Rob Curgenven

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

Directing consideration of changes or alternatives to Mortgage Interest Relief to better assist first-time buyers partially advances the promise to help first-time buyers, though it is broader than document duty abolition specifically.

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

This amendment would have excluded GST, social security changes and transport taxes from the tax reform proposition, directly bearing on the promise to oppose GST.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To delete Propositions 1 to 3 and substitute therefor: “1.To agree that neither the proposed Goods and Services Tax nor the associated Income Tax and Social Security contribution reforms detailed in the Policy Letter shall be introduced as part of the Tax Reform Programme. 2.To agree that the proposed Transport Taxes shall proceed as set out in this Policy Letter at Paragraph 9.7 and as more specifically described therein. 3.To agree that the proposed Corporate Tax amendments shall proceed as set out in Paragraph 9.21 of this Policy Letter and as more specifically described therein, excepting that at the third bullet point of paragraph 9.21, the term “ISE” shall be substituted with “Corporate Levy” (and this substitution shall take effect wherever relevant). 4.To direct the Policy & Resources Committee to develop and bring before the States proposals, for implementation on the same timetable as the tax measures proposed in this Policy Letter where reasonably practicable, for the introduction of a Corporate Levy payable by registered Guernsey companies, having regard to the work previously undertaken by the Tax Review Sub-Committee, and including consideration of whether such levy should comprise: a fixed annual levy payable by each registered company; a levy differentiated according to the size or scale of the undertaking, including consideration of whether existing company classifications may provide an appropriate and proportionate basis for differentiation; or such other structure as the Committee considers best achieves the objectives of fairness, administrative simplicity and efficient revenue collection. 5.To direct the Committee for Economic Development, in consultation with the Policy & Resources Committee, to develop and bring before the States, on the same timetable where reasonably practicable, proposals for the introduction of a Visitor Levy in accordance with the extant States Resolution, with all revenues arising from such levy to be paid into the General Revenue Account and not hypothecated for expenditure by any particular Committee or industry sector. 6.To direct the Policy & Resources Committee to revise the implementation programme and associated implementation budget for Tax Reform to reflect the removal of the proposed Goods and Services Tax and associated Income Tax and Social Security contribution reforms, including the consequential reduction in implementation cost, implementation activity, systems development, staffing and administrative requirements. 7. To direct the Policy & Resources Committee to return to the States with: 1. a revised implementation programme; 2. a revised implementation budget; 3. revised estimates of one-off implementation costs; 4. revised estimates of ongoing administration costs; 5. revised estimates of annual recurring revenues; and 6. revised staffing assumptions, reflecting the alternative package approved under this Proposition within a period that results in the States being capable of meeting the proposed implementation timetable as proposed within the Policy Letter. 8.To direct the Policy & Resources Committee to return to the States with an assurance review in 2030 as set out in section 12 of the Policy Letter, the scope of which shall be adjusted, where necessary, to take account of the removal of GST and Social Security measures from the package under these proposals and the application of those measures considered herein.”.

Voting Pour delivers this

This amendment would have agreed that neither the proposed GST nor associated reforms shall be introduced, directly delivering the promise to oppose GST.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To delete all propositions and to substitute therefor: “1.To agree a goods and services tax shall not be introduced, and: (i) to rescind Resolution I. 1B. and Resolution I. 1C. of Billet d’Etat No. XIX dated 14th October, 2024 made on 8th November 2024; and (ii) to direct the Policy & Resources Committee to cease all preparations for the introduction of any goods and services tax.”.

Voting Pour delivers this

This amendment would have agreed that GST shall not be introduced and ceased all preparatory work, directly delivering the promise to oppose GST.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To sursis the propositions either until such time that Members of the States have received the following: i) a report from the new Chief Resourcing Officer on the States finances; and ii) evidence that the Revenue Services has resolved its backlog and can demonstrate that it is successfully able to manage its future workflow, or by 19th July 2028, whichever is earlier.

Voting Pour delivers this

This sursis would have delayed the tax reform vote until further financial information was available, potentially slowing GST introduction, which partially advances the promise to oppose GST.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To delete the propositions and substitute therefor: 1. To direct the States Assembly and Constitution Committee to return to the States at its meeting on 21st October 2026 with arrangements for the holding (under the provisions of the relevant legislation) of a referendum on Tax reform. 2. To direct the Committee to agree that the question to be put to the electorate in the referendum shall be in a binary form along the following lines: “Do you support the introduction of a GST (goods and services tax)? Yes or No.”.

Voting Pour delivers this

This amendment would have directed a referendum on tax reform rather than direct adoption, testing whether public consent exists before GST is introduced, which bears on the anti-GST promise.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: 1. To agree that, should the States decide in the second quarter of 2026 to adopt Workstream 1 of the Tax Reform proposals, a. the individual standard rate of income tax shall be reduced to 15%, with 20% becoming an individual higher rate of income tax; and the higher rate will apply at a defined threshold (£32,400) as agreed on 8 November 2024, with appropriate adjustments to reflect the impact of inflation between that date and the date of implementation;

Voting Contre delivers this

Agreeing that the individual standard income tax rate shall be reduced to 15% if GST is adopted is an income-tax sweetener within the GST package, and voting for it advances the GST adoption framework that the promise opposes.

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

This motion agreed to introduce GST at 5% with an Essentials Cost Relief Payment, directly opposing the promise to oppose GST introduction.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To delete all propositions and to substitute therefor: “1. To agree a goods and services tax shall not be introduced, and: (i) to rescind Resolution I. 1B. and Resolution I. 1C. of Billet d’Etat No. XIX dated 14th October, 2024 made on 8th November 2024; and (ii) to direct the Policy & Resources Committee to cease all preparations for the introduction of any goods and services tax.”. View this proposition's information page on gov.gg

Voting Pour delivers this

This amendment would have agreed that GST shall not be introduced and rescinded prior GST resolutions, directly delivering the promise to oppose GST introduction.

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

This motion agrees that total States expenditure growth should not exceed inflation over 2027-2029, advancing the promise to cut public spending by capping expenditure growth.

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

This motion directs establishment of a zero-based budgeting programme reviewing material areas of States' expenditure from first principles, directly delivering a named commitment in the promise.

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

This motion directs a structured efficiency programme targeting a 1% real-terms annual reduction in baseline public expenditure for 2027-2029, directly delivering the promise to cut public spending by up to 2% per year.

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

This motion directs establishment of a zero-based budgeting programme, directly delivering one of the named mechanisms in the promise to cut public spending using zero-based budgeting.

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

This motion directs incorporation of a structured public service efficiency programme targeting a 1% real-terms annual reduction in baseline public expenditure, directly advancing the promise to cut public spending using efficiency measures.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To delete proposition 20 and replace with the following proposition: “20. To approve Committee Net Expenditure for 2026 totalling £650.55m as set out in the following table: Service Area 2026 Revenue Cash Limit (£’000s) Corporate Services 89,649 Economic Development 12,740 Education, Sport & Culture 97,893 Employment & Social Security 88,717 Environment & Infrastructure 16,451 Health & Social Care 252,705 Home Affairs 43,118 Housing 8,466 Policy & Resources 16,725 Scrutiny Management Committee 626 States’ Assembly & Constitution Committee 85 Development & Planning 1,343 Overseas Aid & Development 5,026 Royal Court 2,732 Law Officers 7,784 Pooled Budgets 1,009 Budget Reserve including GWP initiatives 6,320 Savings to be Delivered (2,500) Total Committee Net Expenditure 650,549''

Voting Pour delivers this

This amendment would have reduced total Committee Net Expenditure from £678m to £650.55m, directly bearing on the promise to cut public spending.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: 11. To remove the specified limits on the penalties that may be imposed in the Magistrate’s Court in respect of benefit-related offences under the legislation set out in paragraph 9.5.

Voting Pour delivers this

Removing specified limits on Magistrate's Court penalties for benefit offences strengthens enforcement against benefit fraud, advancing the crack-down promise.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: 5. To endorse the intention of the Policy & Resources Committee to continue previous workstreams to better understand the scale of accumulated untaxed, undistributed profits in Guernsey resident companies, to include consideration of incentivising earlier taxable distributions and any other mechanisms to increase revenues from this source of profits.

Voting Pour delivers this

Directing work to understand untaxed undistributed profits and incentivise taxable distributions bears on the promise to crack down on tax-cap avoidance and improve public finances.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: 2. To endorse the intention of the Policy & Resources Committee to increase the Standard Charge specified in Section 5B(2) of the Income Tax (Guernsey) Law, 1975, as amended, from £40,000 to £50,000 in respect of the Year of Charge 2026 and subsequent years, by regulation under that subsection.

Voting Pour delivers this

Increasing the Standard Charge for high-worth residents from £40,000 to £50,000 bears on the promise to crack down on tax-cap avoidance by ensuring cap-holders pay more into the public purse.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: 9. To amend the legislation set out in paragraph 9.5 to make all benefit-related offences triable in either the Magistrate's Court or the Royal Court.

Voting Pour delivers this

Making benefit-related offences triable in either court strengthens enforcement against benefit fraud, directly advancing the promise to crack down on benefit fraud.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: 10. To set the maximum penalty for all benefit-related offences under the legislation set out in paragraph 9.5 at seven years' imprisonment.

Voting Pour delivers this

Setting a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment for benefit-related offences strengthens the deterrent against benefit fraud, advancing the promise to crack down on benefit fraud.

Official voting record →