Sarah Hansmann Rouxel

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

Amendment giving Housing first refusal on named States sites for affordable and mixed-tenure housing, which unlocks sites.

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 the Committee for Housing right of first refusal over States sites (Lukis House, Swissville, Garden Hill) for affordable housing, which unlocks sites.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: The States are asked to decide: 1. Whether, in noting the urgency to improve supply of Affordable Housing, to be addressed through proposed increased land allocation as a result of the review of the Island Development Plan, they are of the opinion: a. To vary Rule 30(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the States to the extent necessary to permit a Special Meeting to be held on Tuesday 24th November 2026 to consider P.2026/72 - Review of the Island Development Plan - Development & Planning Authority Recommendations; and b. To insert, in Schedule 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the States of Deliberation and their Committees, immediately after the line item for 3rd November (Tuesday) 2026 the following line item “24th November (Tuesday) Island Development Plan Special Meeting” . 2. Whether, after consideration of the attached Schedule for Future States’ Business, which sets out items for consideration at the Ordinary States Meeting on 21st October 2026, they are of the opinion to approve the Schedule. View this proposition's information page on gov.gg

Voting Pour delivers this

Prioritises business to address the urgent need to improve affordable housing supply through increased land allocation.

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 affordable housing over alternative uses on States-owned land at Lukis House, Swissville and Garden Hill.

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

Amendment securing States-owned sites for affordable housing through Housing's right of first refusal.

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

Secures States sites for affordable housing delivery, which speeds up housing supply.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: The States are asked to decide: 1. Whether, in noting the urgency to improve supply of Affordable Housing, to be addressed through proposed increased land allocation as a result of the review of the Island Development Plan, they are of the opinion: a. To vary Rule 30(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the States to the extent necessary to permit a Special Meeting to be held on Tuesday 24th November 2026 to consider P.2026/72 - Review of the Island Development Plan - Development & Planning Authority Recommendations; and b. To insert, in Schedule 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the States of Deliberation and their Committees, immediately after the line item for 3rd November (Tuesday) 2026 the following line item “24th November (Tuesday) Island Development Plan Special Meeting” . 2. Whether, after consideration of the attached Schedule for Future States’ Business, which sets out items for consideration at the Ordinary States Meeting on 21st October 2026, they are of the opinion to approve the Schedule. View this proposition's information page on gov.gg

Voting Pour delivers this

Speeds up affordable housing supply by prioritising increased land allocation from the Island Development Plan review.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: The States are asked to decide:- Whether they are of the opinion to approve the draft Ordinance entitled ''The Education (Guernsey) (Amendment) Law, 2025 (Commencement) Ordinance, 2026'' and to direct that the same shall have effect as an Ordinance of the States.

Voting Pour delivers this

Brings the amended Education Law into force by commencement ordinance.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: Whether they are of the opinion to approve the draft Projet de Loi entitled "The Education (Guernsey) (Amendment) Law, 2025", and to authorise the Bailiff to present a most humble petition to His Majesty praying for His Royal Sanction thereto.

Voting Pour delivers this

Approves the Education Law amendment establishing governance boards, a reform of the Education Law.

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

Implements the tax reform package including new GST; the promise says new taxation should come only after trust and reform are restored, so opposing the package would advance it.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise conditioned support for new taxation on restoring trust and having a credible government and plan first, but whether those prerequisites had been met by October 2026 is a matter of judgement, and the deputy could reasonably conclude that the reformed, mitigation-conditioned GST package represented the "credible plan" the promise described rather than the premature taxation it warned against.

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 tax package, so reform is demonstrated alongside new taxation.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: 1. To insert a new Proposition: "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."

Voting Pour delivers this

The amendment requiring a published savings programme to support the tax reform package, which tests the credible plan condition.

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

Would have delayed tax reform until a comprehensive financial report and sought a package without GST, putting credibility before new taxes.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to support new taxation only after trust and reform were established, but voting against this sursis motion could reflect a judgement that delaying tax reform proposals or excluding GST entirely was not the right procedural mechanism to honour that commitment, rather than a direct endorsement of new taxation without prior reform.

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, consistent with reform and a credible plan before new taxation.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to seek trust and reform before asking Islanders to accept any new taxation, while the amendment deferred the GST proposals and directed investigation of an insurance premium tax as an alternative; voting against it does not plainly contradict the promise, since the amendment itself explores a different new tax and a deputy could oppose it for reasons unrelated to the sequencing commitment.

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

Would have delayed the tax decision until the CFO's financial report and a resolved Revenue Service backlog, which tests the credible-government condition.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to restore trust and drive reform *before* supporting new taxation, but the motion concerns a procedural delay (sursis) pending specific administrative reports, not a direct vote on adopting any new tax, so voting against the delay does not plainly equate to supporting new taxation without prior reform.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: In Proposition 1, immediately after the words “Appendix 7” insert the following words “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%.

Voting Pour delivers this

Zero-rates GST on food from small independent local suppliers, which supports local food production and lowers the cost of basics.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: 22. That, (a) subject to the provisions of the Income Tax (Guernsey) Law, 1975 and to the provisions of this Proposition, the allowances claimable for the Year of Charge 2026 by an individual solely or principally resident in Guernsey by way of relief from income tax at the individual standard rate, shall be the allowances specified in the First Schedule to this proposition; (b) the allowances specified in the First Schedule to this proposition shall only be granted to an individual who has made a claim in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax (Guernsey) Law, 1975 and who has proved the conditions applicable to such allowances and prescribed in the Second Schedule to this proposition have been fulfilled; (c) ''Family Allowances'' means Family Allowances payable under the Family Allowances (Guernsey) Law, 1950 as amended; and (d) ''the Income Tax (Guernsey) Law, 1975'' means that Law as amended, extended or applied by or under any other enactment and includes, where relevant, any Ordinance, regulation or Resolution of the States made under that Law.

Voting Pour delivers this

Sets the 2026 income tax allowances, which bears on whether allowances keep pace with inflation to protect take-home pay.

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 gate and associated infrastructure, a harbour infrastructure project.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: 3. To direct the Policy & Resources Committee and each Principal Committee to publish a Committee Work Plan for the term (as set out in section 7).

Voting Pour delivers this

Requiring every committee to publish a work plan for the term supports a cohesive government work plan and clearer accountability.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To direct the Policy & Resources Committee to publish a report on the progress of the Major Projects Portfolio, including relevant information and metrics on each project’s performance against plan and budget, in a format that is publicly available and easily accessible, no later than 1st July 2026, with updates provided at least every six months thereafter; and to note the Chief Executive shall report on major workstreams underway in the public service as part of an annual Chief Executive’s report.

Voting Pour delivers this

Requires a public report on each major project's performance against plan and budget, which gives accountability for stalled projects.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To insert an additional proposition as follows: “To direct the Policy & Resources Committee to publish a report on the progress of the Major Projects Portfolio, including relevant information and metrics on each project’s performance against plan and budget, in a format that is publicly available and easily accessible, no later than 1st July 2026, with updates provided at least every six months thereafter; and to note the Chief Executive shall report on major workstreams underway in the public service as part of an annual Chief Executive’s report.”.

Voting Pour delivers this

Requires a public, accessible report on Major Projects Portfolio performance, which supports accountability for blocked projects.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: Recognising the importance of a fit-for-purpose, accountable and high-performing leadership within the public service and supporting structures capable of delivering the Government Work Plan, and to enable political committees to exercise challenge, control and vision, to agree to mandate the Chief Executive, drawing on external expertise where appropriate, to lead a programme of organisational reform as a priority to deliver performance, culture and capability improvements across the public service, and to direct the publication of clear terms of reference, approved by the Policy & Resources Committee, and to further direct the Policy & Resources Committee to resource the programme as necessary to achieve these outcomes, reporting regularly on its progress to the States.

Voting Pour delivers this

Mandates the Chief Executive to reform public service leadership and structures to deliver the work plan, which relates to reducing siloed duplication.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To insert a new proposition, as follows: “Recognising the importance of a fit-for-purpose, accountable and high-performing leadership within the public service and supporting structures capable of delivering the Government Work Plan, and to enable political committees to exercise challenge, control and vision, to agree to mandate the Chief Executive, drawing on external expertise where appropriate, to lead a programme of organisational reform as a priority to deliver performance, culture and capability improvements across the public service, and to direct the publication of clear terms of reference, approved by the Policy & Resources Committee, and to further direct the Policy & Resources Committee to resource the programme as necessary to achieve these outcomes, reporting regularly on its progress to the States.”

Voting Pour delivers this

Same public service leadership and structures motion, moved earlier as an amendment, aimed at a high-performing, accountable civil service.

Official voting record →

Motion put to the States: To agree the following workstreams should be undertaken by the States’ Assembly & Constitution Committee: a) Consider the possibility of including a supervisory authority to oversee complaints and appeals as part of the workstream to establish an independent Electoral Body; b) Explore additional approaches that could be adopted to foster youth engagement in politics and elections.

Voting Pour delivers this

Directs SACC workstreams on the electoral system, including an independent electoral body and further approaches to elections.

Official voting record →