Steve Williams

The Education (Governance Boards) Ordinance, 2025

Motion put to the States: Whether they are of the opinion to approve the draft Ordinance entitled "The Education (Governance Boards) Ordinance, 2025" and to direct that the same shall have effect as an Ordinance of the States subject to amendments below: In section 1 - in the section heading for "Constitution" substitute "Purpose and constitution", and after subsection (1), insert – "(1A)The purpose of the governance board of a relevant educational establishment is to – (a)contribute to and promote the ethos and strategic direction of the establishment, (b)hold the headteacher and management to account in respect of safeguarding, educational standards, attendance, staff performance and professional development, (c)hold the headteacher and management to account in respect of the use of financial and other resources by the establishment, and (d)facilitate and promote the giving of effective and appropriate communication from parents, staff, learners and the community to the headteacher and management of the establishment.", (c)in subsection (2)(b) for "four" substitute "five", (d)at the end of subsection (2)(d) insert "and", and at the end of subsection (2)(e) for ", and" substitute ".", (e)delete subsection (2)(f), (f)in subsection (3)(b) for "six" substitute "seven", (g)at the end of subsection (3)(d) insert "and", and at the end of subsection (3)(e) for ", and" substitute ".", and (h)delete subsection (3)(f).". To delete Clause 4(7) and replace with the following Clause: “4 (7)The Director of Education (or a person nominated by the Director of Education for this purpose) may attend one meeting of each governance board each academic year, or more frequently only at the – invitation of that governance board, or the direction of the Committee, where the Committee has reasonable grounds to believe that there has been a material failure in governance, safeguarding, financial management, or compliance with applicable law or policy, and has recorded such grounds in writing.

Voting Pour delivers this

Approving the Education Governance Boards Ordinance 2025 directly advances educational governance improvement, bearing on the promise to push for the Education Department to deliver best possible education.

The Education (Governance Boards) Ordinance, 2025

Motion put to the States: To insert immediately after “of the States” the following: “subject to the following amendment: “To delete Clause 4(7) and replace with the following Clause: “4 (7)The Director of Education (or a person nominated by the Director of Education for this purpose) may attend one meeting of each governance board each academic year, or more frequently only at the – invitation of that governance board, or the direction of the Committee, where the Committee has reasonable grounds to believe that there has been a material failure in governance, safeguarding, financial management, or compliance with applicable law or policy, and has recorded such grounds in writing.".””.

Voting Pour delivers this

This amendment to the Education Governance Boards Ordinance shaped governance board structure, bearing on the promise to improve education delivery.

The Education (Governance Boards) Ordinance, 2025

Motion put to the States: Immediately after ""The Education (Governance Boards) Ordinance, 2025"", insert ", subject to the amendments below" and at the end of the proposition, insert the following: "Amendments: In section 1 - in the section heading for "Constitution" substitute "Purpose and constitution", and after subsection (1), insert – "(1A)The purpose of the governance board of a relevant educational establishment is to – (a)contribute to and promote the ethos and strategic direction of the establishment, (b)hold the headteacher and management to account in respect of safeguarding, educational standards, attendance, staff performance and professional development, (c)hold the headteacher and management to account in respect of the use of financial and other resources by the establishment, and (d)facilitate and promote the giving of effective and appropriate communication from parents, staff, learners and the community to the headteacher and management of the establishment.", (c)in subsection (2)(b) for "four" substitute "five", (d)at the end of subsection (2)(d) insert "and", and at the end of subsection (2)(e) for ", and" substitute ".", (e)delete subsection (2)(f), (f)in subsection (3)(b) for "six" substitute "seven", (g)at the end of subsection (3)(d) insert "and", and at the end of subsection (3)(e) for ", and" substitute ".", and (h)delete subsection (3)(f).".

Voting Pour delivers this

This further amendment to the Education Governance Boards Ordinance refined governance provisions, relating to the promise to push for best possible education.

The Education (Guernsey) (Amendment) Law, 2025

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

Approving the Education (Guernsey) (Amendment) Law 2025 represents legislative action on education governance, bearing on the promise to push for the Education Department to deliver the best possible education.

Education Governance Board Sursis

Motion put to the States: To sursis consideration of the Projet de Loi entitled ‘The Education (Guernsey) (Amendment) Law, 2025’ and to direct the Committee for Education, Sport & Culture to return to the States with a revised Projet de Loi which— 1. revises and limits the Committee’s regulation-making powers ensuring that powers in respect of the constitution, powers and functions of Governance Boards vest clearly in the States of Deliberation by Ordinance and that the said regulation-making powers remain in-keeping with the scope envisaged by the Policy Letter, being to permit “operational changes to elements of the governance framework” to be made by the Committee for operational efficacy; and 2. sets out in full the proposed constitutional terms of reference of the Governance Boards, including their objectives, responsibilities and delegated and/or devolved powers, to apply from the commencement of the Law.

Voting Contre delivers this

This sursis sought to delay and revise education governance legislation, and opposing it (allowing the Education law to proceed) aligns with pushing for better education delivery.

Why this counts against the promise: Deputy Steve Williams promised to push for action to ensure the Education Department delivers the best possible education for young people, yet on 3 September 2025 he voted Pour on a motion to sursis the Education (Guernsey) (Amendment) Law, 2025 and send it back for revision, when voting Contre — allowing the Law to proceed — would have been consistent with delivering that promise.

Proposition 1a

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

This motion agreed to reduce the standard income tax rate to 15% as part of the tax reform package that includes GST, which is an alternative revenue measure tied to GST adoption, bearing on the promise to support alternative measures while opposing GST.

Why this counts against the promise: Deputy Steve Williams, who promised to oppose GST and instead support alternative measures to increase States income, voted Pour on 26 February 2026 on the motion to reduce the individual standard rate of income tax to 15% with a higher rate of 20%, a vote that works against delivering that promise by endorsing a tax restructuring measure rather than opposing GST-adjacent reforms in favour of the alternatives he committed to.

Amendment 2

Motion put to the States: To insert an additional proposition as follows: “5.To direct the Policy & Resources Committee to cease immediately all work on the introduction of any form of territorial corporation tax, including as part of the options being examined within the fundamental restructuring of Guernsey’s corporate tax regime, and to direct the Policy & Resources Committee to amend the Terms of Reference for the Tax Review Sub Committee by amending the first bullet-point under the heading “In scope” to read: “The taxation of company profits (specifically excluding a system of territorial corporate tax) having due regard to the need to maintain a tax system which is competitive, internationally acceptable and maintains tax neutrality;”.”. View this proposition's information page on gov.gg

Voting Pour delivers this

This amendment sought to cease all work on territorial corporation tax as an alternative to GST, which partially relates to the promise to support alternative measures to increase States income while opposing GST.

Why this counts against the promise: Deputy Steve Williams, who promised to oppose GST and instead support a range of alternative measures to increase States income, voted Contre on 26 February 2026 against a motion to halt work on territorial corporation tax—one such alternative revenue measure—acting against his own stated commitment to pursue alternatives to GST.

Amendment 1

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 proposed that GST shall not be introduced and directed cessation of all work on it, directly aligning with the promise to oppose GST introduction.

Why this counts against the promise: Deputy Steve Williams, who promised voters he was "not in favour of GST," voted Contre on 26 February 2026 against a motion that would have agreed no goods and services tax be introduced and directed the Policy & Resources Committee to cease all GST preparations, a vote directly at odds with his stated opposition to GST.

Proposition 1b

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%, which directly contradicts the promise to oppose GST introduction.

Why this counts against the promise: The promise provided (energy independence via wind, tidal, and solar power rather than a new cable to France) does not have a clear, direct logical connection to the GST motion being voted on. The framing states that voting Contre would have delivered the promise, but no evident relationship between a GST/Essentials Cost Relief Payment motion and energy independence policy is apparent from the facts given. Because I can only use the facts provided and must not invent a connection, I cannot write an accurate, factually grounded explanation sentence without fabricating a link between these two unrelated policy areas. If you can supply a corrected or additional fact showing how this GST vote relates to Deputy Williams's energy-independence promise, I would be glad to draft the sentence.

The States of Guernsey Annual Budget for 2026

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

This motion directed the Policy & Resources Committee to consider changes or alternatives to Mortgage Interest Relief to better assist first-time buyers, which partially advances support for first-time buyer financial relief relevant to the promise.