Andy Cameron

Motion put to the States: SHOULD PROPOSITION 1 AND PROPOSITION 2 CARRY 3 (a) To agree that the Committee for Housing shall have the right of first refusal over the future use of the land at Lukis House, Swissville and Garden Hill for the delivery of Affordable Housing and mixed tenure housing, with such use to be given priority over alternative uses of the sites, subject to the Committee for Housing confirming the suitability and viability of the land for housing development; (b) To direct the Committee for Housing, in consultation with the Policy & Resources Committee, to identify the land required for housing development at these sites and undertake an outline viability assessment in order to identify preferred development strategies; (c) To direct the Committee for Housing to confirm its intentions for the use of such land no later than 31 December 2028 or 18 months before the planned opening of the new Children's Hub, whichever is earlier; (d) To direct the Policy & Resources Committee to reserve the land identified by the Committee for Housing under sub-paragraph 3(b) for housing purposes and, subject to any necessary statutory and property approvals, to make the land available for housing development following its vacation by the existing Health and Social Care users; (e) To direct the Policy & Resources Committee, not to allocate or commit any of the land at Lukis House, Swissville or Garden Hill to alternative uses until the Committee for Housing has had the opportunity to exercise its right of first refusal under sub-paragraph 3(a) unless the Committee for Housing has failed to confirm its intentions within the timeline specified in sub-paragraph 3(c).

Voting Pour delivers this

Proposition 3 gives priority to affordable housing on the Lukis House, Swissville and Garden Hill sites, so voting Pour advances affordable homes.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To insert an additional proposition as follows: “SHOULD PROPOSITION 1 AND PROPOSITION 2 CARRY 3 (a) To agree that the Committee for Housing shall have the right of first refusal over the future use of the land at Lukis House, Swissville and Garden Hill for the delivery of Affordable Housing and mixed tenure housing, with such use to be given priority over alternative uses of the sites, subject to the Committee for Housing confirming the suitability and viability of the land for housing development; (b) To direct the Committee for Housing, in consultation with the Policy & Resources Committee, to identify the land required for housing development at these sites and undertake an outline viability assessment in order to identify preferred development strategies; (c) To direct the Committee for Housing to confirm its intentions for the use of such land no later than 31 December 2028 or 18 months before the planned opening of the new Children's Hub, whichever is earlier; (d) To direct the Policy & Resources Committee to reserve the land identified by the Committee for Housing under sub-paragraph 3(b) for housing purposes and, subject to any necessary statutory and property approvals, to make the land available for housing development following its vacation by the existing Health and Social Care users; (e) To direct the Policy & Resources Committee, not to allocate or commit any of the land at Lukis House, Swissville or Garden Hill to alternative uses until the Committee for Housing has had the opportunity to exercise its right of first refusal under sub-paragraph 3(a) unless the Committee for Housing has failed to confirm its intentions within the timeline specified in sub-paragraph 3(c).”

Voting Pour delivers this

Gives the Committee for Housing first refusal over Lukis House, Swissville and Garden Hill land for affordable and mixed-tenure housing, so voting Pour advances affordable homes.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: Whether, after consideration of the Policy Letter ''Tax Reform 2026'' dated 8 June 2026, they are of the opinion: 1. To direct the Policy & Resources Committee to implement the package of tax reforms to make Guernsey and Alderney more financially sustainable as set out in sections 9 and 10 with the rates and thresholds as described in Appendix 7, save that, in relation to GST, food produced or grown by small independent suppliers is to be taxed at a rate of 0% and not at 3%, and with the following clarifications, and subject to the following: A) the Policy & Resources Committee, working with the Committee for Employment & Social Security, shall not bring GST into operation unless: i. the associated personal income tax and social security contribution mitigations are in force and operational, and are being applied through the relevant deduction, collection and assessment arrangements, before GST becomes chargeable; ii. the approved GST-related increases in the States Pension, income support and other benefits have taken effect, with payments at the increased rates commencing before GST becomes chargeable; and iii. the Essential Costs Relief Payment arrangements are in force and operational; for the purpose of this Proposition, an intention to apply relief retrospectively, make compensatory payments later or complete the necessary systems after GST has commenced shall not constitute implementation of the Mitigation Measures; b) the Policy & Resources Committee: i. shall defer the commencement of GST where any of the conditions in this Proposition 1(a) cannot be met; ii. shall revise the implementation timetable so that those conditions are met, including any necessary alignment with the commencement of a tax or contribution year; and iii. shall report promptly to the States on the reason for the delay, its financial implications and the revised timetable; c) no authority otherwise given under this item shall permit GST to commence in advance of compliance with those conditions; d) the Policy & Resources Committee and the Committee for Employment & Social Security, before any instrument bringing GST into operation is made or submitted for approval, shall publish a joint implementation assurance report: i. identifying each Mitigation Measure, its commencement date and the date from which its financial effect will be delivered; ii. setting out the evidence that the necessary legislation, staffing, systems, payroll interfaces, assessment arrangements and payment processes are ready to deliver the measures in accordance with this Proposition; and iii. identifying any outstanding implementation risks and explaining how those risks have been addressed, including the arrangements for receiving and determining Essential Costs Relief Payment Claims; e) where compliance depends upon an event occurring after publication of that report, the Committees shall publish confirmation that the event has occurred before GST becomes chargeable, if the conditions cannot be met, the terms under this proposition at 1(b) shall apply notwithstanding any commencement date previously appointed; f) the legislation implementing GST shall give effect to these commencement conditions and shall not confer power to dispense with them by administrative decision; and

Voting Contre delivers this

The main Tax Reform proposition implements the package including GST, so opposing it is what advances finding alternatives.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To delete all propositions and insert: 1. To agree that consideration of the proposed Goods and Services Tax and the associated Income Tax and Social Security contribution reforms detailed in the Policy Letter shall be deferred until a further review of revenue-generation options has been conducted. 2. To direct the Policy & Resources Committee to investigate the introduction of a tax on insurance premiums. 3. To direct the Policy & Resources Committee to return to the States no later than March 2027 with its findings and proposals for the introduction of a tax on insurance premiums, alongside and as an alternative to the proposals for GST detailed in this Policy Letter.

Voting Pour delivers this

Defers GST until a further review of revenue-generation options is done, which is directly an exploration of alternatives to GST.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to set up a commission to find alternatives to GST, while this motion directed the Policy & Resources Committee (an existing body) to investigate a specific alternative (insurance premium tax) on a fixed timetable—a different mechanism and a narrower scope than establishing a dedicated commission, so voting against this particular motion does not plainly contradict the promise.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: In Proposition 1 after “Appendix 7” insert the following: “, subject to replacing the proposed goods and services tax with an increase in the standard rate of income tax from 20 percent to a single rate at 22 percent, which increase is to be done as soon as practicable”.

Voting Pour delivers this

Would replace GST with an increase in the income tax rate, an alternative to GST.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to set up a commission to find alternatives to GST, whereas the amendment would have replaced GST with a specific income tax rise to 22 percent; voting against it rejects one particular alternative, not the commission, and a deputy could oppose this alternative while still favouring a commission to examine others.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To sursis the propositions until such time that the Chief Financial Officer has provided the States with a comprehensive report on the States financial position or 31st July 2028, whichever is earlier and to direct the Policy & Resources Committee to return the States with a tax reform package that does not include a goods and services tax.

Voting Pour delivers this

Sursis directing P&R to return with a tax reform package that does not include a GST, which pursues alternatives.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to establish a commission to find alternatives to GST, whereas the motion concerned a sursis (delay) tied to a CFO financial report and a direction to P&R to return a tax package excluding GST — a different mechanism and a broader procedural directive, so voting against this specific motion does not plainly contradict the promise to set up a commission.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: At the end of Proposition 1 insert the words “, subject to excluding the following: “a) the introduction of a goods and services tax; b) the changes to social security contributions; c) the introduction of new, and changes to, transport taxes”.

Voting Pour delivers this

Would exclude the introduction of GST from the tax reform package.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The amendment would have excluded GST, along with social security and transport tax changes, from Proposition 1, and the deputy voted against it. The promise was to set up a commission on alternatives to GST, however, and the amendment neither creates such a commission nor is shown to decide whether one is created, so reading the vote as a breach requires inference about what Proposition 1 does and why the deputy opposed the bundled exclusions.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: b. (i) the Goods & Services Tax should be applied at a standard rate of 5%, andthat all foodstuffs should be subject to the tax at the standard rate; AND (ii)an Essentials Cost Relief Payment scheme should be implemented as outlined in Section 4, with the fixed payment set provisionally (subject to review as set out below) at £520 a year for a single adult or £860 a year for a couple, reflecting the estimated annual GST incurred by a household on Income Support; and that the responsibility and administering of this payment should be added to the mandate of the Committee for Employment & Social Security; and that the payment should be increased each January in line with Income Support rates, the value of the payment being fully reviewed in line with the minimum income standard whenever that exercise is repeated;

Voting Contre delivers this

Agrees that GST be applied at 5% with the Essentials Cost Relief Payment, which is the policy the promise seeks alternatives to.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: The States are asked to decide:- Whether, after consideration of the Policy Letter entitled 'QEII Marina Gate Replacement (and the Associated Infrastructure)' dated 18 May 2026, they are of the opinion:- 1. To authorise the Policy & Resources Committee, following consideration and approval of the Full Business Case, to approve the release of funding of up to a maximum of £10.7 million for the replacement of the QEII Marina gates and associated infrastructure, through an interest bearing loan of up to £5.35 million and a grant from the General Revenue Reserve of up to £5.35 million.

Voting Pour delivers this

Authorises replacement of the QEII Marina gates, which are sea-connection infrastructure.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: 17. To reduce the Routine Capital allocation for Information Technology for 2025-2028 by £2.5m to £15.5m.

Voting Contre delivers this

Cuts the routine IT capital allocation by £2.5m, which works against accelerating digital transformation, so voting Contre advances the promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While voting to reduce IT capital funding works against accelerating digital transformation, the promise is a general directional commitment and a deputy could reasonably vote for this specific reduction while believing other mechanisms, reprioritisation, or different spending would better deliver transformation.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To resolve that the proposition in respect of the Requête entitled ‘Cannabis: establishment of a cross Committee working group to examine regulatory options’ dated 19th January be withdrawn.

Voting Contre delivers this

Withdraws the Requête for a cross-Committee working group on cannabis regulatory options; voting Pour ends that route towards regulation, so Contre advances the promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to pursue cannabis legalisation, regulation, and taxation, while the motion concerned withdrawing a procedural requête to establish a cross-committee working group to examine regulatory options — voting to withdraw that working group works against the spirit of the promise, but the deputy could have had procedural or tactical reasons for supporting withdrawal without abandoning the underlying goal.

Official voting record →