Jersey States Member Scorecard

AN INDEPENDENT RECORD OF EVERY PROMISE MADE IN THE STATES OF JERSEY

Visit the Guernsey edition →
04 SeptStamp duty on buy-to-let and second homes regraded from Mixed to Kept after the vote that delivered it was found unlinked; Long-Term Care cap ruling stands, with the December 2025 vote added.— Stephen Ahier04 SeptSustainable finance promise regraded from No recorded vote to Kept after a reader challenge found the amendment that delivered it, which she lodged herself, unlinked.— Hilary Jeune04 SeptTwo further verdict-based promises revised after reader challenges: constituency surgeries regraded Partial to Delivered; Equalities Minister regraded Outstanding to In progress.— Hilary Jeune
← All members

Alex Frederick Curtis

Deputy for St Clement · Independent

Member of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel · Member of the Bailiff's Consultative Panel · Chair of Planning Committee

Alex Frederick Curtis

Alex Curtis has served as Deputy for St Clement since first being elected in 2022. In his initial term he held the offices of Assistant Chief Minister and Assistant Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture, before moving to Assistant Minister for Sustainable Economic Development, both concluding in 2024. He also served on the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel and the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel during that term. Re-elected in 2026, Curtis now chairs the Planning Committee and sits on both the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel and the Bailiff's Consultative Panel.

For the 2026–2030 term, Curtis campaigned on fiscal responsibility and sustainable planning. His principal pledges include delivering public services with financial discipline to balance government spending, ensuring that increased education and health budgets are spent wisely to remain sustainable over the long term, and pushing for a revised Island Plan that protects family homes, employment land, and green space. He also committed to keeping Jersey's population within the island's capacity and to opposing overregulation in order to protect personal freedoms.

Before entering politics, Curtis worked at Microsoft, applying data analysis to solve problems across Europe, the United Kingdom, and Africa.

Sources

—

States participation

3

Votes expected

Have your say

Constituent feedback

Reader ratings and comments. Not Alex Frederick Curtis’s own response.

Rate Alex Frederick Curtis

with

Coverage

Media mentions

Every Jersey media article naming this member, month by month. Accented bars mark coverage spikes — hover or focus any month to see the stories behind it.

12Nov 25Jan 26Mar 26May 26Jul 26Sep 26

What drove the spikes

Attendance

Turnout in the States Assembly — 2026–2030 Assembly

The States Assembly records a reason against every non-vote, so being ill, off-island, on parental leave or barred by a declared interest can be told apart from simply not turning up. Absences with an accepted reason are removed from both sides of the rate rather than held against the member.

3 votes in 2026–2030 Assembly so far — fewer than the 10 needed before this scorecard will publish a participation rate. The record to date:

  • Voted or abstained3

Manifesto

Promises, and how they voted — 2026–2030 Assembly

Grouped by policy area. Each promise carries the recorded States Assembly votes that test it, and whether this member voted to deliver — open any vote for the motion and the reasoning. A vote counts against a promise only where it plainly contradicts it; where a member voted against one particular measure but the breach is arguable, the vote is shown and set aside rather than counted. Where no recorded vote bears on a promise, an AI delivery verdict assesses progress against the public record.

Voted to deliverVoted againstAbsent or abstained

Housing & Planning

1 promise · 0 kept

No recorded States Assembly vote bears on this area yet.

  • No recorded votedirectional

    Candidate will push for sustainable development, protection of family homes, employment land, and green space in the revised Island Plan.

    “In Planning, the new or revised Island Plan is our chance to deliver development more sustainably. We should ensure a balanced mix of homes and protect family houses. We must better protect employment land, including hotels, and need greater protections for the character of our island, especially green space in St. Clement.”

    Planning And DevelopmentHousingEnvironment And Climate
    No recorded vote - delivery verdictIn progressmedium confidence

    Deputy Curtis was re-elected on 7 June 2026 and appointed Chair of the Planning Committee on 30 June 2026, placing him in the key institutional role to pursue his manifesto commitments on sustainable development, family homes, employment land protection, and St. Clement green space. As of October 2026 the Bridging Island Plan (2022-25, extended) remains in force and the next Island Plan — the primary vehicle for his pledges — is not yet drafted; the previous Environment Minister and the Jersey Evening Post confirmed in mid-2025 that a new plan was expected to be brought before the Assembly in 2027 or 2028. No specific propositions or formal Island Plan submissions by Curtis relating to these commitments have been publicly recorded in the first three and a half months of the new Assembly term, which is consistent with the early-stage nature of the process rather than inaction.

Education & Families

1 promise · 0 kept

No recorded States Assembly vote bears on this area yet.

  • No recorded votedirectional

    Candidate will work to ensure education and health spending is used wisely to sustain budgets long-term.

    “Education and Health have seen significant increases in spending over the past four years. It's now time to reflect and make sure this funding is spent wisely so that budgets and investment can be sustained into the future.”

    EducationHealth And CarePublic Finances
    No recorded vote - delivery verdictNot yet testedmedium confidence

    Deputy Curtis was re-elected and sworn in on 12 June 2026, but his assigned roles in the 2026-2030 Assembly — Chair of the Planning Committee and member of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel — do not give him a direct institutional lever over education or health spending. He sought the chair of the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel at the 30 June 2026 sitting but was unsuccessful, with that role going to Deputy Porée. No independent source records a proposition, written question, or review initiated by Curtis specifically targeting the efficiency of education or health budgets in the roughly 15 weeks since he was sworn in. The promise therefore remains aspirational and unacted upon as of 3 October 2026, though the extremely short window since the Assembly first sat on 19 June 2026 means this reflects an absence of recorded progress rather than a deliberate failure.

    Related votes (shown for context; too partial or indirect to count towards the score)

    • 08 Sept 2026·P.63/2026 — Reinstate the States Grant to the Social Security Fund (P.63-2026) — Pour6-41

      The States Grant to the Social Security Fund supports health and social security budgets, and reinstating it could be seen as sustaining long-term health and social spending commitments, though the promise specifically concerns wise use rather than funding levels.

Economy, Tax & Cost of Living

1 promise · 0 kept

1recorded vote

1 Pour

  • No recorded votedirectional

    Candidate will pursue financial discipline in delivering public services to balance government spending.

    “In Government, we must deliver public services with financial discipline to efficiently balance our spending.”

    Public FinancesPublic Sector Reform

    1 recorded vote tests this promise

    1 Pour
    • 08 Sept 2026·P.63/2026 — Reinstate the States Grant to the Social Security Fund (P.63-2026) — Pour, voted against, not counted as a breach6-41

      Voting Contre delivers this

      Reinstating the States Grant to the Social Security Fund increases government expenditure commitments, which works against financial discipline and balancing government spending.

      Considered and set aside: this vote has not been adjudicated as a clear breach.

Governance & Public Services

3 promises · 0 kept

No recorded States Assembly vote bears on this area yet.

  • No recorded voteaspirational

    Candidate will apply evidence-based, people-first decision-making in the Assembly.

    “I'll keep applying that standard in the Assembly to push for an island grounded in common-sense, bringing a people-first attitude and approaching hard decisions with honesty and respect.”

    Governance And Constitution
    No recorded vote - delivery verdictIn progressmedium confidence

    Deputy Curtis was re-elected for St Clement on 7 June 2026 and sworn in on 12 June 2026, with the 2026-2030 Assembly having sat for fewer than four months as of the assessment date. His States Assembly profile confirms active participation since re-election, including appointment as Chair of the Planning Committee (from 30 June 2026), membership of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel (from 14 July 2026), and recorded contributions across multiple Hansard sittings in June and July 2026. The promise is a continuing behavioural commitment — applying evidence-based, people-first decision-making — rather than a discrete deliverable; the short window since the new term began makes an 'outstanding' or 'delivered' verdict inappropriate, and his early engagement is consistent with the pledge.

  • No recorded votedirectional

    Candidate will support keeping Jersey's population within the island's capacity.

    “Jersey's population should stay within our island's means.”

    Population And Migration
    No recorded vote - delivery verdictNot yet testedmedium confidence

    Deputy Curtis was re-elected on 7 June 2026 and the new Assembly first sat on 19 June 2026, meaning fewer than four months have elapsed as of the assessment date. His promise — that Jersey's population should stay within the island's means — is a broad positional commitment rather than a specific proposition; no evidence was found of him lodging a related proposition or taking a formal population-related action in the new term. He was appointed Chair of the Planning Committee and a member of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel from 14 July 2026, roles relevant to land-use pressures but not directly to population policy, which remains the Council of Ministers' responsibility under Chief Minister Farnham. The short window since the Assembly was constituted means this is best characterised as not-yet-acted-upon rather than a failure.

  • No recorded votedirectional

    Candidate will oppose overregulation and work to protect personal freedoms for islanders.

    “We must protect personal freedoms against overregulation to maintain and support what it means to live on our island.”

    Governance And Constitution
    No recorded vote - delivery verdictNot yet testedmedium confidence

    Deputy Alex Curtis was re-elected for St Clement on 7 June 2026 and sworn in on 12 June 2026, with the new 2026-2030 Assembly sitting from 19 June 2026. As of 3 October 2026 — fewer than four months into the term — no propositions lodged, ministerial statements made, or independent reporting found that specifically address the promise to oppose overregulation and protect personal freedoms. His post-election role has been as Chair of the Planning Committee (appointed 30 June 2026) and member of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel (from 14 July 2026), positions that could in principle be used to pursue this agenda, but no concrete action traceable to this specific commitment has been identified. Given the very short window since the Assembly first sat, this should not be read as evidence of failure, but rather that no measurable progress can yet be recorded.

Voting record

Recent recorded votes

This member's most recent votes in the States Assembly's electronic voting record, regardless of whether they relate to a manifesto promise.

Manifesto · Closed term

Promises, and how they voted — 2022–2026 Assembly

Deputy for St Clement · Independent. This term has closed — shown here as this member's earlier record, not the live one. A vote counts against a promise only where it plainly contradicts it; an arguable breach is shown and set aside rather than counted.

89%

Kept rate

96%

States participation

11

Promises tracked

95%

of the 889 votes they were expected to cast in 2022–2026 Assembly

  • Voted or abstained850
  • Not present for vote23
  • En défaut16

Set aside from the rate · 3

  • Declared an interest3

These 3 ballots are removed from both sides of the rate, not counted as absences. Each is a vote the member either could not cast or was barred from casting. Declaring an interest is the member doing the right thing, and marking them down for it would penalise exactly the behaviour a scorecard should encourage. Reasons are the States Assembly’s own, as published in its voting record.

Voted to deliverVoted againstAbsent or abstained

Housing & Planning

4 promises · 2 kept

48recorded votes

17 Pour · 24 Contre · 7 away

  • Keptdirectional

    Candidate will work to reform the housing market so homes are treated as places to live rather than investment assets.

    “We need to ensure the housing market recognises homes as places to live in, not just investments contributing to spiralling costs.”

    Housing

    43 recorded votes test this promise

    15 Pour · 24 Contre · 4 away
    • 21 Sept 2022✓P.89/2022(Amd) — Composition of Rent Tribunal (P.89/2022): amendment - Part 1 — Pour, voted to deliver31-14

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Reforming the composition of the Rent Tribunal is part of housing market reform treating homes as places to live.

    • 21 Sept 2022✓P.89/2022(Amd) — Composition of Rent Tribunal (P.89/2022): amendment - Parts 2 to 4 — Pour, voted to deliver36-8

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Further reform of the Rent Tribunal structure supports housing market fairness for tenants.

    • 21 Sept 2022✓P.89/2022 — Composition of Rent Tribunal - as amended — Pour, voted to deliver12-23

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The Rent Tribunal as amended proposition directly concerns housing market regulation to protect tenants.

    • 04 Oct 2022·P.92/2022 — Cost of living crisis – measures affecting Andium Homes rent increases - 'move to next item' proposed by Deputy Inna Gardiner — Pour, voted against, not counted as a breach19-20

      Voting Contre delivers this

      Moving to the next item on Andium Homes rent increases would have avoided addressing rental affordability; opposing this advances the promise.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns reforming the housing market so homes are treated as places to live rather than investments, but the motion was a procedural "move to next item" vote on measures affecting Andium Homes rent increases, and whether voting to skip this procedural step contradicts or advances the general manifesto commitment requires inference about what the substantive rent debate would have concluded.

    • 04 Oct 2022·P.92/2022 — Cost of living crisis – measures affecting Andium Homes rent increases — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach16-24

      Voting Pour delivers this

      This motion directly sought measures to limit Andium Homes rent increases, treating social housing as a place to live rather than an investment asset.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to housing market reform, and the motion concerns a specific measure about Andium Homes rent increases during a cost-of-living crisis; a member could vote against this particular rent-control measure while still honestly pursuing the general goal of housing reform through other means.

    • 13 Dec 2022·P.97/2022(Amd)(2)(Amd) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): second amendment (P.97/2022. Amd.(2).) – amendment Stamp Duty of buy to let investments second homes and holiday homes — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach11-34

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Increasing stamp duty on buy-to-let and second homes discourages treating housing as an investment asset.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise concerns treating homes as places to live rather than investments, voting against this specific stamp duty amendment on buy-to-let and second homes could reflect disagreement with the particular mechanism, level, or design of the duty rather than opposition to the underlying principle of housing market reform.

    • 13 Dec 2022✓P.97/2022(Amd)(2) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): second amendment Stamp Duty of buy to let investments second homes and holiday homes (P.97/2022 Amd.(2)) Part 1 — Pour, voted to deliver16-29

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Stamp duty on buy-to-let investments directly addresses treating housing as investment assets rather than homes.

    • 13 Dec 2022·P.97/2022(Amd)(2) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): second amendment Stamp Duty of buy to let investments second homes and holiday homes (P.97/2022 Amd.(2)) Part 2 — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach2-42

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Further parts of the stamp duty amendment on buy-to-let investments bear on the promise to reform the housing market.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise to treat homes as places to live rather than investments aligns directionally with increasing stamp duty on buy-to-let and second homes, voting against this specific tax amendment could reflect concerns about the particular mechanism, rate, or implementation rather than opposition to the broader housing reform goal.

    • 15 Dec 2022·P.97/2022(Amd)(11) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): eleventh amendment Ringfenced Stamp Duty (P.97/2022 Amd.(11)) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach17-32

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Ringfencing stamp duty for housing purposes supports treating homes as places to live.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to housing-market reform, while the motion concerns one specific fiscal mechanism (ringfenced stamp duty), and a member could reasonably oppose this particular measure while still genuinely pursuing the general goal of treating homes as places to live rather than investment assets.

    • 19 Apr 2023–P.13/2023 — Regulation of Estate Agents - as amended — Absent, did not take a side42-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Regulating estate agents is part of reforming the housing market to make it fairer for those seeking homes to live in.

    • 19 Apr 2023·P.15/2023 — Jersey Homes Trust rent increase – assistance scheme. — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach18-23

      Voting Pour delivers this

      An assistance scheme for Jersey Homes Trust rent increases directly supports housing affordability and treating homes as places to live.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The motion concerned a specific rent-assistance scheme for Jersey Homes Trust tenants facing a rent increase, which is related to housing affordability but is a particular funding/support mechanism rather than a direct measure to reform the housing market's treatment of homes as investments versus places to live.

    • 02 May 2023·P.18/2023 — Rent Control Measures [P.18/2023] - as amended - paragraph (a)(i) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach19-23

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Rent control measures directly advance the promise to treat homes as places to live rather than investment assets.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While rent control relates broadly to housing affordability, the promise is a general directional commitment to reform the housing market's treatment of homes, and voting against one specific rent control measure does not unambiguously contradict that goal, as a member could oppose this particular mechanism while still honestly pursuing the broader aim through other means.

    • 02 May 2023·P.18/2023 — Rent Control Measures [P.18/2023] - as amended - paragraph (a)(ii) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach17-25

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Further rent control measure paragraphs directly bear on reforming the housing market for tenants.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise expresses a general directional goal about housing philosophy, but voting against one specific rent control mechanism does not straightforwardly contradict it, as the member could plausibly hold that this particular measure was not the right means to achieve that goal.

    • 02 May 2023·P.18/2023 — Rent Control Measures [P.18/2023] - as amended - paragraph (a)(iii) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach12-30

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Additional rent control measures directly advance housing market reform promised.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise concerns treating homes as places to live rather than investment assets, voting against one specific rent control mechanism does not straightforwardly contradict that general directional commitment, as a member could oppose this particular measure while still pursuing the broader housing reform goal through other means.

    • 02 May 2023·P.18/2023 — Rent Control Measures [P.18/2023] - as amended - paragraph (b)(i) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach10-32

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Rent control enforcement measures advance the promise to reform the housing market.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to reform housing market philosophy, while this motion concerns a specific rent control mechanism, and a member could reasonably oppose this particular measure while still pursuing the general goal of treating homes as places to live rather than investments through other means.

    • 02 May 2023·P.18/2023 — Rent Control Measures [P.18/2023] - as amended - paragraph (b)(ii) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach16-26

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Rent control measures advance the promise to treat homes as places to live.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to housing market reform, and while rent control measures are related to that goal, voting against one specific rent control mechanism does not straightforwardly contradict the promise, as the member could oppose this particular measure while supporting alternative approaches to the same aim.

    • 18 Jul 2023✓P.40/2023 — Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations 202- Principles — Pour, voted to deliver34-10

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Licensing rented dwellings for public health and safety standards treats homes as places to live rather than pure investment assets.

    • 11 Dec 2023✓P.72/2023 Amd.(22).Amd — Government Plan P72-2023 Amendment 22 Amendment - Abolition of interest relief for landlords — Pour, voted to deliver31-13

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Abolishing interest tax relief for landlords directly reduces the financial incentive to treat housing as an investment asset.

    • 11 Dec 2023✓P.72/2023 Amd.(22) — Government Plan P72-2023 Amendment 22 as amended - Abolition of interest relief for landlords — Pour, voted to deliver33-12

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The as-amended abolition of interest relief for landlords directly reforms the housing market to favour occupiers over investors.

    • 28 Nov 2023✓P.40/2023 — Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations 202- Regulation 2 — Pour, voted to deliver35-4

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Adopting the rented dwellings licensing regulation advances housing reform to protect tenants.

    • 28 Nov 2023✓P.40/2023 — Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations 202- Third Reading — Pour, voted to deliver37-9

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Third reading of the rented dwellings licensing regulations delivers housing market reform.

    • 13 Dec 2023·P.72/2023 Amd.(19) — Proposed Government Plan 2024-2027 (P.72/2023): nineteenth amendment. Investment of stamp duty uplift into first time buyer funds — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach12-34

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Investing stamp duty uplift from second homes into first-time buyer funds directly redirects property investment revenue to support owner-occupiers, bearing directly on treating homes as places to live.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to housing market reform, and voting against one specific mechanism (redirecting stamp duty revenue into first-time buyer funds) does not plainly contradict that goal, as the member could reasonably prefer a different route to the same end or object to other aspects of how the amendment was framed.

    • 26 Nov 2024✓P.51/2024 Amd.(28) — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2025-2028 (P.51/2024): twenty-eighth amendment. Removal of stamp duty surcharge on second homes - as amended — Contre, voted to deliver23-24

      Voting Contre delivers this

      Removing the stamp duty surcharge on second homes would make investment in property more attractive, working against treating homes as places to live rather than assets.

    • 01 Apr 2025·P.16/2025 — Increase Stamp Duty for Properties that are not Principal Residences to 5 per cent (P.16-2025) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach3-41

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Increasing stamp duty on non-principal residences discourages treating property as an investment asset.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to reform the housing market so homes are treated as places to live rather than investments, while the motion concerns one specific fiscal mechanism (a 5% stamp duty rate on non-principal-residence properties); a member could oppose this particular measure while still honestly pursuing the general goal through different means.

    • 14 May 2025·P.29/2025 Amd. — Social Rents Plan to Reduce Rental Stress for Tenants (P.29-2025) Amendment — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach32-12

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The Social Rents Plan to Reduce Rental Stress for Tenants directly advances the promise to reform the housing market so homes are treated as places to live.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to housing-market reform, and the motion is a specific amendment to a social rents plan; voting against one particular amendment does not straightforwardly contradict the general goal, as the member could oppose the amendment's mechanism while still supporting the underlying aim through other means.

    • 14 May 2025✓P.29/2025 — Social Rental Plan to Reduce Rental Stress for Tenants (P.29-2025) as amended — Pour, voted to deliver34-4

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Adopting the Social Rental Plan as amended directly delivers on housing market reform to reduce rental stress.

    • 11 Sept 2025–P.24/2025. Amd.(3) — Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.24-2025) Amendment 3 — En défaut, did not take a side46-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Amendment 3 to the Residential Tenancy Law advances tenants' rights and housing market reform.

    • 11 Sept 2025–P.40/2025 — Third Reading — En défaut, did not take a side42-1

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Third reading of the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law delivers housing reform protecting tenants.

    • 10 Sept 2025✓P.24/2025 Amd.Amd. — Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (P.24-2025) Amendment (P.24-2025 Amd.) Amendment — Pour, voted to deliver28-19

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Amendments to the Residential Tenancy Law bear on reforming protections for tenants, advancing housing market reform.

    • 10 Sept 2025–P.24/2025 Amd.(2). — Part 1 — Absent, did not take a side36-5

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Parts of the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law advance tenant protections consistent with housing market reform.

    • 01 Oct 2025·P.61/2025 Amd. — Statutory Pre-Sale Agreements for Standard Residential Property Transactions (P.61-2035) - Amendment — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach39-4

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Statutory pre-sale agreements for residential property transactions reform how property transactions work, bearing on treating homes as places to live.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to housing-market reform, and voting against one specific amendment to a pre-sale agreements proposition could reflect concerns about the amendment's particular mechanism or drafting rather than opposition to the underlying goal of treating homes as places to live rather than investments.

    • 01 Oct 2025·P.61/2025 — Statutory Pre-Sale Agreements for Standard Residential Property Transactions (P.61-2035) - as amended — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach44-2

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Adopting statutory pre-sale agreements as amended reforms property transactions to provide greater security for buyers.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to housing market reform, while the motion concerns a specific statutory mechanism (pre-sale agreements) whose connection to treating homes as places to live rather than investments requires inferential steps that a member could plausibly dispute while still pursuing the general promise.

    • 09 Dec 2025✓P.70/2025 Amd.(31). — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): thirty-first amendment. Empty Residential Properties, as amended — Pour, voted to deliver41-3

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Measures on empty residential properties bear on making homes available for occupation rather than sitting as investment assets.

    • 10 Dec 2025·P.70/2025 Amd. — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): amendment. Development Levies — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach15-27

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Development levies can redistribute gains from property development toward public benefit, bearing on the promise to reform the housing market away from investment-asset treatment.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to housing market reform, and the motion concerns one specific budget amendment on development levies, so voting against it does not straightforwardly contradict the promise without knowing whether this particular levy mechanism was the right or effective means of treating homes as places to live rather than investments.

    • 11 Dec 2025✓P.70/2025 Amd.(14). — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): fourteenth amendment. Mortgage Interest Tax Relief — Contre, voted to deliver13-26

      Voting Contre delivers this

      Reinstating mortgage interest tax relief would benefit property investors and landlords, working against treating homes as places to live rather than investment assets.

    • 11 Dec 2025·P.70/2025 Amd.(14).Amd. — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): fourteenth amendment (P.70/2025 Amd.(14)), amendment. Mortgage Interest Tax Relief — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach19-21

      Voting Pour delivers this

      This amendment to the mortgage interest tax relief amendment would modify its scope; supporting it could limit the extent of relief benefiting property investors.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns reforming the housing market so homes are treated as places to live rather than investment assets, but this motion is specifically about reinstating mortgage interest tax relief—a particular fiscal mechanism where the relationship to the promise is debatable, since mortgage interest relief primarily aids owner-occupiers rather than investors, and a member could plausibly vote against it on various grounds (affordability, distributional effect, or preference for different reforms) while still genuinely pursuing the broader housing-reform promise.

    • 27 Mar 2026·P.51/2026 — Removal of Interest Tax Relief for Buy-to-Let Mortgages (P.51-2026) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach18-21

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Removing interest tax relief for buy-to-let mortgages directly reduces the investment incentive in housing, advancing the promise.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While removing buy-to-let mortgage interest tax relief aligns directionally with treating homes as places to live rather than investments, the promise is a broad reform commitment and voting against one specific fiscal mechanism does not plainly contradict it, as the member could reasonably oppose this particular measure while still pursuing the general goal through other means.

    • 26 Nov 2024✓P.51/2024 Amd.(28).Amd. — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2025-2028 (P.51/2024): twenty-eighth amendment (P.51/2024 Amd.(28)), amendment. Removal of stamp duty surcharge on second homes — Contre, voted to deliver30-14

      Voting Contre delivers this

      The amendment to remove the stamp duty surcharge on second homes would reduce disincentives for property investment, working against housing-as-homes reform.

    • 13 Dec 2022·P.97/2022(Amd)(2) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): second amendment Stamp Duty of buy to let investments second homes and holiday homes (P.97/2022 Amd.(2)) Part 3 — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach2-42

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Additional stamp duty measures on buy-to-let investments advance housing market reform.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise is directional (treating homes as places to live rather than investments), voting against one specific stamp-duty amendment on buy-to-let properties is not a plain contradiction — a member could oppose this particular fiscal mechanism while still honestly pursuing the broader housing-reform goal through other means.

    • 09 Dec 2025·P.70/2025 Amd.(31).Amd. — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): thirty-first amendment (P.70/2025 Amd.(31)), amendment. Empty Residential Properties — Pour, voted against, not counted as a breach16-27

      Voting Contre delivers this

      This amendment to the empty residential properties amendment would weaken measures aimed at bringing homes back into use, working against treating homes as places to live.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to housing market reform, and this motion concerns one specific amendment about empty residential properties within a broader budget, so voting for rather than against it cannot straightforwardly be equated with breaching a commitment to treat homes as places to live rather than investment assets.

    • 08 Dec 2025✓P.70/2025 Amd.(15). — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): fifteenth amendment. Removal of 3% Stamp Surcharge — Contre, voted to deliver2-42

      Voting Contre delivers this

      Removing the stamp duty surcharge on buy-to-let and second homes would reduce the financial disincentive for treating homes as investment assets, working against the promise.

    • 09 Dec 2025✓P.70/2025 Amd.(31).Amd.(2). — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): thirty-first amendment (P.70/2025 Amd.(31)), second amendment. Empty Residential Properties — Pour, voted to deliver40-4

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The second amendment to the empty residential properties amendment further refines measures to address homes left empty as assets, broadly supporting the promise's direction.

    • 21 Sept 2022·P.80/2022(Amd)(2) — Mini-Budget 2022 (P.80/2022): second amendment. Residential rent controls — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach9-35

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Introducing residential rent controls directly addresses treating homes as places to live rather than investment assets by limiting landlord profit extraction.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to treat homes as places to live rather than investment assets is a broad directional commitment, and voting against one specific mechanism (temporary rent controls) does not clearly contradict it, since a member could oppose this particular measure while still pursuing the general goal through other means.

    Related votes (shown for context; too partial or indirect to count towards the score)

    • 12 Nov 2024·P.70/2024 — Pets in rental properties (P.70-2024) as amended — Pour29-10

      Allowing pets in rental properties supports tenants' ability to treat rented homes as genuine homes.

  • No recorded votedirectional

    Candidate will oppose the conversion of family homes into flats.

    “We must also keep houses that are suitable for families and not just convert these to flats.”

    HousingPlanning And Development
    No recorded vote - delivery verdictPartialmedium confidence

    Throughout the 2022–2026 term Deputy Curtis served as Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee, a role from which he consistently voted against schemes he judged to prioritise flats over family homes, including rejecting an apartment-block element on Green Street (November 2022) and a South Hill development (March 2023). His own campaign website documented ongoing concerns that Jersey's density standards introduced in 2023 were 'inevitably push[ing] developers towards flats,' and his 2026 re-election platform still called to 'protect family houses' — indicating the underlying policy position remained undelivered. No independent evidence was found of a formal proposition, Island Plan amendment, or binding policy change that he successfully secured to restrict conversion of family homes to flats during the term.

    Related votes (shown for context; too partial or indirect to count towards the score)

    • 29 Nov 2023·P.87/2023 — Minimum Residential Space Standards (P.87/2023) - Paragraph (a) — Abstained22-20

      Minimum space standards for homes could indirectly discourage conversion of family homes to small flats.

  • Abstaineddirectional

    Candidate will support increasing minimum size standards for housing properties.

    “Our housing should be suitable for our needs with increased minimum standards for size with properties designed to ensure islanders can enjoy a good quality of life.”

    HousingPlanning And Development

    3 recorded votes test this promise

    3 away
    • 29 Nov 2023–P.87/2023 — Minimum Residential Space Standards (P.87/2023) - Paragraph (a) — Abstained, did not take a side22-20

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Paragraph (a) of the Minimum Residential Space Standards proposition directly advances the promise to support minimum size standards for housing.

    • 29 Nov 2023–P.87/2023 — Minimum Residential Space Standards (P.87/2023) - Paragraph (b) — Abstained, did not take a side16-22

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Paragraph (b) of the Minimum Residential Space Standards proposition is a direct test of support for minimum housing size standards.

    • 29 Nov 2023–P.87/2023 — Minimum Residential Space Standards (P.87/2023) - Paragraph (c) — Abstained, did not take a side13-27

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Paragraph (c) of the Minimum Residential Space Standards proposition directly concerns minimum housing size standards.

    Related votes (shown for context; too partial or indirect to count towards the score)

    • 10 Dec 2025·P.70/2025 Amd. — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): amendment. Development Levies — Contre15-27

      Development levies can be linked to requiring higher design and size standards in new housing development, tangentially bearing on minimum size standards.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerned minimum size standards for housing, while the motion was a budget amendment on development levies—a different mechanism, and voting against one specific fiscal measure does not straightforwardly contradict a general commitment to size standards.

  • Keptdirectional

    Candidate will oppose large housing developments in St. Clement and protect the parish's remaining fields and open spaces.

    “St. Clement should not have to take more large housing developments. We must keep our remaining fields and open spaces.”

    HousingPlanning And DevelopmentEnvironment And Climate

    2 recorded votes test this promise

    2 Pour
    • 19 Apr 2023✓P.14/2023 — Development Levies - as amended - parts (a) and (b) — Pour, voted to deliver40-1

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Development levies on new developments can help manage and fund infrastructure, bearing on controlling large housing developments.

    • 28 Nov 2024✓P.51/2024 Amd.(17) — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2025-2028 (P.51/2024): seventeenth amendment. Le Squez — Pour, voted to deliver15-31

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The Le Squez amendment to the Government Plan concerns a specific large housing development site which is directly relevant to promise 9's commitment to oppose large housing developments in St. Clement.

    Related votes (shown for context; too partial or indirect to count towards the score)

    • 26 Jun 2024·P.37/2024 — Affordable Housing Provision at the Waterfront [P.37-2024] as amended — Pour44-0

      Affordable housing provision at the Waterfront involves large-scale housing development that could affect overall housing development patterns in Jersey.

    • 18 Apr 2023·P.11/2023 — Land Transaction under Standing Order 168 (3) – Andium Homes Ltd Site Kensington Place – sale to the public: deferral of approval. — Contre17-28

      The Andium Homes Kensington Place land transaction deferral relates to managing social housing development decisions.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The motion concerned deferring approval of a land transaction at Kensington Place, a procedural/timing question, and voting contre (to proceed rather than defer) does not clearly equate to supporting a large housing development in St. Clement, as the connection between this specific land transaction and the manifesto promise requires additional inference about the site's location, scale, and nature of development.

    • 10 Dec 2025·P.70/2025 Amd. — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): amendment. Development Levies — Contre15-27

      Development levies could constrain large housing developments by increasing their cost, tangentially bearing on the promise to oppose large developments in St. Clement.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerned opposing large housing developments in St. Clement and protecting open spaces, while the motion was a budget amendment on development levies generally—a fiscal/procedural mechanism not directly equivalent to approving or blocking specific housing developments in the parish.

Health & Social Care

1 promise · 1 kept

23recorded votes

15 Pour · 8 Contre

  • Keptdirectional

    Candidate will push for more affordable and proactive health services and a clearly detailed care model for an ageing population.

    “We should have more affordable, proactive health services for all islanders. Our care model must also be clearly detailed and feasible to support our ageing population.”

    Health And Care

    23 recorded votes test this promise

    15 Pour · 8 Contre
    • 14 Dec 2022✓P.97/2022(Amd)(4)(Amd)(Re-issue) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): fourth amendment (P.97/2022. Amd.(4).) – amendment Health Insurance Fund Transfer (P.97/2022 Amd.(4)Amd.) — Pour, voted to deliver16-29

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The Health Insurance Fund transfer amendment bears on funding for health services.

    • 14 Dec 2022·P.97/2022(Amd)(4) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): fourth amendment HIF Transfers (P.97/2022 Amd.(4)) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach31-13

      Voting Pour delivers this

      HIF transfers to support health services advance more affordable health provision.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to affordable, proactive health services and a clear care model, while the motion concerns a specific amendment about HIF (Health Insurance Fund) transfers within the Government Plan, and voting against one particular funding mechanism does not straightforwardly contradict the broader goal without inferring that this specific transfer was necessary to deliver affordable health services.

    • 14 Dec 2022·P.97/2022(Amd)(16) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): sixteenth amendment Multi-morbidity GP consultations — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach14-32

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Funding multi-morbidity GP consultations is a direct test of supporting more proactive and affordable health services.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise calls generally for more affordable and proactive health services, while the motion is one specific amendment about GP consultation funding for multi-morbidity patients; voting against this particular amendment does not straightforwardly contradict a broad directional commitment, as the member could have opposed this specific mechanism while still pursuing the general goal through other means.

    • 14 Dec 2022·P.97/2022(Amd)(18) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): eighteenth amendment Free GP visits for children and young people — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach24-22

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Free GP visits for children and young people directly advance more affordable and proactive health services.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise calls generally for more affordable health services, but voting against one specific mechanism (free GP visits for children and young people) does not plainly contradict that general commitment, as the member could reasonably prefer a different route to affordability or have concerns about this particular funding approach.

    • 14 Dec 2022✓P.97/2022(Amd)(20) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): twentieth amendment Hospital funding — Pour, voted to deliver33-12

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Hospital funding amendments bear on ensuring adequate health service provision consistent with the promise.

    • 14 Jun 2023✓P.19/2023 — Health and Community Services Interim Board as amended — Pour, voted to deliver28-16

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The Health and Community Services Interim Board as amended bears on governance of health services, relevant to delivering a better care model.

    • 12 Dec 2023✓P.72/2023 Amd.(29).Amd — Proposed Government Plan 2024-2027 (P.72/2023): twenty-ninth amendment (P.72/2023 Amd.(29)) – amendment. Funding of Acute Cardiac Nursing. — Pour, voted to deliver49-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Funding acute cardiac nursing (second amendment) advances proactive health service provision.

    • 12 Dec 2023✓P.72/2023 Amd.(31) — Proposed Government Plan 2024-2027 (P.72/2023): thirty-first amendment. Vaccination Service. — Pour, voted to deliver49-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Funding the vaccination service supports proactive health services.

    • 12 Dec 2023✓P.72/2023 Amd.(6) — Proposed Government Plan 2024-2027 (P.72/2023): sixth amendment. (P.72/2023 Amd.(6)). Medical Hosiery and wound dressing funding. — Pour, voted to deliver49-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Funding for medical hosiery and wound dressings supports affordable and proactive health services.

    • 12 Dec 2023✓P.72/2023 Amd.(29) — Proposed Government Plan 2024-2027 (P.72/2023): twenty-ninth amendment (P.72/2023 Amd.(29)) – amendment. Funding of Acute Cardiac Nursing. — Pour, voted to deliver49-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Funding acute cardiac nursing advances proactive and improved health services.

    • 30 Apr 2024✓P.20/2024 — In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) Funding — Pour, voted to deliver44-1

      Voting Pour delivers this

      IVF funding directly supports affordable health services and access to fertility treatment.

    • 17 Jul 2024✓P.43/2024 — New Healthcare Facilities Programme Paragraph (b) — Pour, voted to deliver15-29

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The New Healthcare Facilities Programme paragraph (b) directly bears on delivering detailed care model infrastructure promised.

    • 17 Jul 2024✓P.43/2024 — New Healthcare Facilities Programme paragraph (a) — Pour, voted to deliver13-30

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The New Healthcare Facilities Programme paragraph (a) directly tests support for a clearly detailed care model for the island.

    • 28 Nov 2024✓P.51/2024 Amd.(6) — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2025-2028: sixth amendment. New Healthcare Facilities Programme expenditure — Pour, voted to deliver17-28

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Budget expenditure for the New Healthcare Facilities Programme directly concerns delivering better health infrastructure.

    • 30 Sept 2025✓P.52/2025 Amd. — Health and Care Jersey Advisory Board and Partnership Board (P.52-2025) - Amendment — Pour, voted to deliver16-30

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Health and Care Jersey Advisory Board bears on governance of health and care services for an ageing population.

    • 30 Sept 2025✓P.52/2025 — Paragraph (a) — Pour, voted to deliver45-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Paragraph (a) of the Health and Care Jersey Advisory Board advances care governance relevant to the promise.

    • 30 Sept 2025·P.52/2025 — Paragraph (b) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach33-7

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Paragraph (b) of the Health and Care Jersey Advisory Board advances care governance for the population.

      Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The promise concerns affordable, proactive health services and a detailed care model for an ageing population, while the motion concerns the establishment or composition of specific advisory and partnership boards — a governance/structural mechanism — which is too procedurally distant from the substantive health policy commitments made in the manifesto.

    • 10 Dec 2025·P.70/2025 Amd.(27)(re-issue). — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): twenty-seventh amendment. Childcare funding rate — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach10-30

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Increasing funding for free childcare for 2-to-3-year-olds relates to proactive and affordable health and care services, though primarily for young families rather than the ageing population.

      Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The promise concerns affordable and proactive health services and a care model for an ageing population, while the motion decided on funding rates for a childcare scheme for 2–3 year olds — a different policy area with no meaningful connection to the promise made.

    • 10 Dec 2025·P.70/2025 Amd.(28)(re-issue). — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): twenty-eighth amendment. Funding for respite care, Part (2) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach8-32

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Redirecting funds into palliative and respite care directly supports more proactive health provision and a detailed care model for an ageing population.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise calls generally for more affordable, proactive health services and a clear care model for an ageing population, which could plausibly be pursued through various means; voting against this specific reallocation of £2.6 million from assisted dying to palliative care does not straightforwardly contradict that general directional commitment, as the member could hold the view that the existing budget structure or a different mechanism better serves that goal.

    • 11 Dec 2025✓P.70/2025 Amd.(2). — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): second amendment. Health Insurance Fund Contributions — Pour, voted to deliver14-28

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Raising the share of Social Security contributions allocated to the Health Insurance Fund would increase funding for health services, bearing on more affordable healthcare provision.

    • 10 Dec 2025·P.70/2025 Amd.(28)(re-issue). — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): twenty-eighth amendment. Funding for respite care, Part (1) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach9-31

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Part 1 of the amendment to redirect funds into palliative and respite care also bears on improving care services for an ageing population.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to push for "more affordable, proactive health services" and a "clearly detailed care model for an ageing population" is a broad directional commitment, and voting against one specific budget reallocation (£2.6m from assisted dying to palliative/respite care) does not plainly contradict it, as the member could reasonably hold different views on funding mechanisms while still pursuing the general goal.

    • 12 Dec 2023·P.72/2023 Amd.(18) — Proposed Government Plan 2024-2027 (P.72/2023): eighteenth amendment. Free GP visits for all full time students — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach24-20

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Free GP visits for full-time students is a direct improvement to accessible, proactive health services as committed in the promise.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise calls generally for more affordable health services, but voting against one specific measure (free GP visits for full-time students) does not plainly contradict that general directional commitment, as the member could oppose this particular mechanism while still pursuing affordability through other means.

    • 12 Dec 2023✓P.72/2023 Amd.(6).Amd.Amd — Proposed Government Plan 2024-2027 (P.72/2023): sixth amendment (P.72/2023 Amd.(6)), amendment, amendment. Medical Hosiery and wound dressing funding — Pour, voted to deliver49-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Funding medical hosiery and wound dressings is a direct improvement to affordable, proactive health services as committed.

Education & Families

1 promise · 1 kept

9recorded votes

5 Pour · 4 Contre

  • Keptdirectional

    Candidate will support investment in vocational training and closer business partnerships to expand work experience and reskilling opportunities.

    “Jersey should invest in the future for all islanders, including vocational training, and work closely with businesses to create more opportunities for work experience and reskilling.”

    EducationEconomy And Business

    9 recorded votes test this promise

    5 Pour · 4 Contre
    • 01 Mar 2023✓P.5/2023 — Trainee Minimum Wage - as amended — Pour, voted to deliver41-7

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The trainee minimum wage as amended directly supports vocational training pathways and work experience for young people.

    • 17 Jul 2024✓P.38/2024 — Fully funded education or training for 16-18 year olds paragraph (c) — Pour, voted to deliver17-27

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Fully funded education or training for 16-18 year olds paragraph (c) directly advances the promise to support vocational training investment.

    • 17 Jul 2024✓P.38/2024 — Fully funded education or training for 16-18 year olds paragraph (a) — Pour, voted to deliver13-31

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Fully funded education or training for 16-18 year olds paragraph (a) directly supports vocational training and reskilling opportunities.

    • 19 Mar 2024✓P.12/2024 — Update of Higher Education Student Funding as amended — Pour, voted to deliver42-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Updating higher education student funding supports investment in education and training opportunities.

    • 11 Jun 2024✓P.28/2024 — Youth Service Statutory Provision as amended — Pour, voted to deliver43-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The Youth Service statutory provision as amended supports vocational and life skills development for young people.

    • 07 Feb 2023·P.116/2022 — Skills Development Fund — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach38-3

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The Skills Development Fund directly supports investment in vocational training and reskilling as promised.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to vocational training investment, while the motion concerned one specific funding mechanism (the Skills Development Fund), and a member could vote against that particular fund while still honestly pursuing the broader goal through alternative means.

    • 14 Dec 2022·P.97/2022(Amd)(12) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): twelfth amendment Jersey Business — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach3-43

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Jersey Business support funding aids business partnerships that can expand work experience and reskilling opportunities.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports vocational training and business partnerships in general, but voting against a specific amendment concerning Jersey Business could reflect concerns about the particular mechanism, funding approach, or other bundled elements rather than opposition to the underlying principle.

    • 13 Dec 2023·P.72/2023 Amd.(20) — Proposed Government Plan 2024-2027 (P.72/2023): twentieth amendment. Additional funding for education — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach13-32

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Additional funding for education broadly supports the commitment to invest in skills development and training opportunities.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports investment in vocational training broadly, but voting against one specific amendment for additional education funding could reflect concerns about the particular mechanism, funding allocation, or other bundled elements rather than opposition to the principle of investing in vocational training.

    • 11 Dec 2025·P.70/2025 Amd.(26)(re-issue). — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): twenty-sixth amendment. Inflation adjustment to apprenticeship grants — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach9-27

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Adjusting apprenticeship grants for inflation directly supports investment in vocational training as committed in the promise.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports vocational training investment generally, but voting against one specific amendment to adjust apprenticeship grants for inflation does not plainly contradict that commitment, as the member could oppose this particular mechanism or its funding source while still supporting vocational training through other means.

Economy, Tax & Cost of Living

1 promise · 1 kept

8recorded votes

2 Pour · 6 Contre

  • Keptdirectional

    Candidate will support economic diversification and measures to make Jersey less dependent on a single sector.

    “Jersey should diversify its economy, be less dependent on a single sector, make things easier for local businesses and so provide a wider range of employment opportunities for islanders.”

    Economy And Business

    8 recorded votes test this promise

    2 Pour · 6 Contre
    • 14 Dec 2022·P.97/2022(Amd)(12) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): twelfth amendment Jersey Business — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach3-43

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The Jersey Business amendment sought funding for business support that could aid economic diversification beyond finance.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to economic diversification, while the motion concerns a specific amendment about Jersey Business within the Government Plan, and voting against one particular funding or governance mechanism for Jersey Business does not straightforwardly contradict a broad commitment to diversification.

    • 13 Dec 2023·P.72/2023 Amd.(28) — Proposed Government Plan 2024-2027 (P.72-2023) Amendment 28 Economy Strategy — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach4-42

      Voting Pour delivers this

      An Economy Strategy amendment bears directly on economic diversification and reducing dependence on a single sector.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports economic diversification as a general direction, but voting against one specific amendment to an Economy Strategy in a Government Plan requires inferring that this particular amendment was a necessary or correct means of delivering that broad goal, which is not self-evident.

    • 07 Feb 2023·P.116/2022 — Skills Development Fund — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach38-3

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The Skills Development Fund directly supports broadening the economy through workforce training and reskilling.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to economic diversification, while the Skills Development Fund is one specific funding mechanism; voting against it could reflect concerns about implementation, cost, or preferred alternatives rather than opposition to diversification itself.

    • 15 Dec 2022✓P.97/2022(Amd)(13)(Amd) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): thirteenth amendment (P.97/2022. Amd.(13).) – amendment Enhanced Capital Allowance (P.97/2022 Amd.(13)Amd.) — Pour, voted to deliver42-6

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Enhanced capital allowances support business investment that can aid economic diversification.

    • 15 Dec 2022✓P.97/2022(Amd)(13) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): thirteenth amendment Enhanced Capital Allowance (P.97/2022 Amd.(13) as amended — Pour, voted to deliver48-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Enhanced capital allowances as adopted support productive business investment and diversification.

    • 11 Dec 2023·P.72/2023 Amd.(2).Com. — Government Plan P72-2023 Amendment 2 Regtech — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach11-35

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The Regtech amendment to the Government Plan directly supported technology diversification of Jersey's economy.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports economic diversification in general terms, but voting against one specific RegTech amendment in a broader Government Plan does not plainly contradict that goal, as the member may have opposed the particular mechanism, funding level, or other bundled elements rather than the principle of diversification.

    • 13 Dec 2023·P.72/2023 Amd.(27) — Proposed Government Plan 2024-2027 (P.72-2023) Amendment 27 Jersey Business Revenue Expenditure — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach3-43

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Funding Jersey Business revenue expenditure supports economic diversification by backing business development services.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to economic diversification, while the motion concerns a specific revenue expenditure amendment for Jersey Business within the Government Plan, and voting against one particular funding measure does not straightforwardly contradict a broad manifesto goal, as the member could have opposed this amendment for reasons unrelated to the diversification principle (e.g., funding mechanism, amount, or prioritisation).

    • 27 Nov 2024·P.51/2024 Amd.(20) — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2025-2028 (P.51/2024): twentieth amendment. Jersey Business and Digital Jersey Savings — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach18-27

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The amendment to preserve Jersey Business and Digital Jersey funding directly supports economic diversification efforts.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports economic diversification generally, but voting against one specific budget amendment concerning Jersey Business and Digital Jersey savings does not clearly contradict that goal, as the member could oppose this particular funding mechanism or savings level while still supporting diversification through other means.

Infrastructure & Environment

2 promises · 2 kept

23recorded votes

18 Pour · 4 Contre · 1 away

  • Keptdirectional

    Candidate will support improvements to active and sustainable transport and easier public transport across Jersey.

    “We should encourage active/sustainable transport, make improvements to support different users, and provide easier public transport across the island with improved access for more environmentally friendly forms of transport.”

    Infrastructure And TransportEnvironment And Climate

    6 recorded votes test this promise

    2 Pour · 4 Contre
    • 16 Dec 2022✓P.97/2022(Amd)(6) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): sixth amendment Walking and Cycling routes — Pour, voted to deliver44-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The walking and cycling routes amendment to the Government Plan directly advances active and sustainable transport infrastructure.

    • 14 Jun 2023·P.33/2023 — Provision of a free hopper bus service for Active card holders to Springfield stadium. — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach19-25

      Voting Pour delivers this

      A free hopper bus for Active card holders directly supports easier public transport access in Jersey.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to improve public transport, while the motion concerns one specific, optional measure (a free hopper bus for Active card holders to Springfield), and a member could oppose this particular scheme on grounds of cost, design, or priority while still honestly pursuing the broader transport improvement goal.

    • 13 May 2025✓P.23/2025 (re-issue) — Road Traffic - Offences and Penalties (P.23-2025) as amended — Pour, voted to deliver47-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Road traffic offences and penalties reform supports safer conditions for active transport users.

    • 19 Jul 2023·P.50/2023 — Supplementary Planning Guidance – Parking Strategy. — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach19-24

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The supplementary planning guidance on parking strategy bears on active and sustainable transport by affecting car-centric planning.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports active and sustainable transport generally, but voting against a specific Supplementary Planning Guidance on Parking Strategy requires inferring that this particular document was the right or necessary means of delivering that broad commitment, and a member could reasonably oppose the specific guidance while still pursuing the general goal through other routes.

    • 22 Oct 2025·P.54/2025 — Supplementary Planning guidance: parking (P.54-2025) paragraph (a) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach26-11

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The supplementary planning guidance on parking bears on sustainable transport planning, supporting active travel.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports active/sustainable transport generally, but voting against specific supplementary planning guidance on parking requires inferring that this particular parking policy was a necessary or sufficient means of delivering that general commitment, which is not self-evident without knowing the guidance's content and whether the member opposed it for reasons consistent with still pursuing the broader aim.

    • 14 Dec 2023·P.72/2023 Amd.(9) — Proposed Government Plan 2024-2027 (P.72/2023): ninth amendment. Subsidised Annual Bus Pass — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach17-29

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Funding a subsidised annual bus pass directly supports easier and more affordable public transport across Jersey.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports easier public transport generally, but voting against one specific funding mechanism (a subsidised annual bus pass) could reflect concerns about cost, design, or alternative approaches rather than opposition to the goal itself.

  • Keptdirectional

    Candidate will work to protect Jersey's natural environment and ensure development enhances rather than harms it.

    “We must protect our natural environment and reduce the impact of development and transport. Any changes should enhance Jersey's natural and built environment and character.”

    Environment And ClimatePlanning And Development

    17 recorded votes test this promise

    16 Pour · 1 away
    • 01 Mar 2023✓P.117/2022 — Establishment of a Climate Council - as amended — Pour, voted to deliver45-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Establishing a Climate Council as amended supports protecting Jersey's natural environment through structured governance.

    • 23 Oct 2024✓P.44/2024 — Marine Spatial Plan as amended — Pour, voted to deliver40-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The Marine Spatial Plan as amended directly protects Jersey's marine natural environment.

    • 07 Nov 2023✓P.68/2023 — Draft Sea Fisheries (Vessel Monitoring Systems) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 202- Principles — Pour, voted to deliver40-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Vessel monitoring systems for sea fisheries protect Jersey's marine environment through better fisheries management.

    • 07 Nov 2023✓P.68/2023 — Draft Sea Fisheries (Vessel Monitoring Systems) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 202- Third Reading — Pour, voted to deliver49-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Third reading of vessel monitoring regulations for fisheries advances marine environmental protection.

    • 18 Apr 2023✓P.8/2023 — Draft Endangered Species (CITES) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 202- 3rd Reading — Pour, voted to deliver41-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The Endangered Species (CITES) law amendment advances protection of natural wildlife, consistent with protecting Jersey's natural environment.

    • 18 Jul 2023✓P.17/2023 — La Collette Waste Management Site – Development Plan. As amended — Pour, voted to deliver39-3

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The La Collette Waste Management Site development plan bears on ensuring development is managed to minimise environmental harm.

    • 13 Sept 2023✓P.65/2023 — Reinstate the re-use centre at La Collette. As amended. — Pour, voted to deliver44-1

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Reinstating the re-use centre at La Collette supports environmental sustainability and waste reduction.

    • 29 Nov 2023✓P.83/2023 — Draft Planning and Building (Conservation Areas) (Jersey) Regulations 202-. Third Reading — Pour, voted to deliver38-9

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Conservation areas regulations directly protect the natural and built environment from harmful development.

    • 13 Dec 2023✓P.72/2023 Amd.(33) — Proposed Government Plan 2024-2027 (P.72/2023): thirty-third amendment. Increase revenue expenditure for agriculture and fisheries, Part 2 — Pour, voted to deliver35-1

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Increasing revenue expenditure on agriculture and fisheries supports sustainable land and sea management, bearing on protecting Jersey's natural environment.

    • 17 Apr 2024✓P.82/2023 — Offshore Wind — Pour, voted to deliver40-1

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Offshore wind development supports environmental protection by advancing renewable energy, consistent with protecting the natural environment.

    • 23 Oct 2024·P.44/2024 Amd. — Marine Spatial Plan (P.44-2024) Amendment Part 1 — Pour, voted against, not counted as a breach15-27

      Voting Contre delivers this

      Rejecting amendments to the Marine Spatial Plan that would weaken it advances marine environmental protection.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general commitment to protect the natural environment, but whether voting for or against a specific Marine Spatial Plan amendment best honours that commitment requires a judgement about the amendment's content and merits, which cannot be determined from the information given.

    • 23 Oct 2024·P.44/2024 Amd. — Marine Spatial Plan (P.44-2024) Amendment Part 3 — Pour, voted against, not counted as a breach16-26

      Voting Contre delivers this

      Rejecting further amendments to the Marine Spatial Plan protects the marine environment.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to protect the natural environment, and whether voting for or against a specific Marine Spatial Plan amendment best delivers that goal requires judgement about the amendment's content and effects, which is not self-evident from the promise alone.

    • 23 Oct 2024·P.44/2024 Amd. — Marine Spatial Plan (P.44-2024) Amendment Part 4 — Pour, voted against, not counted as a breach19-23

      Voting Contre delivers this

      Rejecting additional Marine Spatial Plan amendments protects the natural marine environment.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to protect the natural environment, and whether voting for or against a specific amendment to a Marine Spatial Plan delivers or undermines that commitment depends on the content of the amendment, which requires inference beyond what is given here.

    • 23 Oct 2024·P.44/2024 Amd. — Marine Spatial Plan (P.44-2024) Amendment Part 5 — Pour, voted against, not counted as a breach16-26

      Voting Contre delivers this

      Rejecting a further Marine Spatial Plan amendment protects the marine natural environment.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to protect the natural environment, and voting on one specific amendment to a Marine Spatial Plan requires inference about whether this particular amendment enhances or harms that environment, rather than being self-evidently contrary to protecting it.

    • 22 Apr 2025✓P.11/2025 — Evidence-based Energy Strategy (P.11-2025) as amended — Pour, voted to deliver43-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      An evidence-based Energy Strategy as amended directly supports protecting the natural environment through sustainable energy policy.

    • 09 Dec 2025✓P.70/2025 Amd.(32). — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): thirty-second amendment. Environment Departmental Funding, Part 2 only — Pour, voted to deliver44-1

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Restoring the Environment department's budget directly supports the capacity to protect Jersey's natural environment as promised.

    • 30 Mar 2026–P.54/2026 — Continuation of Rural and Marine Support (P.54-2026) — Recused, did not take a side43-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Continuation of rural and marine support directly advances protection of Jersey's natural environment.

    Related votes (shown for context; too partial or indirect to count towards the score)

    • 15 Jun 2023·P.35/2023(Re-issue) — The Grindadrap Festival in the Faroe Islands – condemnation of the hunting of sea mammals. As amended. — Contre22-12

      Condemning the Grindadrap festival reflects a commitment to protecting natural wildlife, tangentially related to environmental protection.

      Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The promise concerns protecting Jersey's natural environment from development and transport impacts, while the motion is about condemning a hunting festival in the Faroe Islands — a foreign practice with no direct connection to Jersey's environment, development, or planning policy.

    • 09 Dec 2025·P.70/2025 Amd.(22). — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): twenty-second amendment. Victoria Marine Lake, Repair and Maintenance — Contre2-41

      Funding repair and maintenance of Victoria Marine Lake relates to protecting a natural/heritage environment feature, touching the promise to protect Jersey's natural environment.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns protecting the natural environment from development harm, while the motion concerns a specific funding decision for maintenance of Victoria Marine Lake — voting against one particular repair-funding amendment does not straightforwardly contradict a general commitment to environmental protection, as the member could oppose this mechanism while pursuing the broader goal through other means.

Governance & Public Services

2 promises · 1 kept

7recorded votes

5 Pour · 2 Contre

  • Keptdirectional

    Candidate will use their States votes to support values of respect, fairness and living within Jersey's means.

    “I would use my votes to support these values. We must be able to work together which is why I am a member of BetterWay2022.”

    Governance And Constitution

    7 recorded votes test this promise

    5 Pour · 2 Contre
    • 20 Sept 2022✓P.78/2022 — Minimum Wage: Alignment with the Living Wage - as amended — Pour, voted to deliver43-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Aligning minimum wage with the living wage reflects fairness and supporting workers living within Jersey's means.

    • 23 Nov 2022✓P.99/2022 — Draft Employment (Minimum Wage) (Amendment No. 17) (Jersey) Regulations 202- Third Reading — Pour, voted to deliver43-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Raising the minimum wage advances fairness and respect for working people, core values the promise commits to.

    • 01 Mar 2023✓P.5/2023 — Trainee Minimum Wage - as amended — Pour, voted to deliver41-7

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Setting a trainee minimum wage advances fairness for young workers, consistent with the promise's fairness values.

    • 24 Nov 2022·P.100/2022 — Cost of living crisis – Removal of 5% goods and services tax (GST) from food (excluding alcoholic drinks) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach17-28

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Removing GST from food supports fairness and living within means for lower-income households.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general values statement about "respect, fairness and living within Jersey's means," not a specific commitment on GST on food, so voting against this particular measure requires an inference that it was the necessary means of honouring those broad values rather than one contested option among several.

    • 15 Dec 2022·P.97/2022(Amd)(22) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): twenty-second amendment GST on Sanitary Products — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach24-22

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Removing GST on sanitary products reflects fairness values the promise commits to.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad, directional commitment to values of "respect, fairness and living within Jersey's means," and whether exempting sanitary products from GST best embodies those values—versus, say, fiscal discipline—requires a judgement call rather than being self-evidently dictated by the promise.

    • 20 Sept 2022✓P.80/2022(Amd)(3) — Mini-Budget 2022 (P.80/2022): third amendment. Community Costs Bonus threshold and deadline — Pour, voted to deliver43-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Widening the Community Costs Bonus income threshold reflects fairness by extending support to more lower-income residents.

    • 11 Dec 2025✓P.70/2025 Amd.(36). — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): thirty-sixth amendment. Council of Ministers' adjustments to heads of expenditure — Pour, voted to deliver38-4

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The Council of Ministers' balancing amendment to reduce net expenditure to live within Jersey's means directly relates to the commitment to fiscal responsibility.

    Related votes (shown for context; too partial or indirect to count towards the score)

    • 01 Apr 2025·P.16/2025 — Increase Stamp Duty for Properties that are not Principal Residences to 5 per cent (P.16-2025) — Contre3-41

      Increasing stamp duty on non-principal residences relates to fiscal fairness and living within means principles.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general values statement about "respect, fairness and living within Jersey's means," and whether voting against a specific stamp duty increase on non-principal residences contradicts those abstract values requires a chain of reasoning and judgment rather than being self-evident.

    • 20 Sept 2022·P.80/2022(Amd)(4) — Mini-Budget 2022 (P.80/2022): fourth amendment. Replace the 20% standard rate of personal income tax with 25% for all but High Value Residents — Contre11-34

      Removing the 20% standard income tax rate in favour of 25% with marginal relief touches fairness in taxation, partially relating to the values of fairness committed to.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to support "fairness" and "living within Jersey's means" is a general value statement, and whether a specific tax-rate restructuring (abolishing the 20% standard rate in favour of 25% with marginal allowances) advances or contradicts those values is a matter of judgement, not a plain reading of the pledge.

    • 09 Dec 2025·P.70/2025 Amd.(35) — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): thirty-fifth amendment. Reduction in Public Expenditure — Contre2-40

      Freezing government spending at 2025 levels relates to living within Jersey's means, though a fair reader could disagree on whether fiscal restraint alone reflects the promise's intent.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to support "living within Jersey's means" is a broad value statement, and whether freezing government spending at 2025 levels is the correct mechanism to honour that value requires a policy judgement — a member could reasonably oppose this specific amendment while still genuinely believing they are acting within Jersey's fiscal means through alternative measures in the broader Budget.

  • No recorded votedirectional

    Candidate commits to representing St. Clement parishioners, engaging with community groups, and protecting parish interests.

    “For St Clement, I will: Represent your views and experiences. Be approachable and ready to support parishioners. Engage with our community groups. Help protect Parish interests.”

    Parish And Local Government
    No recorded vote - delivery verdictPartialmedium confidence

    Deputy Curtis served the full 2022–2026 term and fulfilled the active-representation dimension of his promise: he held ministerial, Planning Committee (vice-chair), and Scrutiny Panel roles throughout, and his own 2026 campaign materials on curtis.je referenced helping parishioners with specific concerns and hosting 'Meet the Deputies and Connétable' meetings. He was re-elected in June 2026, finishing top of the St Clement poll with 1,384 votes — an independent signal of parishioner confidence. However, independent reporting does not specifically corroborate regular community-group engagement or named instances of protecting parish interests, so the promise's more granular community-engagement elements cannot be fully verified from public sources beyond self-reporting.

Alex Frederick Curtis’s record changes with every States Assembly sitting. Follow us on LinkedIn and we will tell you when it does.

Follow on LinkedIn