Why we marked nine Guernsey deputies Broken or Mixed on GST

Several of the nine have told us we got it wrong, some politely and some on Facebook. What follows is the pledge each one made, the four votes that test it, and the few lines of Hansard that best explain our verdict.

The test we apply

We start from the pledge, not from the vote. We do not mark a pledge Broken because a deputy departed from the exact wording of a manifesto line. A strict, literal test would catch far more people than ours does. We mark a pledge Broken only where a deputy acted against the plain sense of what they promised, and we read the qualifiers in a pledge in the deputy's favour first. That is a judgement and we do not pretend otherwise.

Mixed means the record holds a genuine act in line with the pledge and a genuine act against it, or the pledge set conditions that are a matter of judgement. Kept means the votes sit with the plain sense of the pledge, and no deputy profiled here meets it. Deputy Helyar, whose GST verdict moved to Kept in October, is the recent example.

Four decisions, the same under every name

• On 26 February 2026, Amendment 1 would have rescinded GST. Voting against it kept the tax in place.
• On 26 February 2026, Proposition 1b approved GST itself.
• On 16 July 2026, Amendment 14 would have scrapped the GST+ package.
• On 2 October 2026, the final vote approved the package, 22 votes to 17.

Deputy	Amendment 1, 26 Feb	Proposition 1b, 26 Feb	Amendment 14, 16 Jul	Final vote, 2 Oct	Verdict
Charles Parkinson	Kept GST	Approved GST	Kept GST+	Approved the package	Broken
Paul Montague	Kept GST	Approved GST	Kept GST+	Approved the package	Broken
Adrian Gabriel	Kept GST	Approved GST	Scrapped GST+	Approved the package	Mixed
Steve Williams	Kept GST	Approved GST	Scrapped GST+	Approved the package	Mixed
Tina Bury	Kept GST	Approved GST	Kept GST+	Rejected the package	Mixed
Sarah Hansmann Rouxel	Kept GST	Approved GST	Kept GST+	Approved the package	Mixed
Gavin St Pier	Kept GST	Approved GST	Kept GST+	Approved the package	Mixed
Rhona Humphreys	Absent	Absent	Kept GST+	Approved the package	Mixed
Tom Rylatt	Kept GST	Approved GST	Kept GST+	Approved the package	Mixed

Every quotation below is verbatim from the Hansard transcript on parliament.gg and links to its source. Hansard for the final debate, 30 September to 2 October 2026, is not yet published, so it is not quoted.

Broken

Charles Parkinson

"I am opposed to GST."

Key points from Hansard

We would have effectively have repaired the damage caused to our public finances by Zero-10. We would probably not need a GST.

In February he told the States that corporate tax reform and Pillar Two would have done the job without a GST. That is the pledge's own logic, in his words.

We need not speculate, we will know by the middle of next year when most of the Pillar Two receipts will come in.

In July he said when the Pillar Two answer would be known. On 30 September he voted against Amendment 45, which would have waited for it (lost 18 to 21), and on 2 October he voted for GST.

Our verdict: Broken. The pledge has no condition and no vote in the record is consistent with it. We judge it Broken.

Paul Montague

"The current GST+ proposal raises valid concerns... However, it cannot be implemented unless it has wider public support. It must be clearly explained and be part of a broader, fairer tax strategy."

Key points from Hansard

But this is going to require a little bit more honesty with the community, and I do not think we have been very honest in the run up to this

In July Montague conceded that the case had not been put honestly to the community. That is the second of his own conditions, unmet, by his own account.

I am not saying that everyone is suddenly, ‘Oh, yes, I am on board’; that is certainly not the case.

He accepted that explaining the package had not brought everyone round. He then voted against both referendum amendments (15 July and 30 September), which were the two chances to test public support.

I believe that GST Plus is, to most people in this Island, the more fair option.

In February he called GST Plus the fairer option. That is why we read the pledge as conditional acceptance and not opposition, and why the conditions are the test.

Our verdict: Broken. The pledge made implementation conditional on three things, none was met, and every vote went ahead anyway. We judge it Broken.

Mixed

Adrian Gabriel

"I generally oppose the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST), as, on its own it will disproportionately affect lower-income households and can stifle economic growth."

Key points from Hansard

To me it is lazy, regressive and it detracts from one of our Unique Selling Points: no VAT or consumer-based tax. Most do not want it and more importantly are willing to pay in other, fairer ways.

The pledge repeats a view he stated in the chamber in 2023, which is why we read "generally oppose" as a settled position.

But I read a little bit deeper and I was buoyed up by 4(b) in that the levy could differentiate according to the size or scale of the undertaking.

His stated reason for voting to scrap GST+ on 16 July was the design of the corporate levy in Amendment 14. That vote is the real act in line with the pledge.

Effectively, as other people have said, we have had a referendum already. The people have put us here to make decisions, to do our job. Let us get on with it and not delay any further.

The record also holds the counterpoint. On 15 July he moved to stop the GST referendum amendment being debated (lost 18 to 19) and said this. It is one reason the verdict is Mixed and not Kept.

Our verdict: Mixed. A qualified pledge, one real vote to scrap GST+ and one vote to pass it. The record holds both, so we judge it Mixed.

Steve Williams

"I am not in favour of GST however the States must increase its income, which could be achieved through a raft of measures alongside spending efficiencies."

Key points from Hansard

Obviously, the attraction is we do not go through the palaver of the GST, the setting up, the costs, etc., and there are alternatives. What I do like is there are some solutions there and ideas about raising income

On 16 July Williams spoke for Amendment 14, which dropped GST and looked for other income. It is the vote that fits the first half of his pledge.

Mindful that we are next month about to ask the public of Guernsey to pay more tax overall, it is a reasonable, legitimate public expectation that all States’ Committees and all senior civil servants rein in their spending and staff numbers

The second half of the pledge was "spending efficiencies". In June he told the States that more tax needed visible restraint from committees and senior civil servants.

Our verdict: Mixed. Opposition paired with an acceptance that income must rise, a vote to scrap in July and a vote to approve in October. We judge it Mixed.

Tina Bury

"I support practical, fair tax solutions, that may mean GST, but first I want to see corporate tax reform and the closure of income tax loopholes."

Key points from Hansard

…when it comes to voting in the summer, would like to have all of the information in front of me, all of the options, so that I can make a properly informed decision that does go with my manifesto promises and pledges

In February she said her summer vote would follow her "manifesto promises and pledges".

This whole debate for me has always been about sequencing.

In July she named the test herself.

…and by that I mean getting the house in order, doing all the things we need to do first before asking our community to pay a consumption tax.

She defined it as reform before the tax, which is the order in her pledge.

This amendment appears to do what I would very much like to do, which is target other areas first, basically, apart from the people.

She said Amendment 14 did what she wanted and still voted against it, citing "process risk". On 2 October she voted against the final package, the only deputy of the nine to do so.

Our verdict: Mixed. The pledge allowed GST but put reform first. Three votes moved the tax before the reform, and the decisive vote kept to the order. We judge it Mixed.

Sarah Hansmann Rouxel

"Before asking Islanders for more, we must show that we have put our own house in order... only then, with a credible government and a credible plan, should we ask Islanders to accept any new form of taxation."

Key points from Hansard

…but once we have that restructure I believe that we should be able to have a more transparent and better communicated process with the public.

On 30 January she placed the civil service restructure in the future. It is the clearest line in Hansard on the second of her three tests. It was still under way on 19 September, when Deputy Laine told the Guernsey Press that the terms of reference he had asked for had not appeared.

So in not having those Committee work plans in this debate I feel we might have swung the pendulum a bit too far.

The first test was a cohesive Government Work Plan. She said in January that leaving committee work plans out of the debate may have gone too far. When gov.gg was checked on 10 October it listed five of the eight committee plans, with Health & Social Care, Home Affairs and Policy & Resources missing.

Running through much of the correspondence is a profound lack of trust. I know Deputies have mentioned this before. A belief the States’ waste money, that it has to get its own house in order…

In July she told the States that islanders believed the States "has to get its own house in order". She reported it as what she was hearing and did not say it had been done.

We ruled the pledge Broken on 14 September, corrected the reasoning on 6 October after Hansmann Rouxel set out the case, and moved it to Mixed on 9 October after meeting. The change is logged on the corrections page.

Our verdict: Mixed. A sequence and a test, not a promise to vote no. The test was still incomplete on 2 October, but it is a matter of judgement and not a bright line. We judge it Mixed, after starting at Broken.

Forward Guernsey: one pledge, three deputies

Gavin St Pier, Rhona Humphreys and Tom Rylatt stood on the Future Guernsey plan. Its Step 6 says they do not support GST+ "in its current form", conditional on "progress on the first five steps that have been outlined before being asked to pay more". By 2 October three of those steps fell short: corporate tax reform (policy letter P.2026/49 keeps Zero-10 and defers Zero-15 talks), tax administration, and efficiency savings (£20m a year by 2029 against the plan's £25m). Against that, Amendment 55, moved by St Pier, changed the form of GST+ before the final vote. Both facts are true at once, which is what Mixed means.

Gavin St Pier

"While some form of consumption tax may be needed, it is far from optimal and we do not support GST+ in its current form", conditional on "progress on the first five steps that have been outlined before being asked to pay more".

Key points from Hansard

Let me close by stressing once again this is a conditional decision. We are not asking for the final approval of any package today. That decision will need to come in the summer.

On 26 February St Pier, speaking for P&R, called the votes a conditional decision, with the real one to come in the summer.

We have a system that is clearly not yet complete, appears to have reduced functionality for Revenue Service staff compared to its predecessor, provides poor service levels for customers, and apparently is a system with a limited lifespan.

As P&R vice-president in November 2025 he described the Revenue Service system as incomplete, with poor service for customers. That is Step 4 of the Future Guernsey plan, unfinished in his own words. On 24 June 2026 P&R told the States that many customers were still waiting for assessments, repayments or responses.

Our verdict: Mixed. The plan's preconditions were unmet, but the form of GST+ it objected to was changed first, on this deputy's own amendment. We judge it Mixed.

Rhona Humphreys

"While some form of consumption tax may be needed, it is far from optimal and we do not support GST+ in its current form", conditional on "progress on the first five steps that have been outlined before being asked to pay more".

Key points from Hansard

…if we are to contemplate tax reform, we must first demonstrate openly and transparently that we are tackling our own costs.

Humphreys moved the 1% savings amendment on 29 January and set the test in her own words.

…we send a clear unambiguous signal to the public that fiscal discipline and targeted savings are a key consideration of this Assembly before another conversation about tax reform begins. That sequencing matters, in my opinion, enormously for public confidence.

She put savings before tax reform. The States agreed her amendment, and it is worth about £20m a year by 2029 against the plan's £25m.

I am extremely confident that we are going to put absolutely everything we can into achieving it, but I cannot guarantee that we will get there.

Asked on 24 June whether the £20m would be found, the P&R president would not guarantee it. Humphreys did not vote in the February GST divisions because she was off the island, and her first GST ballot was on 15 July.

Our verdict: Mixed. The plan's preconditions were unmet, and the package voted on had been reshaped by Amendment 55. With two votes on the record, we judge it Mixed.

Tom Rylatt

"...a tax system that ensures business and high net worth individuals pay their fair share before a consumption tax (such as GST) is imposed on islanders."

Key points from Hansard

In all that time, you will not see a fairer tax system, you will not see any fundamental change or reform.

Hansard holds almost nothing from Rylatt on corporate tax, Zero-10 or wealth taxes before 17 July 2026. This July line, against delay, is the nearest it comes. The case rests on the votes: for fair-share measures in the 2026 Budget (39 to 0), against investigating a high net worth scheme (Amendment 36) and for the package, while Zero-10 stayed.

Our verdict: Mixed. Two pledges with the same unmet precondition, offset by Budget votes that count as steps towards it. We judge it Mixed.

On subjectivity and on AI

Two criticisms come up more than any other. The first is that the judgements are subjective. They are, and the question is which way they run. Seven of the nine verdicts above are Mixed and not Broken because we read the qualifiers in a pledge in the deputy's favour.

The second is our use of AI. It flags where a vote may sit against a pledge and decides nothing. We review each flag against the source and correct mistakes openly, as we did on Hansmann Rouxel and, most recently, Helyar.

None of this is meant to embarrass anyone. If you think a verdict or a figure is wrong, write to me at wwalter@bridgeheadcommunications.com and we will look at it properly. The full evidence behind every verdict is on the GST pledges-against-votes page of the Guernsey Deputy Scorecard.