Jennifer Strachan

Motion put to the States: To direct the Policy & Resources Committee and the Committee for Housing to take all such steps as are necessary to ensure that the States are provided with the opportunity to consider in the 2028 Budget options to introduce a tax free Guernsey Property Savings Account (GPSA) to incentivise and better enable savings by first-time buyers for the purposes of buying a home in Guernsey or Alderney. (inserted by A55)

Voting Pour delivers this

Directs the States to consider a tax-free Property Savings Account to help first-time buyers save, which is an innovative funding scheme.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: 1a. To direct the Policy & Resources Committee working with the Committee for Housing, as part of the Guernsey Housing Plan, to consider changes or alternatives to Mortgage Interest Relief, including other forms of tax relief, to better assist first time buyers and homeowners in greater need of financial support; and to revert to the States with recommendations no later than the 2027 Budget Report.

Voting Pour delivers this

Directs consideration of alternatives to Mortgage Interest Relief to better assist first-time buyers.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To insert a new proposition: “1a.To direct the Policy & Resources Committee working with the Committee for Housing, as part of the Guernsey Housing Plan, to consider changes or alternatives to Mortgage Interest Relief, including other forms of tax relief, to better assist first time buyers and homeowners in greater need of financial support; and to revert to the States with recommendations no later than the 2027 Budget Report.”.

Voting Pour delivers this

Inserts a proposition to consider alternatives to Mortgage Interest Relief for first-time buyers.

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

The amendment gives Housing right of first refusal on States land for affordable and mixed-tenure housing.

Official voting record →

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

Gives Housing first refusal over States sites (Lukis House, Swissville, Garden Hill) for affordable and mixed-tenure housing, advancing housing on States land.

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

The amendment reserves States-owned sites for affordable housing use, releasing government land for housing.

Official voting record →

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

Prioritises former States sites for affordable housing, which is releasing redundant government property for housing.

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 Pour delivers this

The main Tax Reform proposition is intended to make States finances more sustainable, so Pour advances balancing the books.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To agree that: a) the expenditure reductions assumed within the financial modelling supporting this Policy Letter shall be supported by a published Savings and Service Optimisation Programme; b) the Programme shall identify, for each financial year to 2029: i. each individual savings or service optimisation initiative; ii. the Committee responsible for delivery; iii. the expected annual financial benefit; iv. the implementation timetable; v. delivery milestones; vi. the principal delivery risks; and vii. whether the saving is cashable, recurring or non-recurring; c) the Policy & Resources Committee shall report to the States half-yearly on progress against the Programme, including any variance between projected and realised savings and any replacement measures proposed where savings are not achieved; and d) the 2030 Assurance Review (or such other method in the event the 2030 Assurance Review is not approved) shall include an independent assessment of the extent to which the assumed expenditure reductions have been delivered and whether they have proved sustainable. (inserted by A13)

Voting Pour delivers this

Requires a published Savings and Service Optimisation Programme underpinning the expenditure reductions in the tax reform model, supporting fiscal balance.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To insert an additional proposition as follows: “To agree that, as a matter of fiscal policy, growth in total States expenditure (revenue and social security spending) should not exceed inflation over the financial years 2027, 2028, and 2029 save where the States expressly resolve that exceptional circumstances justify a departure from that principle.”.

Voting Pour delivers this

Limits growth in States expenditure to inflation for 2027-29, supporting medium-term balance.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to balance the books "over the medium term" is a general fiscal commitment, and voting against one specific expenditure-cap mechanism does not plainly contradict it, since a deputy could oppose this particular cap while still pursuing balanced books through alternative fiscal measures.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To direct the Policy & Resources Committee to incorporate into the Funding and Investment Plan, in consultation with all Committees, a structured public service efficiency programme that targets a 1% real-terms annual reduction in baseline public expenditure for the years 2027,2028, and 2029 (with 2026 as the baseline year).

Voting Pour delivers this

Establishes a public service efficiency programme targeting annual real-terms spending reductions, which supports balancing the books.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to balance the books "over the medium term" is a general fiscal direction, and voting against one specific efficiency mechanism (a structured 1% annual real-terms expenditure reduction programme) does not plainly contradict it, since the deputy could reasonably prefer alternative routes to fiscal balance.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To direct the Policy & Resources Committee, working with Principal Committees, to establish a programme for zero-based budgeting, under which material areas of States’ expenditure are reviewed from first principles rather than by reference to historical baselines; and to require that the scope, methodology (including reporting) and initial findings of this programme be included by no later than in the mid-term Government Work Plan report, with the outcomes of such reviews used to inform Committee Work Plans, future budget proposals, and major policy decisions during the remainder of the term.”

Voting Pour delivers this

Zero-based budgeting reviews of material spending areas support fiscal balance.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: 1. To insert an additional proposition as follows: “ To direct the Policy & Resources Committee to incorporate into the Funding and Investment Plan, in consultation with all Committees, a structured public service efficiency programme that targets a 1% real-terms annual reduction in baseline public expenditure for the years 2027,2028, and 2029 (with 2026 as the baseline year).”

Voting Pour delivers this

The amendment to insert the public service efficiency programme targeting a 1% annual real-terms reduction supports balancing the books.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to balance the books over the medium term is a general fiscal goal, and voting against one specific efficiency mechanism (a mandated 1% annual real-terms expenditure reduction) does not plainly contradict that goal, as the deputy could reasonably prefer alternative routes to fiscal balance.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To insert an additional proposition as follows: “6.To direct the Policy & Resources Committee, working with Principal Committees, to establish a programme for zero-based budgeting, under which material areas of States’ expenditure are reviewed from first principles rather than by reference to historical baselines; and to require that the scope, methodology (including reporting) and initial findings of this programme be included by no later than in the mid-term Government Work Plan report, with the outcomes of such reviews used to inform Committee Work Plans, future budget proposals, and major policy decisions during the remainder of the term.”

Voting Pour delivers this

The amendment to insert zero-based budgeting supports fiscal balance.

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 Pour delivers this

The main Tax Reform 2026 proposition, as amended, delivers a tax package that includes relief payments for lower-income households; Pour advances a tax solution.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To substitute in Proposition 1 the word “and” for the full stop and to insert, immediately after Proposition 1, the following additional Proposition: “1A. To agree, notwithstanding Proposition 1, that the Essential Cost Relief Payment shall not form part of the Tax Reform 2026 package and, accordingly: a) to rescind resolution I 1(b)(ii) of Billet d’Etat III of 2026 made on 26th February 2026, insofar as it provides for the implementation, administration, uprating and review of an Essential Cost Relief Payment scheme; b) to rescind that part of Resolution 1 2 of Billet d’Etat III of 2026 made on 26th February 2026 that requires proposals for any future increase in the standard rate of a goods and services tax to include a compensatory adjustment to the level of the Essential Cost Relief Payment; and c) to direct the Policy & Resources Committee and the Committee for Employment & Social Security to make such consequential changes to the implementation of the Tax Reform 2026 package as are necessary to give effect to this resolution.”.

Voting Contre delivers this

Would remove the Essentials Cost Relief Payment from the tax package, removing protection for the poorest, so voting Contre delivers the promise.

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 Pour delivers this

Pairs the GST standard rate with an Essentials Cost Relief Payment, a mechanism to protect the poorest within a tax solution; voting Pour advances it.

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 progress on replacing the QEII Marina gates and associated infrastructure, which is a direct harbour upgrade; voting Pour advances the promise.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: 16. To agree that the project for site clearance at Leale's Yard is added as a delivery project in the current Major Projects Portfolio.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adds site clearance at Leale's Yard as a delivery project, which is redevelopment of a brownfield/underused States site; voting Pour advances it.

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 Capital allocation for Information Technology by £2.5m, which works against accelerating digital delivery; voting Contre protects it.

Official voting record →