  using  existing patronage,  reliability  and  cost  data. An  appropriate  evaluation  that  will include  route  performance, environmental  and  social considerations  should  precede  any decision to extend/scale the pilot and before  budget  setting  for  2027, subject  to  ministerial  views  on  the continuation of service.

Agreed and already included  in  work plan.

Review  of  pilot schemes effectiveness  (e.g. bus  routes)  before further commissioning

R14 Ensure that the Key Performance Indicators for the bus service fully align with, for example, use of resources from the Climate Emergency Fund.

If  there  is  a  misalignment between  funding  intent (decarbonisation/mode shift) and operator  incentives,  then  there could be a reputational impact to government that its support does not  necessarily  match  policy direction.

Low

The contract includes a requirement for the operator to submit an annual service plan for approval which will be used to set KPIs in accordance with GoJ policy.

Agreed  and ongoing

.

No  additional  action at this time.

R15  Develop  Terms  of  Reference  for multi-party  meetings  about  highway assets,  so  that  everyone  has  the opportunity to be clear on:

• who should attend and whether there is a need to ensure deputies

• who will Chair the meeting and how decisions will be made

If the terms of reference are not developed,  utility  company representatives  may  not understand  the  level  of commitment  and  cooperation required. This  has  not affected the monthly meeting although is required  to  re-establish  the structure  and  level  of

Low

The utility co-ordination meeting has been  a  feature  within  I&E  road network  management  monthly calendar since as early as and pre- 2008 and there is a well-established understanding of the meeting purpose to  share  information  and  look  for opportunity  to  do  dual  works  to

Agreed  and complete. The ToRs were  completed ahead  of  the September  2025 meeting.

No  additional  action at this time,

Recommendations

Risk of non-implementation

Risk profile (E,  H, M, L)

Other  considerations  in prioritisation

Is  the recommendation agreed?

Improvement theme (If applicable)

• what the business is and how agenda items are submitted

• how  notes  and  actions  will  be managed; and

• whether the output and outcome of the meetings will be reported to any other forum or group.

Keep  these  up  to  date  to  reflect  any changes to the Roads Law.

commitment  for  legacy purposes.

introduce efficiency and reduce costs and impact to the public'.  

R16 Complete the drafted documents:

• Highway  Infrastructure  Asset Management (HIAM) Policy (draft, August 2021)

• HIAM  Strategy  (draft,  October 2023); and

• HIAM Plan (draft, February 2022).

Ensure that, together with the Highways Inspection Manual, these form a coherent and comprehensive set of references for all those working with highways assets.

If the documents are not updated from  draft  to  approved,  then there is little impact to current operational  procedures.   GoJ HIAM are already working to the principals and writing them into those operational procedures.

Low

These  documents  have  been developed for GoJ roads administered by I&E HIAM team. Current resource restrictions  mean  that this  initiative will  not  be  prioritised  at this  time. HIAM  budget  and  resources  are currently  being  focused  on  project delivery  and  implementing  the inspection manual.

Agreed  but Deferred.

No action at this time.

Action theme

Actions

Linked Recs

Target date

Responsible Officer

Critical  Island Infrastructure  definition  to support  appropriate protection strategies

 Emergency  planning  to  work  with  the  JRF  to  agree  a  definition  of  critical infrastructure which will include critical transport infrastructure.

R1

June 2026

Chief  Officer,  Justice and Home Affairs

Leadership  capability  and awareness  for  emergency situations

 Emergency Planning will ensure that the Emergencies Council are included as participants within the emergency planning 10- year training exercising plan.

R2

October 2025

Chief  Officer,  Justice and Home Affairs

Jersey  Emergency  Risk Register

• Build a mechanism to enable communication to Chief Officers within government so  that  they  can  align  their  risk  management  approach  with  the  information provided on the JERR.

• Develop a chronic risk strategy to enable visibility of chronic risks for ELT members to assist with understand the impact on their departmental business continuity plans.

• Phase 6 of the development of the JERR by Emergency Planning will ensure completeness by the end of 2025

• Publish  the  public  facing  JERR  in  Autumn  2025  along  with  the  Household Emergency Plan.

R3

R4

March 2026

December 2025

Chief  Officer,  Justice and Home Affairs

Chief  Officer,  Justice and Home Affairs

Governance  –  Jersey Emergency  Transport Service

• Continue to implement the procurement strategy, This includes reviewing KPIs, data and reporting.

• Continue to hold quarterly contract meetings.

R10 and R11

December 2025

Chief  Operating Officer, Acute Services

Review  of  pilot  schemes effectiveness  (e.g.  bus routes)  before  further commissioning

 Conduct evaluation of the piloted East to West bus route.

R13

Q3 2026

Ass.  Director Highways,  Transport, and Infrastructure