CLAIMS that Jersey is “not safe” or “far from resilient” are inaccurate and risk undermining public confidence, the Chief Minister has said.
Deputy Lyndon Farnham was responding to an open letter from Brigadier Nigel Hall, in which the former military strategist renewed his calls for the government to increase its preparedness for major crises.
Brigadier Hall warned that Jersey remained “far from resilient” to worst-case scenarios and called for an urgent “stress-test” review of the Island’s preparedness.
But Deputy Farnham said his conclusions “overstate both the risks facing Jersey and the shortcomings of current preparedness”.
While acknowledging the importance of planning for worst-case scenarios, the Chief Minister warned that describing the Island as unsafe “is not accurate and risks undermining public confidence” without recognising “the substantial systems, planning and capabilities already in place”.
Deputy Farnham said Jersey’s resilience framework was “neither static nor complacent”, pointing to established emergency structures, multi-agency coordination and ongoing risk assessments aligned with recognised best practice.
Addressing Brigadier Hall’s concern that the Island relies too heavily on support from the UK and France, the Chief Minister said this was “an oversimplification”, adding that contingency plans already account for delays or limits to external assistance.
He said that calls for a “McKinsey-grade” external review “merit consideration in principle”, but must avoid duplication and reflect work already underway.
“External advice can add value in certain circumstances, but it is not a substitute for sustained institutional capability, neither is it necessarily superior to the expertise that already exists within government and its professional partners,” he added.
Deputy Farnham – who served as Economic Development Minister and Deputy Chief Minister during the pandemic – further rejected criticism of Jersey’s handling of Covid-19, stating that, despite lessons learned, the response “compared favourably in many respects with similar jurisdictions”.
He concluded that while “constructive challenge has an important role to play”, it must be balanced and evidence-based, with a focus on practical improvements rather than what he described as overstated claims.
