The relationship between the Parishes and Government of Jersey (S.R.5/2026): response of the Chief Minister

Findings

Comments

1

The demographic and housing profiles of the parishes vary significantly, with marked differences in population size, age structure, housing type and tenure. Urban parishes, particularly St Helier and those bordering it, have younger populations and higher concentrations of flats, rental and social housing, while rural parishes tend to have older populations and higher levels of owner-occupation. These differences have direct implications for parish service demand, communication methods and staffing

This finding is recognised and noted.

Findings

Comments

2

There is variation in the availability of parish-led community support arrangements. Some parishes with relatively older populations do not currently operate formal community support teams, while others with different population profiles do. This suggests an opportunity for parishes to make more consistent use of demographic data, alongside direct engagement with parishioners, to inform decisions about service priorities and community support models

This finding is noted and is primarily a matter for individual parishes. Government will assist where it can if requested.

3

Formal coordination mechanisms exist between parishes, most notably through monthly parish secretary meetings, but much inter-parish collaboration remains informal and operational rather than strategic

This  finding  is  noted  and  is  a  matter  for consideration between the parishes.

4

Some parishes identified opportunities for greater consistency across services and processes; however, structural and governance constraints, including funding approval through individual Parish Assemblies, can limit the extent of inter-parish collaboration

This finding is noted.

5

While all parishes have introduced some digital services and expressed interest in greater consistency and coordination, progress remains constrained by limited resources, funding pressures, and the absence of a shared strategic framework. Although there is emerging interest in innovative approaches, including the use of new technologies and Artificial Intelligence, there is no evidence at this stage of implementation or delivery

This  finding  is  noted  and  could  be  addressed through closer working with the Digital Services Department.

6

Parish Hall opening hours vary across the island, with differences reflecting local demand and capacity. Although not noted as a widespread concern, limited out-of-hours access may affect

This finding is noted and is a matter for individual parishes.

Findings

Comments

working-age parishioners in some parishes

7

The parish system operates on the principle of strong local autonomy, with governance and decisionmaking authority resting primarily with individual parishes and their Parish Assemblies. The Comité des Connétable s provides a coordinating forum for matters of shared interest but does not override local decisionmaking

Agreed. The autotomy of each parish is a great strength as they respond to local needs; and the Comite  provides  an  invaluable  coordinating forum and partner for government when dealing across all the Parishes.

8

While guidance such as the Standards in Parish Service demonstrates a commitment to service quality, its voluntary and nonstatutory nature, coupled with limited public visibility and the absence of assurance mechanisms, reduces its impact and consistency across the parish system

This finding is noted.

9

Deputies do not have a formal role in parish governance or administration. While informal engagement between Deputies and parishes may occur, responsibility for parish matters rests with Connétable s and parish officials. Evidence suggests this arrangement does not generally create practical difficulties, but public understanding of the distinction between parish and States roles may not always be clear

This finding is noted.

10

The parish system is deeply rooted in Jersey's history and identity, and this tradition remains a significant strength. However, there are aspects of parish governance and culture which can be resistant to scrutiny, transparency and change. Variability in engagement with the review and defensiveness in responding to evidence requests risk reinforcing perceptions that parts of the system have not kept pace with modern expectations

Agreed.  The  parish system  is at  the  centre  of community life and plays a significant role in Jersey's governance.

11

The evolution of the Parish Hall Enquiry system provides clear

Agreed.  The  Parish   Hall  Enquiry  system  has proven to be an effective mechanism in which to

Findings

Comments

evidence that historic parish institutions are capable of adapting to modern standards while retaining their core identity. This example demonstrates that reform and modernisation does not need to undermine tradition and offers a practical model for how other aspects of parish governance could evolve

administer justice, whilst ensuring that Islanders, and especially young people, remain outside of the formal criminal justice system where possible.

12

Parish Assemblies remain a unique and important feature of local democracy; however, attendance is often low and participation is constrained by outdated notice requirements, the absence of quorum provisions, and limited accessibility options. These factors may weaken public confidence and restrict opportunities for broader community involvement in parish decisionmaking

This finding is noted. Ministers would support efforts to increase understanding of the role and importance  of  Parish  Assemblies  in  our  local democracy, and efforts to improve attendance.

13

While the parish system is built on longstanding custom and legislation, much of the statutory framework governing parish administration and Parish Assemblies is fragmented, outdated and increasingly misaligned with contemporary standards of accessibility, transparency and accountability

This finding is noted.

14

The parishes continue to play a vital role in local governance, community support and service delivery, underpinned by strong local knowledge, historical continuity and community trust. Many parish-led services are well regarded by residents and provide meaningful social and civic benefits that are distinct from, and complementary to, government provision

Agreed.

15

Parishes consistently emphasised the democratic nature of the Parish Assembly system; however, current procedural arrangements have not kept pace with modern expectations of transparency, accessibility and

This  finding  is  noted.  It  is  important  that  all parishioners understand the remit of the Parish Assembly, and their right to raise certain matters at  a  Parish  Assembly  and  participate  in  the proceedings of an Assembly.

Findings

Comments

participation. Without reform, this gap risks undermining public confidence in parish decision-making, regardless of the system's historic legitimacy

16

The Dogs (Jersey) Law Amendment Regulations demonstrated that when the Comité des Connétable s brings forward legislation, the absence of structured consultation protocols can result in insufficient early engagement with key stakeholders. This weakens policy development, increases reliance on Scrutiny intervention, and risks undermining confidence in parish-initiated legislation

This finding is noted and is a matter for the Comité des Connétable s.

17

The Comité des Connétable s exercises influence over matters affecting all twelve parishes, including when initiating legislation, yet its non-statutory status creates uncertainty about its authority, accountability and decision-making responsibilities

This finding is noted and is a matter for the Comité des Connétable s and the parishes.

18

Engagement between the government and parishes is generally constructive but relies on goodwill, personal relationships and informal arrangements rather than structured frameworks. While this flexibility can be effective, it creates vulnerability to inconsistency and limits opportunities for coordinated delivery of island-wide priorities

Ministers would support any formal moves that will  improve  engagement.  For  example,  the Government  welcomes  setting  up  regular, structured discussions with the Parishes on refuse and recycling matters.

19

Despite Jersey's small geographic size, refuse and recycling services are delivered through multiple parish, government and Ports of Jersey arrangements. There is evidence of duplication, particularly in public spaces such as beaches and recreational areas, as well as significant variation in costs between parishes. This fragmentation limits economies of scale and impacts accountability

The Government recognises the potential benefits of the Parishes working together on refuse and recycling services and welcomes a more joined up approach, which it would be content to participate in and / or facilitate.

Findings

Comments

20

Some parishes face practical barriers to introducing or expanding kerbside recycling, including difficulties securing contractors, uncertainty about end-processing of recyclable materials, and the requirement for Parish Assembly approval of additional expenditure. These constraints have resulted in uneven service provision that is not solely driven by environmental priorities or demographic need

The Government notes the barrier that uneven service provision across the Parishes creates in terms  of   Island-wide  communication  and understanding of recycling services.

21

Evidence submitted by St Helier demonstrates that parish-led collaboration or shared delivery models for refuse and recycling could offer an alternative to both parish provision and full government centralisation. Such models could improve consistency, reduce duplication and strengthen resilience, while retaining parish accountability. However, no formal proposals have yet been developed, and any such approach would require collective parish engagement and Parish Assembly approval

The Government welcomes further collaboration and shared delivery models between the Parishes.

22

There is considerable variation in the scale, quality, accessibility and future development of parish-managed play spaces. Some parishes are investing in new or upgraded facilities, often informed by community consultation, while others report limited budgets and no current plans for expansion. These differences risk creating geographic inequalities in access to high-quality and inclusive play provision

Variation across Parish play spaces was evident during the Play Plan. Feedback from consultations determined that there are some parishes that the public feel lack play space or do not have a play space near to their

home. Different levels of investment and planning can result in disparities in access and quality. Addressing these differences could help promote a more equitable distribution of play opportunities across Jersey.

23

While the Jersey Play Plan 2025–2028 provides a high-level vision for promoting play, it does not set out a clear Island-wide framework for standards, investment, asset management or long-term maintenance. The absence of detailed guidance and coordinated funding

Budgets vary in terms of investment and maintenance. Putting a framework and standards in place might mean some Parishes are unable to meet these standards.

Findings

Comments

mechanisms limits the Plan's effectiveness in supporting consistent, equitable provision across parishes

24

Examples such as the maintenance of Millennium Park by the Parish of St Helier demonstrate that operational collaboration between government and parishes can work effectively where clear contractual or licensing arrangements are in place. This shows that greater collaboration is achievable without transferring ownership or undermining parish autonomy

Agreed.

25

Some parishes possess significant horticultural and land-management expertise that could be utilised more systematically by government, either through contracts or optional licence arrangements. Greater use of parish capability could support income generation, provided appropriate procurement and governance arrangements are in place

This finding is noted.

26

Funding for the Honorary Police is largely reliant on parish rates, resulting in significant disparities between parishes in access to vehicles, equipment and operational resources. Evidence from the Attorney General, the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs and the States of Jersey Police indicates that this model is unlikely to be sustainable in the long term and limits the ability to fund Island-wide initiatives such as recruitment and training

Noted.  As  a  Parish  function,  funding  for  the Honorary Police is a responsibility of individual Parishes.  Support  has  been  provided  in  recent years from the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund for certain capital costs.

27

Training for Honorary Police officers is currently optional beyond basic mandatory requirements, with significant variation in uptake and capability across parishes. While the States of Jersey Police provide some training, responsibility for ensuring competence and legal compliance rests with individual parishes. The absence of an Island-wide training framework

This  finding  is  noted  and  is  a  matter  for  the Parishes and Comité des Connétable s.

Findings

Comments

with enforceable minimum standards presents risks to operational effectiveness, safety and public confidence

28

If the Honorary Police were unable to operate at current levels, responsibility for their functions would fall to the States of Jersey Police. Given existing resource constraints, this would create immediate operational pressures and financial implications for the government. The sustainability of the Honorary Police is therefore not solely a parish matter but a strategic issue for Island-wide policing resilience

It  is  acknowledged  that  the  Honorary  Police provide a vital service to the island, on a voluntary basis, which provides significant support to the States  of  Jersey  Police.  It  is  agreed  that  the ongoing sustainability of the Honorary Police is a whole island issue.

29

Parishes contribute to the "Putting Children First" agenda through the provision of parks, playgrounds, green spaces, community events and the use of parish halls for early years and youth activities. These locally delivered facilities and activities form an important part of children's everyday lives and support wellbeing, play and social inclusion at community level

Each Parish has a Youth Club, with St Helier having First Tower and another in the Town area (Ann Street) soon. The current network of Parish based youth clubs is important, as they are accessible for young people, provide opportunities for young people to be part of the community, engage in positive activities and allow youth workers to form trusted relationships with young people should they require any support. The current network is well established with positive relations with Parish officials and the relevant communities.

30

Formal Parish Agreements with the Jersey Youth Service are now in place in 11 of the 12 parishes, providing a structured basis for youth work delivery and governance. However, the nature and depth of engagement varies between parishes, and one parish currently operates without a formal agreement, resulting in inconsistency in youth provision and partnership working across the Island

Recently, the Assistant Minister for Children and Families with officers from the Youth Service attended the Comité des Connétable s. An item raised by a Connétable was the possibility of a long period of partnership from 3 years to 9 years. This will be explored further accordingly.

31

Evidence from the Jersey Youth Service indicates that Connétable s differ in their confidence, skills and willingness to engage directly with children and young people. Where

The Jersey Youth Service commented – "Some Connétable [s] have more confidence in engaging with children and young people than others". At no time did Service comment on the skills or willingness of Connétable s.

Findings

Comments

effective engagement occurs, it is often supported by Youth Workers; however, this resource is not consistently used as a mechanism for informing parish decision-making

Those Youth Workers that are Parish based could support the Parish with seeking the views of young people on issues they may be facing in their home Parish.

32

There is no consistent framework or guidance to support parishes in engaging children and young people in parish affairs. In the absence of shared tools, standards or expectations, engagement practices depend largely on local initiative, capacity and individual leadership, resulting in uneven opportunities for children's voices to be heard across the Island

Jersey already has a clear framework for involving children and young people through the Jersey Participation Standards, which set expectations for inclusive, safe and meaningful engagement. The Standards, along with practical tools and templates available online (Participation Standards for children and young people) give parishes readymade guidance to involve children effectively and consistently across the Island. All Schools have School councils who are elected groups of children / young people. Parishes could use these forums to engage with children and young people. They also hold network meetings regularly which parish officials are welcome to attend (The School Council Network).

33

Parishes' close knowledge of their communities positions them well to support preventative public safety measures, such as identifying vulnerable individuals during emergencies, supporting safer routes to schools, and contributing to child friendly and safer public spaces. However, this potential is not currently supported by structured guidance or coordination mechanisms

Agreed.

34

There is limited evidence of parishes being formally engaged in the delivery of health prevention objectives. While parish activities may incidentally support healthier behaviours, there is no consistent framework, guidance or expectation for parish involvement in prevention focused work by the government

Parishes are being engaged on an ad-hoc basis, as pertaining  to  health  interventions  affecting  the needs of their communities, through initiatives such  as  information  sharing  (e.g.  leaflets, publications, surveys) and promoting engagement with  activities  and  events  that  support  the adoption  of  healthier  behaviours  for  targeted groups (e.g. routine immunisations).

Findings

Comments

It  is  recognised  that  further  engagement  with parishes  would  be  of  benefit  to  islanders. Collaboration  with  parishes  can  be  used  to encourage greater uptake of healthy behaviours, particularly for older demographics who may be less likely to engage with digital content. This will be  considered  for  public  communications  and engagement moving forward.

Furthermore, work is underway to implement a number  of  programmes  arising  from  the Prevention First business case. Initial activity for each  workstream  focuses  on  stakeholder engagement to inform programme design, with parishes invited to contribute where relevant.

35

Where residents and businesses are required to navigate differing parish requirements, or both parish and government processes, this can create confusion and unnecessary administrative burden. Areas such as event licensing and roadside permissions illustrate where inconsistent or overlapping processes risk undermining the aim of reducing red tape

This finding is noted.

36

Parishes are well placed to support the delivery of government strategies relating to children, communities, health prevention and environmental sustainability. However, engagement with island-wide strategies varies, and clearer frameworks, guidance and supporting mechanisms would help maximise the contribution parishes can make without undermining their independence

This  finding  is  noted.  Closer  liaison  with  the Comité des Connétable s could assist with this.

37

The current statutory framework places primary responsibility for firearms certification with individual Connétable s, relying heavily on personal judgement at parish level. While the States of Jersey Police provides intelligence and

This finding is noted and is factually correct.

The States of Jersey Police have, and will continue to, advocate for improvements in respect to the current framework.

Findings

Comments

administrative support, there are no statutory mechanisms to assure consistency, monitor compliance with guidance, or oversee how decisions are applied across the twelve parishes

It  will  be  for  the  next  Government  to  decide whether to pursue any legislative amendments in this respect.

38

Although the Comité des Connétable s has developed a Procedure for firearms certification, there is limited evidence that compliance with this Procedure is mandatory, monitored or supported by standardised training. This reliance on non-statutory guidance, without assurance mechanisms, limits its effectiveness in managing risk

This finding is noted and is a matter for the Comité des Connétable s.

39

Risk-reduction practices, such as restrictions on ammunition storage, have historically been applied inconsistently across parishes. Although a new policy introduced in January 2026 represents progress towards tighter controls, evidence from the States of Jersey Police indicates that current arrangements do not fully reflect best practice or achieve optimal risk reduction

This finding is noted.

40

Evidence from the States of Jersey Police, the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs, and public submissions indicates increasing support for reform of the firearms licensing system. In particular, there is recognition that the current parish based model struggles to deliver the consistency, oversight and risk management expected of a modern firearms regulatory regime

Noted. The States of Jersey Police have, and will continue to, advocate for improvements in respect to the current framework.

It  will  be  for  the  next  Government  to  decide whether to pursue any legislative amendments in this respect. Any changes would require careful consultation with the Parishes, and firearms users.

41

Evidence referenced in the reform proposals and submissions to the Panel indicates broad agreement that the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974 is no longer well aligned with modern business models. Multiple licence categories, limited policy guidance, and reliance on legal interpretation contribute to a system that can be

This mirrors the feedback which was received in response to the Government's public consultation on  changes  to  the  Licensing  Law.  It  has subsequently  been  incorporated  within  the Alcohol Licensing (Jersey) Law 2026 that was adopted earlier this year.

Findings

Comments

difficult for applicants to navigate and resource intensive to administer

42

While Roads Committees operate under a shared statutory framework, evidence indicates variation between parishes in inspection practices, resourcing, reliance on volunteers and administrative capacity. The Minister for Infrastructure acknowledged that the Roads Committee system is not well understood and that greater consistency, training and succession planning would be beneficial

Agreed.  This  clarity  and  the  means  of communicating will emerge from the Road Law Review being undertaken in cooperation with the parishes, see comments to Recommendation 25.

43

Agreed changes to road controls, particularly speedlimit changes approved at parish level, can take several years to implement. These delays contribute to public confusion about responsibility, enforcement and accountability, and reflect weaknesses in coordination and endtoend implementation processes between government and parishes

The current legal structure under the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Article 21) gives the Minister for  Infrastructure  the  competency  for  setting speed  limits,  along  with  other  moving'  and static' Traffic Regulations, with the proviso that the  Minister  work  through  a  process  of consultation with the Connétable of the parish in which a road is situated. The policy purpose is to ensure a coherent approach to speed limit setting across the Island:

• at  site  level  (i.e.  that  speed  limits  are implemented  in  accordance  with minimum  traffic  engineering  standards (i.e.  as  per  the  Traffic  Signs  (Jersey) Order 1968),

• at  the  locality level  (e.g.  co-ordination across parish boundaries),

• at  a  network  level  (i.e.  that there  is  a legible  framework'  for  speed  limit setting that driver understand).

This,  itself,  is  consistent  with  the  wider prerogative  given  to  the  Minister  under  Road Traffic  Legislation  to  set  driver  and  vehicle requirements  in  the  interest  of  safe  traffic movement (e.g. the establishment of pedestrian crossings,  cycleways,  vehicle  Construction  and Use  rules,  drivers  licensing,  Jersey  Highways Code, etc.).

The Jersey Road Safety Action Plan 2017–2019' commitment that Infrastructure & Environment

Findings

Comments

(IE) "review every road's speed limit under a new agreed framework, in consultation with individual Parishes and local communities" has been a very significant task. IE has in general limited itself to working with no more than two parishes at a time. This  work  is  now  95%  complete  (IE  is  now working  with  St  Martin  as  the  last  parish  to receive a review).

IE  will  be  introducing  a  Digital  Traffic Regulation Order (DTRO) process from mid-2027 that will negate the need for law drafting where business as usual Traffic Regulation amendment changes are required (i.e. speed limits, parking restrictions, etc.), reducing the process by 50%.

Speed limit setting is a critical element of road safety'  and  features  prominently  in  the Government's Collision and Casualty Reduction Plan 2025 to 2034'. It therefore remains critical that there is a single controlling mind' to speed limit setting.

44

The evidence indicates that the parish role in planning is broadly understood and operating as intended, but that clearer guidance and improved understanding of existing processes would strengthen confidence, manage expectations and support consistent advisory engagement across parishes

The finding is noted. There will be engagement with  parishes  after  the  election  regarding  the planning application consultation process, as part of the Department's ongoing efforts to provide guidance to statutory consultees and streamline working practices.

45

Parish rates are set annually to meet locally approved expenditure, resulting in variation between parishes. This variation reflects differences in local priorities and costs rather than differences in legal powers. By contrast, the Island-wide rate is uniform across all parishes and uprated annually in line with inflation

This finding is noted.

46

Parishes operate under a shared legislative framework and a common assessment guide, with mechanisms in place to promote consistency, including meetings of Assessment Committee chairs. However, some submissions to the Panel indicate that

This finding is noted.

Findings

Comments

variation may arise in practice due to differences in professional judgement, particularly in relation to subjective attributes such as property condition

47

While formal safeguards exist, including rights of review and appeal, some submissions to the Panel suggest that ratepayers may not always receive clear explanations of how assessments are reached. Limited access to comparative assessment information can make it difficult for ratepayers to understand or challenge decisions

This finding is noted.

48

Results from the Panel's survey shows that while most Islanders are aware of the rates system, detailed understanding is low. There is widespread confusion about terminology, who sets different rates, and what services are funded by parish and Island-wide rates

More information on the breakdown of the rates, particularly what service areas are covered, would be beneficial.

As an example, this is particularly evident around refuse  and  recycling  collections,  which  is  a significant  individual  expenditure  area. Experience from the Solid Waste Team is that there is a general lack of understanding of who pays for which service.

49

The absence of a common accounting framework across parishes results in limited comparability between parish accounts. Public submissions highlighted that each parish's ability to select its own accounting policies creates a "patchwork" of reporting practices, making it difficult for parishioners and the wider public to meaningfully compare financial performance or assess value for money across parishes

This finding is noted.

50

While parish accounts are audited, auditors assess compliance against each parish's own accounting policies rather than against a shared standard. This limits the extent to which audits can provide assurance on the consistency, structure, or presentation of financial information across the parish system as a whole

This finding is noted.

Findings

Comments

51

Concerns were raised in submissions regarding situations where the Connétable both determines accounting policies and presides over the Assembly that approves the accounts. While no evidence of impropriety was presented, this concentration of roles may give rise to perceived conflicts of interest or weaken public confidence in financial scrutiny arrangements

This  finding  is  noted  and  for  the  Comité  des Connétable to consider.

52

Evidence from procureurs indicates genuine concern about the proportionality, cost, and administrative burden of mandatory GAAP-style accounting, particularly given the voluntary nature of parish roles. Whilst these concerns are noted, the absence of any common baseline standard represents a missed opportunity to strengthen public confidence and long-term governance resilience

This finding is noted.

53

There was recognition among procureurs of the value of clearer guidance and enhanced opportunities for knowledge sharing. The lack of structured, Island-wide forums for procureurs represents a gap in the current governance arrangements

This finding is noted.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

1

Community Support Teams are a highly valued service provided in several parishes. The

CdC

This recommendation is noted and for the Comité des Connétable s to consider.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

Comité des Connétable s should facilitate discussion between parishes on the future of community support provision, including sharing good practice, demographic evidence and delivery models. This should support parishes to co-ordinate and collaborate on approaches to community support, while preserving local choice and accountability

2

The Chief Minister, in collaboration with the Comite des Connétable s should proceed with the development of new legislation to replace the Loi (1804) au sujet des assemblées paroissiales and the Loi (1905) au sujet des assemblées paroissiales, in line with the Jersey Law Commission's report Parish Assemblies: A Better Legislative Framework. Any new legislation should be drafted in English and provide a coherent and accessible statutory basis for the operation of Parish Assemblies

CM

Accept

The  Legislation  Advisory  Panel  has considered the report of the Jersey Law Commission  and  drafting  instructions have been provided by the Panel to the Law Drafting Office, consistent with this recommendation.

3

Any future legislative or regulatory provisions for Parish Assemblies should explicitly address accessibility, including:

CM

This recommendation is noted and is for the Comité des Connétable to consider.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

• consideration of alternative meeting times;

• the recording and publication of minutes within a defined timeframe

• availability of information in accessible formats, such as large print; and

measures to support participation by those with mobility or transport limitations

4

The feasibility of introducing alternative voting and participation methods, including proxy, postal, or electronic voting, should be examined for Parish Assemblies. Any such reforms should be accompanied by appropriate safeguards to maintain the integrity and legal certainty of Parish Assembly decisions

CdC

This recommendation is noted and for the Comité des Connétable to consider.

5

The potential for enabling remote attendance and participation at Parish Assemblies should be assessed, drawing on experience during the Covid-19 pandemic. Legislative clarity would be required to ensure that decisions taken using virtual or hybrid formats

CdC

This recommendation is noted and for the Comité des Connétable to consider.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

have consistent legal effect

6

Statutory notice requirements for Parish Assemblies should be reviewed to reflect contemporary communication practices. While retaining formal notice requirements, the framework should require the use of additional channels, such as parish websites, social media and other accessible formats, to ensure that information about Parish Assemblies is clear, timely, and widely disseminated

CdC

This recommendation is noted and for the Comité des Connétable to consider.

7

When the Comité des Connétable s brings forward legislation within an area of ministerial responsibility, early engagement should take place with the relevant Minister and department to ensure that consultation, policy development and impact considerations are robust and transparent

CM/ CdC

This recommendation is noted and should be business-as-usual practice.

8

The government, together with the Comité des Connétable s, should explore the merits of placing the Comité on a statutory footing through dedicated legislation that clearly defines its role, powers and limits

CM

This recommendation is noted and in the first instance it should be considered by the next Comité des Connétable s.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

9

The government, in collaboration with the Comité des Connétable s, should develop a more formal framework to underpin engagement and collaboration between government and parishes. This should set out roles, responsibilities, and mechanisms for joint working on island-wide priorities, reducing reliance on informal arrangements while retaining appropriate flexibility and local autonomy

CM

This recommendation is noted and can be explored further with the Comité des Connétable s, The Government recognises the importance of strong and regular collaboration on issues of mutual interest and is always ready to explore potential improvements with the parishes, particularly where they do not add bureaucracy.

10

Where refuse and recycling responsibilities intersect between parishes, government and Ports of Jersey, particularly in relation to beaches, recreational areas and public bins, standardised Service Level Agreements should be developed and adopted. These should clearly allocate responsibility, funding arrangements and performance expectations

MIN F

Partially accept

It  is  agreed  that  it  is  important  to establish  clear  lines  of  responsibility between the Parishes, Government and Ports of Jersey regarding responsibilities for  refuse  and  recycling  services. However,  Service  Level  Agreements may not be the optimum solution in all cases.

11

Government should strengthen Island-wide education and communication on recycling as part of the new waste strategy, working with parishes to ensure consistent

MIN F

Accept

It is recognised that all parties have an important role to play in ensuring clear and consistent messaging on refuse and recycling to Islanders.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

messaging. This should explicitly address public misconceptions about recycling and the operation of the Energy Recovery Facility and make use of both digital and non-digital channels

12

The government's review of the Waste Management (Jersey) Law 2005 should determine whether municipal waste collection should be a licensed or regulated activity, with appropriate oversight and assurance arrangements. This would strengthen accountability and ensure consistent standards across all providers

MIN F

Accept

This recommendation is already being progressed as part of the Waste Strategy workstream.

13

The Comité des Connétable s should facilitate exploratory discussions between parishes on alternative delivery models for refuse and recycling services, including shared or lead-parish approaches. Any such arrangements would be subject to approval through Parish Assemblies

CdC

This recommendation is noted and for the Comité des Connétable to consider.

14

The government should ensure procurement processes actively enable parishes to bid for maintenance and horticultural contracts where they have relevant

MIN F

Accept

The Parishes can submit tenders for Government work, and there has been active engagement in this area in the recent past.

The Parish of St Helier currently provide Street Cleaning services on

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

expertise. This would support local income generation and avoid default reliance on external contractors where parish capability exists

Infrastructure and Environment roads within the Parish, under contract.

Commercial Services are working with Departments to support the advertisement of opportunities that are deemed to be more than £100,000 (cumulative spend) and are developing a pipeline of opportunities across a range of requirements that will enable local suppliers time to plan ahead and prepare and bid for future work. This includes an opportunity for the Parishes.

15

The government and parishes should work collaboratively to identify gaps in access to play provision across the Island and consider how these might be addressed through targeted investment, shared use of school grounds, improved coordination between parishes, and prioritisation of inclusive and accessible play equipment. This work should be guided by evidence and integrated into an Islandwide framework

MCF

Accept

Part of the Play Plan will look at researching shared use of school grounds where possible and how this could be achieved. It would be beneficial to have improved coordination between the parishes as each parish could offer a different play experience and this could enable a variety of play equipment across the whole Island. Again, targeted investment is difficult to comment on as no budget is attached to the Play Plan.

The Play Plan does not have a focus on creating new play space. It does, however, focus on what barriers there are to accessing existing play spaces and what can be put in place when there are new play spaces being created. It is also purposed at sharing good practice and to inspire more opportunities for play.

16

The government, working with the Comité des Connétable s, the States of Jersey Police (SOJP) and Honorary Police leadership, should develop a clear, modern statement of the role, purpose and core responsibilities of the

MJH /CdC

Accept

The Council of Ministers supports this recommendation, which would be for the Comite des Connétable s to implement, alongside  the  States  of  Jersey  Police acting as key partners.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

Honorary Police. This should define what is expected of honorary officers in a 21st-century policing context and provide a consistent basis for recruitment, training, deployment and public understanding

17

There should be a standardised, Island-wide training framework for Honorary Police officers, including mandatory core training requirements proportionate to their statutory powers and operational duties. This framework should be developed collaboratively with SOJP and supported by a sustainable funding model to ensure consistent competency, safety and legal compliance across all parishes

MJA /CdC

Accept

Consideration will be given to identify a training  provider  to  deliver  this recommendation.  Consideration  would be required on how this should be led and by who, taking into account existing demands.

18

The government, in collaboration with the Comité des Connétable s, should review the current parish based funding model for the Honorary Police. The review should consider options for central or hybrid funding arrangements, including the prioritisation of Honorary Police funding requests through the Criminal Offences

MJA

Accept

Funding is a challenge, especially with regard  to  mobile  digital  solutions. Consideration also needs to be given to any support for digital solutions.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

Confiscation Fund (COCF), to ensure the equitable provision of essential equipment, training, and core operational capability across all parishes, while maintaining local accountability

19

The government should explore options to improve Honorary Police access to appropriate operational information and policing systems, subject to safeguarding and data-protection requirements. Investment in secure IT solutions and a sustainable funding model for devices and licences would enhance officer safety, situational awareness and effectiveness

MJA

Accept

This  recommendation  would  benefit from a working group to plan, develop and  deliver.   Also,  consideration  will need to be given to IT support.

20

The government and parishes should work together to support recruitment and retention of Honorary Police officers through coordinated Island-wide initiatives. This should include improved public awareness of the role, consistent recruitment messaging, and consideration of policies to support honorary service alongside employment, including within the public sector

MJA

Accept

This  recommendation  would  benefit from a clear recruitment strategy across all parishes.

21

The government, working with the Comité

MCF

Accept

Developing an Islandwide protocol presents a valuable opportunity to unify

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

des Connétable s and the Jersey Youth Service, should develop an Islandwide protocol to support parish engagement with children, young people and families. The protocol should provide practical guidance, shared tools and youth friendly materials to help parishes meaningfully involve children and young people in decisions that affect them

and strengthen how parishes engage with children, young people and families. By drawing on the existing Participation Standards for children and

young people, utilising already available youth friendly toolkits, and building active links with the Jersey Youth Service and the School Council Network, the government and its partners can ensure that every parish adopts a consistent, rights based, and youth friendly approach.

This coordinated effort will support parishes to meaningfully involve children and young people in decisions that affect them.

22

Government should establish more structured and consistent engagement arrangements with the parishes, through the Comité des Connétable s, when developing and implementing island-wide strategies. This should include early engagement, clarity on expectations, and practical support mechanisms that reflect differing parish demographics and capacities

CM

The Government Engagement Framework (March 2023) already requires this in terms of structure and process and states:

"Any project that is likely to impact on parish administration should be considered by the Comité des Connétable s. Again, early and continuing engagement with Comité is advised for these projects, including offering to provide a briefing at Comité meetings."

The Government should support, and where necessary strengthen, engagement with the Parishes - focusing on early and ongoing engagement on projects, initiatives, and policy development.  

23

This recommendation is made in two stages. Stage 1 focuses on strengthening public safety, consistency and accountability in

MJH

Accept in part – see recomme nded amendm ents

The States of Jersey Police recommend the following amendments (highlighted in bold, below):

This recommendation is made in two stages. Stage 1 focuses on strengthening public safety, consistency and

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

firearms certification through immediate governance improvements. Stage 2 provides for longer-term structural reform.

Stage 1 - The Comité des Connétable s, working with the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs, should strengthen the governance arrangements surrounding the issuing of firearm certificates by Connétable s. This should include regular review of the existing Procedure, standardised training for Connétable s, and the introduction of mechanisms to monitor compliance and consistency of decision-making across parishes.

Stage 2 - The government should undertake a comprehensive review and reform of the firearms certification system, with the aim of strengthening oversight, standardising decision-making, and reinforcing public confidence through a transparent and consistently applied

accountability in firearms certification through immediate risk reduction and governance improvements. Stage 2 provides for longer term structural reform.

Stage 1

The Comité des Connétable s, working with the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs, should strengthen the governance arrangements surrounding the issuing of firearm certificates and ammunition by Connétable s. This should include regular review of the existing Procedure, standardised training for Connétable s, and the introduction of mechanisms to monitor compliance and consistency of risk reduction and decision making across parishes.

Stage 2

The government should undertake a comprehensive review and reform of the firearms certification system, with the aim of strengthening oversight, standardising decision making, reducing risk and reinforcing public confidence through a transparent and consistently applied regulatory framework. The review should ultimately determine whether primary responsibility for firearms and ammunition licensing should be transferred away from individual parishes to a centralised, statutory authority.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

regulatory framework. The review should ultimately determine whether primary responsibility for firearms and ammunition licensing should be transferred away from individual parishes to a centralised, statutory authority

24

The Minister for Infrastructure should undertake a review of the endtoend decisionmaking and implementation process for speedlimit changes, with a view to reducing delays where parish approval has already been secured. As part of this review, the Minister should identify opportunities to streamline statutory, technical and administrative stages, including clearer timescales, improved coordination between stakeholders, and earlier identification of potential obstacles to implementation

MIN F

Reject

The current legislative framework for speed limit setting under the Road Traffic Law 1956 is consistent with the wider prerogative given to the Minister under Road Traffic Legislation to set driver and vehicle requirements in the interest of safe traffic movement (e.g. the establishment of pedestrian crossings, cycleways, vehicle Construction and Use rules, drivers licensing, Jersey Highways Code, etc.). Speed limit setting is a critical element of road safety' and features prominently in the Government's Collision and Casualty Reduction Plan 2025 to 2034'. It therefore remains critical that there is a single controlling mind' to speed limit setting.

However, it remains important that IE continue  with  its  Digital  Traffic Regulation Order (DTRO) project (to be live  from  mid-2027)  with  the  aim  of reducing, where possible, administrative process  in  making  Traffic  Regulation amendments, such as the extent to which law drafting is required to make minor change to Traffic Order Schedules for basic  speed  limit,  parking  restriction changes, etc..

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

25

The Minister for Infrastructure should work with parishes to develop nonmandatory, Islandwide guidance for Roads Committees, aimed at improving consistency of inspection, maintenance and resourcing practices while respecting parish autonomy. Any proposed framework or guidance should be developed collaboratively with parishes, recognising local variation while addressing concerns that the current system is not consistently understood or applied

MIN F

Accept

It should first be recognised that the parishes are independent Roads Authorities, with their own vires. Thus, this work, and the required ongoing training programme to support its implementation, could be undertaken only with the agreement of the Comité des Connétable s and their Roads Committees and would be subject to funding being provided. The work should be coordinated with the Roads Law Review on the duties of Roads Authorities, being undertaken in cooperation with the parishes.

2032

26

The Minister for the Environment, in collaboration with the Minister for Infrastructure, should develop and publish clear, nonstatutory guidance to improve clarity, consistency and transparency in how parishes engage with planning applications. This guidance should:

 clarify the formal

status and weight of parish comments and objections, including where parishes are acting as statutory consultees;

ME NV/ MIN F

Accept

The Minister for the Environment will work collaboratively with the Minister for Infrastructure to develop and publish non-statutory guidance as recommended.

Q4 2026 –

Q1 2027

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

• support more consistent approaches by Roads Committees through the sharing of best practice; and

• encourage earlier and proportionate engagement  between Planning and parishes on major or complex developments,

without altering existing decisionmaking responsibilities

27

Parishes should provide clearer, more consistent explanations to ratepayers on how rateable values are determined. This could include plain-English guidance on the use of attributes, clearer reasons for assessment decisions, and improved signposting to review and appeal processes

CdC

This recommendation is noted and for the Comité des Connétable to consider.

28

The government should lead a comprehensive review of the legislative framework governing parish rates, working with the Comité des Connétable s, to ensure it meets contemporary standards of transparency, comparability, and public accountability. Where deficiencies are

CM

This recommendation is noted. Whilst the relevant legislation formally sits with the Chief Minister, this porposal would require  detailed  consideration  by  the Comité  des   Connétable s  in  the  first instance.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

identified, the government should commit to bringing forward legislative changes to modernise the framework

29

The Comité des Connétable s, working with Procureurs du Bien Public and relevant professional advisers, should develop a common baseline framework for parish accounts. This may not mandate full GAAP compliance, but should set out a minimum, proportionate set of common principles and presentation standards to improve comparability, transparency and public understanding across parishes

CdC

This recommendation is noted and for the Comité des Connétable to consider.